50 dead at Orlando club shooting.

[Exorcet]

A group is made of individuals, and no matter how strongly they claim to be united, they are all individuals. You can't paint a group as a single homogeneous entity. The video seems to miss that. The tiny sample of Islamic followers in the video doesn't represent Islam as a whole. The video even backed that when it was mentioned that 48% of Muslims in the UK don't think homosexuality should be illegal.

As for being betrayed by a certain political group, the same applies. It's individuals, and you can expect the group to change as its members change. They may not always agree with you. It's part of the reason why I don't care for political parties.

 

[mister dog]

A group is made of individuals, and no matter how strongly they claim to be united, they are all individuals. You can't paint a group as a single homogeneous entity. The video seems to miss that. The tiny sample of Islamic followers in the video doesn't represent Islam as a whole.

So a gathering of hundreds of random Muslims who all unanimously agreeing that Sharia law is the right one to apply with regards to women and gay people, but then the excuse is that we would need an even bigger group than that to prove this same point? Would thousands be enough? or are we only satisfied with millions raising their hand when this same question is asked, before we actually realize that this is the general consensus with the majority of the Muslim world?

The video even backed that when it was mentioned that 48% of Muslims in the UK don't think homosexuality should be illegal.

But 52% of UK Muslims do think homosexuality should be illegal. Doesn't that number worry you? It's like you'd try to demonstrate that the KKK isn't something we should worry about, because 48% of them thinks that we shouldn't prosecute black people.

 

[Exorcet]

So a gathering of hundreds of random Muslims who all unanimously agreeing that Sharia law is the right one to apply with regards to women and gay people, but then the excuse is that we would need an even bigger group than that to prove this same point?

What point are you trying to prove? Also if there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, you need more than thousands to get some idea of what the group consensus is, if there is one. Either way I'm more concerned with what people think than what labels they want to use. Homophobia, racism, and sexism, are problems. I think they should be addressed directly instead of going after a scapegoat.

But 52% of UK Muslims do think homosexuality should be illegal. Doesn't that number worry you? It's like you'd try to demonstrate that the KKK isn't something we should worry about, because 48% of them thinks that we shouldn't prosecute black people.

I am concerned with people that think homosexuality should be illegal, all of them. Not just the fragment of that group that considers itself Muslim. I also wouldn't want to cause more problems by needlessly lumping dissimilar people into the same category. That 48% is on your side, at least on this issue, why not make use of them?

 

[TenEightyOne]

So a gathering of hundreds of random Muslims who all unanimously agreeing that Sharia law is the right one to apply with regards to women and gay people, but then the excuse is that we would need an even bigger group than that to prove this same point?

The figures never claimed to say that, you're drawing a connecting line that wasn't there.

They were asked if homosexuality should be illegal and they were asked if they'd like to be able to follow Sharia law. Sharia law is pretty mundane for the most part and most moderate (ie normal) Muslims use it for banking, trading and the most inane day-to-day things you can imagine. Your own imagination, I suspect, is a little more fire-and-brimstone than that.

 

[McLaren]

What's even more ironic is you spending this whole thread lauding the "responsibility" of gun owners who, it turns out, relish the chance to intimidate others with their weapons.

They're not trying to intimidate anyone; it's the exact opposite. They're trying to convince the general population they have nothing to fear of the gun or them walking around with the guns on their backs; it's the lunatic on the other end to fear.

Since this convo has turned almost entirely to gun control I'm going to go out on a limb and guess they have confirmed radical Islamic ties?!

Really don't know, just asking since it was so taboo to address it a few days ago.

Edit:
Btw, don't think I can be bothered with this thread, reading through it is clear many here try to make a point and others simply ignore it or discount the point on a "it would have been" sort of basis.
Essentially, I feel bad for Famine even trying to get through to some of you.

Kent, to my knowledge, even though the guy claimed to support 3 different, all at war each other groups, but they have not found any actual links to them. They believe he acted on his own influences to do it.

 

[ToyGTone]

Try to rebuff his points; i know i'm posting quite a lot of his videos, but that's only because IMO he's speaking the truth:

Thanks man, now i'm questioning my life and whatever I should even live anymore... All I see from these posts is hate.

*removes avatar*

 

[mister dog]

Thanks man, now i'm questioning my life and whatever I should even live anymore... All I see from these posts is hate.

*removes avatar*

I'm not hating on anyone, just pointing out a dangerous mentality towards women and gays that is very apparent in the Muslim world.

 

[ToyGTone]

I'm not hating on anyone, just pointing out a dangerous mentality towards women and gays that is very apparent in the Muslim world.

Gays? True, Both in religious and cultures. Women? Not sure because I failed to know the problem with treating women un here because all I hear is that we treat females like crap.

 

[mister dog]

Gays? True, Both in religious and cultures. Women? Not sure because I failed to know the problem with treating women un here because all I hear is that we treat females like crap.

Covering them up entirely, forbidding them to partake in society (work, school etc.), stoning them for adultery, wedding them out as young girls and all that. Of course that might not be the case depending on the country (I see you're from Bahrain and it might be way more liberal there), but these medieval practices are very much alive in the Muslim world and inspired by a literal interpretation of the Koran.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Covering them up entirely,

Amish.

forbidding them to partake in society (work, school etc.)

Amish.

stoning them for adultery

Different type of rape culture... but Amish.

wedding them out as young girls and all that

Amish.

Of course that might not be the case depending on the country (I see you're from Bahrain and it might be way more liberal there), but these medieval practices are very much alive in the Muslim world and inspired by a literal interpretation of the Koran.

Hang on, hang on, I've got this for you...

Of course that might not be the case depending on the country (I see you're from Spain and it might be way more liberal there), but these medieval practices are very much alive in the Christian world and inspired by a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Spoiler

Amish.

 

[A2K78]

@TenEightyOne

The way you and describe the Amish is 100% off the mark.

 

[Obelisk]

@TenEightyOne

The way you and describe the Amish is 100% off the mark.

Can you prove it?

 

[TenEightyOne]

@TenEightyOne

The way you and describe the Amish is 100% off the mark.

Wrong.

Can you prove it?

No, he can't.

Covered? Check. Social privation? Check. Male-centric culture of sex? Check. "Wedding out"? Check.

 

[LeMansAid]

When did the Amish become the yard stick by which standards should be judged?

That they may be miscreants doesn't lessen the argument against other miscreants.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Covered? Check. Social privation? Check. Male-centric culture of sex? Check.

All these things are completely voluntary. They leave the community as teens, and choose to return.

"Wedding out"? Check.

This is illegal, that is what the whole story you linked to is about.

None of this is sanctioned by the government, unlike in some countries.

 

[Dennisch]

Remember when the Radical Amish started their attacks and wanted to force their believes on the rest of the world?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Remember when the Radical Amish started their attacks and wanted to force their believes on the rest of the world?

It's horrible actually. I come from Kitchener where there is a large Mennonite community, Amish of the north basically. Last week some Mennonite terrorist refused to allow his wife to sell shoo fly pies at the farmers market. If you've ever had a shoo fly pie you know how much of a tragedy that is for those whose hearts were set on consuming some shoo fly pie on Fathers Day. I understand several people were taken to the hospital suffering from severe disappointment but were eventually treated with apple pie and ice cream and managed a full recovery.

 

[FoRiZon]

Remember when the Radical Amish started their attacks and wanted to force their believes on the rest of the world?

Different religion, same story.

 

[mustafur]

Wrong.



No, he can't.

Covered? Check. Social privation? Check. Male-centric culture of sex? Check. "Wedding out"? Check.

Country ran by doctrine = none.

Oh and

All these things are completely voluntary. They leave the community as teens, and choose to return.

Is considered a Death Penalty offence in many Islamic country's and supported in the Quran.

 

[Exorcet]

Country ran by doctrine = none.

Oh and


Is considered a Death Penalty offence in many Islamic country's and supported in the Quran.

I wouldn't say any of this is necessarily inherent in Islam. You can find Christian countries like this if you look back far enough. It was Islam that was the progressive and level headed religion a few centuries ago. The state of the religion today is just a result of its history. We happen to be in a period where many violent people associate with Islam. All the other religions are just as vulnerable to this kind of thing, and tomorrow we might have a thread like this where all references to Islam are replaced with ones to Christianity.

 

[mustafur]

I wouldn't say any of this is necessarily inherent in Islam. You can find Christian countries like this if you look back far enough. It was Islam that was the progressive and level headed religion a few centuries ago. The state of the religion today is just a result of its history. We happen to be in a period where many violent people associate with Islam. All the other religions are just as vulnerable to this kind of thing, and tomorrow we might have a thread like this where all references to Islam are replaced with ones to Christianity.

But we are talking about present day, and there is a book called the Quran that supports this logic, Islam in it's doctrine doesn't support a Secular society and this is the heart of the problem.

 

[Exorcet]

But we are talking about present day

Yes, I'm not trying to draw your focus to some other time. I'm just don't think the situation that we're in is a given. Islam isn't the problem, and if you just treat Islam, you're not treating the problem. All these Islamic extremist could convert to Christians and nothing would change except how they refer to themselves. There are people today referencing the Bible as a reason to ditch modern science and regress society. The Bible is not lacking in the promotion of violence so it's not out of the question that these people would turn violent given the right motivation. These days I guess it would be the abortion issue that tends to trigger Christian violence in the western world.

and there is a book called the Quran that supports this logic, Islam in it's doctrine doesn't support a Secular society and this is the heart of the problem.

All the books are the same, and religion is so fickle that people tend to pick and choose what they want anyway. Islam included.

 

[mustafur]

The books are not the same, read them before making such a ridiculous comment.
Islam in it's doctrine and in reality teaches against Secularism, Christianity and Judaism do the exact opposite.

There is a reason why Every single Christian dominated country is a secular country where as the near opposite can be said about Islamic dominated countries.

Saudi Arabia even labels Atheists as Terrorists.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Apparently the 911 call transcripts from the terrorist have been released but parts of it are redacted, specifically, references to ISIS and whomever his terrorist hero is. Is this an FBI decision? Is AG Lynch behind this? Is it 1984? What possible reason would there be for scrubbing this information? Is it an oversight to be corrected later? Is this deliberate for some security reason or to try and massage the optics of the situation? Enquiring minds want to know.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/index.html

The transcript also shows Mateen spoke to the dispatcher in Arabic and that he pledged allegiance to an organization and an individual during the call, but the transcript does not include those names.

 

[ToyGTone]

Covering them up entirely, forbidding them to partake in society (work, school etc.), stoning them for adultery, wedding them out as young girls and all that. Of course that might not be the case depending on the country (I see you're from Bahrain and it might be way more liberal there), but these medieval practices are very much alive in the Muslim world and inspired by a literal interpretation of the Koran.

First one, won't really argue about it since yes a lot of women are covered although differently but you gotta realise that cultures changes with time. Look at the middle east now and back like 40-50 years ago. For example, Women cultures and traditions changed, now there's people who thinks that being cover less is okay meanwhile others believe not. Some religious sheikh (as in scholars, not some rich b:censored: who owns everything) even complained about how women clothing nowadays.

Now the second one i find it ironic because if you meant by "women unable to get out of home" (therefore couldn't partake) then what's the point of "covering them up entirely" thing? They won't cover against their husband's or family. The "forbidding them to go out" is more related to taking care of their infant or kids rather than religion itself (at least what i believe) as she should stay with their kids rather than leaving the kid alone. And again with generations, things has changed. The whole covering "most of her body" point was to avoid stuff like adultery which's also believed to lead to other problems... i can't go further on about that thought. Then you have that Islam encouraged to go and study.

Thirdly, the male get's punished as well, maybe even more than females so where the hell is Men's rights? Shouldn't Men and Women be equal in treatment?

Fourthly, i don't remember wedding out at young age being mentioned any where but again, it could be applied to male as well so where's the men's rights? however what i do remember about marriage is that it have conditions that changes depending on the person so recommend or not to but it's all OPTIONAL, there's no such thing as forced marriage. It's your choice if you feel better with having a wife (or husband if you're female) and a family or not. It's your choice to marry who, not just forced to marry a particular women.

The books are not the same, read them before making such a ridiculous comment.
Islam in it's doctrine and in reality teaches against Secularism, Christianity and Judaism do the exact opposite.

There is a reason why Every single Christian dominated country is a secular country where as the near opposite can be said about Islamic dominated countries.

Saudi Arabia even labels Atheists as Terrorists.

Even thought that one of the parts in Quran mentioned that non-muslim people aren't forced to be muslims. They chose to be in another religion so let them be that.
Also just because Saudi Arabia has such holy places for Muslims doesn't mean they're always right. They banned a greek mythologist video game series for having god in his name because they (Gov.) believe it contains islam or some sort, what did most of the population do? They didn't give a toss about it and went on to play these amazing games. Even some shows over the arabian peninsula have criticise the Government for number of stuff.

 

[huskeR32]

antagonize
(ænˈtæɡəˌnaɪz) or
antagonise
vb (tr)

to act in opposition to or counteract

Congratulations, you were able to breeze past the primary definition of the word and find a less-common use to suit you.

The first results for Google, Merriam-Webster, and Oxford all quite clearly show that the main use of the word antagonize is to intentionally upset or anger somebody.

in·tim·i·date
(ĭn-tĭm′ĭ-dāt′)
tr.v. in·tim·i·dat·ed, in·tim·i·dat·ing, in·tim·i·dates
1. To make timid; fill with fear: The size of the opposing players intimidated us.
2. To coerce or deter, as with threats: The police intimidated the suspect into signing a false statement.

Not sure what your point is here. I'm sure plenty of people would be fearful of people walking around in public with a rifle slung over their shoulder.

English, it's a wonderful language.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Congratulations, you were able to breeze past the primary definition of the word and find a less-common use to suit you.

The first results for Google, Merriam-Webster, and Oxford all quite clearly show that the main use of the word antagonize is to intentionally upset or anger somebody.

Not sure what your point is here. I'm sure plenty of people would be fearful of people walking around in public with a rifle slung over their shoulder.

My point is that I correctly surmised the intent of @McLaren's post as you can see below. Your post makes no sense in light of the response he already gave but feel free to continue to impute a slant to his post that he didn't intend if it suits your agenda. You probably missed it so I'll repost it here for you.

They're not trying to intimidate anyone; it's the exact opposite. They're trying to convince the general population they have nothing to fear of the gun or them walking around with the guns on their backs; it's the lunatic on the other end to fear.

 

[FoRiZon]

First one, won't really argue about it since yes a lot of women are covered although differently but you gotta realise that cultures changes with time. Look at the middle east now and back like 40-50 years ago. For example, Women cultures and traditions changed, now there's people who thinks that being cover less is okay meanwhile others believe not. Some religious sheikh (as in scholars, not some rich b:censored: who owns everything) even complained about how women clothing nowadays.

Now the second one i find it ironic because if you meant by "women unable to get out of home" (therefore couldn't partake) then what's the point of "covering them up entirely" thing? They won't cover against their husband's or family. The "forbidding them to go out" is more related to taking care of their infant or kids rather than religion itself (at least what i believe) as she should stay with their kids rather than leaving the kid alone. And again with generations, things has changed. The whole covering "most of her body" point was to avoid stuff like adultery which's also believed to lead to other problems... i can't go further on about that thought. Then you have that Islam encouraged to go and study.

Thirdly, the male get's punished as well, maybe even more than females so where the hell is Men's rights? Shouldn't Men and Women be equal in treatment?

Fourthly, i don't remember wedding out at young age being mentioned any where but again, it could be applied to male as well so where's the men's rights? however what i do remember about marriage is that it have conditions that changes depending on the person so recommend or not to but it's all OPTIONAL, there's no such thing as forced marriage. It's your choice if you feel better with having a wife (or husband if you're female) and a family or not. It's your choice to marry who, not just forced to marry a particular women.


Even thought that one of the parts in Quran mentioned that non-muslim people aren't forced to be muslims. They chose to be in another religion so let them be that.
Also just because Saudi Arabia has such holy places for Muslims doesn't mean they're always right. They banned a greek mythologist video game series for having god in his name because they (Gov.) believe it contains islam or some sort, what did most of the population do? They didn't give a toss about it and went on to play these amazing games. Even some shows over the arabian peninsula have criticise the Government for number of stuff.

Its cool. People are already give moslems in general a bad outlook and took as their villain as far as i can see here.

TBH there are in need of enlightment on Moslem community if im being very honest. Theres a major shortcomings, most particularly when people are scared of their lives deviating from their book even at slightest.

 

[McLaren]

Thirdly, the male get's punished as well, maybe even more than females so where the hell is Men's rights? Shouldn't Men and Women be equal in treatment?

You're making a sound argument with the rest of your post, but this is not true.

When I see reports of foreign women being arrested because they reported that they were raped, I find it incredibly hard to believe they are anywhere close to being equal in the eyes of the law.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/middleeast/qatar-dutch-woman-rape-report-held/

 

[mister dog]

First one, won't really argue about it since yes a lot of women are covered although differently but you gotta realise that cultures changes with time. Look at the middle east now and back like 40-50 years ago. For example, Women cultures and traditions changed, now there's people who thinks that being cover less is okay meanwhile others believe not. Some religious sheikh (as in scholars, not some rich b:censored: who owns everything) even complained about how women clothing nowadays.

True, like I said before Islam could use an urgent reformation and look at the more progressive countries. But of course then the conservative part will point to the literal translation of the Sharia, and say that this progressive style is Western and Haram. So basically you are in a deadlock here.

Now the second one i find it ironic because if you meant by "women unable to get out of home" (therefore couldn't partake) then what's the point of "covering them up entirely" thing? They won't cover against their husband's or family. The "forbidding them to go out" is more related to taking care of their infant or kids rather than religion itself (at least what i believe) as she should stay with their kids rather than leaving the kid alone. And again with generations, things has changed. The whole covering "most of her body" point was to avoid stuff like adultery which's also believed to lead to other problems... i can't go further on about that thought. Then you have that Islam encouraged to go and study.

Afghanistan serves as one of the big examples for that, also in Daesh country it's the same. Women are forced to stay inside and can only go out whilst accompanied by a male family member and totally covered up.

Thirdly, the male get's punished as well, maybe even more than females so where the hell is Men's rights? Shouldn't Men and Women be equal in treatment?

As in receiving the same medieval punishments for, what we see in the western world, ridiculous stuff? No. No one should endure this in the 21st century frankly.

Fourthly, i don't remember wedding out at young age being mentioned any where but again, it could be applied to male as well so where's the men's rights? however what i do remember about marriage is that it have conditions that changes depending on the person so recommend or not to but it's all OPTIONAL, there's no such thing as forced marriage. It's your choice if you feel better with having a wife (or husband if you're female) and a family or not. It's your choice to marry who, not just forced to marry a particular women.

There's tons of examples of young girls (children even), being married to old perverts across the Muslim world. The optional/ free will factor is definitely non existent in those cases, and i'm pretty sure also with a lot of marriages which involves people of a similar age.

Its cool. People are already give moslems in general a bad outlook and took as their villain as far as i can see here.

Nope we are just pointing out the not so comfortable facts about Islam culture, and especially the well represented radical element that is obviously present within it. I have no problem stating that there are many good things about Islam and Muslim culture, but seeing we are talking about a radical that shot up 50 people for being gay that is not particularly on topic.