|
Post by goz on Apr 24, 2019 23:21:05 GMT
At last you have seen the light! Hallelujah brothers and sisters! Speaking of male 'ends', that reminds me of my ALL time favourite joke! 'What is that useless thing on the end of a penis called?' 'A man'.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 24, 2019 23:46:15 GMT
Speaking of male 'ends', that reminds me of my ALL time favourite joke! 'What is that useless thing on the end of a penis called?' 'A man'.
Or, what is that useless needy creature that is constantly attracted to and begs for a penis to be stuffed up them?
...a gay male?
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Apr 24, 2019 23:55:46 GMT
Or, what is that useless needy creature that is constantly attracted to and begs for a penis to be stuffed up them?
...a gay male? Actually I think the technical term is “bottom” although in this case “bottom” refers to position and not body part.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 25, 2019 0:30:13 GMT
...a gay male? You are so predictable goz! Awwww c'mon! EVEN you would have to admit that I won this round fair and square!
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 25, 2019 0:40:31 GMT
Awwww c'mon! EVEN you would have to admit that I won this round fair and square! If you say so.... Women 'know' these things!
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 25, 2019 0:58:43 GMT
Yes, there is nothing wrong in condemning Islamists. I think Goz misread your comments or thought you were referring to Muslims. Islamists are the extremist people within Islam and even Muslims condemn them. I thought your 3rd sentence employed exaggeration of speech.
And I do like to mention that for whatever reason that I don't know but many Muslim countries do slightly better under dictators than under democracy installed by force or outside pressure. Yes, I think there has bees some confusion of terms here. It is my understanding that Islamists are not necessarily extremist, They are, as the definition states those who impose Islamic faith doctrine and cause in a country or region such as Indonesia or Malaysia. All Muslim fundamentalists are Islamist however not all Islamists are fundamentalists, let alone terrorists, who take this a step further than either of the above categories. To me it is important that these definitions are clear. The popular media including the liberal media uses word Islamist for extreme fundamentalists. In fact Muslims also use the word for the bad elements. That was the intent of Phludowin. And from your above definition it says these people want to run the government according to the laws of Islam. So they are to be condemned just like everyone condemns Christians here trying to do the same. It's almost a punishment for anyone to suffer a life that is lived under laws of any religion. Islamists has universal negative connotation. May be you are just not aware of this.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Apr 25, 2019 0:58:54 GMT
Actually I think the technical term is “bottom” although in this case “bottom” refers to position and not body part. Mr. Stammy, do you just like to make up random stuff to be a part of something, even if it makes no sense just for attention? What part did I make up?
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Apr 25, 2019 1:02:49 GMT
The "bottom" part... No I didn’t. That term has often been used to describe gay males who receive so you accusing me of making it up is false, incorrect and untrue. But congratulations on making this thread about you.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Apr 25, 2019 1:12:53 GMT
No I didn’t. That term has often been used to describe gay males who receive so you accusing me of making it up is false, incorrect and untrue. But congratulations on making this thread about you. Where did I accuse you of making something up? I wanted to know what you meant by your aloof—which often happens with you—representation of your comments.
But "bottoms" anyway Stammy!
Strangely enough the only person on this planet who has ever called me aloof (as far as I know) is you. But anyway...
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 25, 2019 1:34:07 GMT
Actually I think the technical term is “bottom” although in this case “bottom” refers to position and not body part. Mr. Stammy, do you just like to make up random stuff to be a part of something, even if it makes no sense just for attention? Don't be mean. We are not all as interested in and familiar with 'bottoms' as you are! To some of us, Bottom is even erudite and Shakespearean!
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 25, 2019 1:37:01 GMT
Yes, I think there has bees some confusion of terms here. It is my understanding that Islamists are not necessarily extremist, They are, as the definition states those who impose Islamic faith doctrine and cause in a country or region such as Indonesia or Malaysia. All Muslim fundamentalists are Islamist however not all Islamists are fundamentalists, let alone terrorists, who take this a step further than either of the above categories. To me it is important that these definitions are clear. The popular media including the liberal media uses word Islamist for extreme fundamentalists. In fact Muslims also use the word for the bad elements. That was the intent of Phludowin. And from your above definition it says these people want to run the government according to the laws of Islam. So they are to be condemned just like everyone condemns Christians here trying to do the same. It's almost a punishment for anyone to suffer a life that is lived under laws of any religion. Islamists has universal negative connotation. May be you are just not aware of this. How would you then describe the governments of somewhat 'moderate' governments of countries like Indonesia and Malaysia? I would use the term 'Islamist' and NOT imply either the fundamentalists elements ( though we know that they are there in parts) OR terrorists.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 25, 2019 1:48:28 GMT
The popular media including the liberal media uses word Islamist for extreme fundamentalists. In fact Muslims also use the word for the bad elements. That was the intent of Phludowin. And from your above definition it says these people want to run the government according to the laws of Islam. So they are to be condemned just like everyone condemns Christians here trying to do the same. It's almost a punishment for anyone to suffer a life that is lived under laws of any religion. Islamists has universal negative connotation. May be you are just not aware of this. How would you then describe the governments of somewhat 'moderate' governments of countries like Indonesia and Malaysia? I would use the term 'Islamist' and NOT imply either the fundamentalists elements ( though we know that they are there in parts) OR terrorists. The governments of Indonesia and Malaysia are totally against Islamists. You can sure you use whatever you wish to use but the universal connotation for the word is negative and liberals all around the world condemn Islamist. Islamists are a bane for good Muslims. More importantly, Phludowin used the word in accordance with its widespread and universally accepted meaning. You were just unaware of the meaning of the word. It's okay you learned a new thing. If I do learn something new on a message board I usually accept I was mistaken and thank people for letting me know something new.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 25, 2019 1:52:28 GMT
How would you then describe the governments of somewhat 'moderate' governments of countries like Indonesia and Malaysia? I would use the term 'Islamist' and NOT imply either the fundamentalists elements ( though we know that they are there in parts) OR terrorists. The governments of Indonesia and Malaysia are totally against Islamists. You can sure you use whatever you wish to use but the universal connotation for the word is negative and liberals all around the world condemn Islamist. Islamists are a bane for good Muslims. More importantly, Phludowin used the word in accordance with its widespread and universally accepted meaning. You were just unaware of the meaning of the word. It's okay you learned a new thing. If I do learn something new on a message board I usually accept I was mistaken and thank people for letting me know something new. OK thanks, if I am wrong I am wrong. Do you have some proof that this is the accepted meaning rather than the dictionary definition of which I was aware and using? My usageseems to be more 'academic' than populist.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 25, 2019 2:07:15 GMT
The governments of Indonesia and Malaysia are totally against Islamists. You can sure you use whatever you wish to use but the universal connotation for the word is negative and liberals all around the world condemn Islamist. Islamists are a bane for good Muslims. More importantly, Phludowin used the word in accordance with its widespread and universally accepted meaning. You were just unaware of the meaning of the word. It's okay you learned a new thing. If I do learn something new on a message board I usually accept I was mistaken and thank people for letting me know something new. OK thanks, if I am wrong I am wrong. Do you have some proof that this is the accepted meaning rather than the dictionary definition of which I was aware and using? You just mocked my post instead of truly being apologetic. So ErJen prefers to use his own made up definition of words. I am baffled just by the fact that you are asking for proof that the connotation of a word that good Muslims despise and that is a bane for Muslims is in fact negative or not. Also, I am baffled that phludowin has to be criticised for using the appropriate meaning of the word. And the fact that even your definition says Islamists are people who want to run the governments by religious laws rather than secular law. The fact is that you have always been against people who (especially Christians) influence laws of nations. Something that is the very motive of Islamists. In any case I am not going to enter into a 100 post conversation with you. You have stuck to your own song in this discussion. I am a person open to being corrected. The last thing I would do is criticise someone for using words appropriately and then not apologise the person. That's not a part of my ethics.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 25, 2019 2:25:34 GMT
OK thanks, if I am wrong I am wrong. Do you have some proof that this is the accepted meaning rather than the dictionary definition of which I was aware and using? You just mocked my post instead of truly being apologetic. So ErJen prefers to use his own made up definition of words. I am baffled just by the fact that you are asking for proof that the connotation of a word that good Muslims despise and that is a bane for Muslims is in fact negative or not. Also, I am baffled that phludowin has to be criticised for using the appropriate meaning of the word. And the fact that even your definition says Islamists are people who want to run the governments by religious laws rather than secular law. The fact is that you have always been against people who (especially Christians) influence laws of nations. Something that is the very motive of Islamists. In any case I am not going to enter into a 100 post conversation with you. You have stuck to your own song in this discussion. I am a person open to being corrected. The last thing I would do is criticise someone for using words appropriately and then not apologise the person. That's not a part of my ethics. WTF? I was seeking edification on this point! Keep your shirt on!
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 25, 2019 2:35:24 GMT
It is over-reacting to wish a catastrophic natural event on a group (or tribe in the anthropological and sociological sense ie in this case Muslims) for insisting that their women wear Muslim clothing. As you know ( how could you forget with Toast carrying on like a pork chop over my feminist egalitarian views) I am a dyed in the wool feminist. Yes, to the Eastern view it is symbolic of male dominance and I hope it will gradually be change, however we are being like fundamentalist Westerners preaching to Muslims to become more like 'us'. Forcing women to wear their traditional religious and cultural dress is NOT fundamentalism Many willingly wear it for many good reasons. THAT is the tribalism. This is a classic example of 'us' vs. 'them'. Let me give you another example. On these Boards I have been extremely critical of Catholic ( and other Christian) missionaries converting native tribes in Africa Sth America and elsewhere. The classic case of 'tribalism' of one tribe with more technological and 'civilised' powers forcing THEIR culture on others. In the 'civilising' process, if it was inevitable, it would have been preferable for the process to have been more gradual and with more choices for those on the receiving end. The missionaries were 'fundamentalists'. However, there is no good reason for Indonesian (or Malaysian) women to wear a hijab. This is a piece of clothing invented in Arabic countries close to huge sand deserts, and its purpose is to protect from desert storms. Not a smart thing to wear in Indonesia. But Islamic fundamentalists have declared this clothing to be Islamic. At least that's what I got from the broadcast about Indonesia. Fundamentalism to ideas, especially religious ones, is something I disagree with. Well so far Malyasia and Indonesia were slightly better than Arab countries? That's not what islamists wants. Malaysia's Islamist party PAS says only Muslims will make policy should it come to power
www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/malaysias-islamist-party-pas-says-only-muslims-will-make-policy-should-it-come-to-powerThe Costs of an Islamist WaveThe rise of Islamism in Malaysia and Indonesia could have severe consequences for the two states’ societies, political systems, and overall stability. Already, there have been deadly attacks by Islamic State-inspired militants in Jakarta, in January 2016 and May 2017. Indonesian and Malaysian militants also mount attacks in neighboring countries. Indonesian fighters have been arrested in Marawi, the city in the southern Philippines where the army fought an Islamic State-linked group last year, and six Indonesian militants were detained in 2016 for allegedly planning a terrorist attack in Singapore. www.cfr.org/expert-brief/rise-islamist-groups-malaysia-and-indonesiaHopefully, good Muslims continue to fight against increasing clouts of Islamists aka Jihadists.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 25, 2019 5:53:29 GMT
Yes they were. When I talked about Islamists I meant the fundamentalists. And I am aware that a natural disaster does not choose its victims. However, there is no good reason for Indonesian (or Malaysian) women to wear a hijab. This is a piece of clothing invented in Arabic countries close to huge sand deserts, and its purpose is to protect from desert storms. Not a smart thing to wear in Indonesia. But Islamic fundamentalists have declared this clothing to be Islamic. At least that's what I got from the broadcast about Indonesia. Fundamentalism to ideas, especially religious ones, is something I disagree with. Forcing people to wear certain clothings, or to take away their choice as to what to do with their own bodies, is a consequence of fundamentalism. Read my post to AJ re: Islamist so we are not talking at crossed purposes. HOWEVER YOU saying that there is no reason for Islamic women to wear Muslim dress is purely YOUR opinion and quite frankly you have no right. YOU define it as fundamentalism when the reasons are possibly more 'cultural historic and anything else they wish'. It really doesn't have anything to do with you if it is their choice to wear one. I was referring to a Muslim Indonesian woman intervied for the radio broadcast, who refuses to wear the hijab. She said that when Islamists started getting stronger in Indonesia, some women started to wear the hijab. But as Islamic fundamentalists got stronger in Indonesia, more and more people, especially women, started to pressurize the interviewed woman in question about the hijab, as in asking "So when are you starting to wear one?" And I wouldn't be surprised if this type of pressure exists in other countries where Islamist fundamentalists are getting stronger. That's also what I sometimes read in German feminist magazine EMMA, for which I have a subscription. I still support the women who choose not to Good. So do I.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Apr 25, 2019 8:32:24 GMT
Mr. Stammy, do you just like to make up random stuff to be a part of something, even if it makes no sense just for attention? Don't be mean. We are not all as interested in and familiar with 'bottoms' as you are! To some of us, Bottom is even erudite and Shakespearean! I have a feeling I didn’t use the term with the proper respect.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 25, 2019 21:12:07 GMT
Don't be mean. We are not all as interested in and familiar with 'bottoms' as you are! To some of us, Bottom is even erudite and Shakespearean! I have a feeling I didn’t use the term with the proper respect. It would appear so. Perhaps you could 'respectfully' enquire as to whether it is better to have a 'bottom bottom', a 'top bottom' or an 'in between regular bottom'?
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Apr 25, 2019 22:40:05 GMT
I have a feeling I didn’t use the term with the proper respect. It would appear so. Perhaps you could 'respectfully' enquire as to whether it is better to have a 'bottom bottom', a 'top bottom' or an 'in between regular bottom'? And I have to do all that without being “aloof”.
|
|