Don’t you know that it’s always wrong to generalize about people?? Unless you’re depicting them falsely as victims… in that case it’s compulsory. This is the new politically-correct America.
9/11 – meh
26/11 – meh
london blast – meh
mumbai blast – meh
pune blast – meh
assam riots – meh
godra riots – meh
bengal riots – meh
hydrabad blast – meh
gaya blast – meh
parliament attack – meh
banglore blast – meh
Taliban – meh
ISIS – meh
shia genocide – meh
Indian mujahuddin – meh
minority persecution – meh
attack Israel – meh
Israel fight backs – oh God ! Save humanity,
please save the life of innocents..
Atrocious outrageous ,blah,blah ..
Not protesting against china for animal cruelty because ‘we aren’t vegetarian’ is just as bad as not protesting against Muslims because ‘western culture isn’t perfect’.
In other words, saying a culture where zero animals have even small-scale animal rights cannot be criticized by one where several animals have some sort of honorary rights, because the latter does not have full animal rights, is like saying that a religion which still actively stones adulters cannot be judged by one which doesn’t allow gay people to marry…talk about a moral cop out.
Yuck. I can’t imagine something more of a turnoff than a submissive man aka a male feminist.
Ok we get it, you want to be lead around by a collar by a fat dyke in leather...Because patriarchy.
Or alternatively it’s like
‘I want to obey my husbands every command and fully submit to his will….Because Allah‘
ISLAMISTS. USING THE FRUITS OF MODERN CIVILIZATION (TECHNOLOGY) TO CONDEMN AND TRY TO DESTROY MODERN CIVILIZATION.
Frankly, what I found most surprising is that they even know how to use computers. But then again, many very very dumb seemingly low-IQ Muslims study engineering and computer science successfully.
The animal rights activist and the Islamist have something in common which the former probably isn’t willing to admit even to them-self. I realized today for the first time that I am actually quite able to understand how an Islamist thinks, every time that i walk into a restaurant and sorely wish that they were only allowed to sell vegan products. Just like the Islamist who genuinely rejoices to imagine the world being forced to resign itself to Islamic rule, so too do I rejoice in the idea of the world being forced to become vegan.
One could say that the difference is that a so-called ‘animal rights activist’ such as myself(formerly) bases their world view on premises derived from objective evidence which can be either proven or disproven, while the Islamist or any other religious fundamentalist bases their world view on the premise that cannot be either proven or disproven.
The animal rights ideologogue generally bases their world view on the premises that the right to not be killed for needless purposes ought to be granted based on having a high level of sentience, or having a number of interests in continuing to live, rather than species alone and certain animals possess a high level of sentience and have a number of interest and so it follows that they ought to have the right to not be killed for needless purposes. The notion that certain animals are sentient and have interests can more or less be proven or disproven through experimentation, neurology and by a number of other ways.
The islamist or any other religious fundamentalist bases their worldview on the premises that a supernatural entity created the universe, is still alive, has a living will, desires praise by means of religious observance and in fact prefers a specific religious observance over others. This is a premise which could never be proven or disproven.
The fact is that while the religious do not require evidence for their most basic premises, the animal rights activist more or less does require some manner of evidence for their most basic premises. One ideologue requires some sort of evidence to corroborate their beliefs while the other ideologue starts with an absolute premise which they are unwilling to even question.
Strongly held beliefs based on evidence or not, translate into intolerance of opposing ideas. For example, the belief that biological evolution occurred and is occurring translates into extreme intolerance in the scientific community, of beliefs which stipulate that life was created by an intelligent creator. The former belief is of course based on a huge amount of evidence.
Indeed belief should be proportional to the evidence, but that is often not entirely the case with ideologies. When emotions, traditions, pride in as well as loyalty to the ideological community come into play, strength of belief is often not held proportional to the evidence, and counter-evidence is disregarded or explained away. This is surely even the case when it comes to the animal rights ideology. I sincerely doubt that if evidence came to light that animals were in fact as Descartes described, nothing more than animated machines, individuals in the animal rights community would abandon their ideology. Much of this hypothetical rigidity of belief has to do with their personal emotional reaction to animal suffering, as well as the sense of community they most likey find with other like-minded individuals and the sense of self-worth they derive from adhering to their ideology. Still, more or less, animal rights activists will surely insist that they vastly differ from religious fundamentalists in their supposed adherence to and reliance on evidence to corroborate their beliefs. For the most part they the animal rights ideologues would seem to rely more so than the religious ideologues on scientific and physiological evidence, but the two ideologies do in fact bare similarities in the strength of their convictions, and their insatiable desire to impose their worldview on others. The true believer in animal rights ideology wants to force the world to be vegan just as badly as the Islamist wants to force the world to subject to Islamic rule. The fact that the animal rights activist may have more evidence to base their belief in animal rights on is beside the point.
The idea that Islam is not racist or discriminatory is laughable. Hadith; vol.9:162,163: Muhammad warned that dreams of black women meant disease was forthcoming. Black Muslims today are so uninformed that they don’t even understand that Muhammad had many black slaves and called them raisin heads (Hadith vol.1:662, vol.9:256).
Islam is responsible for the death of over 120 million black Africans and over 80 million Hindus. Go to the most islamically run country on this earth, Saudi Arabia where black men are literally called abd meaning slave and are second class citizens. Under sharia non Muslims are humiliated and discriminated against and disallowed from even building their houses of worship or proselytizing.
If you would like to see an active apartheid state go to Saudi Arabia where human slavery is still alive and where non Muslims are not even allowed to enter Mecca. There’s literally a special non Muslim highway in Saudi Arabia. So please stop selling this bullshit that islam is not racist. No one who has studied Islam is buying it.
Mohammed was a racist himself and Muslims started the black slave trade which still exists today behind closed doors in north Sudan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Some Muslim scholars to this day call for a return to slavery. Sharia is an utter refutation of the concept of human rights and equality among human beings. Reconcile that with yourself however you please.
I think it’s silly to argue as some do, that religiously Muslims shouldn’t be opposing Israel. A part of dar al-Islam was given to the Jews. The fact that the Turks did this legally is beside the point. It’s islamically illegal to do such a thing and Muslims are commanded to defy any Islamic leadership who breaks with sharia and obey none of their laws. Sharia is the law for practicing Muslims, there’s no such thing as man-made international or state laws Islamically this country still belongs to dar al-Islam as does any land which has ever at any time belonged to Muslims. To any Muslim with self-respect this is an Islamic land occupied by former Dhimmis for the last 65 years. Any Muslim who does not oppose Israel therefore is truly a religious hypocrite.
There’s no such thing as a 2-state solution. This entire land is an illegally occupied realm of dar al-Islam. Luckily for muslims Jordan was re-absorbed into dar al-Islam and now they are waiting to re-absorb the remainder by pretending they are willing to compromise with 2 states. Once they have a legitimate state they will launch their initiative to recover the remaining occupied Muslim land. Anyone who denies this thinly veiled agenda is beyond naive.
I find myself agreeing more and more with the Islamists every day. First of all, YES the west should get their noses out of Muslim lands and affairs. That means completely and immediately shutting down UNRWA in which is almost 100% western funded and scarcely contributed to by any Arab state, revoking all relief and foreign aid to any Islamic country such as ‘Palestine’ and a complete end to trade with any Islamic country meaning a total divestment from foreign fossil fuels and the development of alternative and cleaner energy resources. What’s more, since we and the Islamists so unanimously agree that western sensibilities or economic interests have no place in Islamic or Muslim affairs, so too must be conclude that Muslims or Islamic sensibilities or economic interests have absolutely no place in the west. That means that just like westerners ought to be harshly criticized if not jailed or killed for building places of worship in Islamic lands, so too should Muslims be de facto forbidden from building a single mosque in the west. Russia ought be be applauded by the same Islamists for their enforcement of this separation between their nation and Muslim affairs. Thanks to the booming voices of reason from the enlightening western Islamist intellectuals we can finally conclude further, that Muslim states have absolutely no right meddling in western affairs and putting economic pressure on foreign nations to shut down free speech when it offends their delicate sensibilities. Further, given that Muslims, just like the west they so vocally criticize, ought to disengage from interfering with the other, muslims ought to be held up to the same standard and forbidden from setting up Muslim Brotherhood front lobby groups in western countries such as CAIR which hardly are able to hide the fact that they are trying to alter the laws, practices and morals of the west and replace them with superior Islamic ones such as the practice of killing homosexuals and covering women in black cloth sacks. They obviously have absolutely no right to do so, just like the west has absolutely no right to meddle in Islamic countries. And of course, the obvious conclusion is of course that Muslim immigration should be completely halted, to further ensure that neither the west is meddling in Islamic affairs, nor Muslims meddling in western political affairs which they tend to inevitably do wherever they settle.