Get Dropox | Luno Bitcoin | Ovex Crypto | Binance | Get Free Crypto - Morpher
Africasgateway.com

Burqa

Capt Schti · 128 · 31305

Alcohol Abuser

  • AG Extremist
  • *****
    • Posts: 864
    • REP: +13/-14
    • View Profile
Dang! you mofos are smarter than I thought "Keep this goin for onother hunned pages" I enjoyed reading this ;)
"Let them toxins in this liquor, squeeze the life outta this poor liver of mine " AA


Mad

  • CEO of goldmine rec.
  • AG Veteran
  • *****
    • Posts: 2975
    • REP: +23/-161
    • Gender:Male
  • hood whips
    • View Profile
ive took out all my energy on this thread and now my mind is exhausted, i cant even think properly
Hood.


Anthony

  • AG Extremist
  • *****
    • Posts: 540
    • REP: +3/-8
  • Wisdom is knowing when you can't be wise!
    • View Profile
People should be dictated only by their Creator simply because almost religions are creations of creations (created by men). Some go as far as to say they are atheist, yet their 'intellect' defeats itself as there's abundant scientific evidence God indeed exists. I do not possess a doctorate in any science whatsoever yet by merely listening to the so-called great minds of our day i notice flaws in their logic.

1) i think there's a law that states that ENERGY IS NEVER DESTROYED BUT IS CONVERTED FROM ONE FORM TO ANOTHER.
Let's work on that premise and all agree on the big bang theory.cool?now if it all started with the bang and science states energy's converted WHERE DID THE ENERGY THAT SPARKED THE BIG BANG COME FROM?

2) THE CURRENT STANDARD FOR THE FORMATION OF THE UNIVERSE IS THE ONE THAT STATES IT WAS CREATED FROM NOTHING.the theory of an infinite universe no longer holds water.

Quote
This great explosion involves many fine gradations and details, prodding one to reflection, and these matters unaccountable for by coincidence.
The temperature at each moment of the explosion, the number of atomic particles, the forces involved, and their intensity must be of very precise values. Even if only one of these values was not specified, the universe we live in today would not be formed. This end would be inevitable if any one of the abovementioned values deviated by any value mathematically close to "0".
In short, the universe and its building blocks, the atoms, have come to exist in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang after having not existed, thanks to these balances created by God. Scientists conducted numerous researches to understand the chronology of the events that took place during this process and the order of the rules of physics in effect at each phase. The facts all scientists who have worked on this subject today admit are as follows:
Moment "0": This "moment" when matter and time were non-existent, and when the explosion took place is accepted as t (time) = 0 in physics. This means that nothing exists at time t=0. In order to be able to describe earlier than this "moment" when creation was initiated, we must know the rules of physics that existed then, because the current laws of physics do not count for the first moments of the explosion.
The events that may be defined by physics start at 10-43 seconds, which is the smallest time unit. This is a time frame incomprehensible to the human mind. What happened in this small time period of which we cannot even conceive? Physicists have hitherto been unable to develop a theory that explains in full detail the events that took place at that moment.5
This is because scientists do not have the data required to make the calculations. The scope of the rules of mathematics and physics is at a dead-end at these limits. That is, both what went before and what happened at the first moments of this explosion, every detail of which rests on highly delicate balances, have a reality beyond the confines of the human mind and physics.
This creation, which started at before time, has led moment by moment to the formation of the material universe and the laws of physics. Now let us take a look at the incidents that occurred with great precision within a very short time during this explosion.
As mentioned above, in physics, everything can be calculated from 10–43 seconds onwards, and energy and time can be defined only after this moment. At this point of the creation, the temperature is 1032 (100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) K. To draw a comparison, the temperature of the sun is expressed in millions (108) and the temperature of some stars much larger than the sun is expressed in billions (1011). That the highest measurable temperature at present is limited to billions of degrees reveals how high the temperature was at 10-43 seconds.
When we go one step further than this period of 10-43 seconds, we come to the point at which time is at 10-37 seconds. The time lapse between these two periods is not something like one or two seconds. We are talking about a time lapse as short as one over quadrillion times quadrillion of a second. The temperature is still extraordinarily high, at 1029 (100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) K. No atoms were yet created at this stage.6
One more step, and we are at 10-2 seconds. This time period indicates one hundredth of a second. By now, the temperature is 100 billion degrees. At this point, the "early universe" has started to form. Particles like the proton and neutron forming the nucleus of the atom have not yet appeared. There is only the electron and its antiparticle, the positron (anti-electron), because the temperature and speed of the universe at that point only allow the formation of these particles. In less than a second after the explosion has taken place out of nothing, electrons and positrons have formed.
From this moment on, the time of the formation of each sub-atomic particle is very important. Every particle has to emerge at a specific moment so that the current rules of physics may be established. It is of great importance which particle is to form first. Even a slight deviation in the sequence or timing would make it impossible for the universe to take its current shape.
Let us stop now and do some thinking.
The Big Bang theory provides evidence for Allah's being by showing that all matter comprising the universe originated from nothingness. It did even more and showed that the building blocks – the atoms – also came into existence from nothing less than one second after the Big Bang. The enormous equilibrium and order in these particles are worthy of note. The universe owes its present state to this equilibrium that will be described in more detail in the pages ahead. It is again this equilibrium that allows us to live a peaceful life. In short, perfect order and un-changing laws, "the laws of physics", have formed following an explosion that would normally be expected to create great turmoil and disorder. This proves that each moment following the creation of the universe, including the Big Bang, has been designed perfectly.
Now, let us continue looking at the developments from where we left off.
The next step is the moment at which a time of 10-1 seconds has elapsed. At this moment, the temperature is 30 billion degrees. Not even one second has elapsed from t = 0 moment to this stage. By now, neutrons and protons, the other particles of the atom, have started to appear. The neutrons and protons, the perfect structures of which we will analyse in the following sections, were created out of nothing within a time period even shorter than a second.
Let us come to the first second after the explosion. The ma**ive density at this time again gives a colossal figure. According to calculations, the density value of the ma** present at that stage is 3.8 billion kilograms per litre. It may be easy to express this figure, termed as billions of kilograms, arithmetically, and to show it on paper. Yet, it is impossible to conceive of this figure exactly. To give a very simple example to express the magnitude of this figure, we can say "if Mount Everest in the Himalayas had this density, it could swallow our world in a moment with the force of gravitation it would possess."7
The most distinctive characteristic of the subsequent moments is that by then, the temperature has reached a considerably lower level. At that stage, the universe is approximately 14 seconds old, has a temperature of 3 billion degrees and continues to expand at a dramatic speed.
This is the stage where the steady atomic nuclei, like hydrogen and helium nuclei, have started to form. One proton and one neutron have for the first time found conditions conducive to their co-existing. These two particles, which have a ma** straddling the line between existence and non-existence, have, because of the force of gravitation, started resisting the tremendous rate of expansion. It is obvious that a dramatically conscious and controlled process is in progress here. A ma**ive explosion gives way to great equilibrium and precise order. Protons and neutrons have started to come together to form the atom, the building block of matter. It is certainly totally impossible for these particles to have the power and consciousness to establish the delicate balances required for the formation of matter.
During the epoch following this formation, the temperature of the universe has dropped to one billion degrees. This temperature is 60 times the temperature at the core of our sun. Only 3 minutes and 2 seconds have elapsed from the first instant to this one. By now, sub-atomic particles like photons, protons, anti protons, neutrinos and anti-neutrinos are abundant. The quantities of all the particles existing in this phase and their interactions with each other are extremely critical. So much so that the slightest variation in the quantity of any particle will destroy the energy level set by them and prevent the conversion of energy into matter.
Take electrons and positrons for example: when electrons and positrons come together, energy is produced. Therefore, the numbers of both particles are very important. Let us say that 10 units of electrons and 8 units of positrons meet. In this case, 8 of the 10 units of electrons interact with 8 units of positrons and produce energy. As a result, 2 units of electrons are released. Since the electron is one of the particles forming the atom that is the building block of the universe, it has to be available in required quantities in this stage so that the universe may exist. To take up the abovementioned example, if the number of positrons was more than that of the electrons, then positrons would be left over instead of electrons as a result of the energy released and the material universe would never be formed. If the numbers of positrons and electrons were equal, then only energy would be produced and nothing left to form the material universe. Yet, this excess in the number of electrons has been arranged in such a way as to match the number of protons in the universe in the time that follows this moment. In the atom that will form later on, the numbers of electrons and protons will be equal.
The numbers of particles that emerged in the aftermath of the Big Bang were determined with so precise a calculation, finally leading to the formation of the material universe. Professor Steven Weinberg remarks on how critical is the interaction between these particles:
If the universe in the first few minutes was really composed of precisely equal numbers of particles and antiparticles, they would all have annihilated as the temperature dropped below 1,000 million degrees, and nothing would be left but radiation. There is a very good evidence against this possibility – we are here! There must have been some excess of electrons over positrons, of protons over antiprotons, and of neutrons over antineutrons, in order that there would be something left over after the annihilation of particles and antiparticles to furnish the matter of the present universe.8
A total of 34 minutes and 40 seconds have pa**ed since the outset. Our universe is now half an hour old. The temperature has dropped from degrees expressed in billions to 300 million degrees. The electrons and positrons continue producing energy by colliding with each other. By now, the quantities of the particles that are to form the universe have been balanced to allow the formation of the material universe.
Once the rate of the explosion slows down, these particles, almost lacking a ma**, start to interact with one another. The first hydrogen atom forms by an electron settling into the orbit of a proton. This formation introduces us to the fundamental forces we will commonly encounter in the universe.
It is no doubt impossible for these particles, which are products of a design far beyond human comprehension and have distinct structures resting on extremely delicate balances, to have come together through coincidence and to act towards the same goal. This perfection leads many researchers working on the subject to a very important conclusion: it is a "creation" and there is a matchless supervision of every moment of this creation. Each particle that is created after the explosion is supposed to form at a specific time, at a specific temperature and at a specific velocity. It seems that this system, which runs almost like a wound-up clock, had been programmed with such fine-tuning before becoming active. This means that the Big Bang and the perfect universe that originated as a result of the Big Bang had been designed before the inception of the explosion and afterwards put into action.




do appreciate that on a political level there's a global effort to suppress scientific evidence supporting the existence of,as they call it, universal intelligence (a mind behind all things).ironically we have standardised a theory that lacks evidence (evolution). yes it really is a myth. i seem to be digressing back to islam. it seems after 911 we developed a phobia, a fear of critising a religion we know little of out of fear of retaliation. maybe subconsciously we all think every muslim is a suicide bomber. who can blame this phobia when a religion institutionalizes  mindless ma** murder in the name of a loving and happy God?religions evolve,at least i think so,for judaism was once at a similar stage.i have a theory,see everything in the bible repeats,cain murders abel,joseph's brothers betray him,etc.there's so much 'brother against brother'. now christianity and islam are brothers for they have one thing in common - abraham. so from a christian point of view,if jesus is the messiah,the christ then mohammed becomes the antichrist.these are not my views,this is what i'm deducing from the bible.genesis 16:13-16 even goes further in prophecy concerning the ishmael's future,islam.so it might be Armageddon might be between islam and christianity.there's nothing as oxymoronic (is there such a word) as a 'holy war'.come on,can a bomb get you to heaven?like i said this is what the bible says.



I DON'T BELIEVE GOD EXISTS, I KNOW HE DOES AND I CAN PROVE IT!


i don't think he would made beautiful if he didn't want us to see them.in general religions and laws have historically been repressive towards women.the weaker sex was made into a weakened sex.on the other hand burqa counters 'sin',eg adultery,lust and fornication yet the ultimate question is is it the will of God? should we all not be free.is this gender apartheid? if we are made in God's image then we are a collective image of God,thus religion is essentially how we interact with others,the energy we spread in life: love or hate.
Chosen


rob_one

  • AG Veteran
  • *****
    • Posts: 3589
    • REP: +27/-42
    • Gender:Male
  • Silverback Jewrilla
    • View Profile
    • 20/20 HIP-HOP RADIO

Anthony

  • AG Extremist
  • *****
    • Posts: 540
    • REP: +3/-8
  • Wisdom is knowing when you can't be wise!
    • View Profile
Oints exclaimed:

Quote
you are treading on dangerous territory here my friend, im all for freedom of speech, but its often prudent to do one's research and appreciate any said subject matter before you hurl slander at it and try to demean it with idiotic statements...Muslims have and still are taking too much crap from people who simply do NOT UNDERSTAND the religion. what say you let this one go and play your hand at something else


define freedom of speech if one is not free to say something without researching on it,for is that not true liberty of opinion? that raw,unadulterated view we all must hold till we are taught otherwise? i mean,it's what started this thread. let a man speak his mind for it is his not ours. let him be his own maker and destroyer and better himself in the process.
Chosen


The Angry Hand of God

  • I'm better than you.
  • AG Veteran
  • *****
    • Posts: 6339
    • REP: +31/-87
    • Gender:Male
  • Medium Pimping...
    • View Profile
Oints exclaimed:

Quote
you are treading on dangerous territory here my friend, im all for freedom of speech, but its often prudent to do one's research and appreciate any said subject matter before you hurl slander at it and try to demean it with idiotic statements...Muslims have and still are taking too much crap from people who simply do NOT UNDERSTAND the religion. what say you let this one go and play your hand at something else


define freedom of speech if one is not free to say something without researching on it,for is that not true liberty of opinion? that raw,unadulterated view we all must hold till we are taught otherwise? i mean,it's what started this thread. let a man speak his mind for it is his not ours. let him be his own maker and destroyer and better himself in the process.

Damn, you are deep. Deep, I tell you.




Tonnes

  • The Crafter
  • AG Elite Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 1585
    • REP: +14/-20
    • Gender:Male
  • Liquid Veteran
    • View Profile

RearrangedReality

  • AG Veteran
  • *****
    • Posts: 5880
    • REP: +21/-42
    • Gender:Male
    • View Profile
Oints exclaimed:

Quote
you are treading on dangerous territory here my friend, im all for freedom of speech, but its often prudent to do one's research and appreciate any said subject matter before you hurl slander at it and try to demean it with idiotic statements...Muslims have and still are taking too much crap from people who simply do NOT UNDERSTAND the religion. what say you let this one go and play your hand at something else


define freedom of speech if one is not free to say something without researching on it,for is that not true liberty of opinion? that raw,unadulterated view we all must hold till we are taught otherwise? i mean,it's what started this thread. let a man speak his mind for it is his not ours. let him be his own maker and destroyer and better himself in the process.

Damn, you are deep. Deep, I tell you.

lol


oints

  • AG Veteran
  • *****
    • Posts: 3831
    • REP: +34/-56
    • Gender:Male
  • the god san-hedrin
    • View Profile
Oints exclaimed:

Quote
you are treading on dangerous territory here my friend, im all for freedom of speech, but its often prudent to do one's research and appreciate any said subject matter before you hurl slander at it and try to demean it with idiotic statements...Muslims have and still are taking too much crap from people who simply do NOT UNDERSTAND the religion. what say you let this one go and play your hand at something else


define freedom of speech if one is not free to say something without researching on it,for is that not true liberty of opinion? that raw,unadulterated view we all must hold till we are taught otherwise? i mean,it's what started this thread. let a man speak his mind for it is his not ours. let him be his own maker and destroyer and better himself in the process.

Damn, you are deep. Deep, I tell you.

lol

lol

it has been my experience that people that know less speak the most....its sad but not one of these "enlightened" responses has been from a Muslim woman. granted, we might not have any on the forum, but that all the more proves my point. we have people taking jabs at something they cant possibly have any knowledge of, a**umptions without any grounds for departure except what we think the women adorned in burqas must feel, a bias opinion based on an evident eurocentric outlook we have for decades been fed to believe is the "normal" way of living and dare i say it cladding...anyway...to each his own... belief is relative :-\

*puts on his headphones and listens to Common & cee Lo Green*


The Angry Hand of God

  • I'm better than you.
  • AG Veteran
  • *****
    • Posts: 6339
    • REP: +31/-87
    • Gender:Male
  • Medium Pimping...
    • View Profile
Oints exclaimed:

Quote
you are treading on dangerous territory here my friend, im all for freedom of speech, but its often prudent to do one's research and appreciate any said subject matter before you hurl slander at it and try to demean it with idiotic statements...Muslims have and still are taking too much crap from people who simply do NOT UNDERSTAND the religion. what say you let this one go and play your hand at something else


define freedom of speech if one is not free to say something without researching on it,for is that not true liberty of opinion? that raw,unadulterated view we all must hold till we are taught otherwise? i mean,it's what started this thread. let a man speak his mind for it is his not ours. let him be his own maker and destroyer and better himself in the process.

Damn, you are deep. Deep, I tell you.

lol

lol

it has been my experience that people that know less speak the most....its sad but not one of these "enlightened" responses has been from a Muslim woman. granted, we might not have any on the forum, but that all the more proves my point. we have people taking jabs at something they cant possibly have any knowledge of, a**umptions without any grounds for departure except what we think the women adorned in burqas must feel, a bias opinion based on an evident eurocentric outlook we have for decades been fed to believe is the "normal" way of living and dare i say it cladding...anyway...to each his own... :-\

Close thread...




Alcohol Abuser

  • AG Extremist
  • *****
    • Posts: 864
    • REP: +13/-14
    • View Profile
Oints exclaimed:

Quote
you are treading on dangerous territory here my friend, im all for freedom of speech, but its often prudent to do one's research and appreciate any said subject matter before you hurl slander at it and try to demean it with idiotic statements...Muslims have and still are taking too much crap from people who simply do NOT UNDERSTAND the religion. what say you let this one go and play your hand at something else


define freedom of speech if one is not free to say something without researching on it,for is that not true liberty of opinion? that raw,unadulterated view we all must hold till we are taught otherwise? i mean,it's what started this thread. let a man speak his mind for it is his not ours. let him be his own maker and destroyer and better himself in the process.

Damn, you are deep. Deep, I tell you.

lol

lol

it has been my experience that people that know less speak the most....its sad but not one of these "enlightened" responses has been from a Muslim woman. granted, we might not have any on the forum, but that all the more proves my point. we have people taking jabs at something they cant possibly have any knowledge of, a**umptions without any grounds for departure except what we think the women adorned in burqas must feel, a bias opinion based on an evident eurocentric outlook we have for decades been fed to believe is the "normal" way of living and dare i say it cladding...anyway...to each his own... belief is relative :-\

*puts on his headphones and listens to Common & cee Lo Green*

YA LIATLA LI MAROBA O MOTLOTLO KA WENA!  PULA!
"Let them toxins in this liquor, squeeze the life outta this poor liver of mine " AA


Capt Schti

  • Two sips from being a tyrant.
  • AG Regular
  • ****
    • Posts: 332
    • REP: +3/-3
    • Gender:Male
    • View Profile
Oints exclaimed:

Quote
you are treading on dangerous territory here my friend, im all for freedom of speech, but its often prudent to do one's research and appreciate any said subject matter before you hurl slander at it and try to demean it with idiotic statements...Muslims have and still are taking too much crap from people who simply do NOT UNDERSTAND the religion. what say you let this one go and play your hand at something else


define freedom of speech if one is not free to say something without researching on it,for is that not true liberty of opinion? that raw,unadulterated view we all must hold till we are taught otherwise? i mean,it's what started this thread. let a man speak his mind for it is his not ours. let him be his own maker and destroyer and better himself in the process.

Damn, you are deep. Deep, I tell you.

lol

lol

it has been my experience that people that know less speak the most....its sad but not one of these "enlightened" responses has been from a Muslim woman. granted, we might not have any on the forum, but that all the more proves my point. we have people taking jabs at something they cant possibly have any knowledge of, a**umptions without any grounds for departure except what we think the women adorned in burqas must feel, a bias opinion based on an evident eurocentric outlook we have for decades been fed to believe is the "normal" way of living and dare i say it cladding...anyway...to each his own... :-\

Close thread...


Please... typical religious nonsense and crap cliches. "It has been my experience that people that know less speak the most."
What about the people who talk the most are people who question, evaluate and form an opinion for themselves.
Whilst the quite ones are the sheep that follow and they can't argue and state their point because it isn't theirs, they don't think don't evaluate and end up using silly cliches like the one above.

Again shows the oppressive nature of religion, not that I care.

"Look Abdul you question and ask all this hard questions. You should be more like Ishmail, he is wise he never questions what we say."   

 
         
"I just want to enter my house justified" Bloody Sam


the panic!

  • AG Elite Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 1805
    • REP: +26/-28
    • View Profile
Oints exclaimed:

Quote
you are treading on dangerous territory here my friend, im all for freedom of speech, but its often prudent to do one's research and appreciate any said subject matter before you hurl slander at it and try to demean it with idiotic statements...Muslims have and still are taking too much crap from people who simply do NOT UNDERSTAND the religion. what say you let this one go and play your hand at something else


define freedom of speech if one is not free to say something without researching on it,for is that not true liberty of opinion? that raw,unadulterated view we all must hold till we are taught otherwise? i mean,it's what started this thread. let a man speak his mind for it is his not ours. let him be his own maker and destroyer and better himself in the process.

Damn, you are deep. Deep, I tell you.

lol

lol

it has been my experience that people that know less speak the most....its sad but not one of these "enlightened" responses has been from a Muslim woman. granted, we might not have any on the forum, but that all the more proves my point. we have people taking jabs at something they cant possibly have any knowledge of, a**umptions without any grounds for departure except what we think the women adorned in burqas must feel, a bias opinion based on an evident eurocentric outlook we have for decades been fed to believe is the "normal" way of living and dare i say it cladding...anyway...to each his own... :-\

Close thread...


Please... typical religious nonsense and crap cliches. "It has been my experience that people that know less speak the most."
What about the people who talk the most are people who question, evaluate and form an opinion for themselves.
Whilst the quite ones are the sheep that follow and they can't argue and state their point because it isn't theirs, they don't think don't evaluate and end up using silly cliches like the one above.

Again shows the oppressive nature of religion, not that I care.

"Look Abdul you question and ask all this hard questions. You should be more like Ishmail, he is wise he never questions what we say."   

 
         

so i take it somewhere between your a**umption on what makes Muslim feel sexy, your atheist "faith" in science, and your disregarding of opposing views without engagement, lies an original, well-evaluated opinion.

you're just not sure what it is.

is that you, Young Zooloo?


Capt Schti

  • Two sips from being a tyrant.
  • AG Regular
  • ****
    • Posts: 332
    • REP: +3/-3
    • Gender:Male
    • View Profile
Oints exclaimed:

Quote
you are treading on dangerous territory here my friend, im all for freedom of speech, but its often prudent to do one's research and appreciate any said subject matter before you hurl slander at it and try to demean it with idiotic statements...Muslims have and still are taking too much crap from people who simply do NOT UNDERSTAND the religion. what say you let this one go and play your hand at something else


define freedom of speech if one is not free to say something without researching on it,for is that not true liberty of opinion? that raw,unadulterated view we all must hold till we are taught otherwise? i mean,it's what started this thread. let a man speak his mind for it is his not ours. let him be his own maker and destroyer and better himself in the process.

Damn, you are deep. Deep, I tell you.

lol

lol

it has been my experience that people that know less speak the most....its sad but not one of these "enlightened" responses has been from a Muslim woman. granted, we might not have any on the forum, but that all the more proves my point. we have people taking jabs at something they cant possibly have any knowledge of, a**umptions without any grounds for departure except what we think the women adorned in burqas must feel, a bias opinion based on an evident eurocentric outlook we have for decades been fed to believe is the "normal" way of living and dare i say it cladding...anyway...to each his own... :-\

Close thread...


Please... typical religious nonsense and crap cliches. "It has been my experience that people that know less speak the most."
What about the people who talk the most are people who question, evaluate and form an opinion for themselves.
Whilst the quite ones are the sheep that follow and they can't argue and state their point because it isn't theirs, they don't think don't evaluate and end up using silly cliches like the one above.

Again shows the oppressive nature of religion, not that I care.

"Look Abdul you question and ask all this hard questions. You should be more like Ishmail, he is wise he never questions what we say."   

 
         

so i take it somewhere between your a**umption on what makes Muslim feel sexy, your atheist "faith" in science, and your disregarding of opposing views without engagement, lies an original, well-evaluated opinion.

you're just not sure what it is.

is that you, Young Zooloo?

Panic.

My point (a**umption) was on women, I said no woman wants to be covered, not no muslim woman wants to be covered. Yes there is a difference.

I have responded to everyone who disagreed without being personal or belittling, except my first response to oints and the "luv" slight to Athena.

In fact let's take you as an example, I backed up every argument against you using facts you simple said I don't know what this means or that means without actually making valid counter points.         

Why would I have "faith" in something that can be proven. You might know what teolooscpy is but you sure can't crack the meaning of faith.         

I may drink a lot, but of very clear mind, aware and don't lack confidence or conviction.
I might be stubborn but nothing shuts me up like a good rational argument. And even debater. Game recognizes game.

Evidence of this is when I acknowledged something Athena "sexy is different to different people" argument.
 
I'm only stating this because writing something like I don't engage other people or that I'm reasoning like 12 grader like you did, or that I'm talking lot because I don't know anything like oints might shut up some people and have them recoil in a fit of self-doubt.
Not I.       

I'm not sure where you want to take this, but you've already lost once.
Your move...   

     
"I just want to enter my house justified" Bloody Sam


the panic!

  • AG Elite Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 1805
    • REP: +26/-28
    • View Profile
i don't want to take it anywhere. it's boring.

Quote
My point (a**umption) was on women, I said no woman wants to be covered, not no muslim woman wants to be covered. Yes there is a difference.

this is even worse. it's just silly to place as large an a**umption as this as the basis for an argument with someone other than yourself. who says they don't? you? society?

Quote
In fact let's take you as an example, I backed up every argument against you using facts you simple said I don't know what this means or that means without actually making valid counter points. 

i was discussing theory on scientific discourse and knowledge production (i stated this in my first response - read before leaping) and you were reciting what you were taught in your grade 7 Physical Science cla**. it's like calculus to arithmetic.

Quote
Why would I have "faith" in something that can be proven. You might know what teolooscpy is but you sure can't crack the meaning of faith.

scientific Theory cannot be proven - it is conjecture that has been guided by arbitrary laws. science is not the only explanation to the phenomena which comprise human experience simply because it has it's limitations - i.e only science decides what is "scientific" and can fit narrowly into its orders and terms. just because the scientific way of thinking is so prevalent in society that the a**umptions that lie at its base are invisible to the scientist and the lay man alike, it does not mean the a**umptions are not there. that's simple enough. that's why i said look up episteme because this scientific way of thinking shifts with time, and along the way some of these a**umptions are uprooted and discarded. compare the age of Enlightenment to the present day. science is falible mainly because no one can explain how the episteme shifts - amended a**umptions are just accepted as a show of faith. do you know what an atom is and where it comes from? what about energy and it's origins?  but you believe wholeheartedly in these concepts in order to explain how you got from point a to point b. that's faith. science is a way of observing and interpreting (in its own terms) world phenomena - and then emulating them. it is not the reason for them. its a**ertive counter-part is Theory and it "proves" nothing. there's no need to go jumping off buildings. it's silly to think that just because i question science as a machine and as a system which follows a certain route in producing knowledge, i think that without it we would float in mid-air.


anyway.

you've been belittling and narrow-minded in this thread from the jump. hence, it's hard to point to someone who actually "understood" your point, which was rubbish to begin with.

i mean Sarkozy says it shows subservience and you "agree" by saying all women want to sexualize themselves. both of you are imposing and deciding on the desires and liberties of bodies other than your own. yes, you are men and this kind of shit is accommodated by society.

but how is it any less oppressive than the religion you're shitting on?


« Last Edit: July 15, 2009, 09:55:35 PM by the panic! »