Page 3 of 5 <12345>
Topic Options
#112610 - 04/28/17 08:45 PM Re: Islamic Incest [Re: LoneWolf78]
Ubermensch23 Offline
member


Registered: 03/11/14
Posts: 146
Loc: Pretoria, South Africa
So, because I don't believe in dignity, I'm therefore a homosexual such as yourself? Wrong. Your stereotypes are amusing, and illustrate the level of conditioning you underwent as a child, truly sad.

I didn't fuck my mother, because she was rather tall and not very pretty, thus did not satisfy my sexual standards. Otherwise I would have.

Anybody trying to rape me is not wrong, though unlike you genetically weak Americans, I doubt it would turn out like that. Rape is not wrong, murder is not wrong. If somebody came to kill me, it's not wrong. That doesn't mean I won't resist it, but I won't be resisting it because of dignity, I'd be resisting out of the instinct to survive. Your argument was clearly concocted by a very intellectually deprived young man.


Edited by Ubermensch23 (04/28/17 08:46 PM)
_________________________
"0" is the past, "1" is the future. "Now" is nowhere.

Top
#112614 - 04/28/17 11:16 PM Re: Islamic Incest [Re: Ubermensch23]
CanisMachina42 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1572
Loc: Ca
Many civilization up to present day practice rape as a statement of victory. Still raping and pillaging.

Primae Noctis (first night rights) was well entrenched in the history of Europe as a noble form of ethnic cleansing.

And that was their code.

I'd say rape is dishonorable. Meaning my personal code, which happens to be influenced most recently by western Christian values. I personally couldn't find committing forceable rape arousing unless it was consensual victimization and role playing.  Per my code, forcing anyone to do something because you cant get it through other means, feel ostracized by a gender, or want to dominate someone by fear (usually out of asshurt) is little bitch shit.

There seems to be confusion between morality and honor.  "Honor" has nothing to do with what is obstensively right or wrong, and is based on something more animal than man.

Respect.

Honor to me is a refined "golden rule".

Treat others how you want to be treated and treat others how they treat you. 

The act of demeaning another's "mate" crosses instinctual territorial lines that get the animal dealt with, particularly among mammals. That's pretty much the base code of what later becomes criminal acts or sins.

_________________________
32.6
-117.1
Sea level
11:56 PM July, 1st 2019
Wrote Signature

Top
#112616 - 04/29/17 02:43 AM Re: Islamic Incest [Re: CanisMachina42]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3389
[Quick Reply]
Honour is reserved to those who share an actual bond or acknowledge one others' standing and position. It cannot be applied to someone "unknown" or "first met".

Where it concerns incest in the Abrahamic faiths, or any other major religion, has more to do with culture, possibility and heritance.

Lest not forget we're talking about religions originating, proverbially speaking, in the middle of a desert. A place ruled by tribes and thight-knit families. Where polyamory is/was accepted. Where the risk of accidently falling in love with a (half)- niece or -sister was that much higher. It shouldn't come as a surprise religious law took note of this and didn't condone it that hard. All in all, who would accept a religion that didn't leave any openings for established and culturally accepted traditions/ideas?

Not to mention that the tiny bit of wealth that could be acquired needs to be protected at all costs. Especially when with every wedding there's a bride's offering where the groom offers a part of their wealth to the other family. It shouldn't come as a surprise a certain degree of "incest" has to be justified in order to keep "the wealth" (and simply have it passed on to another "manager" within the same family).

Sure, we now might shun such practice and point fingers at the barbaric and simple-minded "sins" within religious books. Lest we forget that something as the Bible and Koran are still historic books which give, despite mutliple translations and transliterations over the centuries, permit a skewed glimpse in historic culture.


Edited by Dimitri (04/29/17 02:48 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#112617 - 04/29/17 03:59 AM Re: Islamic Incest [Re: Dimitri]
CanisMachina42 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1572
Loc: Ca
 Quote:
Honour is reserved to those who share an actual bond or acknowledge one others' standing and position. It cannot be applied to someone "unknown" or "first met".


I dont think that a bond is necessary.

It's a way of behaving more related to "what you can live with yourself doing".  It can include anonymous people.  If you can't give two fucks about strangers on the street then your statement holds true and that is your codes application.

if your code of honor says "I will work for the shit I need and not fuck over others to get what I want." You generally don't steal people's identity and commit fraud.

It's not really saying "stealing is wrong", as much as it is saying, "My self respect won't let me acquire things through codependent means".

And while the examples of what can pertain to an honor code changes from general to personal when you transition from strangers to friends it still gets filtered through the same self-respect judgment call.

 Quote:
Lest not forget we're talking about religions originating, proverbially speaking, in the middle of a desert. A place ruled by tribes and thight-knit families. Where polyamory is/was accepted


Incest also keeps royal blood royal until they become the dalmatians of nobility.

My comment was more a sidebar/hijacking.
_________________________
32.6
-117.1
Sea level
11:56 PM July, 1st 2019
Wrote Signature

Top
#112620 - 04/29/17 11:04 AM Re: Islamic Incest [Re: Ubermensch23]
Sabrina27 Offline
member


Registered: 01/21/17
Posts: 159
 Originally Posted By: Ubermensch23
All I see from you, is a woman projecting her Christian morals upon everybody else. You should really do research regarding the origins of your moral values, so as to ascertain whether what you are, and what you claim to be, don't clash, as it already is.

Origins of moral values? Morals have always existed and will continue to. Some morals are objective regardless the time or place. Everybody has a sense of justice in them even across all cultures. It is ingrained in us despite our upbringing.

I'll give you an example. For instance, I recreate my time with a 6 year old kid. We talk, play and have fun together. Out of nowhere I pull my AK47 and shoot her. And go like “haha.” Now is that immoral, unjust, and wicked according to you?

Now don't get me wrong ofc there are some differences in opinions in matters such as capital punishment, homosexuality etc hence I said some.
 Originally Posted By: Ubermensch23
If my mother, growing up, looked like Sharon Stone, fuck yes, I would have fucked her. Why wouldn't I? Because of peer pressure? Because it's not cool? Because the bible told you so? You're not a very independent person at all are you?

Honestly though where is your sense of shame?? Being so boastful and oat on how you can abuse mother. Not women but your mother!? I understand you have no ounce of decency left inside of you but where's your intuition?

Anyways lets get technical now. You can't attribute human subjectivity when it comes to morals & ethics because humans are capable of err. So by definition, your morals are defined by human flaws. It's no wonder how you choose to associate yourself with shameful acts when you rationalise notions such as incest and reason your ethics from Darwinian paradigm.

Btw you're delusional if you think discussions such as homosexuality, feminism are not results of social pressure.
 Originally Posted By: Ubermensch23
Can you scientifically prove those women who get raped have dignity in the first place? Nope, just like with morality, dignity is a subjective fabrication people choose to believe in, a convenient lie. And even if you did have dignity, what value does your dignity have to me? If I were to choose between raping you in order to have a good time, and not raping you, so as to spare your nonexistent dignity, why would I choose the latter?


Context-wise, by dignity I meant the woman’s virginity. And yes taking away a woman’s chastity is as if taking away her dignity. Because your mother is not merely a piece of flesh walking to the kitchen. Neither she's a mere tool to abuse. She's more than that. Shes the one who stayed awake countless nights to make sure yo were warm. She was the one who carried you in her womb for 9 months long. She was the one who sacrificed her time to bring you about as a son she would adore. Gosh can't believe I'm actually explaining this to someone. People like you make me scared whether or not my kids would turn out as ungrateful as you.
(Please don't use this as your counter argument, was just a humble advice)

Let's get technical once more, no I doubt that scientifically you can prove abstract concepts as the scientific approach is based on observations. Why else do you think when people experiences a supernatural phenomena coming across different cultures are quickly labeled with some sort of mental illness such as schizophrenia, psychosis. And you think science would adopt dignity and morality lol. For fuck’s sake, people are selling away their morals for the sake of Science.

 Originally Posted By: Ubermensch23
You don't believe in right and wrong, but you believe people are equal and that people have dignity, and therefore according to you rape is wrong?

Incorrect. That wasn't my argument. Try harder dimwit.
 Originally Posted By: Ubermensch23
you illiterate cunt. Not only that, but you can't properly construct sentences in your primary language.

Thanks for your insights but I'm not arguing in behalf of my English despite English being my first language.
_________________________
Knowledge without action is void & Action without knowledge is madness

Top
#112621 - 04/29/17 11:10 AM Re: Islamic Incest [Re: LoneWolf78]
Sabrina27 Offline
member


Registered: 01/21/17
Posts: 159
@whateverthefuckyournameis

It's ironic on how you blame western society for liberalism, feminism, SJW, Transgenderism when you adapt the western way of thinking leading to neoliberalism, SJW etc.


Edited by Sabrina27 (04/29/17 11:11 AM)
_________________________
Knowledge without action is void & Action without knowledge is madness

Top
#112622 - 04/29/17 03:57 PM Re: Islamic Incest [Re: Sabrina27]
duhsquidbilly Offline
stranger


Registered: 01/07/16
Posts: 38
Loc: CO,USA
 Quote:
Origins of moral values? Morals have always existed and will continue to. Some morals are objective regardless the time or place.


I find it extremely interesting how one's subjective viewpoints dominate personal morals. For instance, the "situational morality" displayed by Jehovah of the Semitic Old testament. The same god saying thou shalt not kill also says cursed is he that keeps his sword from blood.
I find situational ethics to be the most benficial for pratical application in an enlightened society. Does Jehovah's dual speech display contempt for man or enlightenment?
_________________________
Nothing is True, Everything is permitted.
http://www.balanone.info/index.html
Gab.ai Bitchute.com

Top
#112623 - 04/29/17 04:06 PM Re: Islamic Incest [Re: Ubermensch23]
LoneWolf78 Offline
member


Registered: 05/21/14
Posts: 435
 Originally Posted By: Ubermensch23
I didn't fuck my mother, because she was rather tall and not very pretty, thus did not satisfy my sexual standards. Otherwise I would have.


I know that we have a thing about one liners. So let's see if I can remedy that. If I get nothing else out of this post, I got your quote.

 Originally Posted By: Ubermensch23
I didn't fuck my mother, because she was rather tall and not very pretty, thus did not satisfy my sexual standards. Otherwise I would have.


So, your own mother is too ugly for you to fuck?!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation...M&v=SEyH_-QXipw



Hahahahahaha
hahahahaha
hahahahaha
hahahahaha
hahahahaha
hahahahaha
hahahahaha

Ok...that took care of that.

Top
#112635 - 04/30/17 09:44 AM Re: Islamic Incest [Re: LoneWolf78]
Sabrina27 Offline
member


Registered: 01/21/17
Posts: 159
@duhsquidbilly (hope I spelled that right) You people have very complex names just as the dimwit Uberman whatever it is.

I’m not a bible apologist neither a Christian but if you continued reading after the quote, I believe morals are not objective. So if killing the innocents are deemed as morally wrong thus objective, what rationalization we have to assert it OBJECTIVELY wrong? Hence ontology which is the basis or the foundation where the morals are grounded for me to assert something objectively wrong or not. And no this is not my viewpoint, it's everyone’s viewpoint unless you think killing of innocents is objectively immoral.
_________________________
Knowledge without action is void & Action without knowledge is madness

Top
#112637 - 04/30/17 02:58 PM Re: Islamic Incest [Re: Sabrina27]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 4017
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Anywhere and everywhere that Sharia holds power.

Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Maldives, Iraq, Iran, Brunei, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Mauritania, etc etc etc

And those are just countries where sharia has FULL providence. There are over 20 more where Sharia has partial providence.

In sharia, blasphemy, leaving the religion, homosexuality and a host of other things are penalized by death.
_________________________



Top
#112638 - 04/30/17 03:24 PM Re: Islamic Incest [Re: Sabrina27]
CanisMachina42 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1572
Loc: Ca
 Quote:
it's everyone’s viewpoint unless you think killing of innocents is objectively immoral.


Not my viewpoint. Here's mine.

It is "objectively immoral" IF the social contract of the society deems it so, and for what reason.  If there was a Ghandi society, im sure all forms of "killing innocents" would be frowned upon.

 Quote:
Hence ontology which is the basis or the foundation where the morals are grounded for me to assert something objectively wrong or not.


The basis of the religious morals?

Complexity and progression.

Fast foward to the early societies.

There were "new additions" to self regulate. The nomadic ethos was voided in favor of barter, and written language giving man the societal ethos.

As soon as the populations pulled into cities people were no longer fully self sufficient and had to interact with others outside their clan.

It is this initial (necessary) dependence on others that could be considered the "like cause" for honor and morality.

A.  If you trade a pelt for grain it serves your interest to hold up your end. The personal code formed for how one approaches their role in society. 

B. Then if you write down thou shall deliver the livestock in exchange for crops it become a meme that is carried objectively as "moral" or "criminal" giving definition for right and wrong. 

If you use "B" primarily as your basis for "A" an act of transgression becomes "immoral" or "illegal".  However, with "A" being the predecessor, "B" can be twisted to any end. So a person who rejects "B" as an absolute and acts upon their own guidance is "amoral", but still carries a code of honor (the predecessor of written morals).
_________________________
32.6
-117.1
Sea level
11:56 PM July, 1st 2019
Wrote Signature

Top
#112651 - 05/01/17 09:40 AM Re: Islamic Incest [Re: Dan_Dread]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
Adding on to this, Saudi Arabia is very active in their persecution/prosecution of Atheists. Al Shamri was recently beheaded but not before sitting in prison for nearly 3. Meanwhile the Prince was receiving accolades for his efforts in Syria. Just two years prior, he was outspoken about U.S. polices on Iran/Syria.



When people ask why this young man wasn't given reprieve, it's because they just can't grasp the full-gambit of the issue. Even if there's a Wiki to provide crib notes.

Militant groups arise not just from religious conflict but the flip-flop politics. Just follow the money. Saudi was screaming from the rooftops that the Rebels in Syria needed U.S. support, those same Rebels are on the opposite side of the gun sight today.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#112653 - 05/01/17 10:32 AM Re: Islamic Incest [Re: CanisMachina42]
Sabrina27 Offline
member


Registered: 01/21/17
Posts: 159
 Originally Posted By: CanisMachina42
It is "objectively immoral" IF the social contract of the society deems it so, and for what reason. 

…so the killing of innocents is relative, is that what you're implying?
 Originally Posted By: CanisMachina42
The basis of the religious morals?

Morality despite religious or non-religious. Some aspects of religious morals are held by non-religious secular people. You don't require a religious person to get to know morals. Intuitively, you can objectify the killing of innocents as morally wrong.
 Originally Posted By: CanisMachina42
If you use "B" primarily as your basis for "A" an act of transgression becomes "immoral" or "illegal".  However, with "A" being the predecessor, "B" can be twisted to any end. So a person who rejects "B" as an absolute and acts upon their own guidance is "amoral", but still carries a code of honor (the predecessor of written morals).

Plato's dilemma I see? Morality is not arbitrary unless..that God by definition is NOT morally perfect, knowledgable, etc. it's summarized best by Professor of Philosophy Shiber Akhtar in his book the Qur'an and the Secular mind. On page 99 he says, "There is a third alternative. A morally stable God, a supreme being who will not arbitrary change His mind about goodness, compassion and the evil of sexual misconduct. Such a God always commands good because His character & nature are good." So His commands are good because it's the derivatives of the Divine will. And the divine will is he is good.

P.S Didn't want to go in the theistic discussion but eh


Edited by Sabrina27 (05/01/17 10:35 AM)
_________________________
Knowledge without action is void & Action without knowledge is madness

Top
#112655 - 05/01/17 11:43 AM Re: Islamic Incest [Re: Sabrina27]
Sabrina27 Offline
member


Registered: 01/21/17
Posts: 159
 Originally Posted By: Sabrina27
I'm not arguing in behalf of my English despite English being my first language.
*despite English not being my first language

@Dan you surely have never been or experienced living in ANY of those countries. There are content non-Muslims living their life like any other average being on the other side of globe. Never have I heard non-Muslims receiving the "Islamic" lashing living in there unless you've abominated their culture, practice in public with false claims. That's not very Islamic of them though.

(P.S: I'm not saying Saudi Arabia is very just with the non-Muslims. Ofc they're a total ass to non-muslims including Muslims too. Oh cmon who doesn't resent against their laws? It's cliche to even mention on how full of shit they are)
_________________________
Knowledge without action is void & Action without knowledge is madness

Top
#112658 - 05/01/17 01:52 PM Re: Islamic Incest [Re: Sabrina27]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 4017
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Oh yes, I'm sure you know plenty of open homosexuals and atheists that blaspheme Islam on the daily in Qatar, or Saudi Arabia. No problem.

Puh-leez
_________________________



Top
Page 3 of 5 <12345>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.034 seconds of which 0.012 seconds were spent on 29 queries. Zlib compression disabled.