Is this board anti-muslim?

It's safe to say no one is angry at you, mans.

0 Replies

True. You seem nice.

0 Replies

Setanta Wrote:

[quote]This is so much bullcrap. How about the many times you state that homosexuality is wrong--you can't live and let live there, you have to shove that down everyone's throat. The problem people here have is not with what you believe, it is with the way you foist it off onto others, the way you attempt to recruit, and then the way you lie about it.

Were you prepared to tell Mans about your string of lies in aid of your religious fantasies?[/quote]

Oh gee, I didn't realize in order to live and let live that I have to actually think exactly like you or anyone else for that matter. What a bloody dang concept! Hmmm. If I don't agree with it then I'm not living and letting live. Rolling Eyes

Well, I think it's safe to say that no one has choked to death on anything I have said. The way I look at it is this: If ya don't like what I have to say then just don't read it. I can't stop you from posting what's on your mind anymore than you can stop me from posting what's on mine. As long as we follow the TOS, it ain't a problem.

Are we starting that garbage about me trying to recruit again? Tell ya what, why don't you just post a link to the thread where we went over this over and over and over and over again and save everyone the trouble? Rolling Eyes

I have told mans no lies. I haven't told you any intentional lies. I made a mistake about thinking I knew you but corrected it by explaining the situation and apologizing. Oh and BTW, you have yet to back up your assertion that I would steal and kill for Jesus. What's up with that? No proof? Just mouthing off? What? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Momma,
Are you trying to confuse Set with facts? Bad, Momma.

0 Replies

It's ok, Intrepid. I know the Heinlich Remover. Laughing

:wink:

0 Replies

Quote:

It's safe to say no one is angry at you, mans. True. You seem nice.

i'm back! thanks for that, guys. i feel happier Very Happy

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Doktor S wrote:
Quote:

Which proves my point actually, that if there's a question about using a term (as to whether it might offend or not) it's probably a good idea to just not use it.

Maybe if you're completely pussified.

.
Words are just words, and someones freedom to say them are in my opinion infinitely more important than any effect they may have.
Restricting freedom of speech in any way is a very slippery and treacherous slope.

Censoring oneself in order to better communicate with others is not restricting free speech.

I agree, the key term there being 'oneself'. Pressure from the outside is something different.

Quote:

Is it also okay with you for someone to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Is that just a word too?

Ok insofar as you are willing to pay the concequences.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

You said, well you gotta look at population numbers instead.

I pointed out that those dont really make any difference, since theres not that many people living in north-Nigeria and the Sudan either, compared with all those Muslim countries outside the Middle East where they dont still chop limbs off.

Now you say: well, but the relevant point is that its on the increase. It is, I agree, and thats a bad thing. But what does that have to do with pointing out that its not "the muslims" that generally get in the habit of chopping off limbs in sharia style, but that it seems mostly focused in a specific area / subset of countries/muslims?

Nah I didn't say that. What I said was

mesquite wrote:

There is a difference between muslim countries and countries with a muslim population.

and what I meant by that was "muslim country" = muslim government = islamic theocracy as opposed to "countries with a muslim population" but not an islamic government such as a monarchy or dicatorship or even a democracy.

I also think that do to its dogma, there is not as great of a gulf between mainstream muslims and fundamentalists as you seem to infer.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Mans,

Hmmmm. I'm not sure I agree with our world is getting better. I wish it were true. I don't think it is. Actually, religious discrimination is a good indication that it is NOT getting better.

I don't know your age. I am 50. I remember a time when using God's name in vain was something even atheist's didn't do (very often at least). I remember a time when churches were full of families on Sunday morning and not empty as they are now. I remember a kindler, gentler nation. So much has changed. Too much I fear.

Here we go again. How about you give us a date as to when the peak of the good times was? :wink:

0 Replies

How about we don't? I can just look up the old argument and read it again if I take a mind to. :wink:

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

kickycan wrote:
Doktor S wrote:
Quote:

Which proves my point actually, that if there's a question about using a term (as to whether it might offend or not) it's probably a good idea to just not use it.

Maybe if you're completely pussified.

.
Words are just words, and someones freedom to say them are in my opinion infinitely more important than any effect they may have.
Restricting freedom of speech in any way is a very slippery and treacherous slope.

Censoring oneself in order to better communicate with others is not restricting free speech.

I agree, the key term there being 'oneself'. Pressure from the outside is something different.

I'm not sure what you mean by pressure from the outside. We are talking here about conversations with regular people, after all, and not legal restrictions, aren't we? How certain words are offensive to certain people, and, whether or not one cares enough about those particular people to stop using those words/terms? I'm talking about just societal pressure here, not anything legislative. Are you arguing that one should never conform to anything outside themselves?

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

Is it also okay with you for someone to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Is that just a word too?

Ok insofar as you are willing to pay the concequences.

My point exactly. Words have consequences. To put it another way, words are not just words. If you want to belong to any group, you sometimes have to succumb to the will of that group.

You wouldn't go running into a catholic church on Easter sunday with your pants down around your ankles screaming, "Jesus eats maggot ****!!!", would you? Even if you really wanted to, you wouldn't...okay, so maybe you'd toss the idea around awhile first before abandoning it...but in the end, you'd censor yourself. Why? Because words have consequences.

Are we in agreement?

0 Replies

It is not just you who pays the consequences.

0 Replies

okay, i might consider doing something stupid, but...um...perhaps not that!

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

It is not just you who pays the consequences.

Ah, good point.

0 Replies

First, Captain Kirk came up with this lie:

Intrepid wrote:

Momma,
Are you trying to confuse Set with facts? Bad, Momma.

Then, MOAN responded with this sneer:

MOAN wrote:

It's ok, Intrepid. I know the Heinlich Remover.

The fact of the matter is, that you both demonstrate the hypocricy of your professed christianity. What i wrote about MOAN is true. She willfully misrepresented herself, she did not willingly accept that she couldn't troll here for converts, so she went to another site to attempt to drag people over here for what she characterized as a spiritual war with "the father of lies." All the while, she was lying herself. We have no reason to believe that she has stopped lying. Lash has made the point that she very likely lied about the spider bite.

You two are pathetic. There are literally thousands of christians at this site who get through every day without the spew which typifies your contributions.

0 Replies

If Setanta spent more time keeping with the topics of the threads and less time finding fault with individual posters, he might be more productive. A look through almost any thread that he posts on will find him throwing barbs at anyone that he does not agree with. Not just those who consider themselves Christians either. Anybody is fair game for Setanta's childish rants. However, he particularly likes to find any fault he can with Christians. His diatribes against Muslims, however, have not gone unnoticed either.

Setanta seems to consider himself the resident expert and the only one whose opinion counts. Anyone who uses the word pathetic so often is very close to the word. When anyone, who has made known that they are a Christian, retorts in any manner whatsoever, Setanta uses his "you call yourself a Christian" card with great amusement. He then proceeds to call it self righteous whining etc. In fact, the whining comes from the other side, but we we do not mention that...until now.

Most people are able to converse in a rational and intelligent manner. Whatever someone's religion or ethnic background is is not an issue. With Setanta it is always an issue. Perhaps someone could explain what "There are literally thousands of christians at this site who get through every day without the spew which typifies your contributions" means. Perhaps Setanta has had a change of heart and does not dislike all Christians. It is now only Momma Angel and me. No problem.

Hopefully, this means that the rest of you, of any religion, can expect to be treated with some respect in the future. Setanta will use Momma Angel and I for his whipping boy. That is ok because I have come to discard much of what Setanta has to say. He just goes on and on like a spoiled child. It is time to grow up and act like an adult, Setanta.

If his goal is to make us leave A2K, then his goal is futile. I, for one, will not let the local bully wear me down.

I hope that the Muslims on this board do not feel that they are alone if they are also treated in this manner. Most of the users are caring people who have better things to do than trash others. They are very nice people.

0 Replies

My whole problem with Setanta began when I saw what I perceived then, and still see as a singleminded determination to hurt certain individuals personally. His insistence on calling MA "MOAN" - even after she has all but begged him to stop, is a prime example. I started calling him "Spitsanta" just because of that. I don't believe I have ever initiated an attack on him, but have only retaliated on the parts of those who perhaps hadn't the inclination to do so at the time on their own behalfs.

Be assured - his constant haranguing of MA and you do not go unnoticed. And it is evident to everyone except Setanta how pathological it makes him appear. He threw my name in with the Christians (insert a bunch of nasty adjectives before Christians) during one recent diatribe.
I started to challenge him to find one post where I claimed to be a Christian (because I haven't - I have claimed only belief in God on these threads, and have defended Christians against his and others' punkass bullying), but didn't, because that would be another appeal to reason wasted on him.

It can be done, you know? It is possible to disagree heartily with the corrosive influence the Christian right has had on our country, and it is possible to stand very adamantly against proseletyzing for any religion on these sites, and it is possible even to express rage at whatever ignorance and narrowmindedness we see expressed here.

All it takes is a small committment to try - and mark this, I say TRY because I'm not blind to the fact that I need to do this myself - not to insult personally.

Bullying is bullying, and I hate it. Bullying is continuing to attack personally someone who is not fighting you. His refusal to even TRY to be civil with certain folks bespeaks a smallness and weakness of spirit, IMO.

So be it, though. Anytime Setanta or anyone else starts flinging invective carelessly, I will be there in spades. And let me reiterate - if I am seen to initiate attack on an individual that has not done so toward me or anyone else, I will back off. I did it to Apisa recently, and someone pointed it out to me. All I have said is that we all need to TRY.

0 Replies

I remember an article in The Guardian, some point last year regarding Political Correctness. It was a good read, the point of it all, lead fittingly with the title, 'PC exists to balance out the bigots'. An overview would be words obviously have consequences, we're increasingly seeing PC as a conspiracy of sorts and like any "ideal", it's exploitable, which is surely the crux of the matter. I'm not sure where I stand exactly, it was an interesting piece of rhetoric though.

0 Replies

I like that - PC exists to balance bigots.

I've always thought that those who rail the loudest against PC harbor some desire to go full bore the other way without any societal check.

0 Replies

[quote="snood"]I like that - PC exists to balance bigots.

I've always thought that those who rail the loudest against PC harbor some desire to go full bore the other way without any societal check.[/quote]
I think what I don't like about political correctness is it seems to have grown into some kind of discriminatory type of language all it's own. If someone doesn't like something someone has said, they make up a new phrase and expect everyone to use it.

It constantly seems to change. Sometimes I think being politically correct gives one license to label someone else something. It's not that way in everyone's case, I completely understand that. It seems as though common decency and respect are, more often than not, left out.

Your post above is a perfect example. You are right. You can disagree, you can dislike, etc., without personally attacking. That's common decency and respect; respect for others; and respect for yourself.

I got a lot out of that post Snood and I thank you for it.

Intrepid,

Well, I'm not going to be anyone's whipping boy. I am NOT having a sex change operation! Shocked

0 Replies

Is this board anti-muslim?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know