icirate said: Sharia Law is radical by modern standards. No. Considering the fact that it was indeed the first pro-feminist movement in the history, you are entirely wrong. Though, if you mean the Saudi sharia then I agree with you. icirate said: European culture IS better than Muslim culture. Muslim culture works well for Muslims, but Europeans are able to hold themselves to higher standards without the imminent threat of barbaric punishment. We're better, and if they want to live on our land, then they need to adapt to our ways. That's not only how it should be, but how it is everywhere outside of the western world. Muslim cultures isn't working well for Muslims as well. It won't work well for anyone for that matter. An ambivalent culture is equivalent to no culture at all. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
icirate said: Define radical. Neither you nor the guy in the video has defined such an ambiguous term. Saying something is radical seems to be used only for convenience these days. What you consider "modern" or "not radical" will be seen as radical in another's eyes. And you can pretend to be saints, and assume that it is Islamic/Arabic culture that brings about violence, however "modern history" would suggest that compared to the small skirmishes going on in the Middle East, it was this same "superior" culture that lead to things like Social Darwinism being used to justify the colonization of the Middle East / Africa / Asia. Not too mention both World Wars being started by Western Nations and then dragging these wars into the unfortunate colonies that just so happened to be under the control of these "superior or western cultures". You cannot find it surprising that other cultures don't accept Western Culture with open arms given that for the last few centuries Western Culture has been jammed down their throats under punishment of death should they choose to rebel against it. To many, the west is still a symbol of an invading nation looking for more land. Assuming that Islamic culture (Arabian or otherwise) is violent as a stand-alone product is ignorant, much of the poverty and "radicalism" as you call it could be attributed to the non-radical, systematic colonization of the Middle East / Africa / Asia that has been going on for a few centuries.Pirating_Ninja said: The guy is an idiot. *snip* Now not going to go too deeply into why I think he is an idiot, but take his video for example, he says he will define what he means by "radicalism". But does he? No, he just says it encompasses more than just terrorism. Denoting "Sharia Law" as being "radical" and linking it to a cause for terrorism, essentially equating a country's culture to being "wrong". I certainly don't agree with a lot of Sharia Law, however I'm not going to sit on my high horse and claim that my culture or heritage is superior, and thus they should adapt to my point of view (Hitler believed the Aryan race was superior, look where that got him). Sharia Law is radical by modern standards. Pirating_Ninja said: I certainly don't agree with a lot of Sharia Law, however I'm not going to sit on my high horse and claim that my culture or heritage is superior, and thus they should adapt to my point of view (Hitler believed the Aryan race was superior, look where that got him). European culture IS better than Muslim culture. Muslim culture works well for Muslims, but Europeans are able to hold themselves to higher standards without the imminent threat of barbaric punishment. We're better, and if they want to live on our land, then they need to adapt to our ways. That's not only how it should be, but how it is everywhere outside of the western world. I do not disagree that when one moves to a new nation they should adapt to that nation's culture, however you aren't saying anything as innocent as that now are you? You are saying that the Middle East has an inferior culture, and therefore any Middle Easterner coming to your nation should abandon their inferior ways in lieu of the superior Western Culture. I live in America, not Europe, so I am not as used to living within a homogenized country, but when immigrants from other European nations move in, do you expect them to not hold on to their cultural identity? There are differences in culture between the different European nations, do you chastise them as well for being "different"? (Granted the differences are slighter, but choosing what cultural values are okay or not okay to hold is just a tool used to make it easier to discriminate against a specific group) If so, then it is fair to chastise Middle Easterners, but I guess I do prefer American policy in which there is no defined "culture", just a vague notion of Western Culture. And while it is wise to adopt such culture, you are not "evil" or "wrong" for cherishing your own culture, whatever it might be. icirate said: Hitler's belief in the superiority of the Aryan Race did not lead to him winning wars. I don't even know how you came to this conclusion. For starters, did he win WWII? To my recollection Germany lost. So perhaps you mean battles? But again, what part of his belief in the superiority of the Aryan Race directly resulted in the winning of a battle? The most historical result directly affected by his belief in the superiority of the Aryan race that I can think of would be the Holocaust. In which non-Aryans were slaughtered to purge the world of non-Aryans. Why you would assume I was talking about anything else is slightly worrying. The next valid events you could perhaps have thought I was talking about was any of the "Aryan towns" Hitler made (I think there was more than one), in order to homogenize the Aryan race, but this was on a vastly smaller scale than the Holocaust, so would be questionable, albeit acceptable. But even then there is a far more ironic problem than barbaric acts . . . Grouping up people as closely related as the people in these created towns to "breed" was just begging for all sorts of mental retardation problems within their offspring. But to think I was talking about the war or about Hitler taking his own life? . . . Pirating_Ninja said: (Hitler believed the Aryan race was superior, look where that got him). Winning wars makes you right? Having racial preferences will get you killed? You need to work on your analogies. His beliefs of superiority led to almost an entire ethnicity within Europe being eradicated. That is far more barbaric than anything Isis has committed to date. And this came from the same Western Culture that promoted the ideals that they are Superior, and therefore should take from and/or extort from races that are inferior. But let's back up for a second and assume that his beliefs of Aryan Superiority truly did directly affect WWII. Well then, his beliefs of superiority were the trigger to the largest war in Human History. Which I might add resulted in tens if not hundreds of times more deaths than the Barbaric Middle Eastern culture has lead to. Even if your misunderstanding of historical context was my point, it would still only show that throughout modern history, the belief in one's cultural / racial superiority has led to far more brutal instances than that being witnessed in the Middle East currently. By ignoring History not even a century old, you are just spouting what is convenient to you, and ignoring anything that would state otherwise. |
Pirating_NinjaApr 8, 2015 9:37 AM
 |
Geni-2-ol said: AnnoKanno said: I don't think Islam is entirely innocent of this either though, at least in the case of my local Mosque. It purports that unlike Christianity, Islam is unified. But in reality there are of course two major branches of Islam, Sunni and Shi'a, and the two are often in conflict with one another. Misleading people is not helpful either. In reality, Islam is unified. The branches and the sects popped up way later after the death of Muhammad. The rest of your response is credible. There's nothing to disagree about that. If there are two separate sects, and there is sectarian violence between them at times, then it does not fit any definition of 'unified' that I have ever come across. Regarding comments on Sharia law: Sharia law is a radical for people in the west because it is different from western civic law in fundamental ways. Sharia is based on the contents of a religious texts, which have been prescribed by God. Western laws on the other hand are dictated by government, and can be changed if there is a democratic mandate for them. Introducing Sharia law into western countries, even if it is only applied to Muslims, still constitutes a radical change which is incompatible with the philosophy of western law as it violates the principle that 'everyone is equal before the law'. If the law is dependent on your religious convictions, then it is no longer 'equal'. Implementing sharia law directly into the present legal system on the other hand would violate the separation of church and state, which while not de jure in all western nations, is at least the general practice of the courts. Regarding adapting to a new culture as a foreigner: This is something which ranges between difficult and impossible. It is perhaps possible for someone to move to a similar culture and eventually adapt to it well enough to pass of as a native, but these people are few and far between. In my lifetime I have met perhaps one or two foreigners who could pass for a native of my country. I'm not including foreigners who share the same language into this but even then that would increase the number by only a dozen or so at most. Apart from those people, I could usually work out whether or not someone is a foreigner. I don't hold it against them, but it does mean that they can no longer entirely integrate with my culture from the position of an outsider. Understanding it on a less superficial level is not that much easier. Americans and British people do not have a language barrier but if you actually listen to them speak long enough you will soon notice they are very different in terms of outlook, sense of humour, manner of speech (not accent) and outlook. Essentially it is an impossible task, and I suspect the only reason you set it as a barrier is that you yourself have no idea what it's actually like to live in a foreign country, or that you don't understand the full extent of what 'culture' is. I suspect what you actually expect is for them to follow the rule of law, learn to speak the local language and perhaps not to expect special treatment in their new land. I agree with the first one, indifferent towards the second and am unsure about the third. My own experience living abroad was that almost everyone responded positively when I made an effort. I certainly didn't expect everyone to bend to my every whim. But I think anyone who moved abroad would actually do the same. The only behaviour matching this description that I observed, came from tourists who were living there on holiday. It is not very easy for a minority to dictate the behaviour of the majority, and you probably need not concern yourself with it. |
AnnoKanoApr 8, 2015 10:33 AM
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| Lol what? I never believe the media. |
AnnoKano said: United by hatered for eachother.If there are two separate sects, and there is sectarian violence between them at times, then it does not fit any definition of 'unified' that I have ever come across. |
AnnoKanno said: If there are two separate sects, and there is sectarian violence between them at times, then it does not fit any definition of 'unified' that I have ever come across. I was talking about the nature of Islam not what the Muslims are doing. That's no way to tackle my argument. Either prove that both sects are right in their own places or admit to my statement. AnnoKanno said: Regarding comments on Sharia law: Sharia law is a radical for people in the west because it is different from western civic law in fundamental ways. Sharia is based on the contents of a religious texts, which have been prescribed by God. Western laws on the other hand are dictated by government, and can be changed if there is a democratic mandate for them. Introducing Sharia law into western countries, even if it is only applied to Muslims, still constitutes a radical change which is incompatible with the philosophy of western law as it violates the principle that 'everyone is equal before the law'. If the law is dependent on your religious convictions, then it is no longer 'equal'. Implementing sharia law directly into the present legal system on the other hand would violate the separation of church and state, which while not de jure in all western nations, is at least the general practice of the courts. That only explains how it can be irrelevant in the western society and it very well is. But it doesn't explain how Sharia is in any way "radical" or "violent". GreenSoap said: Western culture does not inspire people to throw homocidal, religiously inspired tantrums whenever it feels insulted. Or slaughter them with automatic guns because they drew some cartoons for that matter. There's only one religion who would pull stuff like this. One unique religion that can lay claim to making people this psychotic over something as trivial as cartoons. "But the moderates, they're harmless!" It was the terrorists that in a way unique to Islam and their culture that made them kill cartoonists. A minority of Islam are certainly willing to push their political agenda by shredding blood, yes. " Is Islam really that sexist?" We in the western world interpret Islam as sexist. And I think that's true, as Islam have very strict regulations on how you're supposed to be, especially when you're female. And for all the hypocrisy in this thread, there is one who summed it all up in one post. Hats off to you! this thread was dedicated to people like you. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
icirate said: When someone is so ingrained in his world view that he sees it as an objective ladder toward a mandated pathway to symbolic God. As far as I'm concerned, had you been born in Syria, you'd be one of those indoctrinated ISIS people saying "so much fuck you" choking on your own tongue in Arabic.Cannibalism is a cultural difference so cannibalistic cultures are just as good as ours!. Raping children is just a cultural difference so cultures that promote child abuse are just as good as ours! Slavery is just a cultural difference so cultures that keep slaves are just as good as ours! Fuck. You. So much fuck you. Cultural differences are the very thing that we have worked so hard to establish from beasts of the wild over countless generations to give ourselves some of the best lives ever achieved in all of our reality and all you can think of it is that it probably wouldn't matter anyway? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Geni-2-ol said: I was talking about the nature of Islam not what the Muslims are doing. That's no way to tackle my argument. Either prove that both sects are right in their own places or admit to my statement. I'm not sure what you mean by this. It seems you are trying to argue that the religion itself is a separate entity from its followers, but a religion is defined at least in part by the practices of its followers. It is not entirely a matter of theology. Geni-2-ol said: That only explains how it can be irrelevant in the western society and it very well is. But it doesn't explain how Sharia is in any way "radical" or "violent". Oh, I wasn't trying to say it is 'radical' in a global sense, because in global terms the opposite is true. The separation between church and state was a fairly radical idea in its day and that was long after the growth of Islam. But given this topic is about interactions between Islam and the west, specifically the western perspective of that relationship, I compared it with the system pre-existing in the west. As for whether or not sharia law is violent, I don't know enough about it to comment. However, the fact it is based on a religious text is incompatible with the principles of western law, which are superior in my view, and I would disagree with replacing them with any religious law. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
AnnoKanno said: I'm not sure what you mean by this. It seems you are trying to argue that the religion itself is a separate entity from its followers, but a religion is defined at least in part by the practices of its followers. It is not entirely a matter of theology. Guess you can say Islam is separate from it's followers, specially in this age. To make it short, Muslims were only one faction in the beginning. For at least throughout the Islamic Golden Age (excluding the Kharjites). Now there are 73 sects in total. That explains a lot. AnnoKanno said: Oh, I wasn't trying to say it is 'radical' in a global sense, because in global terms the opposite is true. The separation between church and state was a fairly radical idea in its day and that was long after the growth of Islam. But given this topic is about interactions between Islam and the west, specifically the western perspective of that relationship, I compared it with the system pre-existing in the west. As for whether or not sharia law is violent, I don't know enough about it to comment. However, the fact it is based on a religious text is incompatible with the principles of western law, which are superior in my view, and I would disagree with replacing them with any religious law. Fair enough. Sharia wouldn't work without a Muslim majority anyway. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
Gravaged said: The only sharia I'm afraid of is sharia law on MAL.Geni-2-ol said: Do you have a phd in Islamiyat or are you one of those who think Saudi Arabian law is Sharia? Does one's credentials in anyway change the fact that Saudia Arabia implements sharia? |
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
Gravaged said: Geni-2-ol said: Do you have a phd in Islamiyat or are you one of those who think Saudi Arabian law is Sharia? Does one's credentials in anyway change the fact that Saudia Arabia implements sharia? How are you going to have an argument with someone if you're unwilling to listen to him? What he's trying to tell you is that Saudi Sharia laws are not the same as Sharia |
| Yes, yes, good Goyim, fear the evil mudslime! Protect your merchant friends and fight the evil Islamic hordes! |
Gravaged said: Is the law implemented by Gaddafi somehow not the law in principle?NudeBear said: I would contend that the distinction is baseless. Is law derived from the Quran and Hadith in Saudi Arabia somehow not law derived from the Quran and Hadith?What he's trying to tell you is that Saudi Sharia laws are not the same as Sharia |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| I never believe the media. |
| Psx Rival Schools 1p Mode Shoma Very Hard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1XulZDm2-M Bully Sfinges Club http://myanimelist.net/forum/?clubid=67037  |
Gravaged said: Is David Luke's translation of Goethe's Faust somehow not Goethe's Faust itself?katsucats said: No.Is the law implemented by Gaddafi somehow not the law in principle? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| I don't trust the media, I simply trust the facts. A group of fanatic Muslims are killing people. You can't deny that. You can't simply say "They are not true Muslims", that would be using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Surely you are angry because the media puts an emphasis on the fact that all those terrorists are Muslims, but that doesn't give you permission to come to a forum and call everyone "fucking idiots" while generalizing. In fact, that just shows how much "peace" you have inside. I am not saying that all Muslims are terrorists; I am saying simply that denying the fact that most terrorists are Muslims is being way too naive or close minded. There are extremists in every group after all. |
 |
katsucats said: icirate said: When someone is so ingrained in his world view that he sees it as an objective ladder toward a mandated pathway to symbolic God. As far as I'm concerned, had you been born in Syria, you'd be one of those indoctrinated ISIS people saying "so much fuck you" choking on your own tongue in Arabic.Cannibalism is a cultural difference so cannibalistic cultures are just as good as ours!. Raping children is just a cultural difference so cultures that promote child abuse are just as good as ours! Slavery is just a cultural difference so cultures that keep slaves are just as good as ours! Fuck. You. So much fuck you. Cultural differences are the very thing that we have worked so hard to establish from beasts of the wild over countless generations to give ourselves some of the best lives ever achieved in all of our reality and all you can think of it is that it probably wouldn't matter anyway? If no one else is going to defend liberal democracy then I'll bloody well do it. Way to avoid my response and attack my character, by the way. As long as cannibalism is a cultural difference (which it is), then cultural differences aren't stuck in a miasma of unbridled subjectivity. Pirating_Ninja said: icirate said: Define radical. Neither you nor the guy in the video has defined such an ambiguous term. Saying something is radical seems to be used only for convenience these days.Sharia Law is radical by modern standards. Public executions. Executions for adultery. Executions for petty theft, trespassing and so on. Executions for disagreeing with the Caliphate. Honor killings for children who have the gall to admit to being raped. Stop pretending that such things aren't a huge leap backwards from the leniency of western culture. Pirating_Ninja said: Assuming that Islamic culture (Arabian or otherwise) is violent as a stand-alone product is ignorant, much of the poverty and "radicalism" as you call it could be attributed to the non-radical, systematic colonization of the Middle East / Africa / Asia that has been going on for a few centuries. You're confusing wealthy Arabic countries with poor African ones. Also, no one alive today is responsible for what happened hundreds of years ago back when international politics was undoubtedly a giant game of prisoner's dilemma. Wealth does play a role, but your overstating it to an absurd degree. Pirating_Ninja said: I do not disagree that when one moves to a new nation they should adapt to that nation's culture, however you aren't saying anything as innocent as that now are you? You are saying that the Middle East has an inferior culture, and therefore any Middle Easterner coming to your nation should abandon their inferior ways in lieu of the superior Western Culture. I live in America, not Europe, so I am not as used to living within a homogenized country, but when immigrants from other European nations move in, do you expect them to not hold on to their cultural identity? There are differences in culture between the different European nations, do you chastise them as well for being "different"? (Granted the differences are slighter, but choosing what cultural values are okay or not okay to hold is just a tool used to make it easier to discriminate against a specific group) If so, then it is fair to chastise Middle Easterners, but I guess I do prefer American policy in which there is no defined "culture", just a vague notion of Western Culture. And while it is wise to adopt such culture, you are not "evil" or "wrong" for cherishing your own culture, whatever it might be. When the culture you cherish is antithetical to the culture of the nation you are inhabiting, then you are poisoning that nation's values from the inside-out. There's a stark difference between respecting a nation's culture while holding on to your own and trying to overwrite a nation's culture with your own and it's very easy to see which side of that line communities of Muslim immigrants in Europe are on. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
Masked_Mantis said: Gravaged said: The only sharia I'm afraid of is sharia law on MAL.Does one's credentials in anyway change the fact that Saudia Arabia implements sharia? Golden words, sire. lupadim said: I don't trust the media, I simply trust the facts. A group of fanatic Muslims are killing people. You can't deny that. You can't simply say "They are not true Muslims", that would be using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Surely you are angry because the media puts an emphasis on the fact that all those terrorists are Muslims, but that doesn't give you permission to come to a forum and call everyone "fucking idiots" while generalizing. In fact, that just shows how much "peace" you have inside. I am not saying that all Muslims are terrorists; I am saying simply that denying the fact that most terrorists are Muslims is being way too naive or close minded. There are extremists in every group after all. I'm not denying their "Musalmani". I'm denying the way it's portrayed in the media. If you say that their interpretation of Islam is different, then go ahead say that. But when it comes to the media, it only portrays THEIR interpretation as the only true interpretation and leaves us back. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
icirate said: Do you have a response besides baring the primitivity of your cultural bias? I've addressed your argument in spades, if you can even call it an argument. In fact, the observation of cannibalism is non-sequitur to the existence of subjectivity, unless you frame your own culture as the objective. People like to use the "attack my character" line as an easy out when they fail to grasp inferred concepts.katsucats said: When someone is so ingrained in his world view that he sees it as an objective ladder toward a mandated pathway to symbolic God. As far as I'm concerned, had you been born in Syria, you'd be one of those indoctrinated ISIS people saying "so much fuck you" choking on your own tongue in Arabic. If no one else is going to defend liberal democracy then I'll bloody well do it. Way to avoid my response and attack my character, by the way. As long as cannibalism is a cultural difference (which it is), then cultural differences aren't stuck in a miasma of unbridled subjectivity. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
icirate said: When we realize that a nation is not a thing but a symbolic aggregate of the people within the boundaries of the nation, we easily see that this is just an appeal to popularity fallacy in disguise, and an appeal to consequences. A person poisoning a nation's values, as you put it, is not clearly worse than a nation poisoning an individual's values. The hierarchy of values is predicate on values to begin with.When the culture you cherish is antithetical to the culture of the nation you are inhabiting, then you are poisoning that nation's values from the inside-out. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Aside from islam, is there any other race of terrorist as famous as them? |
| Signature removed. Check your inbox |
aLotQuestion said: Islam isn't a race, terrorism is a political term, and social races are ambiguous or don't exist.Aside from islam, is there any other race of terrorist as famous as them? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
aLotQuestion said: Aside from islam, is there any other race of terrorist as famous as them? Aside from Americans, is there any other race that is as famous for obesity as them? PS Islam is not a race eejit. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
Geni-2-ol said: Neither is American.aLotQuestion said: Aside from islam, is there any other race of terrorist as famous as them? Aside from Americans, is there any other race that is as famous for obesity as them? PS Islam is not a race eejit. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: I had a giggle m8.Geni-2-ol said: Neither is American.Aside from Americans, is there any other race that is as famous for obesity as them? PS Islam is not a race eejit. |
|
Shitposta said: otakuloserperson said: I don't even trust the weather channel. I like watching those videos of hella large hailstones found on the ground and yes, I like watching videos of tornadoes ripping through those farm towns. Am I a sadist? No, the nature is beautiful. |
 |
Shitposta said: sumtimes when my internet is dwn and i cant use utube, i flush my toilit to see water tornadoesotakuloserperson said: I don't even trust the weather channel. I like watching those videos of hella large hailstones found on the ground and yes, I like watching videos of tornadoes ripping through those farm towns. Am I a sadist? |
 |
otakuloserperson said: I don't even trust the weather channel. That's understandable. |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
katsucats said: icirate said: Do you have a response besides baring the primitivity of your cultural bias? As long as cannibalism is a cultural difference (which it is), then cultural differences aren't stuck in a miasma of unbridled subjectivity. *snip* the observation of cannibalism is non-sequitur to the existence of subjectivity, unless you frame your own culture as the objective. Person Y claims that all cultural values are subjective and therefore that one culture is objectively as good as any other; I can then turn around and bring up cultures that approve of cannibalism or human sacrifice or child brides. I don't care how subjective Y might think these things are, they are still cultural norms we don't want that Y is implicitly defending as on par with our own with this talk of 'all cultural differences are subjective'. Do you think that cultures that indulge in prior mentioned activities as routine are just as good as our own? Are you so willing to throw away the 'bathwater' of objective standards that your own 'baby' culture is thrown out along with it? I am biased against cultures that routinely indulge in the practice of forcing young girls to marry men against their will. Aren't you? |
CaelidesuApr 9, 2015 2:43 AM
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
katsucats said: Geni-2-ol said: Neither is American.Aside from Americans, is there any other race that is as famous for obesity as them? PS Islam is not a race eejit. An eye for an eye. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
Shitposta said: >taking anything posted on /pol/ seriouslyYou'll be amazed at the amount of Eurofags who do think Americans are an "inferior race" (those exact words). But usually those fools are on /pol/, r/worldnews, or dailymail. leconstanzaface.jpg |
Gravaged said: Are Saudi Arabians infallible?katsucats said: No. Nuances may exist between translations, such as syntactical differences between German and English—English is a Germanic language, so I imagine these differences would be significantly few in number—but, while I haven't personally read it, I'm confident that Luke's translation of Faust still retains the essence of Goethe's original, otherwise it wouldn't have been approved for publication. And, as far as I know, Goethe doesn't claim to be infallible nor has anyone attempted to implement criminal law inspired by Faust.Is David Luke's translation of Goethe's Faust somehow not Goethe's Faust itself? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
otakuloserperson said: tru thoI don't even trust the weather channel. |
If life ain't just a joke Then why are we laughing? If life ain't just a joke Then why am I dead? |
More topics from this board
Poll: » do you hide or deny your dark side to others or society?deg - 27 minutes ago |
1 |
by NubFix
»»
6 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Is intelligence overrated?pludel2 - Mar 29 |
27 |
by KitsuFrost
»»
22 minutes ago |
|
» Are you a slow or fast typier on a computer???DesuMaiden - Apr 19 |
44 |
by Vampire_Lord
»»
1 hour ago |
|
Poll: » Are you mentally ill?Ejrodiew - Apr 24 |
30 |
by deg
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» Do you enjoy nature?Kamikaze_404 - Apr 23 |
32 |
by Spunkert
»»
2 hours ago |