yeah those pesky Palestinians causing problems again. don't they know that they have no right to be upset when foreigners occupy their homeland, because the Bible, a historically dubious document and the UN, an international cartel of global predators, say so. The restraint the Israelis are showing to these Muslims is unbelievable, more than they deserve in this context. Although a quarter of the Palestinian Population are Christian, but I'm sure they more than welcome forfeiting their homeland.
@astroboirap What you think of Sahih Bukhari Book 52 Hadith 152? "Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, 1If somebody keeps a horse in Allah's Cause motivated by his faith in Allah and his belief in His Promise, then he will be rewarded on the Day of Resurrection for what the horse has eaten or drunk and for its dung and urine.'" How are you rewarded for horse dung & urine? In cow dung & urine?
@P1B1U1H1 you are rewarded in paradise, in general. not rewarded with the same thing in return for what you did. nice try at trying to be funny and provocative but you failed.
@astroboirap In sum, you might get cow dung & urine; ALMIGHTY GOD's recompence being what ALMIGHTY GOD deems equivalent. Consider Sahih Muslim b2;h504: "Salman reported that it was said to him: Your Apostle (may peace be upon him) teaches you about everything, even about excrement. He replied: Yes, he has forbidden us to face the Qibla at the time of excretion or urination, or cleansing with right hand or with less than three pebbles, or with dung or bone." How is the left hand unsanitary?
@P1B1U1H1 hmm no not really, again you're trying to be clever by taking words out of a context. i suggest you study the quran a bit more. the left hand is unsanitary because to put it bluntly, you "clean" yourself with your left hand. thats why we eat with our right hand. its kinda the same in english culture too, but you wouldn't know that.
@astroboirap The roll is on the right side almost always, so the right hand wipes shit from the ass almost always. Primitive is saying that the left hand must be used for that purpose. Wash your hands for heaven's sake. Why not face Qibla while shitting? Does Qibla perfer you to moon him?
@astroboirap in the end, it's a faith of a primitive, unsanitary age. What one needs to do is to interpret it in the light of advances to make it work. Consider galaxies far more gorgeous than Mohammed could have imagined; one should view Quran's heaven as quaint poetry of a bygone age. Fruited gardens are inferior to the modern supermarket & far less appealing than the Grand Canyon. There is no reason to believe good opera will be available in the Quran heaven.
@P1B1U1H1 in the end, its not a faith so you would not be able to understand it. its a way of life. a way of life that billions of people in world subscribe to everyday with thousands joining them everyday. i wouldn't expect you to understand. but heaven, as outlined in islam, is far greater than anything you could ever imagine.
ps. i didnt understand your qibla moon "joke". you need to work on the delivery of it.
@astroboirap Then you accept that mortal's heavenly descriptions are risible if taken as predictions. Primitive notions, e.g., Tertullian's ring side seats to watch the damned suffer, are visions of Hell to me. Worse yet would be gatherings of warriors, who enjoy gore, at mealtimes. Far better is being distilled into vibrant sound or color, perhaps becoming a galaxy.
@astroboirap Here's another point. Yes, I view Islam as somewhat odd, but that is also true of almost all other religions. Hindus believe in idols. Mormons believe you can tell in a dream if one speaking with you is from God; if your hand can pass through the person, he or she is not from God. Inconceivable to me is God's speaking to any person or dreams' being anything but noise. Likely, you find me odd for not desiring 72 virgins, which is fine.
@P1B1U1H1 No I think people find you odd that your understanding of others beliefs is based on some superficial and childish caricature and yet you're naive enough to argue and comment about it as if that was some central concept or something.
@Mahmood42978 You believe you can read minds, which is marvelous. Nonetheless, it seems quite odd to me to sacrifice animals, for example. There are elements of all religions that seem odd to me. For example, why would the Talmud describe dung as a means of keeping food in jars warm?
@P1B1U1H1 I can read your mind just as well as you can read Astroboirap's mind; what makes you so privy to his thoughts and yet somehow others are incapable to do the same ? seems like special pleading to me.
I'm not sure what the Talmud's have to do with this nor m I concerned. Let's stay focused instead of blindly shooting arrows at different subjects.
@Mahmood42978 Never said anything definite about his thoughts. There was a statement about probability, but not certainty, as respects six dozen virgins because of the words "heaven, as outlined in islam, is far greater than anything you could ever imagine." As for the privy itself, the use of a particular hand for sanitary purposes is dead wrong. You must wash your hands.
@P1B1U1H1 I never said any definite either, Remember there was an "I Think" clause. If you can speculate about other'ss mental universe, so can . There is nothing that gives you that special entitlement. Even if something is mentioned somewhere, its relevance depends on its emphasis its context and its application. Removing it from that framework makes your statements nothing but a silly caricature. It appears to me that you're just here to be obnoxious, not provide anything intellectual
@Mahmood42978 Speculate to your heart's content about my beliefs. That Mohammed's era was quite primitive by our standards has not been refuted by you. Hadith collections are similar to the books of proverbs and psalms; one may assess individual proverbs & psalms with or without contextualization ad libidum. Prove you can assess context: list Hadiths that use the word "black" to designate race.
@P1B1U1H1 well it doesn't have to be; truth is not measured by personal or collective tastes. if you think it does; then you're reinforcing my earlier suspicions that you're not competent in any meaningful discourse. I'm not here to debate religion or metaphysical concepts As indicated by the fact you're quoting from a book which is filled with forgeries and historical dubieties. It would be more fruitful if you quoted Harry Potter and attempted a debate on that. Otherwise you're rambling
@Mahmood42978 Hadith's are a collections of forgeries & historical dubieties? Hadiths are viewed as canonical to 85% of Muslims. The key is to remember they were written a very, very long time ago. As is true with the bible, much is simply non-applicable in our age. The trouble is that they still stone for adultery in Iran, Shiite predominance notwithstanding. That's the real problem. The lack of a modern eye.
@P1B1U1H1 I don't see the book of proverbs in anywhere but the Bible so either you're completely ignorant of what you quote or just incompetent in general. Either way that's what I was referring to. As for everything,, as desperately as you're trying to divert focus and stray into red herring. Palestinians are still legitimately opposing an occupier and you can't refute that clearly. :)
@Mahmood42978 The bible is a multi-authored collection of books, including the Book of Esther, the Book of Proverbs, the Book of Psalms. If the Palestinians are really entitled to all of Israel, which is what is claimed, then Mexicans deserve Texas & California. The subject is murder for Almighty God, a detestable primitive concept in our era. At the time of Mohammed, reasonable was assuming that dark skin implied one was best suited to be a slave. This is no longer true.
They'e entitled to all of Israel regardless of whatever the Bible says, it's historically inaccurate. Mentioning Mexico or California is not a refutation. As for whatever else, since you're using the Bible as your standard, there are numerous references to Jews vs. Other races; and the concept of Jews as a chosen race is what motivates establishing Israel. so you're concern isn't racism or primitivism; if you were against racism, it makes no sense to support Israel.
@P1B1U1H1 also, the Bible details enslaving other races as well; so your claim that racially motivated descrimination happened later on is clearly false. What I feel you're actually doing is projecting the assaults sanctioned on the Bible onto others to justify your support for corruption in Israel's name
@P1B1U1H1 By the way; I just want to highlight you're committing a very typical logical fallacy; and it invalidates the premises of your arguments. It's called Appeal to Novelty.
"Description of Appeal to Novelty
Appeal to Novelty is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is new"
You can still use Appeal to Novelty if you want; but just know that it nullifies your argument and makes them invalid.
@Mahmood42978 Perhaps 1,000 years from now, people will discover the value of slavery, including a bit of shit with meals, & stoning people to death . Right now, WASH YOUR HANDS & DO NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHICH HAND YOU WIPE YOUR ASSHOLE WITH. Right now, ANY SLAVERY IS GROSSLY IMMORAL, A FEW NOTCHES BELOW CANNIBALISM. Right now, THOSE WHO STONE ANYONE FOR ANY REASON ARE BARBAROUS, WORSE BY FAR THAN THE HEAD SHRINKING CANNIBALS OF SOUTH AMERICA WERE.
@P1B1U1H1 "Value" is subjective concept. and the analogy between slavery which is based on ethical concepts isn't same as say. hygienical practices which is based on a certain level of understanding regarding pathogenesis .My point is the way you're arguing ...using Modernity or Appeals of Novelty as your reasoning for why something i valid or invalid ...is fallacious. It is a known logical fallacy and thus you lost the debate
writing in caps that way just says you're a sore loser
@Mahmood42978 The phrase "slavery which is based on ethical concepts" intrigues. Do you mean to say that, in contradistinction to sanitary practices, slavery would be ethical were it practiced as indicated by Islam's canonical writings? No one has, to my knowledge, found manuscripts from which Hadith's and Quran are derived to be palimpsests.
@P1B1U1H1 I'm sorry let me clarify; the view of slavery in regards to its legitimacy or lack there of is based on ethical precepts, this is different from methods of hygenical practices.
Hope that clarifies .....and you still lost this debate on the basis of using a logical fallacy ....Just wanted to reinforce that.
@Mahmood42978 Assertion 1: the mob is monstrous because it murders people & because it increases costs to the consumer by monopolizing trash collection. Whereas monopolizing trash collection is a property crime, murder is a crime against the person; non-similarity invalidates not Assertion 1. Similarly not invalidated is the assertion "one cannot accept the Quran/Hadiths as written because 1) sanitary & 2) ethical standards changed." Do you find slavery heinous?
@Mahmood42978 The above proves invalid your assertion that a fallacy exists because sanitary standards & ethical standards are not analogous. While you think about slavery, consider the following. For group of persons X & action Y, the statement "one must perform action Y even with respect to group of persons X" implies negative characterization of X. Example: "the right to remain silent applies even when the defendant is a convicted murderer."
@P1B1U1H1 Actually the previous example reinforces your previous fallacy.
And once again you commit the other fallacy I highlighted , Appeal to Novelty; .....Any time you use terms like "modern" ...."now" ...and "changed" ...it employs this fallacy. Something is not valid because of how contemporary it is.
I guess you like being defeated in arguments, find by me.
@Mahmood42978 1) You are avoiding rendering an opinion on slavery, which is fascinating. Will you declare slavery evil & foul? Stating the novelty fallacy in this context has very interesting implications. I argue slavery is nefarious, just slightly below murder. I argue that stoning to death is more evil than killing persons in battle & committing cannibalism. Why do you think I am wrong?
@P1B1U1H1 I'm not avoiding; I'm being Logically Consistent. Your argument is irrelevant to the debate.
I don't care much about what you feel is right or wrong; your feelings on something are irrelevant to whether or not something is valid. The truth is , right and wrong are merely constructs of human's minds. The Universe itself is completely ambiguous as to what is morally right.
I already proved my point; your argument was based on the fallacious idea that modernity proves validity.
@Mahmood42978 Argumentum ad novitatem exists iff a claim to superiority is based solely upon it's being later in time. The first statement depends not solely upon time. Currently, Iran stones people to death; the second statement thus deems past governmental practices superior to current ones. Your opposition to the two statements cannot be due to their being examples of argumentum ad novitatem
@P1B1U1H1 And here you are in fact committing a Fallacy of False Dichotomy; you're concluding that on grounds that Someone argues against Appeal to Novelty means they believe that Appeal to Antiquity is valid i.e. the fallacy that something is true or correct because it is older. This is also a logical fallacy. Which was never endorsed on my part. Essentially any "Time-Variant" argument is logically false.
There are possibilities to moral problems; for example Moral ambiguity.
@Mahmood42978 No. Demonstrated below were proofs that the assertions exemplified neither argumentum ad novitatem nor fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses. The two assertions:1)ANY SLAVERY IS GROSSLY IMMORAL, A FEW NOTCHES BELOW CANNIBALISM. 2) THOSE WHO STONE ANYONE FOR ANY REASON ARE BARBAROUS, WORSE BY FAR THAN THE HEAD SHRINKING CANNIBALS OF SOUTH AMERICA WERE.
@Mahmood42978 Precedence as respects time matters not to the two assertions that you oppose. The two assertions are: .:1)ANY SLAVERY IS GROSSLY IMMORAL, A FEW NOTCHES BELOW CANNIBALISM. 2) THOSE WHO STONE ANYONE FOR ANY REASON ARE BARBAROUS, WORSE BY FAR THAN THE HEAD SHRINKING CANNIBALS OF SOUTH AMERICA WERE.
@Mahmood42978 To repeat my ethical positions, which you oppose & think you have invalidated: 1) ANY SLAVERY IS GROSSLY IMMORAL, A FEW NOTCHES BELOW CANNIBALISM. 2) THOSE WHO STONE ANYONE FOR ANY REASON ARE BARBAROUS, WORSE BY FAR THAN THE HEAD SHRINKING CANNIBALS OF SOUTH AMERICA WERE.
All now know your position, which contradicts mine. Enjoy such winnings as you believe to have acquired. All others should realize what "moderates" want. It shocked me, but you have taught me much.
@P1B1U1H1 I dont oppose or support anything; I'm just saying your arguments are highly irrational and logical fallacious. You're assuming your arguments are true because of assumptions you derive by way of cultural conditioning and indoctrination.
My position doesn't "contradict" yours per say, but I show the premise behind your position is faulty. Come up with better Logic behind your arguments.
@Mahmood42978 You are arguing against my arguments; that's what it means to call them "highly irrational & logical[sic] fallacious".
For everyone else, Mahmood42978, & others like him, find highly irrational & logically fallacious the following statements: 1) ANY SLAVERY IS GROSSLY IMMORAL, A FEW NOTCHES BELOW CANNIBALISM. 2) THOSE WHO STONE ANYONE FOR ANY REASON ARE BARBAROUS, WORSE BY FAR THAN THE HEAD SHRINKING CANNIBALS OF SOUTH AMERICA WERE.
@P1B1U1H1 Yes I am arguing against your arguments. Your arguments are faulty; but arguing against your flawed arguments does not automatically mean I hold views that what is opposite of your claims as necessarily right either. My arguments against your arguments is due to your reasoning. I'm sorry to tell you this. but your reasoning are ASININE.. And I find it highly ironic that you attempt to portray your reasonings as evidence of advanced thinking, when they're logically false.
@Mahmood42978 Great. All now agree. Mahmood42978 is opposes: 1) ANY SLAVERY IS GROSSLY IMMORAL, A FEW NOTCHES BELOW CANNIBALISM. 2) THOSE WHO STONE ANYONE FOR ANY REASON ARE BARBAROUS, WORSE BY FAR THAN THE HEAD SHRINKING CANNIBALS OF SOUTH AMERICA WERE.
________
Next. For group X & act Y, "one must perform action Y even with respect to group of persons X" negatively characterizes X. Example: "the right to remain silent applies even when the defendant is a convicted murderer."
@Mahmood42978 Consider Argument A: "if 2+2=4, then 8+10=11", My response "Argument A is logically fallacious because the sum of 8 and 10 is not 11. I oppose Arguement A."
@P1B1U1H1 ...you're just digging yourself a bigger hole, quantitative reasoning, which deals with the existential properties known as numbers, is not the same as moral or ethical postulates which have no such properties. The Analogy is fraudulent.
Not to step into the ad-hominem level here. But this last post tells me that you're not very smart.
Please at least try to read a book on Logic to know why your arguments are faulty.
For group X & act Y, the statement "one must perform Y even with respect to X" negatively characterization of X. Example: "the right to remain silent applies even when the defendant is a convicted murderer."
The answer. Not always. "One must provide every penny of a tax rebate even to the richest person on earth." Thus, one must ask under what conditions a negative characterization is exists. First, the statement expresses a lower bound on responsibility. Agree?
@P1B1U1H1 If , then is a logical qualifier, but using the analogy of existential facts s about arithmetic to whether your feelings about moral/ethical issues is Logically bogus to the Nth degree. It's your analogy which is logically absurd.
@P1B1U1H1 You're being intellectually dishonest, you can't use mathematical equations to make general statements of logical truths. Certain mathematical OPERATIONS (not equations) can be applied; BUT ONLY IF there is a BIJECTION between the sets which the variables are contained in. Did you demonstrate this bijection? No, in fact there is no bijection between Arithmetic and Moral Clauses.
You're really uneducated aren't you? You clearly disregard whether anything you say is actually valid
@Mahmood42978 All agree. Mahmood42978 is opposed to: 1 ) ANY SLAVERY IS GROSSLY IMMORAL, A FEW NOTCHES BELOW CANNIBALISM. 2) THOSE WHO STONE ANYONE FOR ANY REASON ARE BARBAROUS, WORSE BY FAR THAN THE HEAD SHRINKING CANNIBALS OF SOUTH AMERICA WERE.
@P1B1U1H1 Calm down, you making yourself look like a frustrated moron who feels out smarted and can't cope with it.
No one hears your call, no one is coming to your rescue to give you that desperate ease of validation to soothe your angst, so you can intellectually dishonestly feel redemptin usig the fraudulence of social weight to vindicate yourself.
The Answer is, I'm not opposing or denying anything because, you present a Logical Fallacy Known as a False Dichotomy
@Mahmood42978 Main point: Mahmood42978 opposes the statements: 1) ANY SLAVERY IS GROSSLY IMMORAL, A FEW NOTCHES BELOW CANNIBALISM. 2) THOSE WHO STONE ANYONE FOR ANY REASON ARE BARBAROUS, WORSE BY FAR THAN THE HEAD SHRINKING CANNIBALS OF SOUTH AMERICA WERE.
Two statements racist to me: "You have to give the defendant the right to remain silent even if he or she is Black" & "You have to read the defendant the right to remain silent even if he or she is a Black thief." Are they racist to you?
@Mahmood42978 The questions establish moral stances, themselves interesting irrespective of truth value. Your moral stance is fascinating. Please answer the question posed to you just a while back, viz: Two statements racist to me: "You have to give the defendant the right to remain silent even if he or she is Black" & "You have to read the defendant the right to remain silent even if he or she is a Black thief." Are they racist to you?
@Mahmood42978 It can definitely be said that Mahmood42978 refuses to answer the following query: Two statements racist to me: "You have to give the defendant the right to remain silent even if he or she is Black" & "You have to read the defendant the right to remain silent even if he or she is a Black thief." Are they racist to you?
@Mahmood42978 Nope. Argumentum ad populum concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. All that was being asked is whether your moral stance is representative of those of your fellow Palestinians in your opinion. No reason exists to infer from that statement that it makes your opinion more or less valid.
@P1B1U1H1 I'm not Palestinian first of all, so this shows that you yourself hold racist ideas that someone who argues in favor of Palestinians is from Palestine.
As for the rest of your statement; if your question was not an attempt at Appeal to Popularity, then it has no relevance to me.
The debate is now concluded ....you lost (obviously)
@Mahmood42978 Your profile does not say your national origin. Your profile lists Arabic music as an entity separate from International Music, rendering likely your being ethnically Arabic. Assuming you are Palestinian does not eo ipso imply a belief that only Palestinian Muslims speak for Palestinian Muslims. Wherever you are from, your moral stances are fascinating. Never would I have imagined anyone refusing to answer that question about racism!
@P1B1U1H1 I have many different cultures of music in my profile; to assume someone's ethnicity by someone's profile musical selections is even more raciallisticlly biased.
I haven't made any moral stances; I have been completely morally ambiguous, except perhaps in regards to Palestinians having the right to kick out invaders from their home.
@Mahmood42978 Also, your stances on slavery & stoning people to death are incredibly interesting. You have no idea how pleasurable meeting someone with such different viewpoints is! I'm from the US, by the way, born & raised here. You?
@P1B1U1H1 Again I haven't presented any position on these issues. If you think I hve just because I exposed why the reasoning behind your arguments, i.e. appeal to novelty, appeal to popularity, false dichotomy etc etc etc. Then you're an idiot.
I have no interest in knowing anything about you nor informing you about me.
Just save your dignity and move on. Unless you have some masochistic need to be disproved ....of which I'll be happy to oblige.
@Mahmood42978 You oppose the following: :1)ANY SLAVERY IS GROSSLY IMMORAL, A FEW NOTCHES BELOW CANNIBALISM. 2) THOSE WHO STONE ANYONE FOR ANY REASON ARE BARBAROUS, WORSE BY FAR THAN THE HEAD SHRINKING CANNIBALS OF SOUTH AMERICA WERE.
You refuse to answer: Are these racist: "You have to give the defendant the right to remain silent even if he or she is Black" & "You have to give the defendant the right to remain silent even if he or she is a Black thief."
@Mahmood42978 You already agreed you opposed my arguments, repeatedly put before you. To deem an argument invalid implies opposition to that argument.
Statement: "All real Nazi's were Germans, therefore anyone who is German is a Nazi."
Response: "That is logically fallacious. I therefore oppose that statement."
Opposition here depends not upon whether or not all real Nazi's were German.
@P1B1U1H1 Yes I clearly stated I oppose your arguments on grounds of their poor reasoning that supports them. You're being once again intellectually dishonest. and apparently you're doing so deliberately. Yes the Germans-Nazis case would be logically fallacious the reasoning is poor. But this is not Analogous to Whether I endorse or reject certain Moral precepts which is what you're insinuating in previous posts.
@Mahmood42978 Moot, as demonstrated above. Moreover, your two arguments about logical fallacy, argumentum ad novitatem & fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, having been shown to be invalid. Again, the two statements you oppose: 1)ANY SLAVERY IS GROSSLY IMMORAL, A FEW NOTCHES BELOW CANNIBALISM. 2) THOSE WHO STONE ANYONE FOR ANY REASON ARE BARBAROUS, WORSE BY FAR THAN THE HEAD SHRINKING CANNIBALS OF SOUTH AMERICA WERE.
@P1B1U1H1 It's not moot because your position was falsely established to begin with You also therein commit the fallacies again but this time applying them in regards to different propositions
a.) The Appeal to Novelty was in response to your using "modern modern ...time changed" nonsense
b.) False dichotomy was in response to your belief that there are only TWO moral possibilities, right/wrong.
c.) Something is not "moot" just because you say so.
@Mahmood42978 The assertions are what count, not the intermediate arguments. That morals change over time does not imply changes in morals are solely due to time. Right & wrong depend on world views; your morals differ from mine. The two assertions you oppose: :1)ANY SLAVERY IS GROSSLY IMMORAL, A FEW NOTCHES BELOW CANNIBALISM. 2) THOSE WHO STONE ANYONE FOR ANY REASON ARE BARBAROUS, WORSE BY FAR THAN THE HEAD SHRINKING CANNIBALS OF SOUTH AMERICA WERE.
@Mahmood42978 The fallacy of false dichotomy exists iff only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options. Statements you oppose do not limit options. Again, you oppose: 1)ANY SLAVERY IS GROSSLY IMMORAL, A FEW NOTCHES BELOW CANNIBALISM. 2) THOSE WHO STONE ANYONE FOR ANY REASON ARE BARBAROUS, WORSE BY FAR THAN THE HEAD SHRINKING CANNIBALS OF SOUTH AMERICA WERE.
@Mahmood42978 & it also goes with slavery. Like the bible, the Quran was written in a time of slavery wherein heredity mattered. Unlike the bible, the slavery at the writing of the Quran had a skin color edge to it best viewed by seeing the Hadiths. Mohammed did what he could to advance matters, e.g., manumission Hadiths, but the ones after him simply decided to continue the industry until quite recently.
@Mahmood42978 By the way, this is a ton of fun, convivial even. Must get a spot of lunch. will be back with a nice Hadith list for you if you don't have one. Sans context, here's Proverbs 3:13: Joyful is the person who finds wisdom, the one who gains understanding.
@Mahmood42978 Do you honestly believe Almighty God cares about ownership of a sliver of land on a small planet at the edge of a moderately sized galaxy? Such a belief is more absurd than the idea that lopping hands is a reasonable approach to theft. Amazingly enough, there exist people in the 21st century who believe in chopping off people's hands. The cruelty appalls me.
@P1B1U1H1 No but that's a straw man argument misinformed and and naive individuals make. Human dignity and basic ethics of social justice is what makes the issue of people stealing the livelihood and homes of others a major crime which warrants opposition and even retaliation if needed. The appeal to Metaphysics is not required . Everything else you state is irrelevant in context and thus won't be addressed. Its better to stay consistent to subject matter next time
@Mahmood42978 The topic is whatever it is deemed to be; Hadiths are most fun for me when shit based. US history is partly removal of Native Americans for Manifest Destiny. You appear to my perhaps wrong eye to aver as absurd the notion "God cares about a sliver of land", unlike many on You Tube. Readily discovered are clerical diktats to kill Jews.
@P1B1U1H1 Oh I see, that's rather convenient. So basically you're insinuating that you're allowed to change goal posts whenever you make silly irrelevant arguments, which aren't even completely consistent with their original framework none the less. Well then theres nothing to debate as you are already tacitly conceding that your case is weak and fallacious by doing so. I don't get why you keep appealing to metaphysics.When someone occupies, means the natives are justified in resisting. now cry
@PirateXzibit ya bro i totally know what ur saying truth is truth but it depends how you interpret it. could you tell me by using a quote where did i say it doesnt matter whether you believe or not? bro i really appreciate your challenge man. God bless!
@christlivesinme1997 I think you misinterepreted my comment. I mean that you ought to say that it doesn't matter etc.
And you don't have to go far in Scripture to find it.
John 3:15-17 is a good way of saying that they will perish (die the Death) unless they repent and believe the gospel. Those who are Saved are not going to die the Death.
hi chad um this has no relation to the video whatsoever. so here it goes. i am a fellow preacher and a scenario ive faced a couple times is this. im going through the good person test im at the end and ive esentially told them thier going to hell they say i dont believe in hell. how do i prove hell exists there was one guy who actually believed in heaven but not hell! anyway thanks a bunch God bless
What's the point of shooting fake guns? You'd get shot either way. I mean, not to promote shootings of any sort, but you'd think that would just hurl rocks and call it good.
I understand that Muslims hate Jews, and I sure some vice versa. But what I don't get is that people make it about race, instead of making it about what it actually is and what it is, is "sin" or "wrong doing" the reason I say don't make it so much about race is because there are Israelis that do things wrong to eachother & there are Palestinians that do things wrong to eachother. Although I will say Islam is a racist religion.
@HuckMeHard Welll maybe you should practice being a little less biased, how about it? Because your comment shows you are all for the muslims and don't like Jews. Are the Jews constantly launching rockets into the muslim territories? No. As for this video, I see clearly the muslims are causing the trouble and the Israeli police seem very lenient to me...how about it?
@NUVISI0N by that logic the Jews should be mad at the Arabs because the Jews were there before the Arabs were. So using your own reasoning I am guessing you are pro-Israel! Welcome to the side of freedom!
start reading your bible at judges chapter 11 and try and make that make sense... 2000 years ago is part of recorded history...anyone got the exact year, month & day of the supposed most important historical event on the planet? no? didn't think so...
who ever posted this video is a fucking idiot kepp enjoying ur life now dude as u will be enjoying the hell fire for eternity palestine is there country and u fukn jew dogs moved in an invaded there land and space many many years ago there will be justice one day coming!!!!!!!!!!
@rdkilluminati Who lived there before the palestinians? If you want to play this game the first ones there were the canaanites, however God used to Jews to wipe them out after 400 years of child sacrifice. So the next earliest people group is the Jews. If you want to support the palestinian side, you should use a different argument.
@staum607 im not supporting any one but come on do you see how palestinians are being treated by the israeli army its in humane its so slack the media dosent show what goes on but when the palestinians do something its internationaly broadcasted thats whats sucks the most but then again this is a never ending war till the day of judgement may god be with which ever person who is innocent and dosent deserve what they recieve in this life!!
Five guys with rocks and flare guns!! Quick, roll some tanks into their neighborhood and kill five hundred unrelated people! That'll show 'em once and for all.
@percyth11 Because something called "Communism" ravaged half the world and killed millions of people. Communism was fueled by Atheism. How could anyone look at that and decide that Atheism is good for society.
@aa3gunner I don't even know what are you trying to say... This just looks like some knee jerk reaction in an attempt to attack atheism. Just to inform you, as you have most likely been living in a cave with your congregation your whole life; that many countries are run by a secular government. A secular government being a non-religious government, i.e. an 'atheist' government in the loosest sense. Those that do have secular governments are on the whole doing better than those that do not.
@percyth11: Apparently you missed out on your history. The American government was founded on "Christian" values. Even put "One Nation under God" on currency. yeah, atheist in the "loosest sense".
@aa3gunner When did "the American government" become most countries governments? And doesn't your country have a separation of church and state clause, hence making the government secular?
There all ramped up because their Pastor (sorry Imam) just gave them a rousing sermon on spreading the gospel of Muhammad. It's like like us Evangelicals after Sunday services were so zealous for the Lord when we hit the Cracker Barrel! :)
Man if they only knew a SEAL was giving over watch they would have left the rocks and black cats at home. Welcome back Brian
What the Israeli police force should is every time they start doing stuff like this, take off after those clowns with leather straps (or belts, whichever the officer is most comfortable with) in hand, and when they catch the hooligans, give them a passionate ass-whoopin'. That'll bring an end to all the bs!
May God bless and grant you mercy and power through The Spirit as you minister to the Jewish People, They are in such need to recognize Christ as The one and only
Messiah! The Time is coming to fruition KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK
I want to see Isael and thanks of course Chad. If you get a chance to film, my friend says hassidic Pharisee Jews throw rocks at people who may not look right when the latter walks through their neighborhood
kinda funny how muslims claim that they are peaceful and don't want to hurt anyone. but i find that hard to believe when their quran says to kill all infidels, they do suicide bombings, and things like this. how many times do you see christians blowing themselves up and making it a point to kill as many muslims as possible? does the bible say to kill nonbelievers? no. but theirs does. Islam = lie put in place by satan
Looked like some kind of cheesy Roman candle or something. More Shri'ah crap. People, we are so blessed we live here. Any Muslim that even pretended to do that where I live, and some redneck would put him in the dirt. By the way, I'm in Middleburg FL in case any want to try. If you do, lose some teeth, get a Rebel flag, and drive a pickup if you want to blend in. Oh, and bring more than a Roman candle. Little kids play with those here to celebrate our nation's independence.
The Jews didn't steal anything - the land that the Jews occupy was never it's own nation - it was land that belonged to Britian, who gave it to the Jews after WWII. Though, my beliefs are that Britians 'niceness' was for actually sinister reasons.
My reaction was the same as yours. What was that one guy holding that was smoking? Was that some kind of gun? He held it with one hand. What was that he was shooting? It smoked a lot. An idea????
Why were you defending the Jews over the Muslims? Both of them are unworthy of controlling the Holy Land. You should defend Christians, not the Jews who only look after their own interests.
So when Israelis brong down their homes and massacre an entire family, you turn around right?
But when kids throw rocks at polices, they suddenlly are the evil ones?
Jesus would have been ashamed.
cbluver22 1 month ago
You should watch the "jihad" Jews have committed to Palestnian Muslim AND Christians.Then we'll see if you still continue to support Israel.
cbluver22 1 month ago
yeah those pesky Palestinians causing problems again. don't they know that they have no right to be upset when foreigners occupy their homeland, because the Bible, a historically dubious document and the UN, an international cartel of global predators, say so. The restraint the Israelis are showing to these Muslims is unbelievable, more than they deserve in this context. Although a quarter of the Palestinian Population are Christian, but I'm sure they more than welcome forfeiting their homeland.
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Many videos on my channel exposing israeli genocide and ethnic cleansing
FlotillaCrew 5 months ago
the narrator is a biased dipshit. long live hamas.
astroboirap 5 months ago
@astroboirap What you think of Sahih Bukhari Book 52 Hadith 152? "Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, 1If somebody keeps a horse in Allah's Cause motivated by his faith in Allah and his belief in His Promise, then he will be rewarded on the Day of Resurrection for what the horse has eaten or drunk and for its dung and urine.'" How are you rewarded for horse dung & urine? In cow dung & urine?
P1B1U1H1 3 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 you are rewarded in paradise, in general. not rewarded with the same thing in return for what you did. nice try at trying to be funny and provocative but you failed.
astroboirap 3 months ago
@astroboirap In sum, you might get cow dung & urine; ALMIGHTY GOD's recompence being what ALMIGHTY GOD deems equivalent. Consider Sahih Muslim b2;h504: "Salman reported that it was said to him: Your Apostle (may peace be upon him) teaches you about everything, even about excrement. He replied: Yes, he has forbidden us to face the Qibla at the time of excretion or urination, or cleansing with right hand or with less than three pebbles, or with dung or bone." How is the left hand unsanitary?
P1B1U1H1 3 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 hmm no not really, again you're trying to be clever by taking words out of a context. i suggest you study the quran a bit more. the left hand is unsanitary because to put it bluntly, you "clean" yourself with your left hand. thats why we eat with our right hand. its kinda the same in english culture too, but you wouldn't know that.
astroboirap 3 months ago
@astroboirap The roll is on the right side almost always, so the right hand wipes shit from the ass almost always. Primitive is saying that the left hand must be used for that purpose. Wash your hands for heaven's sake. Why not face Qibla while shitting? Does Qibla perfer you to moon him?
P1B1U1H1 3 months ago
@astroboirap in the end, it's a faith of a primitive, unsanitary age. What one needs to do is to interpret it in the light of advances to make it work. Consider galaxies far more gorgeous than Mohammed could have imagined; one should view Quran's heaven as quaint poetry of a bygone age. Fruited gardens are inferior to the modern supermarket & far less appealing than the Grand Canyon. There is no reason to believe good opera will be available in the Quran heaven.
P1B1U1H1 3 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 in the end, its not a faith so you would not be able to understand it. its a way of life. a way of life that billions of people in world subscribe to everyday with thousands joining them everyday. i wouldn't expect you to understand. but heaven, as outlined in islam, is far greater than anything you could ever imagine.
ps. i didnt understand your qibla moon "joke". you need to work on the delivery of it.
astroboirap 3 months ago
@astroboirap Then you accept that mortal's heavenly descriptions are risible if taken as predictions. Primitive notions, e.g., Tertullian's ring side seats to watch the damned suffer, are visions of Hell to me. Worse yet would be gatherings of warriors, who enjoy gore, at mealtimes. Far better is being distilled into vibrant sound or color, perhaps becoming a galaxy.
P1B1U1H1 3 months ago
@astroboirap Here's another point. Yes, I view Islam as somewhat odd, but that is also true of almost all other religions. Hindus believe in idols. Mormons believe you can tell in a dream if one speaking with you is from God; if your hand can pass through the person, he or she is not from God. Inconceivable to me is God's speaking to any person or dreams' being anything but noise. Likely, you find me odd for not desiring 72 virgins, which is fine.
P1B1U1H1 3 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 No I think people find you odd that your understanding of others beliefs is based on some superficial and childish caricature and yet you're naive enough to argue and comment about it as if that was some central concept or something.
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 You believe you can read minds, which is marvelous. Nonetheless, it seems quite odd to me to sacrifice animals, for example. There are elements of all religions that seem odd to me. For example, why would the Talmud describe dung as a means of keeping food in jars warm?
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 I can read your mind just as well as you can read Astroboirap's mind; what makes you so privy to his thoughts and yet somehow others are incapable to do the same ? seems like special pleading to me.
I'm not sure what the Talmud's have to do with this nor m I concerned. Let's stay focused instead of blindly shooting arrows at different subjects.
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 Never said anything definite about his thoughts. There was a statement about probability, but not certainty, as respects six dozen virgins because of the words "heaven, as outlined in islam, is far greater than anything you could ever imagine." As for the privy itself, the use of a particular hand for sanitary purposes is dead wrong. You must wash your hands.
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 I never said any definite either, Remember there was an "I Think" clause. If you can speculate about other'ss mental universe, so can . There is nothing that gives you that special entitlement. Even if something is mentioned somewhere, its relevance depends on its emphasis its context and its application. Removing it from that framework makes your statements nothing but a silly caricature. It appears to me that you're just here to be obnoxious, not provide anything intellectual
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 Speculate to your heart's content about my beliefs. That Mohammed's era was quite primitive by our standards has not been refuted by you. Hadith collections are similar to the books of proverbs and psalms; one may assess individual proverbs & psalms with or without contextualization ad libidum. Prove you can assess context: list Hadiths that use the word "black" to designate race.
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 well it doesn't have to be; truth is not measured by personal or collective tastes. if you think it does; then you're reinforcing my earlier suspicions that you're not competent in any meaningful discourse. I'm not here to debate religion or metaphysical concepts As indicated by the fact you're quoting from a book which is filled with forgeries and historical dubieties. It would be more fruitful if you quoted Harry Potter and attempted a debate on that. Otherwise you're rambling
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 Hadith's are a collections of forgeries & historical dubieties? Hadiths are viewed as canonical to 85% of Muslims. The key is to remember they were written a very, very long time ago. As is true with the bible, much is simply non-applicable in our age. The trouble is that they still stone for adultery in Iran, Shiite predominance notwithstanding. That's the real problem. The lack of a modern eye.
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 I don't see the book of proverbs in anywhere but the Bible so either you're completely ignorant of what you quote or just incompetent in general. Either way that's what I was referring to. As for everything,, as desperately as you're trying to divert focus and stray into red herring. Palestinians are still legitimately opposing an occupier and you can't refute that clearly. :)
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 The bible is a multi-authored collection of books, including the Book of Esther, the Book of Proverbs, the Book of Psalms. If the Palestinians are really entitled to all of Israel, which is what is claimed, then Mexicans deserve Texas & California. The subject is murder for Almighty God, a detestable primitive concept in our era. At the time of Mohammed, reasonable was assuming that dark skin implied one was best suited to be a slave. This is no longer true.
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
They'e entitled to all of Israel regardless of whatever the Bible says, it's historically inaccurate. Mentioning Mexico or California is not a refutation. As for whatever else, since you're using the Bible as your standard, there are numerous references to Jews vs. Other races; and the concept of Jews as a chosen race is what motivates establishing Israel. so you're concern isn't racism or primitivism; if you were against racism, it makes no sense to support Israel.
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 also, the Bible details enslaving other races as well; so your claim that racially motivated descrimination happened later on is clearly false. What I feel you're actually doing is projecting the assaults sanctioned on the Bible onto others to justify your support for corruption in Israel's name
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 By the way; I just want to highlight you're committing a very typical logical fallacy; and it invalidates the premises of your arguments. It's called Appeal to Novelty.
"Description of Appeal to Novelty
Appeal to Novelty is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is new"
You can still use Appeal to Novelty if you want; but just know that it nullifies your argument and makes them invalid.
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 Perhaps 1,000 years from now, people will discover the value of slavery, including a bit of shit with meals, & stoning people to death . Right now, WASH YOUR HANDS & DO NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHICH HAND YOU WIPE YOUR ASSHOLE WITH. Right now, ANY SLAVERY IS GROSSLY IMMORAL, A FEW NOTCHES BELOW CANNIBALISM. Right now, THOSE WHO STONE ANYONE FOR ANY REASON ARE BARBAROUS, WORSE BY FAR THAN THE HEAD SHRINKING CANNIBALS OF SOUTH AMERICA WERE.
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 "Value" is subjective concept. and the analogy between slavery which is based on ethical concepts isn't same as say. hygienical practices which is based on a certain level of understanding regarding pathogenesis .My point is the way you're arguing ...using Modernity or Appeals of Novelty as your reasoning for why something i valid or invalid ...is fallacious. It is a known logical fallacy and thus you lost the debate
writing in caps that way just says you're a sore loser
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 The phrase "slavery which is based on ethical concepts" intrigues. Do you mean to say that, in contradistinction to sanitary practices, slavery would be ethical were it practiced as indicated by Islam's canonical writings? No one has, to my knowledge, found manuscripts from which Hadith's and Quran are derived to be palimpsests.
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 I'm sorry let me clarify; the view of slavery in regards to its legitimacy or lack there of is based on ethical precepts, this is different from methods of hygenical practices.
Hope that clarifies .....and you still lost this debate on the basis of using a logical fallacy ....Just wanted to reinforce that.
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 Assertion 1: the mob is monstrous because it murders people & because it increases costs to the consumer by monopolizing trash collection. Whereas monopolizing trash collection is a property crime, murder is a crime against the person; non-similarity invalidates not Assertion 1. Similarly not invalidated is the assertion "one cannot accept the Quran/Hadiths as written because 1) sanitary & 2) ethical standards changed." Do you find slavery heinous?
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 The above proves invalid your assertion that a fallacy exists because sanitary standards & ethical standards are not analogous. While you think about slavery, consider the following. For group of persons X & action Y, the statement "one must perform action Y even with respect to group of persons X" implies negative characterization of X. Example: "the right to remain silent applies even when the defendant is a convicted murderer."
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 Actually the previous example reinforces your previous fallacy.
And once again you commit the other fallacy I highlighted , Appeal to Novelty; .....Any time you use terms like "modern" ...."now" ...and "changed" ...it employs this fallacy. Something is not valid because of how contemporary it is.
I guess you like being defeated in arguments, find by me.
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 1) You are avoiding rendering an opinion on slavery, which is fascinating. Will you declare slavery evil & foul? Stating the novelty fallacy in this context has very interesting implications. I argue slavery is nefarious, just slightly below murder. I argue that stoning to death is more evil than killing persons in battle & committing cannibalism. Why do you think I am wrong?
You must prove your point about analogies.
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 I'm not avoiding; I'm being Logically Consistent. Your argument is irrelevant to the debate.
I don't care much about what you feel is right or wrong; your feelings on something are irrelevant to whether or not something is valid. The truth is , right and wrong are merely constructs of human's minds. The Universe itself is completely ambiguous as to what is morally right.
I already proved my point; your argument was based on the fallacious idea that modernity proves validity.
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 Argumentum ad novitatem exists iff a claim to superiority is based solely upon it's being later in time. The first statement depends not solely upon time. Currently, Iran stones people to death; the second statement thus deems past governmental practices superior to current ones. Your opposition to the two statements cannot be due to their being examples of argumentum ad novitatem
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 And here you are in fact committing a Fallacy of False Dichotomy; you're concluding that on grounds that Someone argues against Appeal to Novelty means they believe that Appeal to Antiquity is valid i.e. the fallacy that something is true or correct because it is older. This is also a logical fallacy. Which was never endorsed on my part. Essentially any "Time-Variant" argument is logically false.
There are possibilities to moral problems; for example Moral ambiguity.
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mahmood42978 No. Demonstrated below were proofs that the assertions exemplified neither argumentum ad novitatem nor fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses. The two assertions:1)ANY SLAVERY IS GROSSLY IMMORAL, A FEW NOTCHES BELOW CANNIBALISM. 2) THOSE WHO STONE ANYONE FOR ANY REASON ARE BARBAROUS, WORSE BY FAR THAN THE HEAD SHRINKING CANNIBALS OF SOUTH AMERICA WERE.
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mahmood42978 Precedence as respects time matters not to the two assertions that you oppose. The two assertions are: .:1)ANY SLAVERY IS GROSSLY IMMORAL, A FEW NOTCHES BELOW CANNIBALISM. 2) THOSE WHO STONE ANYONE FOR ANY REASON ARE BARBAROUS, WORSE BY FAR THAN THE HEAD SHRINKING CANNIBALS OF SOUTH AMERICA WERE.
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 To repeat my ethical positions, which you oppose & think you have invalidated: 1) ANY SLAVERY IS GROSSLY IMMORAL, A FEW NOTCHES BELOW CANNIBALISM. 2) THOSE WHO STONE ANYONE FOR ANY REASON ARE BARBAROUS, WORSE BY FAR THAN THE HEAD SHRINKING CANNIBALS OF SOUTH AMERICA WERE.
All now know your position, which contradicts mine. Enjoy such winnings as you believe to have acquired. All others should realize what "moderates" want. It shocked me, but you have taught me much.
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 I dont oppose or support anything; I'm just saying your arguments are highly irrational and logical fallacious. You're assuming your arguments are true because of assumptions you derive by way of cultural conditioning and indoctrination.
My position doesn't "contradict" yours per say, but I show the premise behind your position is faulty. Come up with better Logic behind your arguments.
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 You are arguing against my arguments; that's what it means to call them "highly irrational & logical[sic] fallacious".
For everyone else, Mahmood42978, & others like him, find highly irrational & logically fallacious the following statements: 1) ANY SLAVERY IS GROSSLY IMMORAL, A FEW NOTCHES BELOW CANNIBALISM. 2) THOSE WHO STONE ANYONE FOR ANY REASON ARE BARBAROUS, WORSE BY FAR THAN THE HEAD SHRINKING CANNIBALS OF SOUTH AMERICA WERE.
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 Yes I am arguing against your arguments. Your arguments are faulty; but arguing against your flawed arguments does not automatically mean I hold views that what is opposite of your claims as necessarily right either. My arguments against your arguments is due to your reasoning. I'm sorry to tell you this. but your reasoning are ASININE.. And I find it highly ironic that you attempt to portray your reasonings as evidence of advanced thinking, when they're logically false.
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 Great. All now agree. Mahmood42978 is opposes: 1) ANY SLAVERY IS GROSSLY IMMORAL, A FEW NOTCHES BELOW CANNIBALISM. 2) THOSE WHO STONE ANYONE FOR ANY REASON ARE BARBAROUS, WORSE BY FAR THAN THE HEAD SHRINKING CANNIBALS OF SOUTH AMERICA WERE.
________
Next. For group X & act Y, "one must perform action Y even with respect to group of persons X" negatively characterizes X. Example: "the right to remain silent applies even when the defendant is a convicted murderer."
Do you agree?
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 Consider Argument A: "if 2+2=4, then 8+10=11", My response "Argument A is logically fallacious because the sum of 8 and 10 is not 11. I oppose Arguement A."
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 ...you're just digging yourself a bigger hole, quantitative reasoning, which deals with the existential properties known as numbers, is not the same as moral or ethical postulates which have no such properties. The Analogy is fraudulent.
Not to step into the ad-hominem level here. But this last post tells me that you're not very smart.
Please at least try to read a book on Logic to know why your arguments are faulty.
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978
For group X & act Y, the statement "one must perform Y even with respect to X" negatively characterization of X. Example: "the right to remain silent applies even when the defendant is a convicted murderer."
The answer. Not always. "One must provide every penny of a tax rebate even to the richest person on earth." Thus, one must ask under what conditions a negative characterization is exists. First, the statement expresses a lower bound on responsibility. Agree?
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 If, then is a logical construction. You are wrong here.
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 If , then is a logical qualifier, but using the analogy of existential facts s about arithmetic to whether your feelings about moral/ethical issues is Logically bogus to the Nth degree. It's your analogy which is logically absurd.
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 One may use mathematical equations know to be true or false as a means to understanding logical qualifiers.
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 You're being intellectually dishonest, you can't use mathematical equations to make general statements of logical truths. Certain mathematical OPERATIONS (not equations) can be applied; BUT ONLY IF there is a BIJECTION between the sets which the variables are contained in. Did you demonstrate this bijection? No, in fact there is no bijection between Arithmetic and Moral Clauses.
You're really uneducated aren't you? You clearly disregard whether anything you say is actually valid
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 All agree. Mahmood42978 is opposed to: 1 ) ANY SLAVERY IS GROSSLY IMMORAL, A FEW NOTCHES BELOW CANNIBALISM. 2) THOSE WHO STONE ANYONE FOR ANY REASON ARE BARBAROUS, WORSE BY FAR THAN THE HEAD SHRINKING CANNIBALS OF SOUTH AMERICA WERE.
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 Calm down, you making yourself look like a frustrated moron who feels out smarted and can't cope with it.
No one hears your call, no one is coming to your rescue to give you that desperate ease of validation to soothe your angst, so you can intellectually dishonestly feel redemptin usig the fraudulence of social weight to vindicate yourself.
The Answer is, I'm not opposing or denying anything because, you present a Logical Fallacy Known as a False Dichotomy
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 Main point: Mahmood42978 opposes the statements: 1) ANY SLAVERY IS GROSSLY IMMORAL, A FEW NOTCHES BELOW CANNIBALISM. 2) THOSE WHO STONE ANYONE FOR ANY REASON ARE BARBAROUS, WORSE BY FAR THAN THE HEAD SHRINKING CANNIBALS OF SOUTH AMERICA WERE.
Two statements racist to me: "You have to give the defendant the right to remain silent even if he or she is Black" & "You have to read the defendant the right to remain silent even if he or she is a Black thief." Are they racist to you?
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 These questions are irrelevant since they don't prove anything, subjective opinions do not verify or dispel truths
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 The questions establish moral stances, themselves interesting irrespective of truth value. Your moral stance is fascinating. Please answer the question posed to you just a while back, viz: Two statements racist to me: "You have to give the defendant the right to remain silent even if he or she is Black" & "You have to read the defendant the right to remain silent even if he or she is a Black thief." Are they racist to you?
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 I don't care about what fascinates you though ....unless you can stay consistent with the debate, then we have nothing more to exchange.
I'm happy to debunk you, but I have no interest in entertaining your personal moral insecurities.
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mahmood42978 It can definitely be said that Mahmood42978 refuses to answer the following query: Two statements racist to me: "You have to give the defendant the right to remain silent even if he or she is Black" & "You have to read the defendant the right to remain silent even if he or she is a Black thief." Are they racist to you?
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 Would you say your moral opinions in general are representative of Muslims in Palestine? I think most Americans share my moral stances.
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 Logical Fallacy, Appeal to Popularity
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 Nope. Argumentum ad populum concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. All that was being asked is whether your moral stance is representative of those of your fellow Palestinians in your opinion. No reason exists to infer from that statement that it makes your opinion more or less valid.
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 I'm not Palestinian first of all, so this shows that you yourself hold racist ideas that someone who argues in favor of Palestinians is from Palestine.
As for the rest of your statement; if your question was not an attempt at Appeal to Popularity, then it has no relevance to me.
The debate is now concluded ....you lost (obviously)
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 Your profile does not say your national origin. Your profile lists Arabic music as an entity separate from International Music, rendering likely your being ethnically Arabic. Assuming you are Palestinian does not eo ipso imply a belief that only Palestinian Muslims speak for Palestinian Muslims. Wherever you are from, your moral stances are fascinating. Never would I have imagined anyone refusing to answer that question about racism!
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 I have many different cultures of music in my profile; to assume someone's ethnicity by someone's profile musical selections is even more raciallisticlly biased.
I haven't made any moral stances; I have been completely morally ambiguous, except perhaps in regards to Palestinians having the right to kick out invaders from their home.
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 Also, your stances on slavery & stoning people to death are incredibly interesting. You have no idea how pleasurable meeting someone with such different viewpoints is! I'm from the US, by the way, born & raised here. You?
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 Again I haven't presented any position on these issues. If you think I hve just because I exposed why the reasoning behind your arguments, i.e. appeal to novelty, appeal to popularity, false dichotomy etc etc etc. Then you're an idiot.
I have no interest in knowing anything about you nor informing you about me.
Just save your dignity and move on. Unless you have some masochistic need to be disproved ....of which I'll be happy to oblige.
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mahmood42978 You oppose the following: :1)ANY SLAVERY IS GROSSLY IMMORAL, A FEW NOTCHES BELOW CANNIBALISM. 2) THOSE WHO STONE ANYONE FOR ANY REASON ARE BARBAROUS, WORSE BY FAR THAN THE HEAD SHRINKING CANNIBALS OF SOUTH AMERICA WERE.
You refuse to answer: Are these racist: "You have to give the defendant the right to remain silent even if he or she is Black" & "You have to give the defendant the right to remain silent even if he or she is a Black thief."
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 That's amazing! May your life be long & healthy!
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 You already agreed you opposed my arguments, repeatedly put before you. To deem an argument invalid implies opposition to that argument.
Statement: "All real Nazi's were Germans, therefore anyone who is German is a Nazi."
Response: "That is logically fallacious. I therefore oppose that statement."
Opposition here depends not upon whether or not all real Nazi's were German.
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 Yes I clearly stated I oppose your arguments on grounds of their poor reasoning that supports them. You're being once again intellectually dishonest. and apparently you're doing so deliberately. Yes the Germans-Nazis case would be logically fallacious the reasoning is poor. But this is not Analogous to Whether I endorse or reject certain Moral precepts which is what you're insinuating in previous posts.
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 Moot, as demonstrated above. Moreover, your two arguments about logical fallacy, argumentum ad novitatem & fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, having been shown to be invalid. Again, the two statements you oppose: 1)ANY SLAVERY IS GROSSLY IMMORAL, A FEW NOTCHES BELOW CANNIBALISM. 2) THOSE WHO STONE ANYONE FOR ANY REASON ARE BARBAROUS, WORSE BY FAR THAN THE HEAD SHRINKING CANNIBALS OF SOUTH AMERICA WERE.
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 It's not moot because your position was falsely established to begin with You also therein commit the fallacies again but this time applying them in regards to different propositions
a.) The Appeal to Novelty was in response to your using "modern modern ...time changed" nonsense
b.) False dichotomy was in response to your belief that there are only TWO moral possibilities, right/wrong.
c.) Something is not "moot" just because you say so.
You've lost this debate. the end.
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mahmood42978 The assertions are what count, not the intermediate arguments. That morals change over time does not imply changes in morals are solely due to time. Right & wrong depend on world views; your morals differ from mine. The two assertions you oppose: :1)ANY SLAVERY IS GROSSLY IMMORAL, A FEW NOTCHES BELOW CANNIBALISM. 2) THOSE WHO STONE ANYONE FOR ANY REASON ARE BARBAROUS, WORSE BY FAR THAN THE HEAD SHRINKING CANNIBALS OF SOUTH AMERICA WERE.
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 The fallacy of false dichotomy exists iff only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options. Statements you oppose do not limit options. Again, you oppose: 1)ANY SLAVERY IS GROSSLY IMMORAL, A FEW NOTCHES BELOW CANNIBALISM. 2) THOSE WHO STONE ANYONE FOR ANY REASON ARE BARBAROUS, WORSE BY FAR THAN THE HEAD SHRINKING CANNIBALS OF SOUTH AMERICA WERE.
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 & it also goes with slavery. Like the bible, the Quran was written in a time of slavery wherein heredity mattered. Unlike the bible, the slavery at the writing of the Quran had a skin color edge to it best viewed by seeing the Hadiths. Mohammed did what he could to advance matters, e.g., manumission Hadiths, but the ones after him simply decided to continue the industry until quite recently.
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 By the way, this is a ton of fun, convivial even. Must get a spot of lunch. will be back with a nice Hadith list for you if you don't have one. Sans context, here's Proverbs 3:13: Joyful is the person who finds wisdom, the one who gains understanding.
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 Do you honestly believe Almighty God cares about ownership of a sliver of land on a small planet at the edge of a moderately sized galaxy? Such a belief is more absurd than the idea that lopping hands is a reasonable approach to theft. Amazingly enough, there exist people in the 21st century who believe in chopping off people's hands. The cruelty appalls me.
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 No but that's a straw man argument misinformed and and naive individuals make. Human dignity and basic ethics of social justice is what makes the issue of people stealing the livelihood and homes of others a major crime which warrants opposition and even retaliation if needed. The appeal to Metaphysics is not required . Everything else you state is irrelevant in context and thus won't be addressed. Its better to stay consistent to subject matter next time
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
@Mahmood42978 The topic is whatever it is deemed to be; Hadiths are most fun for me when shit based. US history is partly removal of Native Americans for Manifest Destiny. You appear to my perhaps wrong eye to aver as absurd the notion "God cares about a sliver of land", unlike many on You Tube. Readily discovered are clerical diktats to kill Jews.
P1B1U1H1 2 months ago
@P1B1U1H1 Oh I see, that's rather convenient. So basically you're insinuating that you're allowed to change goal posts whenever you make silly irrelevant arguments, which aren't even completely consistent with their original framework none the less. Well then theres nothing to debate as you are already tacitly conceding that your case is weak and fallacious by doing so. I don't get why you keep appealing to metaphysics.When someone occupies, means the natives are justified in resisting. now cry
Mahmood42978 2 months ago
Btw, these fake jews (khazars) are actually mentioned in the new testament.
I'll let you figure that out.
HuckMeHard 6 months ago
@PirateXzibit ya bro i totally know what ur saying truth is truth but it depends how you interpret it. could you tell me by using a quote where did i say it doesnt matter whether you believe or not? bro i really appreciate your challenge man. God bless!
christlivesinme1997 6 months ago
@christlivesinme1997 I think you misinterepreted my comment. I mean that you ought to say that it doesn't matter etc.
And you don't have to go far in Scripture to find it.
John 3:15-17 is a good way of saying that they will perish (die the Death) unless they repent and believe the gospel. Those who are Saved are not going to die the Death.
PirateXzibit 6 months ago
hi chad um this has no relation to the video whatsoever. so here it goes. i am a fellow preacher and a scenario ive faced a couple times is this. im going through the good person test im at the end and ive esentially told them thier going to hell they say i dont believe in hell. how do i prove hell exists there was one guy who actually believed in heaven but not hell! anyway thanks a bunch God bless
christlivesinme1997 6 months ago
@christlivesinme1997 You say that it doesn't matter whether they believe or not. Truth is truth no matter what.
PirateXzibit 6 months ago
What's the point of shooting fake guns? You'd get shot either way. I mean, not to promote shootings of any sort, but you'd think that would just hurl rocks and call it good.
polaroidsky 6 months ago
I understand that Muslims hate Jews, and I sure some vice versa. But what I don't get is that people make it about race, instead of making it about what it actually is and what it is, is "sin" or "wrong doing" the reason I say don't make it so much about race is because there are Israelis that do things wrong to eachother & there are Palestinians that do things wrong to eachother. Although I will say Islam is a racist religion.
darkoblivion20 7 months ago
@SoldierOfLight1 and may god keep up the good work hes doing there!
TheNorthCold 8 months ago
And he forgot to mention how the Jewish settlers murder arabs, and how the Israeli military bulldozes entire arab neighborhoods!
Maybe try to remain a little less biased, how bout it?
HuckMeHard 8 months ago
@HuckMeHard Welll maybe you should practice being a little less biased, how about it? Because your comment shows you are all for the muslims and don't like Jews. Are the Jews constantly launching rockets into the muslim territories? No. As for this video, I see clearly the muslims are causing the trouble and the Israeli police seem very lenient to me...how about it?
shadapple 7 months ago
@HuckMeHard Illegal Arab occupation. Israel has every right to what they want with their country.
PirateXzibit 6 months ago
@PirateXzibit
The arabs (true semites) were always there.
90% of Israelis aren't semites, they're khazars from Eastern Europe.
They have no ancestry to the ancient Israelites.
HuckMeHard 6 months ago
@HuckMeHard Making up statistics is a great way to prove ur point! bravo!
YBP0891 3 months ago
@HuckMeHard STFU arabs werent in the reagion before the turkish empire moved them from there so stfu stupid
yonib59 3 months ago
Did you call them iraqi police? You mean israeli lol. Man great footage!!!
MaharlikaAWA 8 months ago
Thats so wrong
Domodeath 9 months ago
yes dude i went in there jews are stupid .... everyone has to go and see how they treat palestinan people man commmmmmon dude
osama8183 9 months ago
Dude!!! Jews came in and pushed the Arabs out, so Arabs should be mad.
NUVISI0N 9 months ago
@NUVISI0N by that logic the Jews should be mad at the Arabs because the Jews were there before the Arabs were. So using your own reasoning I am guessing you are pro-Israel! Welcome to the side of freedom!
staum607 9 months ago
start reading your bible at judges chapter 11 and try and make that make sense... 2000 years ago is part of recorded history...anyone got the exact year, month & day of the supposed most important historical event on the planet? no? didn't think so...
mindDefyButtin 9 months ago
who ever posted this video is a fucking idiot kepp enjoying ur life now dude as u will be enjoying the hell fire for eternity palestine is there country and u fukn jew dogs moved in an invaded there land and space many many years ago there will be justice one day coming!!!!!!!!!!
rdkilluminati 9 months ago
@rdkilluminati Who lived there before the palestinians? If you want to play this game the first ones there were the canaanites, however God used to Jews to wipe them out after 400 years of child sacrifice. So the next earliest people group is the Jews. If you want to support the palestinian side, you should use a different argument.
staum607 9 months ago
@staum607 im not supporting any one but come on do you see how palestinians are being treated by the israeli army its in humane its so slack the media dosent show what goes on but when the palestinians do something its internationaly broadcasted thats whats sucks the most but then again this is a never ending war till the day of judgement may god be with which ever person who is innocent and dosent deserve what they recieve in this life!!
rdkilluminati 9 months ago
@staum607 and no thankyou i dont want to play any games!!
rdkilluminati 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fuck Islam. Fuck Allah. Fuck muslims. Fuck Muhammad
jigglyfidda125 9 months ago
Chad they should have used your services and set you with a scope and some rubber bullets lol :-) .Joking !!
MrBobbyandJoJo 9 months ago
Five guys with rocks and flare guns!! Quick, roll some tanks into their neighborhood and kill five hundred unrelated people! That'll show 'em once and for all.
spfccsmft 9 months ago
How could anyone look at this and decide that religion is a good thing for a society.
percyth11 9 months ago
@percyth11 Because something called "Communism" ravaged half the world and killed millions of people. Communism was fueled by Atheism. How could anyone look at that and decide that Atheism is good for society.
aa3gunner 9 months ago
@aa3gunner I don't even know what are you trying to say... This just looks like some knee jerk reaction in an attempt to attack atheism. Just to inform you, as you have most likely been living in a cave with your congregation your whole life; that many countries are run by a secular government. A secular government being a non-religious government, i.e. an 'atheist' government in the loosest sense. Those that do have secular governments are on the whole doing better than those that do not.
percyth11 9 months ago
@percyth11: Apparently you missed out on your history. The American government was founded on "Christian" values. Even put "One Nation under God" on currency. yeah, atheist in the "loosest sense".
aa3gunner 9 months ago
@aa3gunner When did "the American government" become most countries governments? And doesn't your country have a separation of church and state clause, hence making the government secular?
percyth11 9 months ago
@aa3gunner
because putting under god just 50 years ago means that our founding fathers were against seperation of church and state? Hah!
fnjanitor 9 months ago
@aa3gunner Still doesn't mean it's not true dude. Just because Atheism can be just as intolerant has religion, doesn't mean Atheism isn't true.
treasuredroperX 9 months ago
@aa3gunner I don't know how you linked communism to atheism and israel is a democracy.
it is one of the best and freest countries in the middle east.
DebateMeTheists 9 months ago
Reminds me of that movie Agora
percyth11 9 months ago
There all ramped up because their Pastor (sorry Imam) just gave them a rousing sermon on spreading the gospel of Muhammad. It's like like us Evangelicals after Sunday services were so zealous for the Lord when we hit the Cracker Barrel! :)
Man if they only knew a SEAL was giving over watch they would have left the rocks and black cats at home. Welcome back Brian
marcbroussard 9 months ago
What the Israeli police force should is every time they start doing stuff like this, take off after those clowns with leather straps (or belts, whichever the officer is most comfortable with) in hand, and when they catch the hooligans, give them a passionate ass-whoopin'. That'll bring an end to all the bs!
jarbon5 9 months ago
it sounded like he said, "the dumb of the rock"
:P
Canlander7 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Islam is a evil ideology!
Duplooytim 10 months ago
@Duplooytim Only because it's believers make it that way
treasuredroperX 9 months ago
@treasuredroperX
Nope!!
The whole religion is evil... heres why!
Al taqiyya = lying in Islam for 3 reasons! (Lying in christianity is 100% wrong)
Men are allowed to marry 6 year old girls (following their prophet's example)
And ofcourse Kill the Jews!
There are more than these reasons!
Educate yourself about the evil in Islam!
One of the names of "Allah" in the Qur'an is the "great deciever".... (Biblically thats lucifer)
Bless!
Duplooytim 9 months ago
May God bless and grant you mercy and power through The Spirit as you minister to the Jewish People, They are in such need to recognize Christ as The one and only
Messiah! The Time is coming to fruition KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK
bkeay100 10 months ago
I want to see Isael and thanks of course Chad. If you get a chance to film, my friend says hassidic Pharisee Jews throw rocks at people who may not look right when the latter walks through their neighborhood
StopFear 10 months ago
looked like roman candle battle to me, i have those all the time in my backyard.
MrPaulwalrus 10 months ago
kinda funny how muslims claim that they are peaceful and don't want to hurt anyone. but i find that hard to believe when their quran says to kill all infidels, they do suicide bombings, and things like this. how many times do you see christians blowing themselves up and making it a point to kill as many muslims as possible? does the bible say to kill nonbelievers? no. but theirs does. Islam = lie put in place by satan
jkcrusher18 10 months ago 3
@jkcrusher18 Islam=religion made by Muhammad, not satan.
treasuredroperX 9 months ago
Sad but good footage.
Bigjon145 10 months ago
sad
cryout2Him 10 months ago
Looked like some kind of cheesy Roman candle or something. More Shri'ah crap. People, we are so blessed we live here. Any Muslim that even pretended to do that where I live, and some redneck would put him in the dirt. By the way, I'm in Middleburg FL in case any want to try. If you do, lose some teeth, get a Rebel flag, and drive a pickup if you want to blend in. Oh, and bring more than a Roman candle. Little kids play with those here to celebrate our nation's independence.
ONEOVER99 10 months ago
What type of camera did you use chad?
Jake12399 10 months ago
Thanks Chad. God bless your visit.
femadrigal 10 months ago
Wait - these Muslims protests Jews on Jew-Territory? Why do people need to question Israel's religious tolerance after viewing this?
aveyowyns 10 months ago
@aveyowyns they feel the land is theirs. and the jews stole it by claiming of racism from Germans
DemonicGemini 10 months ago
@DemonicGemini
The least you could've done was be accurate...
The Jews didn't steal anything - the land that the Jews occupy was never it's own nation - it was land that belonged to Britian, who gave it to the Jews after WWII. Though, my beliefs are that Britians 'niceness' was for actually sinister reasons.
aveyowyns 10 months ago
@aveyowyns wow smartness i said the THEY as in Muslims believed the Jews stole the land.
DemonicGemini 10 months ago
My reaction was the same as yours. What was that one guy holding that was smoking? Was that some kind of gun? He held it with one hand. What was that he was shooting? It smoked a lot. An idea????
gomitch2 10 months ago
@gomitch2 home-made smoke bombs
DJsStratoArt 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
its so pathetic they fight with rocks
crimen 10 months ago
Good video Chad. :-)
amy2x 10 months ago
That's no flare gun.... It's a roman candle.
And if this was a riot, then why are there so many innocent bystanders in the market?
I've seen bigger riots after basketball games.
jwissick 10 months ago
You could not get away with that in the US
laurieannek 10 months ago
Why were you defending the Jews over the Muslims? Both of them are unworthy of controlling the Holy Land. You should defend Christians, not the Jews who only look after their own interests.
Glorthac 10 months ago
@Glorthac Catholics are not Christians. They are Satanists. You are not a Christian. You worship Pagen gods.
amy2x 10 months ago
Amazing, great upload.
Ozzi4Japan 10 months ago
I would love to go to Israel some day. Can't wait to see "Way of the Master Season 5"!
RemakersProductions 10 months ago
@rationalresponder hey i bet if you had a gun you would have took care of the guys yourself..haha jk
Savedbygracefaith 10 months ago
lol, u silly Chad, but LOVED very much here in Ohio; make sure you take care of you and your wife man, GOD Speed.
mrsgmason 10 months ago
Stay safe.... Cheers.
ohoh00007 10 months ago
Tbh you'd be pissed too if your home is taken away and being taken by force...
Gaga4Parma 10 months ago
@Gaga4Parma Remember that when an Indian terrorizes you.
JesusforLife2 10 months ago
*facepalm* That isn't gunfire, Chad. Doesn't sound even remotely similar. That's FIREWORKS.
They are firing what looks to be roman candles...
jwissick 10 months ago
@jwissick They remind me of you, annoying trolls.
JesusforLife2 10 months ago
That is shameful. Muslim extremists need to be brought to justice. They get away with everything these days.
CoolPhleg 10 months ago
This video has likes. Shouldn't it have dislikes? Who likes this constant fighting?
DevoutPatriot 10 months ago
i honestly believe Israel is the only country that could fight terrorism
RayWilliamJohansen 10 months ago 5
I suppose you meant to say "Israeli" Police, not "Iraqi", right?
vlag3 10 months ago 5
@vlag3
Your right...Old habit.
rationalresponder 10 months ago 9
@rationalresponder I figured it was an old habit lol....thanks for posting, bro.
jsedw05 10 months ago
@rationalresponder Please go down to them and ask them why they are not Christians ? ;)
Or. Do you think you are a good person? lol
TheNorthCold 8 months ago
I hope you guys are being safe! God bless.
MinorCheese777 10 months ago