BREXIT!

"

lolozori wrote:

"

So again, just be patient and try to be a little more tolerant. Any time there is big social or political change people die and that's unfortunate for all sides involved.

At night come the burglar
He enter my house, kill my cat
HE open my fridge, eat my cereals
After he finish he goes to hit my wife
My kids are awake, he slap them on the face
He put down my pants and show me his tolerance

that's unfortunate for all sides involved
All I am thinking now is just be patient and try to be a little more tolerant

My wife left me, called me a cuck
my kids refuse to see me, I let them getting hurt

that's unfortunate for all sides involved but...

All I am thinking now is just be patient and try to be a little more tolerant
All I am thinking now is just be patient and try to be a little more tolerant

Implying that you're using one act, or a set of acts, committed by a small number of people to justify your, allow me to call it 'hatred' for brevity's sake, towards a larger group of people.

Or maybe I'm reading far to much into it and you're simply stating that a person who steals another's cereal is wrong in doing so. To which I agree.

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

Islam didn't have globalization and the internet for the past 14 centuries. And of course it's a fallacy to assume what happened in the past determines the future. If that were the case then we'd still be swinging from trees throwing shit at each other. Well at least we're not swinging from trees anymore. Even your ideology will fade. Your ideology isn't as bad as it might have been in the 50's and 60's for example.

And holy texts don't define the hearts of people. The same shit that defines our hearts defines theirs, family, friends, spouses, children, the desire to be safe and secure, and the yearning for meaning. Ideologies are just temporary reactions to times they belong to.

So again, just be patient and try to be a little more tolerant. Any time there is big social or political change people die and that's unfortunate for all sides involved.

It's another kind of -cy to ignore history's lessons.

Islam has been flourishing for 16 centuries now, calling it 'temporary' is... interesting.

About the tolerance part - as others have tried to explain to you, some things are not to be tolerated. Exactly this complacency and blind chanting of empty buzzwords is what caused Europe's current problem. Some people have to get it in their thick heads that some ideologies have to be regarded as dangerous diseases and treated accordingly instead of tolerated - because this is what they are. A communicable disease of the mind which aggressively spreads, infects societies and fucks them up.

Now, this may sound confusing to someone who has read my tirades about freedom of speech in another offtopic thread... so a bit of clarification: freedom of speech is all nice and great until someone starts preaching violence and criminal acts. I would add criminal stupidity to the list and gladly see the demise of all religions making wild and unsubstantiated claims, Christianity included, but that's wishful thinking.

My point with tolerance is the criminal acts themselves and the criminals involved are isolated in a way that doesn't represent islam as a whole and it's incorrect to represent it otherwise. And also I'm trying to point out that thinking you're achieving something towards removing the threat of terrorism by spreading intolerant messages towards a larger group of people is irrational.

And I wasn't calling islam temporary, only the state that it's in right now and the state that it was in, rivers of change and all that. And with the ever increasing integration of global society and ideas those rivers are only getting stronger.


Also just want to point out I'm not defending islam or religious/ideology based violence. I hope to live to see the day when the only influence religion has on our society as a whole is the confounded look on our grandchildren's faces when we try to explain to them why people thought it was a good idea to kill each other over something they made up in their heads.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

You also didn't answer my question: Aren't you intolerant of criminal and uncivilized behavior?
=0[.]o=

Terrorism is a cultural war and one waged mostly inside islam. The extreme ideologies cannot win and will naturally fade as free information and ideas permeate through the younger generations. So in my view assigning labels of blame and condemnation to all of islam, even if only indirectly by labeling these criminals muslims, is counter productive. The more tolerant, inviting and even patient the west is the easier the transition will be for the older culture of islam into a new one that's a part of our global future.

Terrorism is a tool for the advancement of the global Caliphate. It is an outlet for Muslim men (and not a few otherwise downtrodden Muslim women) to perform acts of militant valor which will elevate them and glorify them in death and reward them in a paradaisical afterlife. Terrorism may go away, if Islam finds a more effective way of advancing its conquest of the Dar al Harb, for example, by seizing political and military control of a nation with advanced nuclear weapons capability, but until Islam does, terrorism will not abate, simply because we coddle and accommodate Muslims.

When you say the extreme ideologies cannot win, you ignore fourteen centuries of consistent Islamic history. Since the days of Mohammed, Islam has spread to cover much of the globe, encompassing 1.6 BILLION people to date. The ONLY nation ever conquered by Islam which then reclaimed its original social and religious culture was Spain; every other nation which was converted BY THE SWORD (and I defy you to name one existing Muslim nation which converted voluntarily) has remained a Muslim nation, and will do so until Islam itself passes away.

But you are clearly no student of history, Georg. You either don't know these facts, or you choose to ignore them. Go ahead and remain "tolerant, inviting and even patient," and these people whose holy texts demand the conquest of all infidels will press on as commanded by their Prophet, just as they have throughout their history, except that at least in the past, those whom they sought to conquer fought back, rather then throwing open the gates. =-[.]-=

Or maybe YOU do not know facts. I am from Greece which was 400 years under the occupation of Ottoman Empire, and people are still christians here. Same applies with most of the Balkans as well, like Bulgaria. Also mind you, in Ottoman Empire there was freedom of religion, and most people that were converted, were not converted by the sword, by rather by taxes. IF you practiced another religion you had to pay more taxes.

Do some serious reserach if you want, and you will find out that during Medieval times, Christians were FAR FAR FAR more brutal and Barbaric than Muslims.

"

Poutsos wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

Raycheetah wrote:
"You also didn't answer my question: Aren't you intolerant of criminal and uncivilized behavior?
=0[.]o=" ---end of quote


Terrorism is a cultural war and one waged mostly inside islam. The extreme ideologies cannot win and will naturally fade as free information and ideas permeate through the younger generations. So in my view assigning labels of blame and condemnation to all of islam, even if only indirectly by labeling these criminals muslims, is counter productive. The more tolerant, inviting and even patient the west is the easier the transition will be for the older culture of islam into a new one that's a part of our global future.

Terrorism is a tool for the advancement of the global Caliphate. It is an outlet for Muslim men (and not a few otherwise downtrodden Muslim women) to perform acts of militant valor which will elevate them and glorify them in death and reward them in a paradaisical afterlife. Terrorism may go away, if Islam finds a more effective way of advancing its conquest of the Dar al Harb, for example, by seizing political and military control of a nation with advanced nuclear weapons capability, but until Islam does, terrorism will not abate, simply because we coddle and accommodate Muslims.

When you say the extreme ideologies cannot win, you ignore fourteen centuries of consistent Islamic history. Since the days of Mohammed, Islam has spread to cover much of the globe, encompassing 1.6 BILLION people to date. The ONLY nation ever conquered by Islam which then reclaimed its original social and religious culture was Spain; every other nation which was converted BY THE SWORD (and I defy you to name one existing Muslim nation which converted voluntarily) has remained a Muslim nation, and will do so until Islam itself passes away.

But you are clearly no student of history, Georg. You either don't know these facts, or you choose to ignore them. Go ahead and remain "tolerant, inviting and even patient," and these people whose holy texts demand the conquest of all infidels will press on as commanded by their Prophet, just as they have throughout their history, except that at least in the past, those whom they sought to conquer fought back, rather then throwing open the gates. =-[.]-=

Or maybe YOU do not know facts. I am from Greece which was 400 years under the occupation of Ottoman Empire, and people are still christians here. Same applies with most of the Balkans as well, like Bulgaria. Also mind you, in Ottoman Empire there was freedom of religion, and most people that were converted, were not converted by the sword, by rather by taxes. IF you practiced another religion you had to pay more taxes.

Do some serious reserach if you want, and you will find out that during Medieval times, Christians were FAR FAR FAR more brutal and Barbaric than Muslims.

Check this out:

Short version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7y2LRcf4kc

Longer version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y



Maybe u find interesting that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

"

Poutsos wrote:

Do some serious reserach if you want, and you will find out that during Medieval times, Christians were FAR FAR FAR more brutal and Barbaric than Muslims.

As far as conversion practices go, it was somewhat similar, the Turks (you were talking about them after all) weren't beyond the occasional 'allah or die' but it was mostly limited to wartime while slavery was a thing (until mid 19th century approximately).

There were two main ways of forceful islamization - after conquering an area, a large part of captives were transported and sold at slave markets in middle east, mostly women and children. Such slaves were converted as a rule, it was more convenient and a slave has no freedom to choose anyway.
The other one is 'blood tax', there was a custom in areas under Turkish rule to annually ride around the villages and handpick the most promising youth for military service, around age 6-10. It wasn't uncommon for fathers to maim their sons in some way to make them unacceptable.

As for converting free people under the pain of death, it wasn't a common practice for two reasons, one is because the quran forbids spreading belief by force and it's generally wise not to go against it if you care about the popularity vote. As for the other one, the Turk rule was feudal like most others at the time, in conquered lands a muslim was exempt from forced labor under the local landowner so there were even appeals in some instances to tighten the reins a bit on voluntary conversions because there will be nobody left to work the fields at that rate. So, there were individual cases and rare actions by lower dignitaries but the highest government ranks never officially supported forceful islamization of conquered territories in time of peace and gave local church authorities a somewhat free hand in managing their affairs.

So, a much larger portion of the current muslim population in those parts was converted voluntarily. There were many reasons for it, as a muslim your family had greater rights, you could advance more easily in your trade, paid less taxes and was exempt from forced labor and some of the more brutal practices of exerting authority and enforcing obedience. Another thing is some of the former christian noblemen converted to be able to protect their people better and many of their vassals followed. It was noted that such noblemen often made a very flimsy muslim, used his old heraldry, supported christian clergy, sent gifts to churches or monasteries and sometimes even converted back in old age to die as a christian monk. The lack of dedication in such converts was probably expected and tolerated to an extent so even the muslim of today in those parts are notably less hardcore, you can see them eat pork, drink alcohol and swear at allah no worse than their christian neighbors.

For the christian part, there is indeed no lack of examples of forced conversion and for the indirect one we even have somewhat recent examples, 19th century to be exact which wasn't really all that long ago. In certain rural parts of Europe with a mix of catholic and orthodox followers it wasn't unusual for the church to buy grain low when the year was good and sell it high when it wasn't. If you converted, you'd get grains cheaper or free, so if you aren't into stealing you would either convert, or watch your family starve.

I really don't see how arguments about the Christian church having a bad track record are supposed to convince anyone that it's a good idea to accept millions of Muslims in your own country. Yes, Christianity did suck most of the time throughout history - and Islam is very similar to it. What's more, it's similar to the Christianity of a few centuries ago. We have mostly outlived theocracy, and it hasn't been fast, painless or easy, while Muslim countries mostly haven't.

"

Bars wrote:

I really don't see how arguments about the Christian church having a bad track record are supposed to convince anyone that it's a good idea to accept millions of Muslims in your own country.

Truth be told, it wouldn't be easy to convince people accepting millions of anything in their country is a good idea, so I don't think the apparent muslimity is the ultimate deciding factor here.

Now, I agree accepting millions of hot, loose women would probably be much easier to swallow than millions of bearded men of most troublesome age, aggressive beliefs and strange customs, but I haven't heard anyone offering it so we won't know for sure.

"

raics wrote:

"

Bars wrote:

I really don't see how arguments about the Christian church having a bad track record are supposed to convince anyone that it's a good idea to accept millions of Muslims in your own country.

Truth be told, it wouldn't be easy to convince people accepting millions of anything in their country is a good idea, so I don't think the apparent muslimity is the ultimate deciding factor here.

Now, I agree accepting millions of hot, loose women would probably be much easier to swallow than millions of bearded men of most troublesome age, aggressive beliefs and strange customs, but I haven't heard anyone offering it so we won't know for sure.

It would be much easier to achieve swallowing indeed.

hue hue hue


Apart from that, the apparent muslimity is not the only factor but doesn't help :P