BAHAHAHAHAHA's forum posts

Avatar image for BAHAHAHAHAHA
BAHAHAHAHAHA

178

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 BAHAHAHAHAHA
Member since 2010 • 178 Posts
[QUOTE="testfactor888"][QUOTE="SeraphimGoddess"][QUOTE="testfactor888"] Considering he has another huge document pile he is about to leak I would think at this time he is public enemy number 1 for many people in the US government. I read in the recent Rolling Stone an article about the only member of Wikileaks who is American and how he is in hiding as the FBI has been on him every chance they get. They want to catch these people before the next leak happens so I really would not put it past them to put fake charges on him to get people to rat him out. I mean honestly who wants to defend a rapist. If you we're going to frame someone for a crime thats a pretty powerful one as it immediately turns people against him. Than again as I said who knows whats true anymore.

And the way most American media works, regardless if these charges don't go anywhere, Assange's reputation will be absolutely defunct and he'll be called immoral, and by association so will Wikileaks. Many people won't trust anything that comes from the either of them. Basically a win/win for the US government.

Exactly. The media will run with this like mad tommorow painting him as a rapist even though it has yet to be proven. People will remember it and it will never go away even if he is found innocent eventually.

I doubt it. The media have come to rely a lot on Wikileaks. I expect them to take his side.
Avatar image for BAHAHAHAHAHA
BAHAHAHAHAHA

178

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 BAHAHAHAHAHA
Member since 2010 • 178 Posts

[QUOTE="BAHAHAHAHAHA"][QUOTE="psychobrew"]

Doesn't that add violate the TOS? I feel like I'd get modded if I posted a picture like that on these forums.

Maybe I can put it in my sig?

BiancaDK

Yeah, plenty of GS' ads would be modded under their 'objectifying women' rule if they were consistent. But of course the advertisers pay them and the users don't, so they don't much care.

They don't have an 'objectifying women' rule as far as I'm aware. :P Certain sexually suggestive content can be moderated.

I've seen the moderation of sigs of semi-naked women justified on those grounds in Ask the Mods. At any rate, my point is that they're happy to be feminists only when there aren't any fatcats in suits throwing money at them.
Avatar image for BAHAHAHAHAHA
BAHAHAHAHAHA

178

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 BAHAHAHAHAHA
Member since 2010 • 178 Posts

[QUOTE="travisstaggs"]

I get the Piranha 3D ad.

psychobrew

Doesn't that add violate the TOS? I feel like I'd get modded if I posted a picture like that on these forums.

Maybe I can put it in my sig?

Yeah, plenty of GS' ads would be modded under their 'objectifying women' rule if they were consistent. But of course the advertisers pay them and the users don't, so they don't much care.
Avatar image for BAHAHAHAHAHA
BAHAHAHAHAHA

178

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 BAHAHAHAHAHA
Member since 2010 • 178 Posts

[QUOTE="aaronmullan"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]there are a number of people here I'd like to see leavePirate700

This guy right here.

:lol: Oh snap. This thread is going to get ugly.

Oh? What's so controversial about aaronmullan identifying emoevolution as someone he would hate to leave GS?
Avatar image for BAHAHAHAHAHA
BAHAHAHAHAHA

178

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 BAHAHAHAHAHA
Member since 2010 • 178 Posts
[QUOTE="ObeseBanana"]There are more mosques in France then chrches, they are obviously trying to change thing @TheoktothTheokhoth
There are more McDonald's in America than churches; therefore McDonald's is trying to overthrow Christian culture.

McDonald's isn't mutually exclusive with Christianity.
Avatar image for BAHAHAHAHAHA
BAHAHAHAHAHA

178

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 BAHAHAHAHAHA
Member since 2010 • 178 Posts

[QUOTE="BAHAHAHAHAHA"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] ITT Ignoring the point. Sharia Law does not necessarily equal hellhole for human rights, as you seem to believe.

Theokhoth

Care to point out a country where Sharia Law is official in a form espousing good, tolerant values such as the freedom to blaspheme?

Turkey

Um, firstly: Turkey does not even have Sharia Law, and is (thankfully) uncommonly secularised despite its majority Muslim population. Regardless, according to an EU commission judging Turkey's eligibility to join the EU: 'The Turkish armed forces have a health regulation which defines homosexuality as a 'psychosexual' illness and identifies homosexuals as unfit for military service. Conscripts who declare their homosexuality have to provide photographic proof. A small number have had to undergo humiliating medical examinations.'

'There have been several cases of discrimination at the workplace, where LGBT employees have been fired because of their sexual orientation. Provisions of the Turkish Criminal Code on 'public exhibitionism' and 'offences against public morality' are sometimes used to discriminate against LGBT people. The Law on Misdemeanours is often used to impose fines against transgender persons.'

Also, from the Guardian article: "They have problems with the misogynistic hadith, the ones against women. They may delete some from the collection, declaring them not authentic. That would be a very bold step. Or they may just add footnotes, saying they should be understood from a different historical context." Telling quote, no? That's what happens when Sharia and good, englightened values meet: they conflict. You will find no liberal interpretation of sharia because there is no such thing. The very idea is an absurdity.

Avatar image for BAHAHAHAHAHA
BAHAHAHAHAHA

178

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 BAHAHAHAHAHA
Member since 2010 • 178 Posts

[QUOTE="BAHAHAHAHAHA"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] If Sharia differs between Muslims, then why are you making it out that it's always bad and radical and an example of the evilness of Muslims? You know what country has Sharia Law? Indonesia. Where homosexuality is legal, among other things. Where there are more Muslims than anywhere else in the world. Where they have a Republic.Theokhoth

itt picking one of the few countries with Sharia Law that aren't absolute hellholes for human rights. /

ITT Ignoring the point. Sharia Law does not necessarily equal hellhole for human rights, as you seem to believe.

Care to point out a country where Sharia Law is official in a form espousing good, tolerant values such as the freedom to blaspheme?
Avatar image for BAHAHAHAHAHA
BAHAHAHAHAHA

178

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 BAHAHAHAHAHA
Member since 2010 • 178 Posts
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Sharia Law is not God's Law according to all Muslims. :| So you're just assuming, applying generalizations to whole groups of people based on those assumptions, and all of this based on a false preconception of those people's beliefs. :lol:

As a Muslim, I assure you that Sharia Law is God's Law according to Islam. Go look to any Islamic website and they'll say the exact same thing.

I'm talking about Muslims. There is disagreement among religious groups, yes?

Look, I don't think you understand what a core tenet of Islam Sharia is. Do you honestly think there are Muslims out there who are happy to say 'yeah, I don't give a damn about God's Law'? Give it up and admit you were wrong about disagreement over Sharia.
Avatar image for BAHAHAHAHAHA
BAHAHAHAHAHA

178

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 BAHAHAHAHAHA
Member since 2010 • 178 Posts

[QUOTE="BAHAHAHAHAHA"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Sharia Law is not God's Law according to all Muslims. :| So you're just assuming, applying generalizations to whole groups of people based on those assumptions, and all of this based on a false preconception of those people's beliefs. :lol:Theokhoth
Perhaps you should have done your homework beforehand? Sharia Law is a core concept of Islam and is considered by all Muslims to be the law of God as revealed in the Quran. They certainly differ over what exactly Sharia Law is, yes - and they certainly differ as to whether that law should be forced in as the official law of all countries, yes - but that Sharia Law is God's Law is universal. Shame on you. Don't make out that I'm the ignorant one here.

If Sharia differs between Muslims, then why are you making it out that it's always bad and radical and an example of the evilness of Muslims? You know what country has Sharia Law? Indonesia. Where homosexuality is legal, among other things. Where there are more Muslims than anywhere else in the world. Where they have a Republic.

itt picking one of the few countries with Sharia Law that aren't absolute hellholes for human rights. Anyway, in indonesia there are no laws against harrassment or discrimination against homosexuals, and any depiction of homosexuality is punishable by up to 7 years' imprsonment. And since it's late, I'm tired, and Indonesia is homophobic in more ways than I can be bothered to type out, have a courtesy wikipedia dump:

In 2002, the Indonesian Government gave Aceh province the right to introduce Islamic sharia, albeit only to Muslim residents. For example, the city of Palembang introduced jail and fines, for homosexual sex.[4] Under the law homosexuality is defined as an act of 'prostitution that violates the norms of common decency, religion, and legal norms as they apply to societal rule'.[5] The following acts are defined as acts of prostitution homosexual sex, lesbians, sodomy, sexual harassment, and other pornographic acts.[6] Fifty two regions have since enacted sharia law from the Koran which criminalizes homosexuality.[7]In Jakarta lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered, and transsexual are legally labeled as cacat or mentally handicapped and are therefore not protected under the law.[8] This is the irony that LGBT people fall outside the law and are subject to it.[9] Indonesia allowed sexual relations between persons of the same sex in 1993.[10] Indonesia has higher age of consent provisions for same sex relations than for heterosexual relations (17 for heterosexuals and 18 for homosexual).[11]

Not so liberal after all?

Avatar image for BAHAHAHAHAHA
BAHAHAHAHAHA

178

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 BAHAHAHAHAHA
Member since 2010 • 178 Posts
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="BAHAHAHAHAHA"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] "Large Proportions"? What's the percentage of French Muslims that want Sharia Law, and how influential is this percentage? How is the dislike of alcohol related? There's a "Large Proportion" of Christians that want Biblical Law introduced in the United States. So what? It's not going to happen just because people want it to.

I don't know precisely, but given that Sharia Law is considered by Muslims to be God's Law, I think we can safely say that an awful lot of Muslims are going to be quite fond of the idea of legally enshrining the revealed law of Allah, wouldn't you agree? I can't find figures for France, but in the UK 40% want sharia law (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html) and there's no reason to think that French Muslims are much less radical.

Sharia Law is not God's Law according to all Muslims. :| So you're just assuming, applying generalizations to whole groups of people based on those assumptions, and all of this based on a false preconception of those people's beliefs. :lol:

Perhaps you should have done your homework beforehand? Sharia Law is a core concept of Islam and is considered by all Muslims to be the law of God as revealed in the Quran. They certainly differ over what exactly Sharia Law is, yes - and they certainly differ as to whether that law should be forced in as the official law of all countries, yes - but that Sharia Law is God's Law is universal. Shame on you. Don't make out that I'm the ignorant one here.