Upload
Login or register

Fgner

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:11/24/2010
Last Login:8/30/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#1957
Highest Content Rank:#153
Highest Comment Rank:#1060
Content Thumbs: 27852 total,  30359 ,  2507
Comment Thumbs: 12572 total,  16470 ,  3898
Content Level Progress: 75.6% (756/1000)
Level 223 Content: Mind Blower → Level 224 Content: Mind Blower
Comment Level Progress: 41.6% (208/500)
Level 310 Comments: Wizard → Level 311 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:166
Content Views:1530524
Times Content Favorited:4077 times
Total Comments Made:6260
FJ Points:35068
Favorite Tags: Headline (24) | funny (8) | Emo (4) | fisting (4) | punk (4) | eyes (3) | fucking (3) | grill (3) | High (3) | Knee (3) | on (3) | pregnant (3) | socks (3) | stockings (3) | the (3) | Thigh (3) | a (2) | Anal (2) | bj (2) | blowjob (2)
Here's where I'll archive all the images and gifs (no videos sadly) of my headlines:
http://fjguy.imgur.com

Feel free to make requests!

Text Posts

HD Gifs / WebMs

First2[ 7 ]

latest user's comments

#56 - If it goes inside the girl - throw it in.  [+] (1 new reply) 08/29/2016 on Lewd Ruler +4
User avatar
#111 - toxicwarning (21 hours ago) [-]
So... 0 inches then?
#55 - Really? I heard it was ~5.5-6 inches in sex ed all those years… 08/29/2016 on Lewd Ruler -2
#112 - > As an experienced sys-admin, fair enough, but I'd still e… 08/29/2016 on fak u linux +1
#111 - As an experience sys-admin, fair enough, but I still err on th…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/29/2016 on fak u linux +1
User avatar
#112 - Fgner (08/29/2016) [-]
> As an experienced sys-admin, fair enough, but I'd still err on the side of safety. Just takes one little slip...

To clarify, I'm not an experienced sys-admin. I was referring to you and typo'd the "I'd".
#213 - Even after I explain that this isn't a Red v Blue argument ver… 08/29/2016 on his face tho -2
#210 - 1) W...What. My argument isn't "Islam isn't bad", it…  [+] (2 new replies) 08/29/2016 on his face tho -2
#211 - empirennn (08/29/2016) [-]
1. Except it is the problem for the Islamic world. Christianity is definitely a problem, but since Jesus is nowhere near as warbound as Muhammad was, the problem with Christianity is not as severe.

You're argument lacks relevance. You are completely ignoring Islamic citation and reliance in the Islamic world and among Islamic terrorist. I could care less about christianity's issues, it's irrelevant to the topic and a red herring of "red vs. blue".

3. How am I lying? You're literally proving my point by saying secularism is the answer to the problem. That's the whole reason why Islam and Shariah are such a problem for that region.

Your point with Egypt is rather in my favor when an Islamic terrorist group takes it over and changes all the good the secularistic society was. Turkey became so very secular because of it's issues with Islam beforehand, which only further proves my point on why Islam is such a problem.(although turkey's problems with islam are constant).


You think Islam isn't a proponent of slavery? You think Muhammad didn't own slaves?
I mean seriously, the whole issue with slavery for Muslims has been that it's SUPPORTED in their religious ideology! THAT is why it wasn't banned until the western world had to say "hey, you can't do that in the UN".

Mississippi didn't have slaves you imbecile. Human trafficking is illegal, you're entire argument is based on legality of slavery up to that point.

You are just so utterly dishonest about this whole thing and STILL trying to argue red vs. blue.

I'm done. You have nothing to offer at this point besides another red herring of "well this group is just as bad"

Listen kid, when you grow up and realize "Jamal stole a bike too" isn't a valid excuse feel free to join these discussions, otherwise you're just going to be incapable of addressing things head on and trying to use these idiotic forms of apologetics.

Have fun.

#213 - Fgner (08/29/2016) [-]
Even after I explain that this isn't a Red v Blue argument very clearly, you still don't get it. You're ignoring every fundamental point of the argument, just going back to "well Islam is bad" over and over again. Yes, Islam in the Middle fucking East is bad, but that's not because Islam is more inherently bad than any other religion. This is correlation, not causation. How many times do I have to repeat this? If you disagree, I'd like you to point out a third world country that doesn't have problems with violence, crime, or oppression.

The middle east doesn't have slaves, then, because human trafficking is illegal and has been for 50 years. Nor does any country, because slavery is fairly universally illegal. I can't believe we're still on this bullshit red herring of slavery that you picked. It's illegal everywhere, the Islamic Clergy signed the same documents as all the other religious leaders with the hopes of eradicating slavery by 2020. Western Muslims hate slavery, obey the law, and are generally good, law abiding citizens.

It's like saying school shootings happen because of violence in the media. Or that crazies that kill people "because God told them" are because of Christianity. No, that's stupid, these people are fucked up for other reasons and you're ignoring the root cause of the behavior.

Let's review the discussion:
You: All Islam is radical Islam that believes in Sharia.
Me: The vast majority of western Muslims don't agree with you, based on Conservative-leaning polls. Islam and western society aren't mutually exclusive, we can get along. Something else is wrong that causes the psychos elsewhere.
You: But the book disagrees with those people. If you try to bring up that the Bible has similar views, you're justifying bad behavior.

You: Saudi Arabia had slaves in the 70s and therefore was always bad.
Me: Except they didn't. The abolishment began 50 years earlier, prohibition of new slaves 40 years earlier, and it was made illegal 8 years earlier than you say. By the 70s, almost the entire world abolished slavery and only one Muslim country hadn't. And legislative dates don't mean fucking much, Mississippi didn't make it legislatively illegal until recently.
You: They still sucked and they still had slaves.
Me: But they were getting much, much better - examples of how include secularism, womens rights, lifitng bans on alcohol, etc. And contemporary slavery in the middle east has fucking shit to do with Islam, they make up a drop in the bucket.
You: Oh, they weren't secularist.
Me: Here's a fucking list of the major middle eastern countries and their secularist history. And you know what the downfall was? Involvement by third parties who destroyed their economy and overthrew democracy.
You: Well then obviously Islam is evil for destroying secularism. And Muhammed had slaves.

You're dancing around the actual discussion, just pointing out flaws in a religion. No fucking shit, all religions are flawed, but that's not why people are bad. Every time I try to redirect the argument back to the discussion, you just dance around it again. Every time I bring in facts to disprove your narrative, you jump to another irrelevant topic or try to scrutinize them. I ask for facts and a civil talk and, "pft, your an apologist, west guiltist child" ad-hominem.

Fine, be a brick wall.
#188 - 1) Virtually every religion is ****** in the head, though. And…  [+] (4 new replies) 08/29/2016 on his face tho -2
User avatar
#190 - empirennn (08/29/2016) [-]
1. Yes they are, but not every religion has commands of violence from their main prophet. Again, this stupid "they are all equally bad" is just wrong. They all lack the sufficient evidence for their claims, but some are clearly worse than others.

And (again) this stupid "but BLUE is also shit!" is a retarded argument. If RED and BLUE are shit, then they are both shit! Why do you have to be so defensive about this that you have to constantly bring up another topic to say "but this is also bad"? It doesn't make the original any better.

2) No, I said we focus on both. I didn't say we focus equal amounts on both. Violence in the region has more or less been a constant issue. Yeah, they get peace for a bit, but it's always something. And more of the Islamic terrorist attacks are committed against other Muslims for not being "muslim enough" (simplification, but the gist is there)

3) Dude why are you even lying about this shit? The Islamic countries have had very little secularity in their law system, women are STILL second class citizens with regards to the law, and that's not even getting into the social aspects.

Yeah, it is. Because Mississipi didn't have slaves until 2013, Saudia Arabia did.
Muslim countries accounted for 10% of the worlds slavery........and your point is?

AGAIN you keep saying "well asian countries had slaves" What the fuck is your point here dude? That it's not "as bad" to have slaves in a society if the other society has more slaves?

You're just so full of shit lol.
User avatar
#210 - Fgner (08/29/2016) [-]
1) W...What. My argument isn't "Islam isn't bad", it's "Islam isn't the problem; it's no more inherently the problem than Christianity." I'm not justifying their actions, I'm saying their actions aren't solely caused by the religion, it's caused by the shitty environment they're born into. If the middle east were Christian states it would be the same way, religious extremists using a religion to justify violence. Or perhaps drugs, or money, or power.

By exemplifying that other parties are just as responsible and problematic I'm not making excuses for the behavior, but showing that correlation is not causation.

2) Oh, my misunderstanding there.

3) No, you're lying. Turkey began secularism after WWI, the founder of the country promoted secularism heavily via abolition of the Caliphate, banning of religious lodges, banned polygamy, allowed annullment of marriage, grants equal rights to women in many aspects, removed religion from education and court, banned religion for political gain, changed their fucking alphabet to Latin-based. Lebanon is confessionalist. Habib Bourguiba pursued secularization in Tuniaia and fought tooth and nail for it. Egypt began secularism in British occupation. Up until 2011 when the Muslim Brotherhood took hold the dictators were secular, following Nasser's influence. Syria was secularist from the French, and has separate courts for criminal/civil matters and Sharia matters (which apply to Muslims). Iran started secularization in the fucking 20's and only lost it after the Islamic Revolution. Et fucking cetera.

Don't argue facts. Instead, how about arguing that all those countries lost their secularism to the same people - the Muslim Brotherhood and Associates. Point out the coincidence that a ton of these revolutions occurred at the same time. In which case I'll say "exactly, around the time the US got involved for economic and political reasons". And I'll also say that the political reasons were somewhat valid and that the modern generation doesn't owe anyone anything for the actions of our fathers.

NOW the Middle East is back to being shit, because that secularism has been destroyed.

3a) You brought up slavery in Islamic countries as if it helped the case against Islam... but it doesn't. Because the vast majority of that problem comes from non-Muslim Asian countries. Islam isn't the problem with that, it's fucked up third-world places with 0 value for human life, which just happen to include one Muslim country as a significant contributor. It destroys your prior argument, that's the point. And again, this isn't excusing behavior, slavery is appalling. But stop misattributing this to Islam, you aren't helping anyone. Let's focus on the real fucking problem and maybe we can start taking steps toward solutions.

Mississippi had slaves in 2013. In 2011, the US had 2,515 suspected cases of human trafficking, 82% were sex slaves and half of those were under 18. The world is fucked up all over, even here. Who do you think are the most at risk? The impoverished, the uneducated, and runaway/abuse/neglected children. It's not Islam, it's impoverishment and naturally occurring human psychopaths.

4) Come on, downvoting? I thought we were having a nice discussion and refrained myself from doing it. Have some sportsmanship and let the third parties be the judge.

In your next comment, please use real data and history. I've backed up almost every fact I've thrown with a source, or used dates and information you could easily Google. I'm not going to argue with a brick wall who doesn't care about the truth and will constantly redirect or ignore facts.
#211 - empirennn (08/29/2016) [-]
1. Except it is the problem for the Islamic world. Christianity is definitely a problem, but since Jesus is nowhere near as warbound as Muhammad was, the problem with Christianity is not as severe.

You're argument lacks relevance. You are completely ignoring Islamic citation and reliance in the Islamic world and among Islamic terrorist. I could care less about christianity's issues, it's irrelevant to the topic and a red herring of "red vs. blue".

3. How am I lying? You're literally proving my point by saying secularism is the answer to the problem. That's the whole reason why Islam and Shariah are such a problem for that region.

Your point with Egypt is rather in my favor when an Islamic terrorist group takes it over and changes all the good the secularistic society was. Turkey became so very secular because of it's issues with Islam beforehand, which only further proves my point on why Islam is such a problem.(although turkey's problems with islam are constant).


You think Islam isn't a proponent of slavery? You think Muhammad didn't own slaves?
I mean seriously, the whole issue with slavery for Muslims has been that it's SUPPORTED in their religious ideology! THAT is why it wasn't banned until the western world had to say "hey, you can't do that in the UN".

Mississippi didn't have slaves you imbecile. Human trafficking is illegal, you're entire argument is based on legality of slavery up to that point.

You are just so utterly dishonest about this whole thing and STILL trying to argue red vs. blue.

I'm done. You have nothing to offer at this point besides another red herring of "well this group is just as bad"

Listen kid, when you grow up and realize "Jamal stole a bike too" isn't a valid excuse feel free to join these discussions, otherwise you're just going to be incapable of addressing things head on and trying to use these idiotic forms of apologetics.

Have fun.

#213 - Fgner (08/29/2016) [-]
Even after I explain that this isn't a Red v Blue argument very clearly, you still don't get it. You're ignoring every fundamental point of the argument, just going back to "well Islam is bad" over and over again. Yes, Islam in the Middle fucking East is bad, but that's not because Islam is more inherently bad than any other religion. This is correlation, not causation. How many times do I have to repeat this? If you disagree, I'd like you to point out a third world country that doesn't have problems with violence, crime, or oppression.

The middle east doesn't have slaves, then, because human trafficking is illegal and has been for 50 years. Nor does any country, because slavery is fairly universally illegal. I can't believe we're still on this bullshit red herring of slavery that you picked. It's illegal everywhere, the Islamic Clergy signed the same documents as all the other religious leaders with the hopes of eradicating slavery by 2020. Western Muslims hate slavery, obey the law, and are generally good, law abiding citizens.

It's like saying school shootings happen because of violence in the media. Or that crazies that kill people "because God told them" are because of Christianity. No, that's stupid, these people are fucked up for other reasons and you're ignoring the root cause of the behavior.

Let's review the discussion:
You: All Islam is radical Islam that believes in Sharia.
Me: The vast majority of western Muslims don't agree with you, based on Conservative-leaning polls. Islam and western society aren't mutually exclusive, we can get along. Something else is wrong that causes the psychos elsewhere.
You: But the book disagrees with those people. If you try to bring up that the Bible has similar views, you're justifying bad behavior.

You: Saudi Arabia had slaves in the 70s and therefore was always bad.
Me: Except they didn't. The abolishment began 50 years earlier, prohibition of new slaves 40 years earlier, and it was made illegal 8 years earlier than you say. By the 70s, almost the entire world abolished slavery and only one Muslim country hadn't. And legislative dates don't mean fucking much, Mississippi didn't make it legislatively illegal until recently.
You: They still sucked and they still had slaves.
Me: But they were getting much, much better - examples of how include secularism, womens rights, lifitng bans on alcohol, etc. And contemporary slavery in the middle east has fucking shit to do with Islam, they make up a drop in the bucket.
You: Oh, they weren't secularist.
Me: Here's a fucking list of the major middle eastern countries and their secularist history. And you know what the downfall was? Involvement by third parties who destroyed their economy and overthrew democracy.
You: Well then obviously Islam is evil for destroying secularism. And Muhammed had slaves.

You're dancing around the actual discussion, just pointing out flaws in a religion. No fucking shit, all religions are flawed, but that's not why people are bad. Every time I try to redirect the argument back to the discussion, you just dance around it again. Every time I bring in facts to disprove your narrative, you jump to another irrelevant topic or try to scrutinize them. I ask for facts and a civil talk and, "pft, your an apologist, west guiltist child" ad-hominem.

Fine, be a brick wall.
#34 - You misunderstand, it's not the indulgence that's the problem,… 08/29/2016 on a li'l something to think... 0
#161 - 1) What? That's like saying the Inquisition or Crusades or Wes…  [+] (6 new replies) 08/29/2016 on his face tho -1
#173 - empirennn (08/29/2016) [-]
1) No, it's not. Because in Islam those views are held by the majority and SUPPORTED through the text of Islam, the Quran/Hadiths. The Inquisition/Crusades were more of the Catholic doctrine and Westboro is right in some regards, but the way they express themselves is the real reason they are considered "radical".

You're quoting statistics but clearly showing a bias in interpretation and not providing a source, so tell me why I should care.

2. Your point is just entirely irrelevant to my statement and just ranting about the (absurd) equivocation of a cartel to a terrorist cell and the actions of local law enforcement to drug traffickers. Again, why should I care in this conversation? How is this relevant to what I posted? Are you just going to rant on corrupt politicians or something next?

3) Oh sorry, 1962. Doesn't matter on the 8 years difference. It wasn't a "progressive intellectual" society, the middle east has (for centuries) been a powder keg of one shitfest to the next, FILLED TO THE BRIM with human right's abuses. Heck, women are STILL second class citizens there by the law.

Saying Mississipi had slaves in 2013 is just a dishonest tactic. Saudi Arabia had slaves up until that point. They STILL have child brides, which are lawful pedophilia/rape.

Again, you're full of shit. You're just completely lying about this shit in another self-flagellation of the "western guilt because our culture is better"

Get over yourself you masochist.


User avatar
#188 - Fgner (08/29/2016) [-]
1) Virtually every religion is fucked in the head, though. And the interpretations range from perfectly peaceful to kill all gays. You can't argue Islam is inherently violent without also saying Judaism is inherently violent, as well as some sects of Christianity...

I gave you the source. Which, might I add, is Conservative leaning. It's the same source people use to claim 51% of Muslims in the US want Sharia law... Bloody twat can't even click a spoiler

2) ...What. You said we treat the cartel problem just as much as the terrorist one... but it's bullshit. And that connects to my original comment in that we're acting like terrorism is some special thing caused by Islam when, in reality, most third world countries have these huge glaring problems with violence and gangs of psychos - it's just this one happens to be religious motivated. That's how it's relevant. Can you not keep up with the conversation and make basic connections?

3) You could drink booze, women had jobs, people were educated, states were secular, and the people giving up the restrictions of religion, people dressed in Western clothes, cities built and flourished, major politicians leaned toward socio-communistic policy. No, of course it wasn't fucking heaven, they had just been jettisoned from the fucking stone age to the information age in less than 100 years, but it was getting good really fast and the region wasn't a constant warzone between religious states.

No, it's not dishonest. If you bring up the legal dates, I'll bring up legal dates as well. And look at you hand-waving a full fucking decade away and completely ignoring the fact that the only slaves that existed in 1962 when it was outlawed were those that were slaves in 1936 and those illegal ones - no new slaves allowed. And modern slaves are illegal, so I'm not sure what your point is. And yes, it's a fucked up place now, but it was far less fucked up before is the point.

Jesus, and you call me on my shit? Want my source for the where contempary slavery is from? Here: www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/05/where-the-worlds-slaves-live/484994/. Muslim countries account for a whopping total of... wait for it... ~10% of slavery in the world. Asian countries are well over 50%.

And where the fuck do you get Western Guilt? I'm ignoring the fucking West, because we're irrelevant to the discussion at hand - poverty and uneducated masses cause violent groups to crop up, not Islam. I fucking love it over here, despite our issues we're the bomb. We owe nothing to anybody, but that doesn't mean I don't want to help people who are desperately in need and suffering.

You're just being a child - "ignore empathy, us v them, black and white world full of the baddies and goodies, fuck everyone else I'm not sharing."
User avatar
#190 - empirennn (08/29/2016) [-]
1. Yes they are, but not every religion has commands of violence from their main prophet. Again, this stupid "they are all equally bad" is just wrong. They all lack the sufficient evidence for their claims, but some are clearly worse than others.

And (again) this stupid "but BLUE is also shit!" is a retarded argument. If RED and BLUE are shit, then they are both shit! Why do you have to be so defensive about this that you have to constantly bring up another topic to say "but this is also bad"? It doesn't make the original any better.

2) No, I said we focus on both. I didn't say we focus equal amounts on both. Violence in the region has more or less been a constant issue. Yeah, they get peace for a bit, but it's always something. And more of the Islamic terrorist attacks are committed against other Muslims for not being "muslim enough" (simplification, but the gist is there)

3) Dude why are you even lying about this shit? The Islamic countries have had very little secularity in their law system, women are STILL second class citizens with regards to the law, and that's not even getting into the social aspects.

Yeah, it is. Because Mississipi didn't have slaves until 2013, Saudia Arabia did.
Muslim countries accounted for 10% of the worlds slavery........and your point is?

AGAIN you keep saying "well asian countries had slaves" What the fuck is your point here dude? That it's not "as bad" to have slaves in a society if the other society has more slaves?

You're just so full of shit lol.
User avatar
#210 - Fgner (08/29/2016) [-]
1) W...What. My argument isn't "Islam isn't bad", it's "Islam isn't the problem; it's no more inherently the problem than Christianity." I'm not justifying their actions, I'm saying their actions aren't solely caused by the religion, it's caused by the shitty environment they're born into. If the middle east were Christian states it would be the same way, religious extremists using a religion to justify violence. Or perhaps drugs, or money, or power.

By exemplifying that other parties are just as responsible and problematic I'm not making excuses for the behavior, but showing that correlation is not causation.

2) Oh, my misunderstanding there.

3) No, you're lying. Turkey began secularism after WWI, the founder of the country promoted secularism heavily via abolition of the Caliphate, banning of religious lodges, banned polygamy, allowed annullment of marriage, grants equal rights to women in many aspects, removed religion from education and court, banned religion for political gain, changed their fucking alphabet to Latin-based. Lebanon is confessionalist. Habib Bourguiba pursued secularization in Tuniaia and fought tooth and nail for it. Egypt began secularism in British occupation. Up until 2011 when the Muslim Brotherhood took hold the dictators were secular, following Nasser's influence. Syria was secularist from the French, and has separate courts for criminal/civil matters and Sharia matters (which apply to Muslims). Iran started secularization in the fucking 20's and only lost it after the Islamic Revolution. Et fucking cetera.

Don't argue facts. Instead, how about arguing that all those countries lost their secularism to the same people - the Muslim Brotherhood and Associates. Point out the coincidence that a ton of these revolutions occurred at the same time. In which case I'll say "exactly, around the time the US got involved for economic and political reasons". And I'll also say that the political reasons were somewhat valid and that the modern generation doesn't owe anyone anything for the actions of our fathers.

NOW the Middle East is back to being shit, because that secularism has been destroyed.

3a) You brought up slavery in Islamic countries as if it helped the case against Islam... but it doesn't. Because the vast majority of that problem comes from non-Muslim Asian countries. Islam isn't the problem with that, it's fucked up third-world places with 0 value for human life, which just happen to include one Muslim country as a significant contributor. It destroys your prior argument, that's the point. And again, this isn't excusing behavior, slavery is appalling. But stop misattributing this to Islam, you aren't helping anyone. Let's focus on the real fucking problem and maybe we can start taking steps toward solutions.

Mississippi had slaves in 2013. In 2011, the US had 2,515 suspected cases of human trafficking, 82% were sex slaves and half of those were under 18. The world is fucked up all over, even here. Who do you think are the most at risk? The impoverished, the uneducated, and runaway/abuse/neglected children. It's not Islam, it's impoverishment and naturally occurring human psychopaths.

4) Come on, downvoting? I thought we were having a nice discussion and refrained myself from doing it. Have some sportsmanship and let the third parties be the judge.

In your next comment, please use real data and history. I've backed up almost every fact I've thrown with a source, or used dates and information you could easily Google. I'm not going to argue with a brick wall who doesn't care about the truth and will constantly redirect or ignore facts.
#211 - empirennn (08/29/2016) [-]
1. Except it is the problem for the Islamic world. Christianity is definitely a problem, but since Jesus is nowhere near as warbound as Muhammad was, the problem with Christianity is not as severe.

You're argument lacks relevance. You are completely ignoring Islamic citation and reliance in the Islamic world and among Islamic terrorist. I could care less about christianity's issues, it's irrelevant to the topic and a red herring of "red vs. blue".

3. How am I lying? You're literally proving my point by saying secularism is the answer to the problem. That's the whole reason why Islam and Shariah are such a problem for that region.

Your point with Egypt is rather in my favor when an Islamic terrorist group takes it over and changes all the good the secularistic society was. Turkey became so very secular because of it's issues with Islam beforehand, which only further proves my point on why Islam is such a problem.(although turkey's problems with islam are constant).


You think Islam isn't a proponent of slavery? You think Muhammad didn't own slaves?
I mean seriously, the whole issue with slavery for Muslims has been that it's SUPPORTED in their religious ideology! THAT is why it wasn't banned until the western world had to say "hey, you can't do that in the UN".

Mississippi didn't have slaves you imbecile. Human trafficking is illegal, you're entire argument is based on legality of slavery up to that point.

You are just so utterly dishonest about this whole thing and STILL trying to argue red vs. blue.

I'm done. You have nothing to offer at this point besides another red herring of "well this group is just as bad"

Listen kid, when you grow up and realize "Jamal stole a bike too" isn't a valid excuse feel free to join these discussions, otherwise you're just going to be incapable of addressing things head on and trying to use these idiotic forms of apologetics.

Have fun.

#213 - Fgner (08/29/2016) [-]
Even after I explain that this isn't a Red v Blue argument very clearly, you still don't get it. You're ignoring every fundamental point of the argument, just going back to "well Islam is bad" over and over again. Yes, Islam in the Middle fucking East is bad, but that's not because Islam is more inherently bad than any other religion. This is correlation, not causation. How many times do I have to repeat this? If you disagree, I'd like you to point out a third world country that doesn't have problems with violence, crime, or oppression.

The middle east doesn't have slaves, then, because human trafficking is illegal and has been for 50 years. Nor does any country, because slavery is fairly universally illegal. I can't believe we're still on this bullshit red herring of slavery that you picked. It's illegal everywhere, the Islamic Clergy signed the same documents as all the other religious leaders with the hopes of eradicating slavery by 2020. Western Muslims hate slavery, obey the law, and are generally good, law abiding citizens.

It's like saying school shootings happen because of violence in the media. Or that crazies that kill people "because God told them" are because of Christianity. No, that's stupid, these people are fucked up for other reasons and you're ignoring the root cause of the behavior.

Let's review the discussion:
You: All Islam is radical Islam that believes in Sharia.
Me: The vast majority of western Muslims don't agree with you, based on Conservative-leaning polls. Islam and western society aren't mutually exclusive, we can get along. Something else is wrong that causes the psychos elsewhere.
You: But the book disagrees with those people. If you try to bring up that the Bible has similar views, you're justifying bad behavior.

You: Saudi Arabia had slaves in the 70s and therefore was always bad.
Me: Except they didn't. The abolishment began 50 years earlier, prohibition of new slaves 40 years earlier, and it was made illegal 8 years earlier than you say. By the 70s, almost the entire world abolished slavery and only one Muslim country hadn't. And legislative dates don't mean fucking much, Mississippi didn't make it legislatively illegal until recently.
You: They still sucked and they still had slaves.
Me: But they were getting much, much better - examples of how include secularism, womens rights, lifitng bans on alcohol, etc. And contemporary slavery in the middle east has fucking shit to do with Islam, they make up a drop in the bucket.
You: Oh, they weren't secularist.
Me: Here's a fucking list of the major middle eastern countries and their secularist history. And you know what the downfall was? Involvement by third parties who destroyed their economy and overthrew democracy.
You: Well then obviously Islam is evil for destroying secularism. And Muhammed had slaves.

You're dancing around the actual discussion, just pointing out flaws in a religion. No fucking shit, all religions are flawed, but that's not why people are bad. Every time I try to redirect the argument back to the discussion, you just dance around it again. Every time I bring in facts to disprove your narrative, you jump to another irrelevant topic or try to scrutinize them. I ask for facts and a civil talk and, "pft, your an apologist, west guiltist child" ad-hominem.

Fine, be a brick wall.
#131 - That's pretty interesting! Got anything I could read on the topic?  [+] (8 new replies) 08/29/2016 on his face tho 0
User avatar
#134 - commontroll (08/29/2016) [-]
www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2009/12/buildabomber.html
www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/46792/educated-muslim-terrorist-wm-b-fankboner
nationalinterest.org/blog/bruce-hoffman/todays-highly-educated-terrorists-4080
www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/opinion/the-madrassa-myth.html
www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/many-islamic-terrorists-bangladesh-attackers-well-educated-well

It's really fascinating, and I should specify that I simply have a hypothesis on the reason being that with the removal of conservative Christian speech in universities, and the SJW rhetoric saying that Muslims are oppressed by the West, that they're victims, etc. convinces these people that they really are needing to defend their brethren from the Western Oppressors and Invaders, as well as the Muslim Students Association (which is a pretty radical group, rhetoric wise, who has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood) who they inevitably join up with due to being a minority and wanting to find people they can identify with.

Basically I think a lot of these factor into why colleges are hotbeds for terrorist recruitment.
User avatar
#143 - Deeticky (08/29/2016) [-]
While I respect your opinion, I would argue that conservative Christian speech has not been removed from colleges. Sure, there are a few odd cases here and there of somebody being fired for saying something, but having to choose your words carefully when holding a position of power is nothing new.

I would also argue that the reason colleges are seeing more terrorist recruitment is BECAUSE they allow so much free speech. Colleges have always been the hotbeds of revolutionary ideas (Communism, the Hippie Movement, etc.). Does this mean that colleges should curb free speech? Absolutely not. However, the Western Powers have been oppressing people throughout the Middle East for many years (colonies, Cold War puppet dictators, invasions, etc). So it comes as no surprise that colleges are the kind of place where people talk about that oppression. Does it justify terrorism? Absolutely not. But it's an explanation.
User avatar
#150 - commontroll (08/29/2016) [-]
Let me clarify when I said conservative Christian. I say that because really, radical Islam is also conservative, but the political conservatives in America are more against Islam than the political progressives. And honestly I think you're really understating how exclusively left colleges have become for the most part.

I agree on the fact that colleges have been hotbeds of revolutions, but back then it was nowhere near to the scale of fanaticism seen on colleges as today. And I don't mean only with Islam, I mean with the SJW movement, BLM, Socialist movements, etc. There are so many extreme groups all growing simultaneously on these colleges, and now they're circle jerking, with no opposition, no debate with actual opponents. Instead they just sit there talking about straw men amongst each other.
User avatar
#153 - Deeticky (08/29/2016) [-]
Colleges in the United States have been "left" for many years simply by their nature. Since they're filled with young people, they tend to support more progressive (I want things to change) ideas rather than conservative (I want things to stay the same) ideas. This doesn't mean that conservative students cannot go to college and voice their ideas. They may just find a lot more opposition than they expected, which is a natural part of debate.

I would actually argue that the revolutionary groups that came from Universities in the past were a lot more frightening. Don't forget that the antiwar movement had actual standoffs with the National Guard that resulted in actual deaths. Some of these movements in various countries also erupted into bloody socialist, communist, and Sharia revolutions.

SJW isn't really a movement. It's a blanket term that's used pretty much exclusively on the internet to describe people with certain viewpoints. I also don't get why people are so afraid of BLM. The movement itself isn't advocating violence (whereas historically, the Black Panthers did advocate violence). And I haven't seen any socialist movements advocate violence either. The most I've seen them advocate was "Vote for Bernie." Ever since Gamergate, it feels like Reddit, 4chan, and FJ have all become their own circlejerks of neocon/Breitbart ideas.
User avatar
#180 - empirennn (08/29/2016) [-]
BLM activist have supported the shooter in Dallas, who killed innocent cops with zero relation to anything.
BLM activist have supported the riots/looting/vandalism in Baltimore and other areas.
BLM activist have generally been known to be super racist towards everyone else, even asians and other blacks.

The thing is that the Black Panthers at least existed in a time where it was more reasonable to be an advocate in violence. BLM exist after the civil rights movement by a good number of years.

They have no goal. They have no purpose. They are not a reactionary group like the Black Panthers were either.

I hate to say this, but really all they seem to be doing is setting the black population back in time to a point where another "race war" might happen.

Unlike the negative "nigga" culture of african americans, BLM has set itself as actually trying to be a movement, not a byproduct of a system, which makes it get a lot more flak from society.
User avatar
#215 - Deeticky (08/29/2016) [-]
BLM activists and BLM itself are two completely different things. It's a volunteer organization, so they end up with a lot of crazies in their ranks. I think it's important to make the distinction between the organization itself, and the people within it. The same way that the views of one student do not equal the views of an entire college.
User avatar
#219 - empirennn (08/29/2016) [-]
How is an organization different from it's members and spokesmen?

see this is just playing the "not all BLM activist" game.
User avatar
#220 - Deeticky (20 hours ago) [-]
Well, random members of a group do not necessarily speak on behalf of an entire group. I don't know that I've seen any actual BLM spokesmen saying those things, but if they have, please show me. I'm not trying to play any games. I'm not a BLM activist myself, but I feel like people on FJ make them out to be a much bigger villain than they actually are.