Regarding septimus's front page post

[MF Perm]

edit: I owned myself before finishing his post.

Nothing to see here.

[Fusional]

On an Imus note Opie and Anthony were going over the 10 top Rap songs in the country...Each of which contained the words "ho or bitch" or something along those lines. Now if you inspect the music anyone of those players from that team, not just the black girls, I'm sure you'll find they listen to it. Publicity in the United States knows no boundaries, and Al Sharpton should be thrown off the empire state building.

Edit: Didn't look if it had been posted before, just thought I'd weigh in.

oh, but rappers saying that isn't offensive.

1. because they're black. black people can say that. nobody else can.

2. because it's "artistic expression" ...and therefore can't be deemed offensive.

hooray for even more modernist/apologist/relativist/liberal/affirmative action/etc twisted bullshit!

[Fusional]

edit: I owned myself before finishing his post.

Nothing to see here.

i thought at first you were pointing out the irony of referencing Hume in a FFXI forum

[MF Perm]

On an Imus note Opie and Anthony were going over the 10 top Rap songs in the country...Each of which contained the words "ho or bitch" or something along those lines. Now if you inspect the music anyone of those players from that team, not just the black girls, I'm sure you'll find they listen to it. Publicity in the United States knows no boundaries, and Al Sharpton should be thrown off the empire state building.

Edit: Didn't look if it had been posted before, just thought I'd weigh in.

oh, but rappers saying that isn't offensive.

1. because they're black. black people can say that. nobody else can.

2. because it's "artistic expression" ...and therefore can't be deemed offensive.

hooray for even more modernist/apologist/relativist/liberal/affirmative action/etc twisted bullshit!

No, I think it was more that he said that about the better half of the black community is what caused an uproar.

That's my opinion, not my apology or defense. I personally think that saying racist was just absurd, but sexist mos def could be applied.

Al Sharpton took it up a notch as usual and made spilled milk an ecological disaster, but I;m sure the uproar was more about successful black female athletes being degraded on the airwaves.


But I do agree that if the tables were turned, no one would have batted an eye. Or played the race card in the least.

[Meat]

On an Imus note Opie and Anthony were going over the 10 top Rap songs in the country...Each of which contained the words "ho or bitch" or something along those lines. Now if you inspect the music anyone of those players from that team, not just the black girls, I'm sure you'll find they listen to it. Publicity in the United States knows no boundaries, and Al Sharpton should be thrown off the empire state building.

Edit: Didn't look if it had been posted before, just thought I'd weigh in.

oh, but rappers saying that isn't offensive.

1. because they're black. black people can say that. nobody else can.

2. because it's "artistic expression" ...and therefore can't be deemed offensive.

hooray for even more modernist/apologist/relativist/liberal/affirmative action/etc twisted bullshit!

3. because there's no face\name to their 12 hoes.

[MF Perm]

edit: I owned myself before finishing his post.

Nothing to see here.

i thought at first you were pointing out the irony of referencing Hume in a FFXI forum

No when you said the mess Hume left in his wake I thought you meant humanity lol. I read the rest after the post

[Fusional]

No, I think it was more that he said that about the better half of the black community is what caused an uproar.

That's my opinion, not my apology or defense. I personally think that saying racist was just absurd, but sexist mos def could be applied.

Al Sharpton took it up a notch as usual and made spilled milk an ecological disaster, but I;m sure the uproar was more about successful black female athletes being degraded on the airwaves.


But I do agree that if the tables were turned, no one would have batted an eye. Or played the race card in the least.

oh it was offensive.. but honestly, that shit is nothing new from Imus. anyone who knows anything about that guy knows he's been saying crap like that since the time of jesus.

i'm just sick of all these people, like you adequately put it, making spilled milk an ecological disaster. first of all, Imus shouldn't be taken seriously, and second of all, our society and its "newfound" leanings toward moral relativism goes out of its way to not offend anyone, and to take blame away from anyone that isn't in a majority.

this is mostly thanks to the aftershock of affirmative action + modernistic thinking, which i sadly think Malcom X foresaw and didn't like at all (as in essence in trying to impose change it only serves to make minorities statistics even moreso, contradicting the good-natured aim to try to put everyone on par with each other, but that's another argument entirely...)

but my point is that all this is doing is making these douchebags more and more sensative to things that aren't even one fraction of as bad as their ancestors had to deal with. and i understand the whole "but amagad, we're too civilized a society to resort to this" stance, but can't help but disagree as long as we're still killing each other in the name of religion. we're not half as civilized as we seem to think.

so. like you also referenced, if the shoe is on the other foot (see: sharpton and jackson throwing around shit like "white devil" and blah blah), nobody cares. but some random old washed-up hack says some incendiary stuff about blacks and everyone and they baby's momma are up in arms about how ZOMG DEVASTATING THIS IS TO THE AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY!

hilarious. some ignoramus casually tossing out a few epithets that these very basketball players, and many millions of others, subscribe to on a daily basis with their endorsement of mainstream rap, is cause enough for Tony Dungy to leap up to his soapbox and condemn this as a savage, debilitating act against the black community.

none of this is new, and while it's not right, all i have to say is... these idiots need to get thicker skin if they ever want to be successful.

oh, and it also helps not to say shit like "axe" instead of "ask" at a press conference where you're trying to garner sympathy in stating you're nothing like the stereotypes Imus used.

just sayin', ladies...

[*Shinzon*]

Its all bullshit in the end and people will do anything to be in the papers/news whatever. This was just another way for people to take advantage of a situation. Seriously, how many of those players you think were HONESTLY listening to Imus when it was said? I'd be willing to say not a single one, and I'd stand by that. Guaranteed it was Al Sharpton who had someone bring it to his attention and he blew it out of proportion because they would make the news. This country is going to shit itself down the toilet with all this PC bullshit.

[aurik]

Sorry, Fusional, but your bullshit doesn't fly.

it seems i misplaced the context of that quote, then, i agree.

Yea, you owned yourself right in the face with that one. Even without the additional context provided by Lordwafik I immediately understood that quote to apply to marriage restrictions.

as far as your translation defense:

"The issue of Arabic translation is rendered largely irrelevant by the existence of tafsir. Tafsir explains the verses in detail, giving the most probable intended meaning of the verses, using a variety of synonyms to avoid the possibility of misinterpretation, etc. Some tafsirs, such as Ibn Kathir's, link up the Qur'anic verses with the relevant ahadith and parts of the Sira which provide context. Tafsirs are available in all the major languages.

Islam is what its believers believe. Whenever these various red herrings are raised (e.g., "you don't know Arabic," "you're taking it out of context," etc), it is invariably in the context of some apologist's attempt to confuse infidels about what the Koran was probably intended to mean and what the prevailing Islamic orthodoxy holds true and has held true for the past approximately 1300 years. We see this quite a lot when apologists, such as Hassaballa, try to present their own private vision of Islam, sweetened up for non-Muslim westerners' consumption, and claim that everything else is "a distortion.""

First, name the source of this quote or it's worthless.
Second, who are you or these people to say which translation/interpretation of the Koran is the 'correct' one?

[quote:f2a0b]Qu'aran 9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/ji ... fidels.asp

Might wanna read that.

well golly, what an unbiased source! and i'm sure even though this apologist article goes out of its way to justify what's being said based on historical context and the "nature" of the text, it isn't subject to "misinterpretation" of.. oh.. most anyone that reads it. (insert more parallels to the bible)[/quote:f2a0b]

I'd like to see you provide an unbiased article on the above quote, since you take issue with the one Lordwafik provided. Failing that, you're merely deconstructing his argument, not constructing your own. However, the onus is on you to construct an argument that supports your claims, since you're the one making claims.

Everything is based on the way it's interperated, and considering you took a verse from the Quran about marriage prohibitations, and turned it into a verse about raping and pillaging, your translations are ones I wouldn't trust.

considering you just used a blatantly obvious logical fallacy as a device to undermine the validity of *everything* i say based on one inaccuracy (and you only carefully chose TWO points of contention, not covering them all.. interesting!) that i even went so far as to admit afterwards...

How do you know that Wafik "carefully" chose anything? Do you know how he chose which quotes of yours to contend? You're committing a fallacy of your own here, my jumping to the conclusion: "since you didn't contend every one of my references, you must have attempted to contend the others and failed". You brought it on yourself, however: you should have been more selective about what quotes to present in the first place.

reread your fallacies. (i hope i don't have to spell this one out for you, because it's a fairly popular one) and for fuck's sake, drop the modernist/apologist/relativist bullshit rhetoric. i look at the kind of crap people are spewing about how everything is different based on how we perceive it and can't help but shake my head at the fucking mess Hume has left in his wake.

And this whole paragraph is a fallacy in itself, so you're hardly one to bring up proper argumentation.

[Khamsin]

Did you just compare selling drugs to stealing a chocolate bar?

It simply means just because someone broke a law 37 years ago doesn't mean his a criminal...

So if you murder someone 30 years ago but don't kill anyone after, that makes it ok?

It's not suprising you think I'm a racist, you have the logic of corky from life goes on.

Wow Al Sharpton killed someone? no?

He may have... afterall, he was a drug dealer.

[Fusional]

Sorry, Fusional, but your bullshit doesn't fly.

oh, here we go.

it seems i misplaced the context of that quote, then, i agree.

Yea, you owned yourself right in the face with that one. Even without the additional context provided by Lordwafik I immediately understood that quote to apply to marriage restrictions.

i was reading from my notes, and had only cited the quote, not the context. it's been a while since reviewing those notes, so i assumed wrongly the context they were quoted under based on the place in my notes i had copied the quote.

the difference between me and most others is that when i'm wrong, i fess up to it. and in that case i was very wrong. i'm not even attempting to disagree with wafik on that.

as far as your translation defense:

"The issue of Arabic translation is rendered largely irrelevant by the existence of tafsir. Tafsir explains the verses in detail, giving the most probable intended meaning of the verses, using a variety of synonyms to avoid the possibility of misinterpretation, etc. Some tafsirs, such as Ibn Kathir's, link up the Qur'anic verses with the relevant ahadith and parts of the Sira which provide context. Tafsirs are available in all the major languages.

Islam is what its believers believe. Whenever these various red herrings are raised (e.g., "you don't know Arabic," "you're taking it out of context," etc), it is invariably in the context of some apologist's attempt to confuse infidels about what the Koran was probably intended to mean and what the prevailing Islamic orthodoxy holds true and has held true for the past approximately 1300 years. We see this quite a lot when apologists, such as Hassaballa, try to present their own private vision of Islam, sweetened up for non-Muslim westerners' consumption, and claim that everything else is "a distortion.""

First, name the source of this quote or it's worthless.
Second, who are you or these people to say which translation/interpretation of the Koran is the 'correct' one?

the source is some random forum, posted by some anonymous dude, and i happened to agree with it. rather than simply copy/pasting it and pretending it was my own, i left quotes around it to show that I didn't say it. i merely quoted it because it summed up my thoughts on the issue well.

as far as the second part of your question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafsir

so, regardless of JoeBlowX being a nobody and obviously not being an expert on the issue, the existence of this "Tafsir" he references (as well as it echoing his commentary) seems to lend relevance to the quote. funny how that works.

but i guess when we don't know about something somebody references in a quote, we can strike it as being topical because the only relevant factors are things that we actually know of firsthand.

[quote:212c3]Qu'aran 9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/ji ... fidels.asp

Might wanna read that.

well golly, what an unbiased source! and i'm sure even though this apologist article goes out of its way to justify what's being said based on historical context and the "nature" of the text, it isn't subject to "misinterpretation" of.. oh.. most anyone that reads it. (insert more parallels to the bible)

I'd like to see you provide an unbiased article on the above quote, since you take issue with the one Lordwafik provided. Failing that, you're merely deconstructing his argument, not constructing your own. However, the onus is on you to construct an argument that supports your claims, since you're the one making claims.[/quote:212c3]

considering everything i'm quoting is from neutral third parties having no ties to christianity or islam, i'd say my sources are less biased than his. that's my opinion, of course, but that opinion holds weight until the time i start quoting anti-muslim sentiments from christian-apologist websites.

do you understand what an apologist is?

and this "you have to construct your argument, you can't deconstruct his argument, and i don't have to construct my argument (neither does wafik), we can just deconstruct yours" is yet another fallacy.

Everything is based on the way it's interperated, and considering you took a verse from the Quran about marriage prohibitations, and turned it into a verse about raping and pillaging, your translations are ones I wouldn't trust.

considering you just used a blatantly obvious logical fallacy as a device to undermine the validity of *everything* i say based on one inaccuracy (and you only carefully chose TWO points of contention, not covering them all.. interesting!) that i even went so far as to admit afterwards...

How do you know that Wafik "carefully" chose anything? Do you know how he chose which quotes of yours to contend? You're committing a fallacy of your own here, my jumping to the conclusion: "since you didn't contend every one of my references, you must have attempted to contend the others and failed". You brought it on yourself, however: you should have been more selective about what quotes to present in the first place.

oh, because we don't intimately know each others' minds, we can't know anything! more moral relativistic bullshit rhetoric! thanks, Hume! (do you even know who he is? probably not) yay more fallacies! let's commit fallacies in disproving fallacies because we don't understand the structure of argument, and apparently don't expect anyone else to be the wiser.

and i didn't jump to that conclusion. you did. you're setting me up for a straw man, and surprise of surprises... that's another fallacy.

perhaps you should be more careful in casually tossing around the word "fallacy" without apparently having any knowledge of them yourself, and committing just as many of them as you seem intent on proving in my arguments.

(unfortunately, a fallacious argument doesn't prove someone else to have a fallacious argument, this is what we call circular logic which is YET ANOTHER fallacy..)

reread your fallacies. (i hope i don't have to spell this one out for you, because it's a fairly popular one) and for fuck's sake, drop the modernist/apologist/relativist bullshit rhetoric. i look at the kind of crap people are spewing about how everything is different based on how we perceive it and can't help but shake my head at the fucking mess Hume has left in his wake.

And this whole paragraph is a fallacy in itself, so you're hardly one to bring up proper argumentation.

[/quote]

you obviously don't have a fucking clue what the logic traps are, because all you seem to be doing is calling anything you disagree with to be a fallacy, rather than actual citing REAL logical fallacies. (but you're welcome to explain exactly how that paragraph is truly a logical fallacy. i don't think you can.)

so i say again: read your fallacies, then get back to me.

peons, i swear. but, by all means, keep trying to argue with me. i've been dealing with the likes of you for years, both online and at the university level. i STRONGLY doubt you have the same constitution and educational background as me to continue this all the way to its logical conclusion.

/toss






edit: out of morbid curiosity, does this topic still belong in advanced player discussion?

[Fusional]

This country is going to shit itself down the toilet with all this PC bullshit.

qft

[*Shinzon*]

Yes, but surely rappers aren't talking about college female basketball players, it's ok to call unsuccessful black women ho's and nappy.

Naw, it was a joke, an insensitive albeit badly explained joke and it was wrong. I mean it in a sense, that its ok, that this old white dude gets hammered for saying it, but no one individual or group, takes offense to the fact that the top 10 rap songs in the country in GENERAL refer to women in a degrading way. My point is, if a person like Sharpton wants to start shit, than he can't selectively choose how to atttack it. If you're gonna attack it, go after it fully. Guaranfuckingtee, he will stop now that he got Imus fired. And that's what I meant by that.

[Mijin]

I think im not adding anything to this post.

I am an old reader to this forum /fan to this group of players who left to WoW or who stayed in FFXI "I hate WoW!", even thou before the forum of BG .. i mean since the Lawnchair LS Website.

well.. i am uae player/arab/muslim.. but really what is going here is not needed at all. topic is about "Regarding septimus's front page post" and i see many posters went far away very far away about it. Was like a request from a friend to you guyz, im sure Royze is one of your friends or a guy with a good reputation around the server. As it is a joke, we may think of it as generalize the whole players.

To solve it if you like; You could just point out Players Names / LS Names. This will more effected.

I would like to thank Wafik for some clarify about what came in Quran or posting the right translations for the contest. "Sorry i couldn't help to clear what i read, cuz of my bad typing/reading in English"


GL guyz hope everything will get much better...

[Tonko]

Much like Christian zealots take phrases out of the bible and twist them to their whims, so to are you Fusional trying to prove a baseless point you made. The ultimate responsibility for any person's, or group of person's action, lie with each individual who does those actions, not with the religion they happen to follow.

Many UAE RMT. But not all.

Many Christians hate gays, but not all.

Many people from the UAE hate the USA, but not all.

At the end of the day, personal accountability is all that matters. The why of it all doesn't matter. The religion does not teach hatred, the people twisting the religion do. And those that choose to believe the twisted interpretation are as much accountable as those who teach it.

Locking thread. It has no further place here. Take your arguments to PMs, and Fusional, stop throwing big words around trying to impress people.

Logical conclusion, reached.