PP videos/Islam

[David_N]

That's a value judgement, which has nothing to do with science.

Again, you mistake your opinion with fact.

By virtually all counts, a fetus is literally in no way on par with a conscious human out of the womb. This is how it's viewed in first world secular countries, like America. Social conservative psychopaths want to change this though.

 

[William Rea]

Why don't you tell me.

I retracted it, apologies for the irrelevant post.

 

[Gathomas88]

That's science, Gath.

"Fetuses can't sense things as well as grown persons, therefore they are worthless" isn't science. It is a subjective value judgement.

I don't care what they can sense. They are individual human beings, and worthy of protection on those grounds alone.

 

[David_N]

They are the primary tools of modern "Socialists" the world over meant to reign in the private sector, your ignorance not withstanding.

Then I guess abortion restrictions are Christianity. Literally, that's how stupid what you just posted came out as.

 

[David_N]

"Fetuses can't sense things as well as grown persons, therefore they are worthless" isn't science, it is a subjective value judgement.

I don't care what they can sense. They are individual human beings, and worthy of protection on those grounds alone.

Fetuses don't have the one thing that distinguishes us from other organisms. Consciousnesses, self awareness... An elephant fetus and a human fetus.. You'd be hard pressed to find a difference apart from DNA.

 

[David_N]

That's a value judgement, which has nothing to do with science.

Again, you mistake your opinion with fact.

Oh, and what is the "fact?"

 

[le bouffon]

"Fetuses can't sense things as well as grown persons, therefore they are worthless" isn't science, it is a subjective value judgement.

I don't care what they can sense. They are individual human beings, and worthy of protection on those grounds alone.

Fetuses are reliant on the mother for breathing, feeding, etc, not making them human beings. Fetuses are not the same as human beings, by their very scientific definition. It doesn't matter what you think, as the science is established.

 

[Gathomas88]

Then I guess abortion restrictions are Christianity. Literally, that's how stupid what you just posted came out as.

According to your silly, hyper-puritanical Orthodox Marxist definition of the word, "Socialism" apparently does't exist. :roll:

Hate to break it to you, bud, but the policies you support have been pretty conclusively proven not to work. What "Socialists" still survive in modern mainstream politics have been forced to compromise for that exact reason. Modern Socialist parties are pretty much universally willing to tolerate the private sector. They simply want to be able to control it. They do so primarily through heavy regulation and taxation, tied to an ever expanding welfare state and government bureaucracy.

 

[Gathomas88]

Fetuses are reliant on the mother for breathing, feeding, etc, not making them human beings. Fetuses are not the same as human beings, by their very scientific definition. It doesn't matter what you think, as the science is established.

They are individual human beings, genetically and biologically distinct from their mothers.

That is a "scientific" fact.

 

[le bouffon]

They are the primary tools of modern "Socialists" the world over meant to reign in the private sector, your ignorance not withstanding.

For centuries, the private sector was tied with the state. This was called mercantilism, and happened centuries before socialism was even invented. Also, Adam Smith, the founder of modern economics, wrote heavily about taxation. The rate of taxation is another matter altogether.

They are individual human beings, genetically and biologically distinct from their mothers.

That is a "scientific" fact.

You believe in imaginary friends and you're lecturing me on science? That's a laugh. Individuals can survive on their own; a fetus cannot. A fetus is reliant on the mother until birth, when it becomes a human being.

 

[David_N]

According to your silly, hyper-puritanical Orthodox Marxist definition of the word, "Socialism" apparently does't exist. :roll:

Hate to break it to you, bud, but the policies you support have been pretty conclusively proven not to work. What "Socialists" still survive in modern mainstream politics have been forced to compromise for that exact reason. Modern Socialist parties are pretty much universally willing to tolerate the private sector. They simply want to be able to control it.

Uh, no, socialism, as discussed in academic circles and by actual socialists, refers to collective ownership of production. Now, the way to reach this goal is debated. Hm, let's see here, conservatives, almost all of them, still want taxes and some regulation. I guess that makes them socialist, since you seem to think these 2 things are "socialist." LOL. Not to work? Explains why every single country that is in the first world adopts liberal policies, explains why progressives are always right as time goes on, explains why conservatives are always on the wrong side of history as time goes on. Explains why every first world country has taxes, regulations. Explains why laborers rose up due to a lack of regulations. I could go on.

 

[Gathomas88]

For centuries, the private sector was tied with the state. This was called mercantilism, and happened centuries before socialism was even invented. Also, Adam Smith, the founder of modern economics, wrote heavily about taxation. The rate of taxation is another matter altogether.

Irrelevant. The fact of the matter remains that modern "Socialist" policies are mostly defined by mixed market economies which trend extremely heavily towards high levels of taxation, high levels of regulation, and high levels of bureaucracy, tied with an ever growing welfare state.

You believe in imaginary friends and you're lecturing me on science? That's a laugh.

Here you go with that "Well, God doesn't exist, so there!" crap to cover for you losing the argument again. :lol:

Individuals can survive on their own; a fetus cannot.

And? Claiming that this means they can morally killed is still a value judgement, not science.

 

[William Rea]

Uh, no, socialism, as discussed in academic circles and by actual socialists, refers to collective ownership of production. Now, the way to reach this goal is debated. Hm, let's see here, conservatives, almost all of them, still want taxes and some regulation. I guess that makes them socialist, since you seem to think these 2 things are "socialist." LOL. Not to work? Explains why every single country that is in the first world adopts liberal policies, explains why progressives are always right as time goes on, explains why conservatives are always on the wrong side of history as time goes on. Explains why every first world country has taxes, regulations. Explains why laborers rose up due to a lack of regulations. I could go on.

No, no, no, those were 'classical liberals' that brought those things to bear, not dirty stinking Socialists. They just didn't know that they were, 'classical liberals' at the time :roll:/sarcasm

 

[le bouffon]

[SUP][/SUP]

Irrelevant. The fact of the matter remains that modern "Socialist" policies are mostly defined by mixed market economies which trend extremely heavily towards high levels of taxation, high levels of regulation, and high levels of bureaucracy, tied with an ever growing welfare state.



Here you go with that "Well, God doesn't exist, so there!" crap to cover for you losing the argument again. :lol:



And? Claiming that this means they can morally killed is still a value judgement, not science.

Adam Smith is relevant. You just don't like to be proven wrong. Mercantilism could be tied to those facets as well. Also, as a fetus cannot survive on its own, it's not a human being. That's basic science.

 

[William Rea]

Irrelevant. The fact of the matter remains that modern "Socialist" policies are mostly defined by mixed market economies which trend extremely heavily towards high levels of taxation, high levels of regulation, and high levels of bureaucracy, tied with an ever growing welfare state....

Why are you conflating holding Socialist principles with living in a Socialist country? I am a Socialist but, I am a Democratic Socialist with libertarian leanings, in other words, I don't believe that revolution is the way to achieve political goals and I also believe that a dictatorship of the proletariat will not yield Socialism. That means that I live with the fact that other people do not share all my principles so I live in a country that has a mixed market economy but, I believe that ultimately, the means of production are a common wealth and I will try to convince other people that there is a good reason for this. Saying that this is 'modern Socialism' as if there has been a shift in principle is ridiculous and I cannot work out why you are doing it? Why are you living in a country that has taxation, regulation and welfare?

Taxation and regulation are symptoms of Capitalism that Socialism tries to address within a democratic framework; You have the cart before the horse.

 

[Medusa]

This is an off-shoot of the other thread that got out of hand:




Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost."

Hadith:

Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Bukhari (8:387)- Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."

Muslim (19:4294) - "When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him... He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them."

Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us"

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah."

this is ignorance.these verses dont refer to you ,josie.none of you lived in the middle ages and fought against the first muslims.if you hate islam by googling some verses it wont make you a better christian.sorry it doesnt work this way.

when did you read the whole Qoran ?

 

[Medusa]

View attachment 67193400

the bible doesnt advise you to kill the others either except some man made parts of the old testament.it is people who kill each other.

 

[Medusa]

although the new testament and jesus look peaceful it never stopped bloody crusaders from killing people all over the world.ignorance or hate.
cant decide..

 

[Medusa]

You have a really warped view of Christianity.

Putting God first causes you to love your spouse more. Putting God first makes you want to be a better father or mother. Putting God first creates a home filled with love, honor, loyalty and peace.

I'm sorry for whatever you've experienced in your life to make you think people who put God first are even in the same ballpark as jihadists.

did it create such things in you ? what about loving the others ,josie ?

 

[Medusa]

Argh! I need sleep!

I am absolutely not saying that at all. I respect anyone who doesn't believe as I do. You don't have to follow God or even believe in God to be an excellent father, mother, wife, husband. I do believe that putting Him firsts helps me be a better person. Don't interpret that as 'better than you' because that's not how it's meant.

if you were a better person you wouldnt slander a religion just by googling some verses.google is your god now.

 

[Medusa]

Christ had plenty of dealings with non-believers, none of them violent. He even said that Jews should obey Roman authority and pay their taxes - i.e. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

If he ever wanted anyone to kill non-believers, he certainly had a strange way of letting them know. :shrug:

his followers keep ignoring jesus......

 

[Medusa]

Not at all. I'm Catholic. We actually view post Biblical tradition as being just as important as scripture.

this made your church a bigot in the past.and now you accuse muslims who follow their traditions of bigotry

 

[Medusa]

To the contrary, Christianity is actually the progenitor of the "Liberal" values to which you refer.

We owe most of our modern notions of "Rights" and "just government" to the foundations laid by medieval Catholic Philosophers like St Thomas Aquinas, St Robert Bellarmine, and St Thomas More. African Christianity's problems have far more to do with Africa than they do Christianity.

your old crusaders colonialists gave them bible and then killed them.they did it to natives too.why do you still ignore ?

 

[Summerwind]

What does PP have to do with it.

It started in the PP thread wherein it was posited that if the guy who shot up the PP because "no more baby parts," was a independent nutter not influenced by the extreme rightwing christian bloviators and liars, or more accurately put, blame is not and never will be on the liars and bloviators, then those same people had to quit blaming Islam and even extreme Islamic liars and bloviators for the actions of their listeners.

 

[zyzygy]

Nothing to do with his teachings.

.

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.