Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Wow .. a lot of problems here
First. there is no definitive and scientific studies about the usage of Porn and its effect on love. So your sentence:
Is based on a myth.
Now, that's said, there is indeed a problem of objectivization in porn, but this is not because of the support (porn) its because of the standards of the industry and the poor treatment of women in this industry.
Porn exist in fact in many various ways, there is for example feminist porn where women won't be objectified or treated as prize.
The real problem is therefore here, not porn. Its education, and the patriarchy. Yes that again. Its everywhere, even in porn.
Now, Onlyfan is different as onlyfan is done BY the content creator. Therefore its THEIR choice not the one of the industry so comparing the porn industry and onlyfans is fallacious at best.
Why ? you are making a baseless statement out of nowhere here that doesnt relate to anything you talked about before.
Not necessarally, I had amazing sex with people with I had no feelings toward. And it was still amazing and respectfull.
I think you are confusing sex with love. Those are two very different things. People can have sex without ever being in love and people can love without never have sex.
No. Dehumnazing women would means saying that "they are not true women". I'm not saying that. Those are true women. They are just not feminists ones. Simple. Not every women are feminist. In fact the majority of women on this earth are against feminist ideals.
"access" ? eww
On what basis ? No its not. When its consensual nothing is harmfull to the relationship. Furthermore when a women give you permission to you to touch her body, doesn't mean that you have a free ticket for the rest of your life. You don't own the body of the one you love because you are with them.
On what basis ? What is "hookup culture" ? Do you have studies to back your point of view or you are taking that out of nowhere ?
one day you will understand that their is something called the political compass and that generally, people who are on the same political compass have more or less the same point of view.
So yes, I can discard an argument simply by knowing the political compass of a personn. Why ? Because they are most likely going to use the same arguments as other i've debunked before. Wrong arguments.
Leftism is based on a particular set of value. Feminism is one of them. So if you are not feminist, you are not a leftist. Its not a fallacy, its just logic.
You can't just say I'm leftist and think we will agree with you. Leftism is not a religion or an identity its a set of political values, so your argument is a fallacy.
If you are talking about sexual attribute then yes, there are different sexual attribute, but men and women are just gender. Denying that is a symptom of patriarchy indeed.
My boy. Men ARE predator. Not because we want to be, but because we are ALL raised in a society where men are raised like predators.
"Pedrator" is a large scale, it can mean being simply toxic and sexist to being a straight up raper.
Understanding patriarchy is understanding that we live in a society that forges us and that society forges mens to be oppressive toward women. WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS.
That's science mate. Learn about it.
Not many
Yes, a minority
you can label me. For example you can say that I'm a woke, a hardcore feminist, a transally, a leftist, full of myself, overconfident. You have a lot of choice. I took what I saw:
You were transphobe
And
You are being sexist.
Even if you are in denial.
I therefore uses those labels, not to put you down, but to make you understand that those behaviors are not cool. Nothing is personnal for me here.
First. there is no definitive and scientific studies about the usage of Porn and its effect on love. So your sentence:
Is based on a myth.
Now, that's said, there is indeed a problem of objectivization in porn, but this is not because of the support (porn) its because of the standards of the industry and the poor treatment of women in this industry.
Porn exist in fact in many various ways, there is for example feminist porn where women won't be objectified or treated as prize.
The real problem is therefore here, not porn. Its education, and the patriarchy. Yes that again. Its everywhere, even in porn.
Now, Onlyfan is different as onlyfan is done BY the content creator. Therefore its THEIR choice not the one of the industry so comparing the porn industry and onlyfans is fallacious at best.
Why ? you are making a baseless statement out of nowhere here that doesnt relate to anything you talked about before.
Not necessarally, I had amazing sex with people with I had no feelings toward. And it was still amazing and respectfull.
I think you are confusing sex with love. Those are two very different things. People can have sex without ever being in love and people can love without never have sex.
No. Dehumnazing women would means saying that "they are not true women". I'm not saying that. Those are true women. They are just not feminists ones. Simple. Not every women are feminist. In fact the majority of women on this earth are against feminist ideals.
"access" ? eww
On what basis ? No its not. When its consensual nothing is harmfull to the relationship. Furthermore when a women give you permission to you to touch her body, doesn't mean that you have a free ticket for the rest of your life. You don't own the body of the one you love because you are with them.
On what basis ? What is "hookup culture" ? Do you have studies to back your point of view or you are taking that out of nowhere ?
one day you will understand that their is something called the political compass and that generally, people who are on the same political compass have more or less the same point of view.
So yes, I can discard an argument simply by knowing the political compass of a personn. Why ? Because they are most likely going to use the same arguments as other i've debunked before. Wrong arguments.
Leftism is based on a particular set of value. Feminism is one of them. So if you are not feminist, you are not a leftist. Its not a fallacy, its just logic.
You can't just say I'm leftist and think we will agree with you. Leftism is not a religion or an identity its a set of political values, so your argument is a fallacy.
If you are talking about sexual attribute then yes, there are different sexual attribute, but men and women are just gender. Denying that is a symptom of patriarchy indeed.
My boy. Men ARE predator. Not because we want to be, but because we are ALL raised in a society where men are raised like predators.
"Pedrator" is a large scale, it can mean being simply toxic and sexist to being a straight up raper.
Understanding patriarchy is understanding that we live in a society that forges us and that society forges mens to be oppressive toward women. WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS.
That's science mate. Learn about it.
Not many
Yes, a minority
you can label me. For example you can say that I'm a woke, a hardcore feminist, a transally, a leftist, full of myself, overconfident. You have a lot of choice. I took what I saw:
You were transphobe
And
You are being sexist.
Even if you are in denial.
I therefore uses those labels, not to put you down, but to make you understand that those behaviors are not cool. Nothing is personnal for me here.
Lol that point where people are talking about religion and someone just starts waving scripture at you. Jeez
Honestly I don't knock other religions for the same reason I don't hit people who don't subscribe over the head with the Qur'an: these conversations are a disservice. The concept of a faith is to give a detailed, if complicated, explanation of ethics to better the individual and those they encounter. Vague spirituality is also fine if opportunistic. Atheism is naive if it descends into the belief of humans as the ultimate beings and randomness as the ultimate order.
But I don't think these texts and tellings, as much as the point is to share them, are meant to be thrown at non believing strangers to be disrespected and dissected. I don't like people saying ugly things about my faith so I don't want to entertain those conversations, and part of that is usually denying the political foothold.
Honestly I don't knock other religions for the same reason I don't hit people who don't subscribe over the head with the Qur'an: these conversations are a disservice. The concept of a faith is to give a detailed, if complicated, explanation of ethics to better the individual and those they encounter. Vague spirituality is also fine if opportunistic. Atheism is naive if it descends into the belief of humans as the ultimate beings and randomness as the ultimate order.
But I don't think these texts and tellings, as much as the point is to share them, are meant to be thrown at non believing strangers to be disrespected and dissected. I don't like people saying ugly things about my faith so I don't want to entertain those conversations, and part of that is usually denying the political foothold.
https://foreignpressassociation.onl...nt-harassment-of-journalists-october-29-2023/
"We can't let you share what you see here under any circumstances!"
"We can't let you share what you see here under any circumstances!"
Gonna add to this: doesnt make any sense, considering there are countless different ways muslims practice their religion. Even further, they have varying opinions on what the religion teaches, resulting in different denominations that oppose each other and even fight.
Doubt you guys would consider ahmadiyyas to be muslims for example.
Doubt you guys would consider ahmadiyyas to be muslims for example.
Ok, last question;
Are not the Muslims followers of Islam?
You hate what Islam teaches, but dont hate the Muslims who follow those teachings?
Yes, it is hard to comprehend. You are saying you hate the sun, not the sunlight.
Why specifically the use of strong words like hate and despise?
Its fine, nobody asked you to follow it.
[automerge]1699366563[/automerge]
Who said they are Muslims?
For them to be Muslims they need to believe that Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) is the last prophet.
But they claim that Ahmad is the new prophet.
This is just absurd. It is like saying I am new Jesus. Lol
This tells that you are here just for the chaos.
Are not the Muslims followers of Islam?
You hate what Islam teaches, but dont hate the Muslims who follow those teachings?
Yes, it is hard to comprehend. You are saying you hate the sun, not the sunlight.
Why specifically the use of strong words like hate and despise?
Its fine, nobody asked you to follow it.
[automerge]1699366563[/automerge]
Who said they are Muslims?
For them to be Muslims they need to believe that Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) is the last prophet.
But they claim that Ahmad is the new prophet.
This is just absurd. It is like saying I am new Jesus. Lol
This tells that you are here just for the chaos.
I dont think you'd be asking this if you had actually engaged with my posts on this topic. But well, another repeat.
Adherents of a religion dont necessarily follow everything in said religion. And adherents clearly practice the religion in different ways (refer to my last post about denominations). Thats why i make the distinction between the religion and its adherents. And within islam, what secondqry scriptures are used (hadith for example) also differs alot.
Teachings of a religion =/= what adherents practice.
No matter how much you want to force bigotry against muslims on me for criticizing the scripture because you are unable to make this very important distinction.
So yeah, i despise islam for a multitude of reasons, but i dont despise muslims. Unless of course for radical islamists who would probably want me dead for the things i say about their precious religion.
Not sure about the relevant studies and how many muslims hold radical views like killing apostates for example, but its a minority afaik.
[automerge]1699367377[/automerge]
Actually they claim ahmad is the mahdi and second coming of jesus, both of which is prophesized.
Edit: and well they say they are muslims, and your reaction is quite literally proving my point
[automerge]1699367560[/automerge]
Not sure about all religons, there are too many i dont know about. But if they value revelation over reason, then they most likely suck
Adherents of a religion dont necessarily follow everything in said religion. And adherents clearly practice the religion in different ways (refer to my last post about denominations). Thats why i make the distinction between the religion and its adherents. And within islam, what secondqry scriptures are used (hadith for example) also differs alot.
Teachings of a religion =/= what adherents practice.
No matter how much you want to force bigotry against muslims on me for criticizing the scripture because you are unable to make this very important distinction.
So yeah, i despise islam for a multitude of reasons, but i dont despise muslims. Unless of course for radical islamists who would probably want me dead for the things i say about their precious religion.
Not sure about the relevant studies and how many muslims hold radical views like killing apostates for example, but its a minority afaik.
[automerge]1699367377[/automerge]
Actually they claim ahmad is the mahdi and second coming of jesus, both of which is prophesized.
Edit: and well they say they are muslims, and your reaction is quite literally proving my point
[automerge]1699367560[/automerge]
Not sure about all religons, there are too many i dont know about. But if they value revelation over reason, then they most likely suck
Last edited:
I asked a simple question.
What if they practice it?
Just say YES or NO:
Will you hate them if they practice Islam?
"They claimed" and you believed them?
Again, you are here for chaos. You have everything negative that there is in universe and spew it here. This is classic example of an Islamophobe.
Do you want to separate Islam, the religion, from its followers?
Is it the first step to say: You will be fine as long as you dont practice Islam?
What if they practice it?
Just say YES or NO:
Will you hate them if they practice Islam?
"They claimed" and you believed them?
Again, you are here for chaos. You have everything negative that there is in universe and spew it here. This is classic example of an Islamophobe.
Do you want to separate Islam, the religion, from its followers?
Is it the first step to say: You will be fine as long as you dont practice Islam?