Upload
Login or register

swimmingprodigy

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:3/17/2010
Last Login:12/05/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#3063
Highest Content Rank:#341
Highest Comment Rank:#131
Content Thumbs: 18160 total,  21078 ,  2918
Comment Thumbs: 52185 total,  63685 ,  11500
Content Level Progress: 7.3% (73/1000)
Level 218 Content: Comedic Genius → Level 219 Content: Comedic Genius
Comment Level Progress: 60.9% (609/1000)
Level 348 Comments: Sold Soul → Level 349 Comments: Sold Soul
Subscribers:22
Content Views:394218
Times Content Favorited:1883 times
Total Comments Made:16611
FJ Points:67479
Favorite Tags: a (3) | Apple (2) | epic (2) | justin (2) | lol (2) | Mario (2) | remi (2)

latest user's comments

#810 - why is he so unPC and allowed to get away with it? If Donald T…  [+] (6 replies) 09/24/2016 on Best leader +1
User avatar
#811 - timmity (09/24/2016) [-]
Basically?
He's a dictator.
Let's not sugercoat it.
User avatar
#814 - ponchosdm (09/25/2016) [-]
A dictator that has done more for his country and people than any other president (proportional to their term), but yes, he is a dictator, an awesome dictator, the best dictator
User avatar
#817 - timmity (09/25/2016) [-]
Additionally, I'm sure any nationalistic fellow with TWENTY BLOODY YEARS in office with more power than he should have would "Do more" than any other president.
User avatar
#819 - ponchosdm (09/25/2016) [-]
additionally, I am sure that any nationalistic fellow with no opposition and ruling for 20 years would "Do more" than any other president, you should try a good dictatorship in US instead of a bad one.
User avatar
#816 - timmity (09/25/2016) [-]
No, he's not. Any dictator that suppressed free speech, especially against their rule, is a bad dictator.
User avatar
#818 - ponchosdm (09/25/2016) [-]
while it is often practice for dictators to suppress free speech, it is not mandatory for them in order to be dictators, dictators are distinguished by having their rules as definitive, no congress, no nothing to have their rules voted, what they desire becomes law, while most of them only care for themselves, there are other kinds of dictators, the one that they do love their country and their people, like Putin, best Putin.

And yes, even if they are 20 years, if you split what they do to match what would 5 presidents to, the advance is greater, since usually in democracy, when switching between parties, some of the progress one was making will be stopped by the others, even when they try to help the people, they will be voted down to avoid doing something good that would help the people to see that party as a good one because they improved X, 2 parties is like 2 guys running a race and both guys focus in throwing shit and put some obstacles to the other guy instead of both guys helping each other to get to the goal, I am from Mexico, I've seen this a hell amount of time, I've seen US from a long time and it is also a common practice, so a president under that circumstances does less than a good dictator, because they have to try to achieve their goals while the other party tries to hold them down, I hope you get the point
#25 - Someone pls explain, how is having mods a problem, how is that…  [+] (14 replies) 09/22/2016 on Suicide +3
User avatar
#83 - pickaxe (09/23/2016) [-]
Imagine FJ.
Now, make everyone a mod.
The more you do, tge more power you gain.
Think of the 24/7 no lifers and multi theme account users.

#71 - rousingloki (09/23/2016) [-]
Imagine giving a child a pound of sugar and a gun, telling him that everytime he shoots a person, he gets a reward
User avatar
#59 - fefetherarest (09/23/2016) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_NBFq1Cml0 he explains it pretty well
#52 - anon (09/23/2016) [-]
If a person who gets triggered by everything and anything becomes a "hero" he/she can just mass flag everything and remove any and all comments
#47 - uncitelymanners (09/23/2016) [-]
Is this bait?
User avatar
#42 - imnotkickthecat (09/23/2016) [-]
#32 - anon (09/23/2016) [-]
Mass reports is already being abused by people and has HUGE impacts on a channel.
And now they will be rewarding people and giving them the ability to remove comments and videos that they dont like.
ANYONE can do this, its not like the people are being hired, they are just flaging comments and videos and then boom they get "hero"

If they want non-biased moderation they need to PAY people, or give the Youtubers who already have selected users who moderate their chat more power.
Because they cant do shit but put the comment on a list that says "hey channel owner, look at this comment"

This entire system will be flawed and any one who gets the ability to MASS REPORT VIDEOS will ONLY do it if they dont agree with the video. As opposed to videos that break the TOS.. please try to use some critical thinking for once.
User avatar
#29 - reinbowxdash (09/23/2016) [-]
It's basically like giving all users on this site the ability to delete other people's posts without moderator input.

Internet censorship at it's finest. Someone could be a complete cock and just mass report any video they find offensive to only themself.
User avatar
#60 - bobtombobbob (09/23/2016) [-]
Copyright infringement notifications, notifications of harassment or stalking.
Any one can take down any video for any reason
User avatar
#39 - bobtombobbob (09/23/2016) [-]
We can already do that cunt
User avatar
#35 - failtolawl (09/23/2016) [-]
flagging is not deleting...
#41 - junknstuff (09/23/2016) [-]
No, but there's no team of moderators checking every single one of those reports to check whether they are reasonable or not. There's not even one moderator; only an algorithm, a bot. And judging by the problems youtube already has when it comes to copyright claims, it's gonna be a very bad bot with dirt low standars for what is deletion worthy. Just spam it with enough flags, no matter how faulty and nonsensical they may be, and it will act.
#40 - anon (09/23/2016) [-]
they don't check that shit so it's basically the same
User avatar
#26 - havockwzy (09/22/2016) [-]
everyone can become a mod, after some time you can mass flag videos. Which can lead to abuse of power to demonetize or even close a channel.
#75 - Priests are not our main guys so they doesn't represent the vi…  [+] (3 replies) 09/22/2016 on A British faggot, no less. 0
User avatar
#78 - iviagic (09/22/2016) [-]
kek
Nice "argument"

Gee, I dunno. I mean... Catholic priests DO have tendencies to fuck kids. I dunno...
#111 - lkszangs (09/23/2016) [-]
And the muslins in general too.
Not just their "priests".
And lets not forget about "honor killing" for little girls that are raped,because they become "unclean"
User avatar
#113 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
"And lets not forget about "honor killing" for little girls that are raped,because they become "unclean""

That's a cultural thing that really only happens in Pakistan and the rest of South Asia. Even non-Muslims there do it, from what I've heard.
#74 - 1. The main prophet, Jesus (yes i know Muhammad is also in our…  [+] (2 replies) 09/22/2016 on A British faggot, no less. +2
User avatar
#79 - iviagic (09/22/2016) [-]
I'll answer your third point nonetheless.

According to your map, Muhammad never expanded beyond Arabia, even when he was under attack by the Byzantine Empire.

Your own source proved you wrong, my friend.
User avatar
#77 - iviagic (09/22/2016) [-]
1. How is Muhammad in your book? Don't you follow the Bible? How could he be in the Bible when it was written/sent down many years before Muhammad?

2. Which scripture? Sahih al Bukhari? Books like that don't have tenure. They are not seen as holy, and they can be refuted. The claim that Aisha was 9 years old came hundreds of years after the time of Muhammad, when radical Islamic ideology came into power.
Pedophiles wanted to justify their lust for children by claiming that they were following the sunnah, when in reality there has never been any evidence to prove that Aisha was 9 years old. As a matter of fact, more evidence points to the possibility that she was somewhere between 19-24 years of age during the time of her marriage and consummation.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGOyEt5szM0

3. > jihadwatch.org

Nice totally unbiased source, my friend.

Next thing you're gonna say is that sheep are abused for their wool according to PETA.org , right?
#70 - at least our prophet didnt **** an 11 year old girl and encour…  [+] (49 replies) 09/22/2016 on A British faggot, no less. +3
#274 - logintoviewsauce has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#73 - iviagic (09/22/2016) [-]
Also don't pretend like Catholic priests aren't famous for touching little children. You've gotta be kidding me with this.
#128 - cheeseboyofdoom has deleted their comment.
#112 - anon (09/23/2016) [-]
We're talking about the holy book, not hobbies.
User avatar
#84 - zombielovez (09/23/2016) [-]
It has happened in the catholic faith however it has never been condoned in the holy book and the prophet of said holy book didn't partake in fucking 11 year olds.
User avatar
#87 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
It happened and continues to happen.

Oh come on. Now you're beginning to sound like the #NotAllMuslims people.

Do not tread into bigotry, my friend. Either you accept that all religions are full of shit and, at their worst, are equally damaging to the progress of humanity OR.... you can continue being a hypocrite.
User avatar
#90 - zombielovez (09/23/2016) [-]
Link to the "It continues to happen" please, I'm not saying it's not true however I would like sources. I am not claiming it doesn't happen however the religious heads of the catholic church do not condone those actions nor is it at all able to be derived from the scripture of the holy bible. both religions are fucked however the Islamic faith is measurably worse.
User avatar
#91 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
www.google.com/search?q=catholic+priest+molest&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS6-eOmqTPAhWFgj4KHe8ZCtgQ_AUICCgB&biw=1680&bih=944

Literally every other day some article comes out about some Catholic priest either a) molesting little children or b) distributing child pornography.


"both religions are fucked however the Islamic faith is measurably worse."

By what measure? I'd argue that Catholic Spain and Portugal killed more people spreading their religion than the Ummayad or Ottoman Empires, for example.
User avatar
#93 - zombielovez (09/23/2016) [-]
You are weighing past deaths against current deaths, wait till radical Islam stops killing people as a result of terrorism before passing that kind of judgement
User avatar
#94 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
No, I'm accounting for the entirety of history.

We're not special just because we are living in the present. That's not how things work. 500 years ago, people would have said the same thing about their state of affairs, and I'm sure 500 years from now they'll say the same thing as well.

The only way to genuinely have a good judgement is by looking at the entirety of history.
Catholicism and Islam have been just as fucked up.

If you think about it, Islam circa 800 CE to circa 1350 CE was far better than Catholicism.
Would you rather have lived in disease-ridden Europe where you'd get your head chopped off for going against the church or would you rather have lived in Baghdad where science and logic triumphed?
#126 - anon (09/23/2016) [-]
All Abraham religions have immoral and idiotic passages written in their holy book that is itself written by sand people, ignorant of the laws of nature but they understood (or not) that humans were too dumb to simply cooperate. So they had to give them 'greater' reason to do so. ect..

Now that this is out of the way, it is possible to determine which holy book is better compared to the others. No surprises: It's the new testament.
You cannot say priest pedophilia is has a direct link to Christianity because its not written in the book they're loosely supposed to follow, Meanwhile it was ok for Muhammad to get laid with a 9 y/o girl.

Never thought I would 'defend' religion in my life :S
User avatar
#108 - lkszangs (09/23/2016) [-]
Islamists fight among themselves till today,because they couldn't decide who would be their leader.
"where science and logic triumphed" my ass.
Europe was the heart of The Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution,not the Middle East.
And the priests themselves stood against the Catholic Church,creating the protestants.
User avatar
#285 - kyouko (09/23/2016) [-]
The time period iviagic happened to be the European dark ages, and Arab golden age. He is completely correct about it.
User avatar
#298 - lkszangs (10/05/2016) [-]
He said that he were accounting for all of history.
User avatar
#299 - kyouko (10/05/2016) [-]
He also said "If you think about it, Islam circa 800 CE to circa 1350 CE was far better than Catholicism."
User avatar
#300 - lkszangs (10/05/2016) [-]
Man there is no argument he used to defend islan not being:
"Catholics were worse."

And the number of conquest battles the muslims did are way much than the crusades,not only that,but the only motive the crusades even exist is because the muslims were rampaging through Europe.
User avatar
#301 - kyouko (10/05/2016) [-]
No, his argument right there was "Islam was the centrum of knowledge" becuse the catholisism was busy being dark ages.

As for the conquest part, Catholisism expanded through the use of might in Europe, but instead of fighting Islam it fought the various smaller religions. Furthermore, Islam didnt begin fighting itself until if I remember correctly around 1350-ish with an Ottoman leader seeking expansion. Meanwhile, Christian countries were at constant war with eachother, and the pope even ordered a crusade against the Hussites (an early protestant group) which ended poorly when Jan Zizka obliterated them and stopped the Teutonic Knight order.

In many ways, early Islam was far superior to when Catholisism was the main Christian path.
User avatar
#114 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
"Europe was the heart of The Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution,not the Middle East. "

Renaissance came after the timeline that I brought up. Maybe they were right when they said the average IQ of a Brazilian is 80.

Let's not forget the dozens of wars between muh Christianity vs muh Catholicism.
Fucking Crusaders, who were supposed to be the saviors of Christianity even killed their own brethren.
#116 - lkszangs (09/23/2016) [-]
WoU yur arguments arr tu stonk fur mu'h tinni brasiliam brein.

You don't even try to hide your shitposting.
User avatar
#117 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
You literally fucked up by trying to prove me wrong when you said "Europe was the heart of The Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution,not the Middle East."

The Renaissance and especially the Industrial Revolution came hundreds of years after the timeframe that I said.

Just own up to the fact that you lack reading comprehension skills.
User avatar
#141 - asloth (09/23/2016) [-]
Well earlier you also said you were accounting for all of history, and if so then the Brazilian is very correct. Touching little kids>throwing gays off the roof
User avatar
#142 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
Did you even read my other comment though?

What about killing off millions upon millions of natives all over the world, from the Americas to Africa to the Philippines in order to spread Catholicism?
User avatar
#146 - asloth (09/23/2016) [-]
Columbus's mission was not to spread Catholicisim, although he may have been a Catholic himself. I am not sure of anything about Africa or the Philippines, if you could provide some sources that would be great. Maybe you are talking about the British colonizing Africa?
User avatar
#147 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
I'm going to assume that history is not your strongest subject.
User avatar
#185 - asloth (09/23/2016) [-]
They still killed them, no matter when they did.

"I don't know what you mean by the 'African American killings'"
The Muslim slave traders who killed, directly and indirectly, about 100 million est.
User avatar
#186 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
What does America have to do with it? Lol

Also the Arab slave trade has literally existed since 200 BC. Arabs also took European slaves from Italy, France, Spain, and even from Northern Europe.

It would have continued with or without Islam.
User avatar
#181 - asloth (09/23/2016) [-]
So 80 million dead Indians is "just how it went"? It is very relevant to this topic

The killing was still on behalf of the Muslims, regardless of the motive.

Also I don't blame you, I wouldn't have a response for the African American killings either, pretty barbaric...
User avatar
#182 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
"So 80 million dead Indians is "just how it went"? It is very relevant to this topic "

In the grand scheme of things, pretty much. Of course, those 80 million died over the course of 500-600 years, if I recall correctly, but as I've said, a more significant portion of the Indian population have died from previous invaders. Muslims were just one of the last to show up to the scene.

"Also I don't blame you, I wouldn't have a response for the African American killings either, pretty barbaric..."

I don't know what you mean by the "African American killings"
User avatar
#148 - asloth (09/23/2016) [-]
Enlighten me, please.
#189 - anon (09/23/2016) [-]
>>#164 reached the reply limit, go to a higher comment with less replies and mention to continue
User avatar
#175 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
Initially it was disease, but later on Spaniards intentionally spread disease to destroy indigenous populations.

Also, India has always been invaded, whether by Aryans, Mongols, Muslims, or British.
For thousands of years, anyone who conquered India would go on to conquer the rest of the world. That's just how things went.

Armenian Genocide was more of a superstitious reaction on the part of the Ottomans that the Armenians were siding with Russia during WW1.
The Ottomans didn't murder the Armenians because they were Christian. If that were the case, they would've done it way earlier. The main reason they murdered them was because the Ottoman Empire was falling and they were desperate.
User avatar
#164 - asloth (09/23/2016) [-]
iviagic sorry it wont let me reply to your comment, so Ill just mention you. And I hope you do know most of the natives in all parts were killed by disease, not by refusal to convert. In fact, if I recall correctly, Islam is the one who has verses in its holy book about killing when refusing to convert. I guess you don't seem to recall the 80 million dead Indians thanks to the Ottoman Empire. And just a measly 110 million blacks killed in Africa. Also, what about the Armenian genocide?
User avatar
#153 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
Columbus was not the only Spanish colonist. He was just the first.

Spain and Portugal sent MANY more colonists and conquistadors who specifically went to places like the Americas, Africa, and Southeast Asia for the three G's (God, Gold, and Glory, see Portuguese/Spanish Empire)
#118 - lkszangs (09/23/2016) [-]
User avatar
#121 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
HUEHUEHUEHUEHUE
would've been more accurate.

At the end of the day, you're still a Brazilian.
#123 - lkszangs (09/23/2016) [-]
That's how I was able to identify you.
I'm a profesional shitposter on brazilian communities.I'm trained in monkey warfare and had more than 60000 followers on my Orkut page.
I could Hue you so hard your would piss a rainbow.
User avatar
#135 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
Brazilians and Filipinos are the most annoying RPG players
User avatar
#276 - logintoviewsauce (09/23/2016) [-]
Used to be. It's Russians nowadays
User avatar
#134 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
BR? BR?

GIB MONEE PLS

BR? BR?

PINOY?
User avatar
#95 - zombielovez (09/23/2016) [-]
You seemed to miss my point, the Catholic faith has for the most part stopped killing people, Islam is still racking up a large head count to compare we would need Islam to stop having large scale murder counts for a period of time them we could calculate the total death count of both sides. It's pointless to say "Well they killed people in the past so they are just as bad"
#120 - anon (09/23/2016) [-]
Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity
Christianity underwent a significant reform during and after the Rennaissance, 400 years ago, which is what started fixing a lot of their religious issues

Like c'mon dude, it's not that hard to figure out. Christianity and Judaism have had much more time to get their shit figured out, and did so after significant intellectual and technological development. Islam has had less time, and their countries haven't gotten their shit together and developed yet (partially because of how the west has fucked them), plus there's a stigma now where reform might be considered Western and a betrayal of their culture. It just so happens that we developed better weapons before they developed reform, and that the world population has gotten significantly larger.

I'd be willing to bet that, had guns and explosives been this advanced during the era of witch trials half of New England would have been laid to waste. It's not that the religion is worse it's that their corrupt governments, shit culture, and younger status as a religion have prevented them from fixing their religion's shit. Hell, we were still lynching people for being gay or having the wrong skin color during the industrial revolution and they haven't even hit that yet.

User avatar
#75 - swimmingprodigy (09/22/2016) [-]
Priests are not our main guys so they doesn't represent the view of the entire religion. What represents your entire religion is what the main guy does/did
User avatar
#78 - iviagic (09/22/2016) [-]
kek
Nice "argument"

Gee, I dunno. I mean... Catholic priests DO have tendencies to fuck kids. I dunno...
#111 - lkszangs (09/23/2016) [-]
And the muslins in general too.
Not just their "priests".
And lets not forget about "honor killing" for little girls that are raped,because they become "unclean"
User avatar
#113 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
"And lets not forget about "honor killing" for little girls that are raped,because they become "unclean""

That's a cultural thing that really only happens in Pakistan and the rest of South Asia. Even non-Muslims there do it, from what I've heard.
User avatar
#72 - iviagic (09/22/2016) [-]
So who exactly is the prophet of Catholicism? lol

Aisha was 22 years old, btw.

The use of war to convert people is debatable. Was it warfare or was it self defense on the part of Muhammad?
User avatar
#74 - swimmingprodigy (09/22/2016) [-]
1. The main prophet, Jesus (yes i know Muhammad is also in our book but he's not the main guy)

2. Their own scripture states "Aisha was six or seven years old when she was married to Muhammad with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached puberty at the age of nine or ten years old."


3. www.jihadwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Arab-Wave.jpg
Conquest sounds a lot like offense. You don't accumulate lands by defending yourself
User avatar
#79 - iviagic (09/22/2016) [-]
I'll answer your third point nonetheless.

According to your map, Muhammad never expanded beyond Arabia, even when he was under attack by the Byzantine Empire.

Your own source proved you wrong, my friend.
User avatar
#77 - iviagic (09/22/2016) [-]
1. How is Muhammad in your book? Don't you follow the Bible? How could he be in the Bible when it was written/sent down many years before Muhammad?

2. Which scripture? Sahih al Bukhari? Books like that don't have tenure. They are not seen as holy, and they can be refuted. The claim that Aisha was 9 years old came hundreds of years after the time of Muhammad, when radical Islamic ideology came into power.
Pedophiles wanted to justify their lust for children by claiming that they were following the sunnah, when in reality there has never been any evidence to prove that Aisha was 9 years old. As a matter of fact, more evidence points to the possibility that she was somewhere between 19-24 years of age during the time of her marriage and consummation.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGOyEt5szM0

3. > jihadwatch.org

Nice totally unbiased source, my friend.

Next thing you're gonna say is that sheep are abused for their wool according to PETA.org , right?
#63 - Can you explain what you mean? Are you trying to say that Cath…  [+] (61 replies) 09/22/2016 on A British faggot, no less. +6
User avatar
#69 - iviagic (09/22/2016) [-]
Catholicism has historically been just as shitty as Islam.

And yes, extremist interpretations of Catholicism are just as bad.
User avatar
#139 - obviousxplains (09/23/2016) [-]
false. its been said a hundred times, but there is no interpretation of jesus' words that call for violence. Muhammad does.
User avatar
#162 - SuperCollider (09/23/2016) [-]
I meant to rephrase my original comment but you saw it before I could alter it, oh well. I wanted to say something more along the lines of "Catholic theology and doctrine exists alongside the Bible". So in other words, your point is kind of null because canonical doctrine has come from many sources external to the Bible.
User avatar
#165 - obviousxplains (09/23/2016) [-]
this is true. i'll rescind my retard comment.
catholic doctrine can be changed and different parts of the bible can be canonized, however. if one day the pope says "we're ditching Leviticus" then boom, no more hatred of gays. the only things that really cant be changed are the direct words of jesus.

also it would be a no true Scotsman fallacy to claim that one cannot be Catholic without believing in all catholic doctrine. catholics get divorced all the time, and have sex outside marriage, are get tattoos, and are cremated, etc.
claiming gays cant be catholic is like claiming people with tattoos cant be catholic.
User avatar
#220 - SuperCollider (09/23/2016) [-]
Hey man, I agree with everything you say there! The one thing I'd argue is that the words of Jesus actually can be changed, and have been historically at different moments. In saying that I refer to changes in translation between Greek and Hebrew texts over the centuries. I also refer to the way that the Bible and the books it contains have also been subject to questions of legitimacy e.g. the expunging of "apocrphyal" books/sources. And I'm not even talking about Protestant views here haha. So suffice it to say, I'd argue that even the direct words of Jesus are subject to debate. But yeah, I essentially agree with everything in your last comment!
#149 - SuperCollider has deleted their comment.
#154 - obviousxplains has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#156 - SuperCollider (09/23/2016) [-]
Ditto brosef.
User avatar
#140 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
That's because Muhammad wasn't a pacifist and never claimed to be.

Pacifism is the equivalent of communism. It will only work in a perfect world.
User avatar
#130 - reaperriley (09/23/2016) [-]
Personally im less worried about what they used to do and more about what they currently do. If tomorrow muslims stopped blowing up people/places, performing terrorist attacks, and just doing all the shitty things ISIS is doing I would stop worrying about people that follow it.

Are there people who are just straight up crazy who say that god told them to drown their kids in the bathtub. But those are people who regardless of their beliefs that would have done it anyways. When there is a movement or ideology that encourages and actively helps people not just cause harm but to kill others I take issue with that.
#127 - cheeseboyofdoom has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#70 - swimmingprodigy (09/22/2016) [-]
at least our prophet didnt fuck an 11 year old girl and encourage the use of force and war to convert people to my religion
#274 - logintoviewsauce has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#73 - iviagic (09/22/2016) [-]
Also don't pretend like Catholic priests aren't famous for touching little children. You've gotta be kidding me with this.
#128 - cheeseboyofdoom has deleted their comment.
#112 - anon (09/23/2016) [-]
We're talking about the holy book, not hobbies.
User avatar
#84 - zombielovez (09/23/2016) [-]
It has happened in the catholic faith however it has never been condoned in the holy book and the prophet of said holy book didn't partake in fucking 11 year olds.
User avatar
#87 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
It happened and continues to happen.

Oh come on. Now you're beginning to sound like the #NotAllMuslims people.

Do not tread into bigotry, my friend. Either you accept that all religions are full of shit and, at their worst, are equally damaging to the progress of humanity OR.... you can continue being a hypocrite.
User avatar
#90 - zombielovez (09/23/2016) [-]
Link to the "It continues to happen" please, I'm not saying it's not true however I would like sources. I am not claiming it doesn't happen however the religious heads of the catholic church do not condone those actions nor is it at all able to be derived from the scripture of the holy bible. both religions are fucked however the Islamic faith is measurably worse.
User avatar
#91 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
www.google.com/search?q=catholic+priest+molest&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS6-eOmqTPAhWFgj4KHe8ZCtgQ_AUICCgB&biw=1680&bih=944

Literally every other day some article comes out about some Catholic priest either a) molesting little children or b) distributing child pornography.


"both religions are fucked however the Islamic faith is measurably worse."

By what measure? I'd argue that Catholic Spain and Portugal killed more people spreading their religion than the Ummayad or Ottoman Empires, for example.
User avatar
#93 - zombielovez (09/23/2016) [-]
You are weighing past deaths against current deaths, wait till radical Islam stops killing people as a result of terrorism before passing that kind of judgement
User avatar
#94 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
No, I'm accounting for the entirety of history.

We're not special just because we are living in the present. That's not how things work. 500 years ago, people would have said the same thing about their state of affairs, and I'm sure 500 years from now they'll say the same thing as well.

The only way to genuinely have a good judgement is by looking at the entirety of history.
Catholicism and Islam have been just as fucked up.

If you think about it, Islam circa 800 CE to circa 1350 CE was far better than Catholicism.
Would you rather have lived in disease-ridden Europe where you'd get your head chopped off for going against the church or would you rather have lived in Baghdad where science and logic triumphed?
#126 - anon (09/23/2016) [-]
All Abraham religions have immoral and idiotic passages written in their holy book that is itself written by sand people, ignorant of the laws of nature but they understood (or not) that humans were too dumb to simply cooperate. So they had to give them 'greater' reason to do so. ect..

Now that this is out of the way, it is possible to determine which holy book is better compared to the others. No surprises: It's the new testament.
You cannot say priest pedophilia is has a direct link to Christianity because its not written in the book they're loosely supposed to follow, Meanwhile it was ok for Muhammad to get laid with a 9 y/o girl.

Never thought I would 'defend' religion in my life :S
User avatar
#108 - lkszangs (09/23/2016) [-]
Islamists fight among themselves till today,because they couldn't decide who would be their leader.
"where science and logic triumphed" my ass.
Europe was the heart of The Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution,not the Middle East.
And the priests themselves stood against the Catholic Church,creating the protestants.
User avatar
#285 - kyouko (09/23/2016) [-]
The time period iviagic happened to be the European dark ages, and Arab golden age. He is completely correct about it.
User avatar
#298 - lkszangs (10/05/2016) [-]
He said that he were accounting for all of history.
User avatar
#299 - kyouko (10/05/2016) [-]
He also said "If you think about it, Islam circa 800 CE to circa 1350 CE was far better than Catholicism."
User avatar
#300 - lkszangs (10/05/2016) [-]
Man there is no argument he used to defend islan not being:
"Catholics were worse."

And the number of conquest battles the muslims did are way much than the crusades,not only that,but the only motive the crusades even exist is because the muslims were rampaging through Europe.
User avatar
#301 - kyouko (10/05/2016) [-]
No, his argument right there was "Islam was the centrum of knowledge" becuse the catholisism was busy being dark ages.

As for the conquest part, Catholisism expanded through the use of might in Europe, but instead of fighting Islam it fought the various smaller religions. Furthermore, Islam didnt begin fighting itself until if I remember correctly around 1350-ish with an Ottoman leader seeking expansion. Meanwhile, Christian countries were at constant war with eachother, and the pope even ordered a crusade against the Hussites (an early protestant group) which ended poorly when Jan Zizka obliterated them and stopped the Teutonic Knight order.

In many ways, early Islam was far superior to when Catholisism was the main Christian path.
User avatar
#114 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
"Europe was the heart of The Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution,not the Middle East. "

Renaissance came after the timeline that I brought up. Maybe they were right when they said the average IQ of a Brazilian is 80.

Let's not forget the dozens of wars between muh Christianity vs muh Catholicism.
Fucking Crusaders, who were supposed to be the saviors of Christianity even killed their own brethren.
#116 - lkszangs (09/23/2016) [-]
WoU yur arguments arr tu stonk fur mu'h tinni brasiliam brein.

You don't even try to hide your shitposting.
User avatar
#117 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
You literally fucked up by trying to prove me wrong when you said "Europe was the heart of The Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution,not the Middle East."

The Renaissance and especially the Industrial Revolution came hundreds of years after the timeframe that I said.

Just own up to the fact that you lack reading comprehension skills.
User avatar
#141 - asloth (09/23/2016) [-]
Well earlier you also said you were accounting for all of history, and if so then the Brazilian is very correct. Touching little kids>throwing gays off the roof
User avatar
#142 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
Did you even read my other comment though?

What about killing off millions upon millions of natives all over the world, from the Americas to Africa to the Philippines in order to spread Catholicism?
User avatar
#146 - asloth (09/23/2016) [-]
Columbus's mission was not to spread Catholicisim, although he may have been a Catholic himself. I am not sure of anything about Africa or the Philippines, if you could provide some sources that would be great. Maybe you are talking about the British colonizing Africa?
User avatar
#147 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
I'm going to assume that history is not your strongest subject.
User avatar
#185 - asloth (09/23/2016) [-]
They still killed them, no matter when they did.

"I don't know what you mean by the 'African American killings'"
The Muslim slave traders who killed, directly and indirectly, about 100 million est.
User avatar
#186 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
What does America have to do with it? Lol

Also the Arab slave trade has literally existed since 200 BC. Arabs also took European slaves from Italy, France, Spain, and even from Northern Europe.

It would have continued with or without Islam.
User avatar
#181 - asloth (09/23/2016) [-]
So 80 million dead Indians is "just how it went"? It is very relevant to this topic

The killing was still on behalf of the Muslims, regardless of the motive.

Also I don't blame you, I wouldn't have a response for the African American killings either, pretty barbaric...
User avatar
#182 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
"So 80 million dead Indians is "just how it went"? It is very relevant to this topic "

In the grand scheme of things, pretty much. Of course, those 80 million died over the course of 500-600 years, if I recall correctly, but as I've said, a more significant portion of the Indian population have died from previous invaders. Muslims were just one of the last to show up to the scene.

"Also I don't blame you, I wouldn't have a response for the African American killings either, pretty barbaric..."

I don't know what you mean by the "African American killings"
User avatar
#148 - asloth (09/23/2016) [-]
Enlighten me, please.
#189 - anon (09/23/2016) [-]
>>#164 reached the reply limit, go to a higher comment with less replies and mention to continue
User avatar
#175 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
Initially it was disease, but later on Spaniards intentionally spread disease to destroy indigenous populations.

Also, India has always been invaded, whether by Aryans, Mongols, Muslims, or British.
For thousands of years, anyone who conquered India would go on to conquer the rest of the world. That's just how things went.

Armenian Genocide was more of a superstitious reaction on the part of the Ottomans that the Armenians were siding with Russia during WW1.
The Ottomans didn't murder the Armenians because they were Christian. If that were the case, they would've done it way earlier. The main reason they murdered them was because the Ottoman Empire was falling and they were desperate.
User avatar
#164 - asloth (09/23/2016) [-]
iviagic sorry it wont let me reply to your comment, so Ill just mention you. And I hope you do know most of the natives in all parts were killed by disease, not by refusal to convert. In fact, if I recall correctly, Islam is the one who has verses in its holy book about killing when refusing to convert. I guess you don't seem to recall the 80 million dead Indians thanks to the Ottoman Empire. And just a measly 110 million blacks killed in Africa. Also, what about the Armenian genocide?
User avatar
#153 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
Columbus was not the only Spanish colonist. He was just the first.

Spain and Portugal sent MANY more colonists and conquistadors who specifically went to places like the Americas, Africa, and Southeast Asia for the three G's (God, Gold, and Glory, see Portuguese/Spanish Empire)
#118 - lkszangs (09/23/2016) [-]
User avatar
#121 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
HUEHUEHUEHUEHUE
would've been more accurate.

At the end of the day, you're still a Brazilian.
#123 - lkszangs (09/23/2016) [-]
That's how I was able to identify you.
I'm a profesional shitposter on brazilian communities.I'm trained in monkey warfare and had more than 60000 followers on my Orkut page.
I could Hue you so hard your would piss a rainbow.
User avatar
#135 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
Brazilians and Filipinos are the most annoying RPG players
User avatar
#276 - logintoviewsauce (09/23/2016) [-]
Used to be. It's Russians nowadays
User avatar
#134 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
BR? BR?

GIB MONEE PLS

BR? BR?

PINOY?
User avatar
#95 - zombielovez (09/23/2016) [-]
You seemed to miss my point, the Catholic faith has for the most part stopped killing people, Islam is still racking up a large head count to compare we would need Islam to stop having large scale murder counts for a period of time them we could calculate the total death count of both sides. It's pointless to say "Well they killed people in the past so they are just as bad"
#120 - anon (09/23/2016) [-]
Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity
Christianity underwent a significant reform during and after the Rennaissance, 400 years ago, which is what started fixing a lot of their religious issues

Like c'mon dude, it's not that hard to figure out. Christianity and Judaism have had much more time to get their shit figured out, and did so after significant intellectual and technological development. Islam has had less time, and their countries haven't gotten their shit together and developed yet (partially because of how the west has fucked them), plus there's a stigma now where reform might be considered Western and a betrayal of their culture. It just so happens that we developed better weapons before they developed reform, and that the world population has gotten significantly larger.

I'd be willing to bet that, had guns and explosives been this advanced during the era of witch trials half of New England would have been laid to waste. It's not that the religion is worse it's that their corrupt governments, shit culture, and younger status as a religion have prevented them from fixing their religion's shit. Hell, we were still lynching people for being gay or having the wrong skin color during the industrial revolution and they haven't even hit that yet.

User avatar
#75 - swimmingprodigy (09/22/2016) [-]
Priests are not our main guys so they doesn't represent the view of the entire religion. What represents your entire religion is what the main guy does/did
User avatar
#78 - iviagic (09/22/2016) [-]
kek
Nice "argument"

Gee, I dunno. I mean... Catholic priests DO have tendencies to fuck kids. I dunno...
#111 - lkszangs (09/23/2016) [-]
And the muslins in general too.
Not just their "priests".
And lets not forget about "honor killing" for little girls that are raped,because they become "unclean"
User avatar
#113 - iviagic (09/23/2016) [-]
"And lets not forget about "honor killing" for little girls that are raped,because they become "unclean""

That's a cultural thing that really only happens in Pakistan and the rest of South Asia. Even non-Muslims there do it, from what I've heard.
User avatar
#72 - iviagic (09/22/2016) [-]
So who exactly is the prophet of Catholicism? lol

Aisha was 22 years old, btw.

The use of war to convert people is debatable. Was it warfare or was it self defense on the part of Muhammad?
User avatar
#74 - swimmingprodigy (09/22/2016) [-]
1. The main prophet, Jesus (yes i know Muhammad is also in our book but he's not the main guy)

2. Their own scripture states "Aisha was six or seven years old when she was married to Muhammad with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached puberty at the age of nine or ten years old."


3. www.jihadwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Arab-Wave.jpg
Conquest sounds a lot like offense. You don't accumulate lands by defending yourself
User avatar
#79 - iviagic (09/22/2016) [-]
I'll answer your third point nonetheless.

According to your map, Muhammad never expanded beyond Arabia, even when he was under attack by the Byzantine Empire.

Your own source proved you wrong, my friend.
User avatar
#77 - iviagic (09/22/2016) [-]
1. How is Muhammad in your book? Don't you follow the Bible? How could he be in the Bible when it was written/sent down many years before Muhammad?

2. Which scripture? Sahih al Bukhari? Books like that don't have tenure. They are not seen as holy, and they can be refuted. The claim that Aisha was 9 years old came hundreds of years after the time of Muhammad, when radical Islamic ideology came into power.
Pedophiles wanted to justify their lust for children by claiming that they were following the sunnah, when in reality there has never been any evidence to prove that Aisha was 9 years old. As a matter of fact, more evidence points to the possibility that she was somewhere between 19-24 years of age during the time of her marriage and consummation.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGOyEt5szM0

3. > jihadwatch.org

Nice totally unbiased source, my friend.

Next thing you're gonna say is that sheep are abused for their wool according to PETA.org , right?