Support NeoGAF

[magicaltrevor]

Who agrees with me that you can never offend anyone with words and that you can only be offended? The action lies with the 'receiver', not the 'sender'. I mean, most thing I say may offend someone else in the world. If someone is calling me names I can always disregard his opinion if he lacks arguments. If he has good arguments, I may learn from them and I do not need to feel offended.

On the other hand, it may be just common decency to not shout and calling names. It shouldn't be a judicial matter, but a morality/decency matter.

100% agreed.

Motherfucker.

 

[Ahoi-Brause]

I can't help but to get the feeling the guy is actually an agent provocateur.

 

[jaxword]

I can't help but to get the feeling the guy is actually an agent provocateur.

So, a troll by any other name.

 

[TheOddOne]

Who agrees with me that you can never offend anyone with words and that you can only be offended? The action lies with the 'receiver', not the 'sender'. I mean, most thing I say may offend someone else in the world. If someone is calling me names I can always disregard his opinion if he lacks arguments. If he has good arguments, I may learn from them and I do not need to feel offended.

On the other hand, it may be just common decency to not shout and calling names. It shouldn't be a judicial matter, but a morality/decency matter.

My biggest problem with his "opinion" is that he belittles a whole --if not all -- group of people who follow that religion. Everytime he speaks about that the Islam is bad, he speaks to the to a broad group. Imagine a Islamic politician going on a crusade to say the christianity is the worst religion and it only breeds crazy cult people. That is a generalisation thats fucking wrong and ignorant. As a politician he should not be boxing people into groups. Most of his campaign has been focused on the Islamic, he can go to rally's, make speaches and avoid any real discussion with the Islamic people and hide behind the notion that its freedom of speech? Fucking bizar.

 

[jaxword]

I am well aware that "true believers" do not have their dogma impugned by manifest reality, of course, but for a moment I actually thought you might gaze into your crystal ball and really trash the advanced states by saying "like Kansas!"

Is there any state that has adopted TP economics with such messianic fervour as Kansas? Sam the Sham seems to be the only one who actually put the strident rhetoric to the test, and the result certainly speaks eloquently for itself.

 

[Ahoi-Brause]

So, a troll by any other name.

Well he's actually just adding fuel to the flame and not helpful at all.
I think he's got a different agenda than he lets on.

 

[Boozeroony]

100% agreed.

Motherfucker.

Not a single fuck was given...

 

[Furret]

My biggest problem with his "opinion" is that he belittles a whole --if not all -- group of people who follow that religion. Everytime he speaks about that the Islam is bad, he speaks to the to a broad group. Imagine a Islamic politician going on a crusade to say the christianity is the worst religion and it only breeds crazy cult people. That is a generalisation thats fucking wrong and ignorant. As a politician he should not be boxing people into groups. Most of his campaign has been focused on the Islamic, he can go to rally's, make speaches and avoid any real discussion with the Islamic people and hide behind the notion that its freedom of speech? Fucking bizar.

It is free speech.

The whole point of free speech is that you can say what you want without fear of someone else killing/suing you for it.

 

[msv]

My biggest problem with his "opinion" is that he belittles a whole --if not all -- group of people who follow that console. Everytime he speaks about that the PS3 is bad, he speaks to the to a broad group. Imagine a Sony politician going on a crusade to say the X360 is the worst console and it only breeds crazy cult people. That is a generalisation thats fucking wrong and ignorant. As a gamer he should not be boxing people into groups. Most of his campaign has been focused on the PS3, he can go to rally's, make speaches and avoid any real discussion with the PS3 people and hide behind the notion that its freedom of speech? Fucking bizar.

Before you try and say that 'this is totally different', it's not. If the PS3 and X360 had over a billion of dedicated followers each, there wouldn't even be any practical difference.

 

[jaxword]

Well he's actually just adding fuel to the flame and not helpful at all.
I think he's got a different agenda than he lets on.

I think his agenda is to get as much attention and make as much money as possible.

In America, we have a few radio hosts who use this technique as much as they can--be as inflammatory as possible JUST to get attention and followers, because there's always going to be wackos who believe anything.

 

[magicaltrevor]

Not a single fuck was given...

Hehe.

 

[Kosmo]

Who agrees with me that you can never offend anyone with words and that you can only be offended? The action lies with the 'receiver', not the 'sender'. I mean, most thing I say may offend someone else in the world. If someone is calling me names I can always disregard his opinion if he lacks arguments. If he has good arguments, I may learn from them and I do not need to feel offended.

On the other hand, it may be just common decency to not shout and calling names. It shouldn't be a judicial matter, but a morality/decency matter.

Nobody should have the right to not be offended. To waste the court's time with matters like this is ridiculous.

 

[TheOddOne]

Funny you mention that...you don't have to imagine that, because it happens around the world. Here's a few examples.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/06/i...citing-rampage-against-christian-targets.html

and

http://www.worthynews.com/8966-muslim-cleric-calls-for-jihad-copts-attacked

Note that worthynews is a Christian News site with an sensationalist bent on finding any excuse to claim persecution, so take that with a grain of salt. Jihadwatch is...well, it's sort of similar.

Damn.

It is free speech.

The whole point of free speech is that you can say what you want without fear of someone else killing/suing you for it.

I'm talking about being consistant, why can Wilders do this shit and the rest must shut the fuck up?

Before you try and say that 'this is totally different', it's not. If the PS3 and X360 had over a billion of dedicated followers each, there wouldn't even be any practical difference.

Hahahhahahahaha... you sit are awesome.

 

[neorej]

I think his agenda is to get as much attention and make as much money as possible.

In America, we have a few radio hosts who use this technique as much as they can--be as inflammatory as possible JUST to get attention and followers, because there's always going to be wackos who believe anything.

Plausible theory, except he's not making very much money. Politics is not where the money is, nor is it a springboard for wealth and riches.

 

[Kabouter]

Plausible theory, except he's not making very much money. Politics is not where the money is, nor is it a springboard for wealth and riches.

It is definitely a springboard to a great career in the private sector for many, just not for Wilders. So many MPs only serve one term and then get a great job somewhere else.

 

[Furret]

Damn.


I'm talking about being consistant, why can Wilders do this shit and the rest must shut the fuck up?


Hahahhahahahaha... you sit are awesome.

The rest of who? Do you have a specific example in mind?

 

[Boozeroony]

It is definitely a springboard to a great career in the private sector for many, just not for Wilders. So many MPs only serve one term and then get a great job somewhere else.

Wilders runs a company and was not open about it to the public.

http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2011/06/10/wilders-runt-bedrijf-vanuit-kamergebouw-meldde-oprichting-niet/

Bit sloppy, don't you think?

 

[magicaltrevor]

You know who does the exact same thing? You know, cause people to hate on people who have different beliefs?

Bill 'O Reilly.

And he's still on television as well. Why? Because there are millions of stupid Americans who believe everything their church or Fox News tell them to be true.

So sad.

 

[CrocMother]

hate speech still = speech.

It should not be a crime

 

[jaxword]

Plausible theory, except he's not making very much money. Politics is not where the money is, nor is it a springboard for wealth and riches.

Popularity, however, is a powerful draw. I mean, take Glenn Beck. The guy's a lunatic BUT PEOPLE STILL FOLLOW HIM.

Or take Alex Jones...just watch and you'll understand how insanity=popularity in America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR2UXmTGK4M

Notice his commentary on the side: Alex Jones Says Gay People are Created by the Government

 

[magicaltrevor]

Popularity, however, is a powerful draw. I mean, take Glenn Beck. The guy's a lunatic BUT PEOPLE STILL FOLLOW HIM.

Or take Alex Jones...just watch and you'll understand how insanity=popularity in America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR2UXmTGK4M

Notice his commentary on the side: Alex Jones Says Gay People are Created by the Government

Sorry to go offtopic, but wow... This one is so much better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhqUk28OwHs

 

[OttomanScribe]

so would i, yet there was a conviction for this.
explanation of the court: mohammed was not a pedophile because he also had sex with adult women. wtf man?

You know what a paedophile is right? Paedophilia is about abusing children, a perpetrator is not sexually excited by anything but the thought of children.

The Prophet Mohammed (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) married when he was 25, to a woman who was 40, and had a monogamous relationship with her until her death. After that, only the Lady Aisha (radiAllahu anha) was a virgin when they were married. All the rest of the women he married were divorcees or widows.

This is not the profile of a paedophile, as it does not describe a primary or exclusive interest in pre-pubescent children.

Plausible theory, except he's not making very much money. Politics is not where the money is, nor is it a springboard for wealth and riches.

Wait til the book deal... think about how much Hirsi Ali makes.

 

[jaxword]

Sorry to go offtopic, but wow... This one is so much better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhqUk28OwHs

Politics and religion would be much more interesting if they had power levels.

 

[SmokyDave]

You know what a paedophile is right?....

Dude married a girl in single figures and you think the fact it was his second wife somehow makes it less odious?

I don't think you need a consistent, sustained attraction to the pre-pubescent to be classed as a paedo. Just fancying one kid ought to do it.

 

[scar tissue]

You know what a paedophile is right? Paedophilia is about abusing children, a perpetrator is not sexually excited by anything but the thought of children.

The Prophet Mohammed (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) married when he was 25, to a woman who was 40, and had a monogamous relationship with her until her death. After that, only the Lady Aisha (radiAllahu anha) was a virgin when they were married. All the rest of the women he married were divorcees or widows.

This is not the profile of a paedophile, as it does not describe a primary or exclusive interest in pre-pubescent children.

if you have ANY sexual interest in pre-pubescent children, you're a pedophile. period.
maybe there should be a seperate word for people who are not exclusively attracted to kids (similar to "gay" for guys who only fuck men vs "bisexual" for guys who also fuck men, but not exclusively)

 

[OttomanScribe]

Dude married a girl in single figures and you think the fact it was his second wife somehow makes it less odious?

I don't think you need a consistent, sustained attraction to the pre-pubescent to be classed as a paedo. Just fancying one kid ought to do it.

I am unconvinced of the arguments regarding the Lady Aisha being in single figures, but regardless, we are talking about a clinical definition of paedophilia, which is a primary sexual attraction to children, not only was Aisha (radiAllahu anha) not considered a child, but the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) was clearly primarily attracted to a woman older than himself.

 

[Boozeroony]

if you have ANY sexual interest in pre-pubescent children, you're a pedophile. period.
maybe there should be a seperate word for people who are not exclusively attracted to kids (similar to "gay" for guys who only fuck men vs bisexual for guys who also fuck men, but not exclusively)

A Muslim?

jk..

 

[scar tissue]

I am unconvinced of the arguments regarding the Lady Aisha being in single figures, but regardless, we are talking about a clinical definition of paedophilia, which is a primary sexual attraction to children, not only was Aisha (radiAllahu anha) not considered a child, but the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) was clearly primarily attracted to a woman older than himself.

even if it's wrong, it's still not hate speech.
if i called any other historic person (e.g. mozart) a pedophile and a furry, it'd be no different

edit: pedophiles are often married to women their age. are you telling me they're not pedophiles?

 

[jaxword]

The specter of cutting funding to schools, universities and a popular highway program by hundreds of millions of dollars is political fodder for House Minority Leader Paul Davis, Brownback's likely Democratic opponent in the fall.

One recent poll shows Davis leading Brownback by six points.

 

[scar tissue]

So how old was she, then?

13, which is a-ok

Spoiler

in bizarroworld

 

[Roland Deschain]

He didn't really do antyhing wrong. But instead of singling out islam he should be talking about how each religion is batshit insane and should be put down. Even if islam is the easiest for extremists to interpret into doing afwul shit.

 

[OttomanScribe]

So how old was she, then?

Did you read the link? The Sheikh says it better (and more exhaustively) than I can.

even if it's wrong, it's still not hate speech.
if i called any other historic person (e.g. mozart) a pedophile and a furry, it'd be no different

edit: pedophiles are often married to women their age. are you telling me they're not pedophiles?

I'm not saying it is hate speech, you objected to them accepting the answer that he was not a paedophile because he was married to women.

Paedophiles who are married to women do so as a front, they are not sexually excited by their partners, they either have to imagine sexual relations with children, or they simply abstain from sexual relations with their partner.

It was an acceptable practice at the time of the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) for children to marry each other, and old men marry children. There would have been no impediment, were someone to have been a paedophile, to pursue that persuasion. Yet the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) chose the opposite, indeed he married a woman much older than himself, and everyone knew that she was the most beloved of him.

 

[SmokyDave]

I am unconvinced of the arguments regarding the Lady Aisha being in single figures, but regardless, we are talking about a clinical definition of paedophilia, which is a primary sexual attraction to children, not only was Aisha (radiAllahu anha) not considered a child, but the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) was clearly primarily attracted to a woman older than himself.

It's not an important distinction to me. You marry a child, you're not right in the head.

13, which is a-ok

Spoiler

in bizarroworld

13 would be a-ok in Mo's time. 9, however, is dodgy as fuck.

 

[jaxword]

There are 52 ballot qualified Greens running for office this next Tuesday.

http://freeindependentsun.com/republ...-the-election/

I have also written on how Greens perform well at the local level:

http://freeindependentsun.com/republ...oots-campaign/

Anyone planning on voting Green this next Tuesday?

 

[OttomanScribe]

13, which is a-ok

Spoiler

in bizarroworld

How did you get that from the link?

According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them.

First, the prohibition applied to combatants. It applied neither to non-combatant boys nor to non-combatant girls and women. Second, `A'isha did not participate in Badr at all but bade farewell to the combatants as they were leaving Madina, as narrated by Muslim in his Sahih. On the day of Uhud (year 3), Anas, at the time only twelve or thirteen years old, reports seeing an eleven-year old `A'isha and his mother Umm Sulaym having tied up their dresses and carrying water skins back and forth to the combatants, as narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim.

According to almost all the historians, Asma, the elder sister of Ayesha was ten years older than Ayesha.

Well, Ibn Kathir based himself on Ibn Abi al-Zinad's assertion that she was ten years older than `A'isha, however, al-Dhahabi in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala' said there was a greater difference than 10 years between the two, up to 19, and he is more reliable here.

It is reported in Taqri'bu'l-tehzi'b as well as Al-bidayah wa'l-nihayah that Asma died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha, if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.

According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah, when Khaulah came to the Prophet advising him to marry again, the Prophet asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: "You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)". When the Prophet asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Ayesha's name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word "bikr" in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is "Jariyah". "Bikr" on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a "lady".

This is ignorant nonsense, bikr means a virgin girl, a girl who has never been married even if her age is 0 and there is no unclarity here whatsoever.

According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah was five years older than Ayesha. Fatimah is reported to have been born when the Prophet was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.

I did read it, but I admittedly did not understand the context or much of the references, so it was not very enlightening for me. Part of it said she was 8. Part seemed to suggest she was in her 20s? I honestly did not understand what he was talking about.

So I just need your answer, how old was she?

I am more of a student of history than I am an Islamic scholar. From my understanding, it seems more likely that she was above the age of 14. The most convincing argument to this effect being given in the above narration. History is what it is, and a definitive answer cannot be given, the closest answer is 'what seems most likely'. Needless to say, the Islamic sources are far less concerned about the age of the Lady Aisha (radiAllahu anha) than those who attack the religion. An inherent part of Islamic law is the taking into account of communal norms in seeking common definitions. In this sense, the communal norm is what is important here.

The source I quote notably contradicts my prior assertion that it was the norm to marry so young. I defer to the Sheikh on this, as he would know better than I.

 

[JGS]

He didn't really do antyhing wrong. But instead of singling out islam he should be talking about how each religion is batshit insane and should be put down. Even if islam is the easiest for extremists to interpret into doing afwul shit.

He's got plenty of help doing that already. Just think how influential your brief message of hate is and no reqason to go to jail for it to boot.

 

[scar tissue]

How did you get that from the link?

i was joking, i didn't see the link

my point still stands: muhammad is a historic person. i should be able to insult him all i want.
just like that fucking pedophile mozart.
hurr durr

 

[OttomanScribe]

i was joking, i didn't see the link

my point still stands: muhammad is a historic person. i should be able to insult him all i want.
just like that fucking pedophile mozart.
hurr durr

Again, that was not the point I was discussing. It was this:

explanation of the court: mohammed was not a pedophile because he also had sex with adult women. wtf man?

You said wtf man?

This man answered.

As to the point you discuss, I think that there is importance in being as correct as we can with history. Do you support the ability of holocaust deniers to claim what they believe as being 'history', and call themselves historians? This is not so much related to Geert Wilders or Islam, I am just curious.

 

[jaxword]

In a July 1994 question-and-answer session with voters arranged by the Boston Herald, Romney "reaffirmed" his support for both measures. "I don't think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime, but I think it will have a positive effect," Romney said.

In a subsequent interview published on Sept. 23, 1994, Romney said, "I don't want special-interest groups making this their campaign. I don't want their money. I don't want their help. This is my race." In the interview, Romney specifically mentioned gun-rights advocates, acknowledging that his stands on the two gun-control measures would put him at odds with such groups.

 

[neorej]

I am unconvinced of the arguments regarding the Lady Aisha being in single figures, but regardless, we are talking about a clinical definition of paedophilia, which is a primary sexual attraction to children, not only was Aisha (radiAllahu anha) not considered a child, but the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) was clearly primarily attracted to a woman older than himself.

I'm glad to hear it's not a problem to fuck young innocent girls, as long as you don't consider them to be a child.

 

[Jeels]

Hate the guy, I don't think his points are valid, I think he appeals to people's inner irrational fear of others.

However, happy with the court decision. He shouldn't be charged, he should just be marginalized by society.

 

[Mad Max]

You know what a paedophile is right? Paedophilia is about abusing children, a perpetrator is not sexually excited by anything but the thought of children.

The Prophet Mohammed (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) married when he was 25, to a woman who was 40, and had a monogamous relationship with her until her death. After that, only the Lady Aisha (radiAllahu anha) was a virgin when they were married. All the rest of the women he married were divorcees or widows.

This is not the profile of a paedophile, as it does not describe a primary or exclusive interest in pre-pubescent children.

I was actually going to post a reply like this as a joke, but your post is way funnier because it's serious.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Alright. So just so we're all on the same page here, the likely age is around above 14, which, if I understand you correctly, was not uncommon in that era.

I am not attacking, I just want some factual info. It's not as if many other cultures practiced incredibly young marriages throughout time. So from what you've told me, the answer seems to be "she was LIKELY around <14".

I did not mean to imply that you were attacking, my apologies if it came across like that my point was to show that the primary scholarship around the age of the Lady Aisha (radiAllahu anha) is amongst orientalist sources who used it as a basis for objecting to the religion. It ties in with early Christian critiques of the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) who found the sexual permisiveness of the religion (oh! how things have changed!) to be disturbing.

The Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) was known to please his wives, and not merely by doing the housework. Indeed in the Sha'riah it is a grounds for an anulment if a man does not sexually satisfy his wife. He told the believer that a man who doesn't last causes his wife 'a hardship'. This kind of thing led many Christian scholars to be quite affronted, as the predominant narrative at the time was that sex was for procreation only, and enjoying it was bad. This, in the modern age, has continued, except the implications of immorality changed to accusations of paedophilia, as sexual stamina is no longer the bugbear that it used to be.

 

[jaxword]

Romney’s support for a path to legal status is in stark contrast to the position many in his own Republican Party have taken on the issue, and a dramatic departure from the views he expressed last year while running for president.

On the campaign trail, Romney said he was against giving undocumented immigrants a break, and that he favored making life so difficult for them that they would opt for “self-deportation.”

But in an interview Friday with CBS News, the former Massachusetts governor said: "I do believe those who come here illegally ought to have an opportunity to get in line with everybody else.”

 

[jaxword]

Romney continued: “I don't think those who come here illegally should jump to the front of the line or be given a special deal, be rewarded for coming here illegally, but I think they should have a chance just like anybody else to get in line and to become a citizen if they'd like to do so,” he said.

 

[scar tissue]

As to the point you discuss, I think that there is importance in being as correct as we can with history. Do you support the ability of holocaust deniers to claim what they believe as being 'history', and call themselves historians? This is not so much related to Geert Wilders or Islam, I am just curious.

i support anyone saying anything as long as it is not a call for violence or direct discrimination.
so yeah, crazy holocaust deniers can ramble on as long as the want. if anyone can call himself a historian, so should they.

 

[OttomanScribe]

I'm glad to hear it's not a problem to fuck young innocent girls, as long as you don't consider them to be a child.

Anyone who knew of the minds or the conduct of Ali and Aisha (radiAllahu anhu) would not characterise either of them as children. In a society where 40 is old, a person had adult responsibilities and rights far earlier than we are used to.

The Lady Aisha (radiAllahu anha) is so significant to Muslims because of her great contribution to Islamic scholarship. 25% of the narrations come through her, and she is worth 2 witnesses on her own. When the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi salaam) knew that his death was coming, he pointed to her and said 'take your religion from this little red woman'. The descriptions of her by the companions was not of an 'innocent young girl' but of a headstrong and characterful young woman.

 

[OttomanScribe]

I'm honestly confused as to this reply. I was asking about her age...I'm not sure how sexual satisfaction plays any role at all...

I was explaining my comment about the evolution of anti-Muslim scholarship around the 'sexual immorality' of the Prophet. Simply put, first people called him immoral because he pleased his wives, then they called him a paedophile.

 

[Boozeroony]

Anyone who knew of the minds or the conduct of Ali and Aisha (radiAllahu anhu) would not characterise either of them as children. In a society where 40 is old, a person had adult responsibilities and rights far earlier than we are used to.

The Lady Aisha (radiAllahu anha) is so significant to Muslims because of her great contribution to Islamic scholarship. 25% of the narrations come through her, and she is worth 2 witnesses on her own. When the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi salaam) knew that his death was coming, he pointed to her and said 'take your religion from this little red woman'.

Little she was, yes.

 

[Roland Deschain]

Anyone who knew of the minds or the conduct of Ali and Aisha (radiAllahu anhu) would not characterise either of them as children. In a society where 40 is old, a person had adult responsibilities and rights far earlier than we are used to.

The Lady Aisha (radiAllahu anha) is so significant to Muslims because of her great contribution to Islamic scholarship. 25% of the narrations come through her, and she is worth 2 witnesses on her own. When the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi salaam) knew that his death was coming, he pointed to her and said 'take your religion from this little red woman'.

She could be responsible for getting new seasons of The Wire and Arrested Development on the air. Fucking.Children.Is.Wrong.