[WT] [Home] [Manage
That gave me back my sanity, I was trying to imagine all the possible dimensional combinations. - Unidentified


Please read the rules before posting. Thank You.


Name
Email
Captcha image
Subject   (new thread)
Message
File 
Embed   HowTo
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: DOC, GIF, JPG, PDF, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 3000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 35 unique user posts. View catalog

File: 122549615959.jpg-(61.10KB, 347x382, islam_prayer.jpg)
57 No. 57 hide watch expand quickreply   [Reply]
Ask a Muslim anything.

I'm not a scholar or anything, but I'll answer anything to the best of my ability. There's so much misinformation out there... I'll try to clear up anything you might be curious about.

Anything that ends in a question mark will be answered.
20 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 186
>>185

Thanks, those are really important questions. I hope you'll read my answers with an open mind.

First off, the practice of mutilating a girls genitals is purely CULTURAL. Anyone who tells you otherwise is misinformed, lying, or is an extremist who has drank the Kool-Aid. Sadly it is practiced in many third-world countries, but it has no place in Islam at all.

Your next three questions are part of a much larger discussion, but I'll do my best to answer you.

Sex is a gift. The Quran talks quite frankly about it, because sexuality is such a large part of the human condition. The orgasm is probably the closest an earthbound creature can get to experiencing pure bliss.
Islam has nothing against carnal pleasure. It teaches that men and women were created to give each other companionship and joy.

To deny yourself the pleasures of sex is to deny a gift from God. On the other hand, to wantonly indulge in sex is to cheapen that gift and take away its meaning. It's not about complete denial, it's about *restraint*; it's about respecting the act of sex and respecting the person you're having sex with.
>> No. 187
>>185

So, yeah, I do believe that the world would be a better place if extramarital sex were curtailed. Right now most people casually move from one relationship to another. You'll feel the joys of love or the excitement of passion, but those feeling dim and time moves on and you become more desensitized. Sex just becomes something fun to do, with someone you may or may not like, when it's supposed to be so much more. That kind of... disconnection, has got to be detrimental to a society. It's not natural to be so intimate with another human being and be so distant at the same time.

Also, I don't agree that sex is the purest form of love and the most beautiful thing in life. Sex, like I said, is a gift, meant to be shared with someone you love. It's a private, intimate act. It might be the purest *physical* manifestation of a love between two people, and a wonderful, special thing, but it is not the zenith of human experience.

Great love is born of generosity and self-sacrifice. Feeding the poor, visiting the sick and elderly, joining the Peace Corps, actively campaigning for a candidate you believe in, participating in some great act of good that transcends you as an individual... these are all acts of love that are so much more beautiful than sex.

Love expressed by sex can give you great personal joy.
Love expressed by generosity can change the way the world works.
Which is greater?
>> No. 188
>>185

Now your last question. Do I believe in heaven. Honestly? I don't know. I don't know, that's kind of the point isn't it? I don't know what happens when I die.

But I choose to believe. I don't have evidence to the contrary, so why not? I choose to believe that my actions have weight and meaning and consequence. I choose to believe that there is some purpose to the universe, and it's not just all random chaos. That's my answer: I choose to believe.


File: 122754824996.jpg-(747.63KB, 1280x900, Golf Course 2.jpg)
118 No. 118 hide watch expand quickreply   [Reply]
I know a troll in reality. I have a friend who intentionally angers people, and has been doing so for years. He will say things, which he knows people disagree with, in a serious manner, as quite a clever actor, and performs actions which he knows will create nervousness and aggravation. Until a few days ago, my thoughts were that he simly does this to amuse himself, but I think I had an apiphiny, and realized the true concept behind it.

For all of his life, he has experienced oppression from his father, the school-system, employers, the Navy, and society. Now everyone has known what it feels like to be oppressed, but not everyone has been to the same degree as him. He was diagnosed with "Borderline Personality Disorder" and suffers from overwhelming feelings of anxiety, intense paranoia.

For these reasons, it appears that he "trolls" people, his family, his close acqaintances, and even me, as a form of practicing power, emotional manipulation, allowing himself decisions like the ones he was never allowed to have, a feeling of control in all helplessness. I object morally to this, yet at the same time, I will not discourage him, for this seems to be social justice in action against the people who think he is inferior.

I ask you: is he justified?
7 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 175
No; he needs to confront his issues and not take it out on other people. If he can't confront his issues, then tough shit, he shouldn't take them out on everyone else. Harming others without their consent and for your own pleasure may or may not always be justified, but in this case it is not. Therefore, your friend is a douchebag.
>> No. 176
>>118
>>For all of his life, he has experienced oppression from his father, the school-system, employers, the Navy, and society. Now everyone has known what it feels like to be oppressed, but not everyone has been to the same degree as him. He was diagnosed with "Borderline Personality Disorder" and suffers from overwhelming feelings of anxiety, intense paranoia.

Making you believe that he has a legitimate issue is his real troll talent. He even has you cleaning up after him,
>>I usually remove any of the garbage in it, and attempt to find a place for lose objects,

while still managing to give you a light trolling.

I've met people with the same personality type, it's always their wives faults that they've been divorced so many times; vindictive co-workers for why they've lost jobs; People not "knowing the real them" for why others consider them assholes.

I've met the "real them" with at least three persons I would classify in this group, and all that's there is a greedy core.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

Without a proper psych evaluation, we'll never know.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
>> No. 179
If he can justify it to himself, then he is justified.


File: 122648161845.jpg-(29.76KB, 376x490, mao_main.jpg)
102 No. 102 hide watch expand quickreply   [Reply]
What is the best form of government? I believe socialism is the best form of government because it allows a unified body to control all resources. The leader must be strong and just, but with a good leader (chosen by the people) is elected anything he would want to do to help himself would help his country! this means there is no government corruption. A socialistic government also eliminates classism, one of the greatest problems in modern society. Socialism is based on trust and goodwill, all other governments are based on cut-throat tactics and blinding the public of real issues.
22 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 149
Any form of government has the opportunity to succeed/fail. The leaders who are in charge of the government are as important as the form of government itself.
>> No. 170
>>149
My opinion is that, unless in emergencies, a perfect government would have no leaders.
>> No. 171
>>170

i mostly agree with that except on a few points.

1. a government without leaders is extremely hard to set up.

2. they're extremely hard to keep balanced.

3. when they do inevitably collapse they usually collapse into dictatorships which can be much worse and much harder to get rid of.

4. if freedom ever becomes defined by the majority it would cease to be freedom.

personally my view on what a government official should be is a janitor or a mechanic.

in an ideal government they're not ment to lead, only to maintain the constitution and protect the freedom of they're citizens.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 122935802154.jpg-(1.06MB, 1600x1150, enlightenment.jpg)
150 No. 150 hide watch expand quickreply   [Reply]
Enlightenment. Is it something? Is it achievable? Is it one of your goals?

DISCUSS
2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 158
>>150
>>157

i agree although at the same time as a christian i hope one day God's going to answer all my questions.

i also hope he'll give me new ones, new content and stuff, y'know, kinda like making an expansion pack for the universe.
>> No. 160
I think enlightenment is like perfection. It can't be achieved, only striven for.

BTW how do you define enlightenment? The complete comprehension of anything and everything?
>> No. 169
I once thought I reached enlightenment, but then when encountering the personal problems of others, which soon became my problems, I was forced into anger and depression. I was distracted by psycologically manipulative pleasures as well, such as being entertained by video games or television, and recieving positive attention. More than that, because I believed myself to be enlightened, I stopped the journey to enlightment, and thus was certain. Though I did not think "right and wrong" truly existed, I still believed myself to be right. I was proven wrong.

I think an enlightened person would never acknowledge being in a state of enlightenment.


File: 122402690786.jpg-(85.60KB, 640x480, n11lmc_noao.jpg)
5 No. 5 hide watch expand quickreply   [Reply]
lets talk about space.
how are we going to get there?
what resources await us?
how would this effect sociaty?
is it awsum y/n?
56 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 137
I found a pretty in depth site about it:
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/miscon/speed.html

I didn't know it was so intensive -_-'
>> No. 138
>>137

wow.
that is rather intense.

so the actual "electron sea" moves slow while the energy moves quickly.

something that interested me that you can vary the speed of the "electron sea".
i wonder if it might ever be possible to speed up the ES fast enough to become observably more massive?

wouldn't it be cool i they made that technology small?
imagine, a wire grid with variable mass.
you could have alot of fun with that (and get into alot of trouble too).
>> No. 139
You'd need some super high melting point metal cut REALLY thin and then pump a whole lot of charge through it. I doubt we have a substance that wouldn't liquefy right away from the intense heat, but that's still a good Relativity test.


File: 122554560327.jpg-(69.43KB, 352x288, orlycox.jpg)
61 No. 61 hide watch quickreply   [Reply]
At the following link:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-30/a-rapper-salutes-the-slave-trade/

I left the following comment that probably won't be approved:

>My grandmother is from Guam. A place that was occupied and oppressed for 500 years by the spanish, french, english, chinese, and japanese as well as a few other's in between.

>If I was to get upset about people who enslaved my people, I would pretty much have to discriminate against everyone. But I won't, because it's stupid. I personally can't say exactly who was responsible on an individual basis.

>When the Japanese was in control before WWII, my family was given a handful of rice for the day and if they were caught picking fruit or fishing, they were killed on site. Then America acquired Guam in a treaty after WWII and they put all my people in concentration camps for a while until a few years after the treaty.

>Now. I never had people telling me how wrong this was growing up. I was forced to look things up and determine for myself that I shouldn't be upset at another race for what a few dead people did a long time ago and really, it wasn't that long ago.

>See, just like bin laden uses religion to control people and get a base, so does Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan use race to rally a base of people for their own special interests. To get rich off of their people.

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
>> No. 62
>>61

i hate racism but honestly all the reverse racism, ignorance of the past (on both sides) and the self denial surrounding it makes me lol.


File: 122430322075.jpg-(57.68KB, 600x750, AnonymousBecause.jpg)
23 No. 23 hide watch expand quickreply   [Reply]
Hello everyone.

I wanted to provoke a discussion near and dear to many of us on the Internet, especially those of us on IMG. Anonymous has been called many things, including an "Internet Hate Machine", an "Internet Vigilante Group" and a "Political Organization". I think it is important to make it clear that Anonymous is none of those things. We are not united, by any means. Some of Anonymous is Democratic, some of Anonymous is Republican. Some of Anonymous enjoys to raid and troll, some of Anonymous finds it immature and stupid. Some of Anonymous protests against Scientology, some of Anonymous finds it a wasted or pointless cause. I'm sure you understand that point.

Anonymous is simply "posting anonymously", and that's it. I post anonymously on other *chans and I don't think that unites me with any political ideologies, nor does it associate me with any raids or illegal activities.

Has "Anonymous" lost touch? We used to be something different. We used to contribute great content, a wealth of memes (whether or not this is positive is up to you...) and a great deal of humor. Now it seems that most everything is lost in a pile of protesting and "tits or gtfo".

All of a sudden, "Anonymous" is protesting Scientology, "Anonymous" is a pedophile hivemind. We are Anonymous, too, for the most part, or have been "Anonymous". This means that the assumptions being made about "Anonymous" are applied to the rest of us by the retarded media.

Any thoughts?
16 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 53
>>52

besides i could discard this "e-identity" at any time and create a brand new one.
>> No. 54
>>52

I've always wondered that myself. However, I can't say that I value true anonymity on the Internet, anyway. It doesn't really matter to me if someone finds me online because I have absolutely nothing to hide.

What do you have to hide? This isn't a question directed at anyone in particular, but I think it's best to analyze that question and answer it for yourself before you do anything online or otherwise.

What do you have to hide?
>> No. 55
>>54

personally i act differentially because normally i'm shy, obsessive compulsive and i honestly care to much about what others think.

but here (online) i can always start fresh!
i can meet someone and if we're friends stay in touch, if not i can get lost in a sea of people and may never come in contact with him again.
so i worry less about if they thing i'm odd, and more on being me.
failure, both small and epic, can always be lived down should i so chose (i honestly haven't yet but it's good to have the option).


File: 122402629514.jpg-(109.62KB, 974x734, blood_cells%20copy.jpg)
4 No. 4 hide watch quickreply   [Reply]
lets talk about the organ bank problem!



In Niven's universe, it was possible to transplant nearly any organ in the body (and prevent rejection) by the mid twentyfirst century. Since any organ could now be replaced, in theory one could use the organ banks to extend life indefinitely. In practice, however, this was not the case. To maintain communal organ banks, one needs donors (i.e. dead people). When the death rate is reduced (via the organ banks), the number of donors decreases. Therefore the system was fundamentally flawed, as the demand would always exceed the supply.

Compounding this problem, the high success rate of organ transplants tended to discourage research into other viable medical treatments. As a result, medical research was stagnated to a large extent, focusing primarily on improving transplants and little else. Repairing a failing organ (which could presumably fail again later) was considered secondary to the "complete" solution of replacing the failing organ.

An example in the Known Space universe was that anyone who wore eyeglasses was considered a reasonable candidate for an eye transplant (one or both); whereas in the real world, today's nearsighted population can solve the problem with laser surgery.


On Earth, the problem led to an repressive society almost unrecognizable by today's standards. Since the average citizens wished to extend their lives, the world government sought to increase the supply by using condemned criminals to supply the organ banks. When this failed to meet the demand, citizens would vote for the death penalty for more and more trivial crimes. First violent crimes, then theft, tax evasion, false advertising, and even traffic violations became punishable by the organ banks. This failed to solve the problem, as once the death penalty was passed for a crime, people stopped committing it. This resulted in nearly every crime meriting the death penalty. Further attempts to alleviate the problem by declaring certain groups of cryogenically frozen people to be dead in law (the so-called "Freezer Bills") and harvesting their organs also proved to be unsuccessful. The freezer vaults represented a finite supply and therefore were eventually exhausted.

The Belters took a different approach. They viewed survival as a virtue in and of itself, and were reluctant to turn otherwise healthy people into transplant stock. They preferred prosthetics to transplants wherever practical. Their
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.


Delete Post []
Password  
Previous[0]Next