Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

internetzsoviet    

Rank #21285 on Comments
internetzsoviet Avatar Level 173 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Offline
Send mail to internetzsoviet Block internetzsoviet Invite internetzsoviet to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Steam Profile: Legion
Consoles Owned: Xbox 360, PC
Video Games Played: Halo, Mass Effect, WoT, BF3, Mount and Blade, Killing Floor
X-box Gamertag: ToughKiller Ham
Date Signed Up:8/19/2011
Last Login:11/29/2014
Location:San Diego
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#21285
Highest Content Rank:#27160
Highest Comment Rank:#10777
Content Thumbs: 14 total,  17 ,  3
Comment Thumbs: 749 total,  981 ,  232
Content Level Progress: 30.5% (18/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 40% (4/10)
Level 173 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 174 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Subscribers:0
Content Views:50
Total Comments Made:369
FJ Points:779

latest user's comments

#565 - *zygote In definition there is no difference. It is a huma… 11/08/2013 on Abortion Explained 0
#560 - 1) A fetus is indeed an offspring, as it is the biological res…  [+] (2 new replies) 11/08/2013 on Abortion Explained 0
User avatar #563 - tkfourtwoone (11/08/2013) [-]
Then if I stick to your point 2), then what is the difference between a zigot and a fetus?

If we were to follow your logic, than there is no difference between the first two cells divided from the fertilized egg and a 8-month term unborn child.

... I think you can see the logical fallacy in that. A bunch of cells is NOT a person, not yet anyhow.
That's why I brought the 3-month term rule into discussion. Although I'm not sure when the first brain activities occur.

From my point of view, an undeveloped fetus is pretty close to a person in a vegetative state or in a coma. You might argue that it's human, but it's not really a person.
User avatar #565 - internetzsoviet (11/08/2013) [-]
*zygote
In definition there is no difference. It is a human offspring. While one is not a living, breathing baby, it is a human offspring with the potential for life. It has been brought forth into the physical world and is now subject to the judgement of others, including an irresponsible or unable mother, depending on the situation.

While I agree that a zygote is not a person, that is not the object of our discussion. The object of my disagreement with you is of your manner of refutation and disdain for understanding of the opposing side. Do not assume your position is worth more than the other, for neither are worth anything in an objective setting.

It's late and I have things to do. Please try to learn something from our discussion, but other than that, decent endeavors to you.
#545 - I don't think looking out for a potential life is exerting pow…  [+] (4 new replies) 11/08/2013 on Abortion Explained 0
User avatar #550 - tkfourtwoone (11/08/2013) [-]
"because they know they can just kill the offspring that they so irresponsibly brought into the world"

1) A fetus is not an offspring
2) A fetus is most certainly not "brought into the world" yet.

As I said in another post, there is a 2nd reason behind the medical (first being the danger of it) rule that states that abortions can be performed up to the 3 months term: it's also when the fetus's heart starts to beat.
So in that case you can also talk about ethical barriers as well
User avatar #560 - internetzsoviet (11/08/2013) [-]
1) A fetus is indeed an offspring, as it is the biological result of the fertilization of an egg by a male sperm cell. An offspring in the early stages, but an offspring. To argue this is to go against biological fact.

2) A fetus has been brought into the world, as it has taken physical shape and is subject to physical maladies and care. It is separated from the world by less than several inches of human bio-matter. It has been brought into the world. Whether it is sentient, can feel pain, etc is another question.

I don't condone bringing an unwanted life into a world where it will not perform due to the irresponsibility of its mother, thus why I tend to agree that abortion is somewhat acceptable. However to blatantly deny medical and logical fact in several manners that you have severely undercuts your credibility on a matter that you wish to defend. You may want to consider re-evaluating your logical assertions when it comes to proving a point you strongly agree with.
User avatar #563 - tkfourtwoone (11/08/2013) [-]
Then if I stick to your point 2), then what is the difference between a zigot and a fetus?

If we were to follow your logic, than there is no difference between the first two cells divided from the fertilized egg and a 8-month term unborn child.

... I think you can see the logical fallacy in that. A bunch of cells is NOT a person, not yet anyhow.
That's why I brought the 3-month term rule into discussion. Although I'm not sure when the first brain activities occur.

From my point of view, an undeveloped fetus is pretty close to a person in a vegetative state or in a coma. You might argue that it's human, but it's not really a person.
User avatar #565 - internetzsoviet (11/08/2013) [-]
*zygote
In definition there is no difference. It is a human offspring. While one is not a living, breathing baby, it is a human offspring with the potential for life. It has been brought forth into the physical world and is now subject to the judgement of others, including an irresponsible or unable mother, depending on the situation.

While I agree that a zygote is not a person, that is not the object of our discussion. The object of my disagreement with you is of your manner of refutation and disdain for understanding of the opposing side. Do not assume your position is worth more than the other, for neither are worth anything in an objective setting.

It's late and I have things to do. Please try to learn something from our discussion, but other than that, decent endeavors to you.
#523 - First off I don't think you know what subjective as a word mea…  [+] (6 new replies) 11/08/2013 on Abortion Explained 0
User avatar #537 - tkfourtwoone (11/08/2013) [-]
I meant its subjective because so far only males have brought that idea into legal grounds. It's a way to exert power and control.

Sorry, haven't woken up completely and I can't make a truly cohesive and structured response to that
User avatar #545 - internetzsoviet (11/08/2013) [-]
I don't think looking out for a potential life is exerting power and control, I think their positions revolve more around preventing young women from becoming careless in their lives because they know they can just kill the offspring that they so irresponsibly brought into the world. The only exception I make to this is rape, incest, developmental disorders and if the woman's life is in danger.

And only men bringing that idea into legal grounds has nothing to do with it being subjective, it has to do with men being naturally more inclined to legislative positions in the government. When one's paycheck is for legislation of laws, they are obliged to create laws that are geared toward protecting their nation's civilians (though that statement doesn't always hold true).
User avatar #550 - tkfourtwoone (11/08/2013) [-]
"because they know they can just kill the offspring that they so irresponsibly brought into the world"

1) A fetus is not an offspring
2) A fetus is most certainly not "brought into the world" yet.

As I said in another post, there is a 2nd reason behind the medical (first being the danger of it) rule that states that abortions can be performed up to the 3 months term: it's also when the fetus's heart starts to beat.
So in that case you can also talk about ethical barriers as well
User avatar #560 - internetzsoviet (11/08/2013) [-]
1) A fetus is indeed an offspring, as it is the biological result of the fertilization of an egg by a male sperm cell. An offspring in the early stages, but an offspring. To argue this is to go against biological fact.

2) A fetus has been brought into the world, as it has taken physical shape and is subject to physical maladies and care. It is separated from the world by less than several inches of human bio-matter. It has been brought into the world. Whether it is sentient, can feel pain, etc is another question.

I don't condone bringing an unwanted life into a world where it will not perform due to the irresponsibility of its mother, thus why I tend to agree that abortion is somewhat acceptable. However to blatantly deny medical and logical fact in several manners that you have severely undercuts your credibility on a matter that you wish to defend. You may want to consider re-evaluating your logical assertions when it comes to proving a point you strongly agree with.
User avatar #563 - tkfourtwoone (11/08/2013) [-]
Then if I stick to your point 2), then what is the difference between a zigot and a fetus?

If we were to follow your logic, than there is no difference between the first two cells divided from the fertilized egg and a 8-month term unborn child.

... I think you can see the logical fallacy in that. A bunch of cells is NOT a person, not yet anyhow.
That's why I brought the 3-month term rule into discussion. Although I'm not sure when the first brain activities occur.

From my point of view, an undeveloped fetus is pretty close to a person in a vegetative state or in a coma. You might argue that it's human, but it's not really a person.
User avatar #565 - internetzsoviet (11/08/2013) [-]
*zygote
In definition there is no difference. It is a human offspring. While one is not a living, breathing baby, it is a human offspring with the potential for life. It has been brought forth into the physical world and is now subject to the judgement of others, including an irresponsible or unable mother, depending on the situation.

While I agree that a zygote is not a person, that is not the object of our discussion. The object of my disagreement with you is of your manner of refutation and disdain for understanding of the opposing side. Do not assume your position is worth more than the other, for neither are worth anything in an objective setting.

It's late and I have things to do. Please try to learn something from our discussion, but other than that, decent endeavors to you.
#517 - Comment deleted 11/08/2013 on Abortion Explained 0
#487 - There is room for subjectivity no matter your bias. There is n…  [+] (9 new replies) 11/08/2013 on Abortion Explained 0
#517 - internetzsoviet has deleted their comment.
User avatar #492 - tkfourtwoone (11/08/2013) [-]
So the idea that men should have the right to say what a woman should do with her body & life is not subjective at all, is it?
User avatar #523 - internetzsoviet (11/08/2013) [-]
First off I don't think you know what subjective as a word means. Pick up a dictionary.

Secondly, seeing as even the women in legislation don't agree with you, I don't think your say hold much weight. Even though your question doesn't make much sense.
User avatar #537 - tkfourtwoone (11/08/2013) [-]
I meant its subjective because so far only males have brought that idea into legal grounds. It's a way to exert power and control.

Sorry, haven't woken up completely and I can't make a truly cohesive and structured response to that
User avatar #545 - internetzsoviet (11/08/2013) [-]
I don't think looking out for a potential life is exerting power and control, I think their positions revolve more around preventing young women from becoming careless in their lives because they know they can just kill the offspring that they so irresponsibly brought into the world. The only exception I make to this is rape, incest, developmental disorders and if the woman's life is in danger.

And only men bringing that idea into legal grounds has nothing to do with it being subjective, it has to do with men being naturally more inclined to legislative positions in the government. When one's paycheck is for legislation of laws, they are obliged to create laws that are geared toward protecting their nation's civilians (though that statement doesn't always hold true).
User avatar #550 - tkfourtwoone (11/08/2013) [-]
"because they know they can just kill the offspring that they so irresponsibly brought into the world"

1) A fetus is not an offspring
2) A fetus is most certainly not "brought into the world" yet.

As I said in another post, there is a 2nd reason behind the medical (first being the danger of it) rule that states that abortions can be performed up to the 3 months term: it's also when the fetus's heart starts to beat.
So in that case you can also talk about ethical barriers as well
User avatar #560 - internetzsoviet (11/08/2013) [-]
1) A fetus is indeed an offspring, as it is the biological result of the fertilization of an egg by a male sperm cell. An offspring in the early stages, but an offspring. To argue this is to go against biological fact.

2) A fetus has been brought into the world, as it has taken physical shape and is subject to physical maladies and care. It is separated from the world by less than several inches of human bio-matter. It has been brought into the world. Whether it is sentient, can feel pain, etc is another question.

I don't condone bringing an unwanted life into a world where it will not perform due to the irresponsibility of its mother, thus why I tend to agree that abortion is somewhat acceptable. However to blatantly deny medical and logical fact in several manners that you have severely undercuts your credibility on a matter that you wish to defend. You may want to consider re-evaluating your logical assertions when it comes to proving a point you strongly agree with.
User avatar #563 - tkfourtwoone (11/08/2013) [-]
Then if I stick to your point 2), then what is the difference between a zigot and a fetus?

If we were to follow your logic, than there is no difference between the first two cells divided from the fertilized egg and a 8-month term unborn child.

... I think you can see the logical fallacy in that. A bunch of cells is NOT a person, not yet anyhow.
That's why I brought the 3-month term rule into discussion. Although I'm not sure when the first brain activities occur.

From my point of view, an undeveloped fetus is pretty close to a person in a vegetative state or in a coma. You might argue that it's human, but it's not really a person.
User avatar #565 - internetzsoviet (11/08/2013) [-]
*zygote
In definition there is no difference. It is a human offspring. While one is not a living, breathing baby, it is a human offspring with the potential for life. It has been brought forth into the physical world and is now subject to the judgement of others, including an irresponsible or unable mother, depending on the situation.

While I agree that a zygote is not a person, that is not the object of our discussion. The object of my disagreement with you is of your manner of refutation and disdain for understanding of the opposing side. Do not assume your position is worth more than the other, for neither are worth anything in an objective setting.

It's late and I have things to do. Please try to learn something from our discussion, but other than that, decent endeavors to you.
#449 - I also noticed you like TO USE THE CAPS LOCK A LOT. Which does…  [+] (11 new replies) 11/08/2013 on Abortion Explained 0
User avatar #454 - tkfourtwoone (11/08/2013) [-]
"you should instead take into account that opinions are subjective"

What if I told you
That condemning a woman to 9 months of pregnancy that in which she was forced is fucked up, no matter how way you put it. No room for subjectiveness here.
User avatar #487 - internetzsoviet (11/08/2013) [-]
There is room for subjectivity no matter your bias. There is nothing you can do to make that false, no matter how hard you try.

Denying that is a logical fallacy and your argument loses weight when you do this.
#517 - internetzsoviet has deleted their comment.
User avatar #492 - tkfourtwoone (11/08/2013) [-]
So the idea that men should have the right to say what a woman should do with her body & life is not subjective at all, is it?
User avatar #523 - internetzsoviet (11/08/2013) [-]
First off I don't think you know what subjective as a word means. Pick up a dictionary.

Secondly, seeing as even the women in legislation don't agree with you, I don't think your say hold much weight. Even though your question doesn't make much sense.
User avatar #537 - tkfourtwoone (11/08/2013) [-]
I meant its subjective because so far only males have brought that idea into legal grounds. It's a way to exert power and control.

Sorry, haven't woken up completely and I can't make a truly cohesive and structured response to that
User avatar #545 - internetzsoviet (11/08/2013) [-]
I don't think looking out for a potential life is exerting power and control, I think their positions revolve more around preventing young women from becoming careless in their lives because they know they can just kill the offspring that they so irresponsibly brought into the world. The only exception I make to this is rape, incest, developmental disorders and if the woman's life is in danger.

And only men bringing that idea into legal grounds has nothing to do with it being subjective, it has to do with men being naturally more inclined to legislative positions in the government. When one's paycheck is for legislation of laws, they are obliged to create laws that are geared toward protecting their nation's civilians (though that statement doesn't always hold true).
User avatar #550 - tkfourtwoone (11/08/2013) [-]
"because they know they can just kill the offspring that they so irresponsibly brought into the world"

1) A fetus is not an offspring
2) A fetus is most certainly not "brought into the world" yet.

As I said in another post, there is a 2nd reason behind the medical (first being the danger of it) rule that states that abortions can be performed up to the 3 months term: it's also when the fetus's heart starts to beat.
So in that case you can also talk about ethical barriers as well
User avatar #560 - internetzsoviet (11/08/2013) [-]
1) A fetus is indeed an offspring, as it is the biological result of the fertilization of an egg by a male sperm cell. An offspring in the early stages, but an offspring. To argue this is to go against biological fact.

2) A fetus has been brought into the world, as it has taken physical shape and is subject to physical maladies and care. It is separated from the world by less than several inches of human bio-matter. It has been brought into the world. Whether it is sentient, can feel pain, etc is another question.

I don't condone bringing an unwanted life into a world where it will not perform due to the irresponsibility of its mother, thus why I tend to agree that abortion is somewhat acceptable. However to blatantly deny medical and logical fact in several manners that you have severely undercuts your credibility on a matter that you wish to defend. You may want to consider re-evaluating your logical assertions when it comes to proving a point you strongly agree with.
User avatar #563 - tkfourtwoone (11/08/2013) [-]
Then if I stick to your point 2), then what is the difference between a zigot and a fetus?

If we were to follow your logic, than there is no difference between the first two cells divided from the fertilized egg and a 8-month term unborn child.

... I think you can see the logical fallacy in that. A bunch of cells is NOT a person, not yet anyhow.
That's why I brought the 3-month term rule into discussion. Although I'm not sure when the first brain activities occur.

From my point of view, an undeveloped fetus is pretty close to a person in a vegetative state or in a coma. You might argue that it's human, but it's not really a person.
User avatar #565 - internetzsoviet (11/08/2013) [-]
*zygote
In definition there is no difference. It is a human offspring. While one is not a living, breathing baby, it is a human offspring with the potential for life. It has been brought forth into the physical world and is now subject to the judgement of others, including an irresponsible or unable mother, depending on the situation.

While I agree that a zygote is not a person, that is not the object of our discussion. The object of my disagreement with you is of your manner of refutation and disdain for understanding of the opposing side. Do not assume your position is worth more than the other, for neither are worth anything in an objective setting.

It's late and I have things to do. Please try to learn something from our discussion, but other than that, decent endeavors to you.
#433 - And then everyone proceeded to insult the person instead of th…  [+] (13 new replies) 11/08/2013 on Abortion Explained +2
User avatar #438 - tkfourtwoone (11/08/2013) [-]
If you actually read my post, you would have noticed that I attack the person because the argument is IDIOTIC.

I also pretty clear state why said "argument" is IDIOTIC.

But hey, why actually read something? Hurr-durr, he's attacking the person but not bringing any counter-arguments, hurr-durr.
User avatar #449 - internetzsoviet (11/08/2013) [-]
I also noticed you like TO USE THE CAPS LOCK A LOT. Which doesn't help your case.

And instead of stating that the other side is idiotic you should instead take into account that opinions are subjective and I can just as easily say your argument is idiotic, even though I tend to agree that abortion is a better solution that leading a sub-par life.

Your argument is as idiotic as theirs because neither of you are right.
User avatar #454 - tkfourtwoone (11/08/2013) [-]
"you should instead take into account that opinions are subjective"

What if I told you
That condemning a woman to 9 months of pregnancy that in which she was forced is fucked up, no matter how way you put it. No room for subjectiveness here.
User avatar #487 - internetzsoviet (11/08/2013) [-]
There is room for subjectivity no matter your bias. There is nothing you can do to make that false, no matter how hard you try.

Denying that is a logical fallacy and your argument loses weight when you do this.
#517 - internetzsoviet has deleted their comment.
User avatar #492 - tkfourtwoone (11/08/2013) [-]
So the idea that men should have the right to say what a woman should do with her body & life is not subjective at all, is it?
User avatar #523 - internetzsoviet (11/08/2013) [-]
First off I don't think you know what subjective as a word means. Pick up a dictionary.

Secondly, seeing as even the women in legislation don't agree with you, I don't think your say hold much weight. Even though your question doesn't make much sense.
User avatar #537 - tkfourtwoone (11/08/2013) [-]
I meant its subjective because so far only males have brought that idea into legal grounds. It's a way to exert power and control.

Sorry, haven't woken up completely and I can't make a truly cohesive and structured response to that
User avatar #545 - internetzsoviet (11/08/2013) [-]
I don't think looking out for a potential life is exerting power and control, I think their positions revolve more around preventing young women from becoming careless in their lives because they know they can just kill the offspring that they so irresponsibly brought into the world. The only exception I make to this is rape, incest, developmental disorders and if the woman's life is in danger.

And only men bringing that idea into legal grounds has nothing to do with it being subjective, it has to do with men being naturally more inclined to legislative positions in the government. When one's paycheck is for legislation of laws, they are obliged to create laws that are geared toward protecting their nation's civilians (though that statement doesn't always hold true).
User avatar #550 - tkfourtwoone (11/08/2013) [-]
"because they know they can just kill the offspring that they so irresponsibly brought into the world"

1) A fetus is not an offspring
2) A fetus is most certainly not "brought into the world" yet.

As I said in another post, there is a 2nd reason behind the medical (first being the danger of it) rule that states that abortions can be performed up to the 3 months term: it's also when the fetus's heart starts to beat.
So in that case you can also talk about ethical barriers as well
User avatar #560 - internetzsoviet (11/08/2013) [-]
1) A fetus is indeed an offspring, as it is the biological result of the fertilization of an egg by a male sperm cell. An offspring in the early stages, but an offspring. To argue this is to go against biological fact.

2) A fetus has been brought into the world, as it has taken physical shape and is subject to physical maladies and care. It is separated from the world by less than several inches of human bio-matter. It has been brought into the world. Whether it is sentient, can feel pain, etc is another question.

I don't condone bringing an unwanted life into a world where it will not perform due to the irresponsibility of its mother, thus why I tend to agree that abortion is somewhat acceptable. However to blatantly deny medical and logical fact in several manners that you have severely undercuts your credibility on a matter that you wish to defend. You may want to consider re-evaluating your logical assertions when it comes to proving a point you strongly agree with.
User avatar #563 - tkfourtwoone (11/08/2013) [-]
Then if I stick to your point 2), then what is the difference between a zigot and a fetus?

If we were to follow your logic, than there is no difference between the first two cells divided from the fertilized egg and a 8-month term unborn child.

... I think you can see the logical fallacy in that. A bunch of cells is NOT a person, not yet anyhow.
That's why I brought the 3-month term rule into discussion. Although I'm not sure when the first brain activities occur.

From my point of view, an undeveloped fetus is pretty close to a person in a vegetative state or in a coma. You might argue that it's human, but it's not really a person.
User avatar #565 - internetzsoviet (11/08/2013) [-]
*zygote
In definition there is no difference. It is a human offspring. While one is not a living, breathing baby, it is a human offspring with the potential for life. It has been brought forth into the physical world and is now subject to the judgement of others, including an irresponsible or unable mother, depending on the situation.

While I agree that a zygote is not a person, that is not the object of our discussion. The object of my disagreement with you is of your manner of refutation and disdain for understanding of the opposing side. Do not assume your position is worth more than the other, for neither are worth anything in an objective setting.

It's late and I have things to do. Please try to learn something from our discussion, but other than that, decent endeavors to you.
#113 - If not every tactic can be accounted for you shouldn't be comp… 10/26/2013 on This is surprisingly accurate. 0
#104 - So wait. You're saying its the Republican's fault for "ho…  [+] (2 new replies) 10/26/2013 on This is surprisingly accurate. 0
User avatar #109 - kuchikirukia (10/26/2013) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_crisis

Welcome to the world. Not every tactic is accounted for. One branch of the legislature can shut down the government until elections can be held to replace them. There is nothing within the system to stop this.
User avatar #113 - internetzsoviet (10/26/2013) [-]
If not every tactic can be accounted for you shouldn't be complaining, because this is a fair democratic tactic. The Republicans are fulfilling their duty as an opposing political party so that no one party becomes too strong, and at the moment the Democrats are the stronger of the two, and the party I disagree with the most in various subjects.

Thus is also the reason I hold extreme discontent for democracy.
#676 - Then they aren't a practicing or devoted Muslim. Pra…  [+] (1 new reply) 10/25/2013 on Fake or not, this is truth 0
#678 - playerdous (10/25/2013) [-]
#675 - I'd like to ask you to name one relatively peaceful and/or dev…  [+] (2 new replies) 10/25/2013 on Fake or not, this is truth -1
User avatar #721 - deathbatdude (10/28/2013) [-]
Yemen is a shithole. But it doesn't have to do with the fact that their muslim. its because their leaders a corrupt and greedy not because their muslim.
User avatar #717 - AdamAcev (10/26/2013) [-]
I'm sorry, i really can't argue with you. It's just making me more upset just because I'm just repeating myself at this point and you are just so close-minded... so let me just say some things one more time and encourage that you look up some real statistics like I have before giving your own impression for what you think things are like.

Every extremist religion has the potentiality of becoming like Al Qaeda. Its just that the United States and other countries are more intrusive with Islamic countries and we actually get them to the point where they believe terrorism is okay. The way they manipulate Islam is in no way related to what true Islam is, and the MAJORITY of Muslims do not ever becoming violent as you suggest. Like I said before, only 3% of the Muslim population in the world actually agree and/or a part of Muslim terrorism. So to answer your ignorant question as to whether or not there is a peaceful Muslim country in this Earth is yes. There are countries in this world that are both Muslim and peaceful. In fact, most are more peaceful than the United States (source: www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/violence/by-country/)

If this hasn't changed your perspective on Islam then I don't know what else to say to you.

#580 - Have you stopped to consider why Yemen is one of the most impo…  [+] (4 new replies) 10/25/2013 on Fake or not, this is truth +3
User avatar #598 - AdamAcev (10/25/2013) [-]
What I was trying to say is that even though Yemen is a violent Muslim country, there are still many countries in the world that are both peaceful and Muslim (and they also make up close to almost 100% population). Saying that Yemen is violent because of Muslims is like assuming that every Muslim is violent... which just isn't true. And the statement I said earlier without a source was from the Quran, so it wasn't like a citation was needed; it was more of like a known fact.

I'm also pretty certain that the KKK has killed one or two people in the past... but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. The point was that religions can often be manipulated to extremist values. In the case of the Muslims it just happens to be Al Qaeda. It is possible that the KKK could've adopted the same methods of terrorism.



User avatar #675 - internetzsoviet (10/25/2013) [-]
I'd like to ask you to name one relatively peaceful and/or developed "1st world" country with near 100% Muslim population. I can not think of any off the top of my head, likely because they do not exist.

If you had read my previous comment I touched on why Muslims are always looked upon as peaceful rather than the violent religion it is. It is because in small groups or individually they are, yes. Once they reach a certain density, things get out of hand and they always do.

In addition to that, you can not compare Al Qaeda to the KKK or the WBC. While I hold extreme contempt for all 3, you simply cannot compare Al Qaeda to either of them when neither of the 2 has committed atrocities on the scale of Al Qaeda.



User avatar #721 - deathbatdude (10/28/2013) [-]
Yemen is a shithole. But it doesn't have to do with the fact that their muslim. its because their leaders a corrupt and greedy not because their muslim.
User avatar #717 - AdamAcev (10/26/2013) [-]
I'm sorry, i really can't argue with you. It's just making me more upset just because I'm just repeating myself at this point and you are just so close-minded... so let me just say some things one more time and encourage that you look up some real statistics like I have before giving your own impression for what you think things are like.

Every extremist religion has the potentiality of becoming like Al Qaeda. Its just that the United States and other countries are more intrusive with Islamic countries and we actually get them to the point where they believe terrorism is okay. The way they manipulate Islam is in no way related to what true Islam is, and the MAJORITY of Muslims do not ever becoming violent as you suggest. Like I said before, only 3% of the Muslim population in the world actually agree and/or a part of Muslim terrorism. So to answer your ignorant question as to whether or not there is a peaceful Muslim country in this Earth is yes. There are countries in this world that are both Muslim and peaceful. In fact, most are more peaceful than the United States (source: www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/violence/by-country/)

If this hasn't changed your perspective on Islam then I don't know what else to say to you.

#577 - The reason you don't hear a peep from them is because they are…  [+] (3 new replies) 10/25/2013 on Fake or not, this is truth 0
User avatar #588 - playerdous (10/25/2013) [-]
No it's actually because most are born and raised here, they aren't immigrants bringing over their culture. Most of the muslims I meet I can't even tell until they say so.
User avatar #676 - internetzsoviet (10/25/2013) [-]
Then they aren't a practicing or devoted Muslim.

Practicing/devoted Muslims in large populations always end up being a problem. It is just amplified when migrant Muslims are present.
#678 - playerdous (10/25/2013) [-]
#560 - If you think Islam is a peaceful religion, look at every count…  [+] (6 new replies) 10/25/2013 on Fake or not, this is truth +1
User avatar #570 - AdamAcev (10/25/2013) [-]
Have you actually looked at statistical data with violence or have you just made an assumption based on what you've seen in the media? Because, I have actually seen data from real polls taken in 2003 to 2007.


What you are probably referring to with Yemen is that Al Qaeda was once thought to be housed there. Also, it is one of the most poverished countries in all of Islamic society. As a result, just as we have violence in Detroit, Islam has violence in Yemen. Only sometimes is Islam ever associated with violence, and in actually, come as a result of twisted manipulations of Islam. In actuality, Muhammad teaches that Muslims should only ever fight in defense. The way others have manipulated it is nothing like the true religion. Also, just for the sake of comparison, their Al Qaeda is equivalent to our KKK and Westboro.
#580 - internetzsoviet (10/25/2013) [-]
Have you stopped to consider why Yemen is one of the most impoverished Arab countries with a 100% Muslim population? Or why Detroit has a high crime rate?
The situation of a region reveals a lot about it's people, and your inability to connect the concepts of culture/religion and the situation of said region is what keeps a lot of people from seeing the problem, as they have a fear of offending any certain group.

In reference to your conveying of Muhammad's teachings (of which you did not provide a source), it is necessary to ignore his "original teachings" when they obviously are not carried out by his religion's constituents. You cannot say that a rhinoceros will not charge you because they are supposedly "peaceful" creatures when they are equipped with a large horn built for that very purpose. You cannot look at things they way they "should" be. You have to look at them in reality.


And no, Al Qaeda is not the equivalent of the KKK or the Westboro, as I do not see the KKK or the Westboro carrying out daily bombings or suicide attacks, or torture of civilians for that matter.
User avatar #598 - AdamAcev (10/25/2013) [-]
What I was trying to say is that even though Yemen is a violent Muslim country, there are still many countries in the world that are both peaceful and Muslim (and they also make up close to almost 100% population). Saying that Yemen is violent because of Muslims is like assuming that every Muslim is violent... which just isn't true. And the statement I said earlier without a source was from the Quran, so it wasn't like a citation was needed; it was more of like a known fact.

I'm also pretty certain that the KKK has killed one or two people in the past... but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. The point was that religions can often be manipulated to extremist values. In the case of the Muslims it just happens to be Al Qaeda. It is possible that the KKK could've adopted the same methods of terrorism.



User avatar #675 - internetzsoviet (10/25/2013) [-]
I'd like to ask you to name one relatively peaceful and/or developed "1st world" country with near 100% Muslim population. I can not think of any off the top of my head, likely because they do not exist.

If you had read my previous comment I touched on why Muslims are always looked upon as peaceful rather than the violent religion it is. It is because in small groups or individually they are, yes. Once they reach a certain density, things get out of hand and they always do.

In addition to that, you can not compare Al Qaeda to the KKK or the WBC. While I hold extreme contempt for all 3, you simply cannot compare Al Qaeda to either of them when neither of the 2 has committed atrocities on the scale of Al Qaeda.



User avatar #721 - deathbatdude (10/28/2013) [-]
Yemen is a shithole. But it doesn't have to do with the fact that their muslim. its because their leaders a corrupt and greedy not because their muslim.
User avatar #717 - AdamAcev (10/26/2013) [-]
I'm sorry, i really can't argue with you. It's just making me more upset just because I'm just repeating myself at this point and you are just so close-minded... so let me just say some things one more time and encourage that you look up some real statistics like I have before giving your own impression for what you think things are like.

Every extremist religion has the potentiality of becoming like Al Qaeda. Its just that the United States and other countries are more intrusive with Islamic countries and we actually get them to the point where they believe terrorism is okay. The way they manipulate Islam is in no way related to what true Islam is, and the MAJORITY of Muslims do not ever becoming violent as you suggest. Like I said before, only 3% of the Muslim population in the world actually agree and/or a part of Muslim terrorism. So to answer your ignorant question as to whether or not there is a peaceful Muslim country in this Earth is yes. There are countries in this world that are both Muslim and peaceful. In fact, most are more peaceful than the United States (source: www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/violence/by-country/)

If this hasn't changed your perspective on Islam then I don't know what else to say to you.

#556 - Except its also the religion's fault. Islam is inherently a ba…  [+] (5 new replies) 10/25/2013 on Fake or not, this is truth 0
User avatar #572 - playerdous (10/25/2013) [-]
It's actually not barbaric for a religion based 1400 years ago. The problem stems from a combination of said religion with it's region. In American we have a high muslim concentration in Ohio, and we don't hear a peep from them. In Florida we have a few as well and you wouldnt be able to tell since a fair amount choose not to wear the burkas some wear part of it.
User avatar #577 - internetzsoviet (10/25/2013) [-]
The reason you don't hear a peep from them is because they aren't a high enough population density to become a problem. Once they reach levels similar to Sweden or Britain they will become a problem.
User avatar #588 - playerdous (10/25/2013) [-]
No it's actually because most are born and raised here, they aren't immigrants bringing over their culture. Most of the muslims I meet I can't even tell until they say so.
User avatar #676 - internetzsoviet (10/25/2013) [-]
Then they aren't a practicing or devoted Muslim.

Practicing/devoted Muslims in large populations always end up being a problem. It is just amplified when migrant Muslims are present.
#678 - playerdous (10/25/2013) [-]
#79 - Mexicans, especially in the southwest where I live Th…  [+] (2 new replies) 10/22/2013 on Fuckin Gypsy 0
#171 - Womens Study Major (10/22/2013) [-]
imo Mexicans are better then Blacks tbh. Atleast they work for their family. Blacks are just on welfare to get 3000' inch rims for their 1989 caddilac.
User avatar #89 - xdeathspawnx (10/22/2013) [-]
yeah, I don't have too much experience with Mexicans. I used to live in michigan, and the gheto kids were terrible there. Their parents would illegally send them to the good public schools (outside of detroit, flint, pontiac) to try and get them a better education but all the kids would end up doing is stealing, selling drugs, and get other kids to act the same way they did.

I live in Tennesee now and while there aren't nearly as many ghetto kids, rednecks are everywhere. A third of my school is just rednecks who get drunk, start fights, and talk about how many guns their families have.
#96 - NATHAN EXPLOSIONNNNNNN 10/01/2013 on Dead Bodies +1
#39 - Picture 09/30/2013 on Emperor Popetine 0
#38 - I am disappointed no one noticed his ringtone.  [+] (3 new replies) 09/30/2013 on Emperor Popetine +5
User avatar #70 - landartheconqueror (10/01/2013) [-]
i was wondering where that was from..
#52 - fjyunofrontpage (10/01/2013) [-]
I noticed when it said
jesus saves
User avatar #40 - pwnedomega (09/30/2013) [-]
Friend, scroll down. You will see they have.
#38 - Who says Mein Kampf is full of **** ?  [+] (2 new replies) 09/15/2013 on A work of art or graffiti? 0
User avatar #112 - vigilum (09/15/2013) [-]
The Jews did this
#39 - plainarcane (09/15/2013) [-]
#54 - Thats a lot of Germany in one picture. I enjoy. 09/15/2013 on How to be a table ...yeah 0
#27 - I would call you a faggot but that would bring me down to rap'…  [+] (2 new replies) 08/31/2013 on Heavy Metal Rooster -5
User avatar #43 - ricketyrackety (08/31/2013) [-]
your comment is just as shitty as junglebook's
#33 - theist has deleted their comment.
#163 - Thanks for clearing that up man. 08/31/2013 on Smile? Really? -1
#101 - Calling ******** on Slayer originally being calle…  [+] (2 new replies) 08/30/2013 on Smile? Really? +2
User avatar #121 - WtfVegito (08/30/2013) [-]
Same here. "Rumors that the band was originally known as Dragonslayer, after the 1981 movie of the same name, were denied by King, as he stated, "We never were; it's a myth to this day."
#163 - internetzsoviet (08/31/2013) [-]
Thanks for clearing that up man.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 1050 / Total items point value: 1450

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
 Friends (0)