Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
I Could Not Love Thee Dear So Much, Lov’D I Not Honour More.
How could this chap have got his priorities so wrong>
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sandyRoe. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
RATTER //Andy, you never used to be like this, what the hell happened to you? you used to make valuable contributions, now you come across as a pedantic bore! //
Incorrect. I have always been like this.
I have always attacked views which I regard as crass of ill-informed.
If you see a change in me, then I assure you that is your perception.
If you notice, it is the same core few AB'ers who take issue with the things I say and the way I say them - which is fine, but I think it says more about them that they all zero in on my contributions and criticise.
So, hopefully we can put this particular exchange to bed - I will carry on as I always have, and people can (hopefully!) debate if they wish, ignore if they don't, and skip the endless analysis - I am really not that important!
Incorrect. I have always been like this.
I have always attacked views which I regard as crass of ill-informed.
If you see a change in me, then I assure you that is your perception.
If you notice, it is the same core few AB'ers who take issue with the things I say and the way I say them - which is fine, but I think it says more about them that they all zero in on my contributions and criticise.
So, hopefully we can put this particular exchange to bed - I will carry on as I always have, and people can (hopefully!) debate if they wish, ignore if they don't, and skip the endless analysis - I am really not that important!
ummm - your reference to 'defending the indefensible ...' - does that mean that you think I am defending the actions of this man? Clearly I have not.
My only defence of the Muslim faith consists of an unwillingness to lump every adherent together with the marginal few who use it for their own sadistic power-crazed ends.
My only defence of the Muslim faith consists of an unwillingness to lump every adherent together with the marginal few who use it for their own sadistic power-crazed ends.
ummmm - //Of course I don't mean you're defending his actions. You're defending the religion that allows it to happen.
We aren't talking moderate Muslims here. You can slate Muslims that allows things like this to happen without including ALL Muslims. //
That does not appear to make sense.
You could argue that the Westboro Baptist Church preach their vile and perverted hate messages under the umbrella of being Christians, and that Christianity 'allows' this to happen.
At no time have I defended Islam for allowing this kind of extremism to take place, any more than I would defend Christianity for 'allowing' the Westboro family to preach their hatred.
Your argument appears to make no sense, based on what I have said, as opposed to your apparent interpretation.
We aren't talking moderate Muslims here. You can slate Muslims that allows things like this to happen without including ALL Muslims. //
That does not appear to make sense.
You could argue that the Westboro Baptist Church preach their vile and perverted hate messages under the umbrella of being Christians, and that Christianity 'allows' this to happen.
At no time have I defended Islam for allowing this kind of extremism to take place, any more than I would defend Christianity for 'allowing' the Westboro family to preach their hatred.
Your argument appears to make no sense, based on what I have said, as opposed to your apparent interpretation.
Peter Pedant - //There is the undiscussed idea in Islam of God's will
and if it is god's will that this should happen
then it occurs whether we intervene or not //
I think that approach is a cornerstone of almost all religions.
If you (not you personally PP) can reconcile the existence of a loving God with the fear and misery and destruction that occurs on earth on a daily basis, by simply saying that it is God's will, and it's his purpose, but we are not allowed to understand what that purpose is, then that removes the tedious need to rationalise how God allows cancer in children, as a fairly simple example - there are billions more.
and if it is god's will that this should happen
then it occurs whether we intervene or not //
I think that approach is a cornerstone of almost all religions.
If you (not you personally PP) can reconcile the existence of a loving God with the fear and misery and destruction that occurs on earth on a daily basis, by simply saying that it is God's will, and it's his purpose, but we are not allowed to understand what that purpose is, then that removes the tedious need to rationalise how God allows cancer in children, as a fairly simple example - there are billions more.
The problem here is religion, and the self imposed insanity it fosters in its followers. Islam happens to be the currently most insane one but that's just a question of timing.
I did wonder why the lifeguards didn't first beat the lunatic insensible so they then had time to deal with the drowning woman, but as someone else has said he probably would have only killed her a few days later for bringing dishonour to his camel or whatever nonsense these people spout to justify their acts of stupidity and evil.
I did wonder why the lifeguards didn't first beat the lunatic insensible so they then had time to deal with the drowning woman, but as someone else has said he probably would have only killed her a few days later for bringing dishonour to his camel or whatever nonsense these people spout to justify their acts of stupidity and evil.
Ludwig - as I opined earlier, I think we have to take cultural attitudes into account here.
A Western lifeguard would have elbowed the man out of the way and got on with CPR.
A Muslim lifeguard would listen to what the man said, and out of respect to his age and perceived status, would have surrendered to his wishes, even though that action is against the entire purpose of his presence - to save lives (the name is in the job title).
A Western lifeguard would have elbowed the man out of the way and got on with CPR.
A Muslim lifeguard would listen to what the man said, and out of respect to his age and perceived status, would have surrendered to his wishes, even though that action is against the entire purpose of his presence - to save lives (the name is in the job title).
-- answer removed --
divebuddy - //^^^^^^ how the hell can you even begin to speculate that that is the way it went down. You accuse others of making sweeping generalisations and talking out of their rse and then you just make stuff up yourself//
A fair point.
I should have made it clear that this was a potential scenario, but that, like everyone else, I am speculating because I was not there and didn't see.
A fair point.
I should have made it clear that this was a potential scenario, but that, like everyone else, I am speculating because I was not there and didn't see.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.