Bank BANS woman in Helmet but Allows MAN in Burqa

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is a very interesting video;

Bank BANS woman in helmet but allows MAN in Burqa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky4poop-coY

This show the extent of stupidity the Islam apologists has gone to placate and coddle the ideology of Islam.

WHY?
This cowardly act by the bank and in similar situations is because these Islam-apologists had been cowered and subdued from the strategies of terror threats carried out by Islamists as a divine duty in accordance to the commands within their holy texts.

• Q'uran 3:151. We [Allah] shall cast terror into the hearts of those [infidels] who disbelieve because they [infidels] ascribe unto Allah partners [idols and deities], for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their [infidels] habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong doers [infidels].

Views?

[Age]

This is a very interesting video;

Bank BANS woman in helmet but allows MAN in Burqa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky4poop-coY

This show the extent of stupidity the Islam apologists has gone to placate and coddle the ideology of Islam.

This also shows the extent of stupidity the christian apologists have gone to placate and coddle the ideology of christianity. But I suppose you did not notice that also in that video, am I correct?

WHY?
This cowardly act by the bank and in similar situations is because these Islam-apologists had been cowered and subdued from the strategies of terror threats carried out by Islamists as a divine duty in accordance to the commands within their holy texts.

What evidence do you have that this was a 'cowardly act' by the bank, and that the people who wrote those rules for this bank are so called islam-apologists, who have been cowered and subdued from the strategies of terror threats carried out by some people?

To me it just looks like some human beings have written some rules around the implementation of cloth wearing in regards to some religious beliefs, in some places.

As for how absolutely ridiculous those rules truly are, they are just stupid rules written around absolutely stupid religious views. Those rules are no more nor no less stupid than the other rules written around ALL the other absolutely stupid religions that you human beings continue to want to follow, and are therefore being lead by.

You are ALL as stupid as each other in regards to being coerced and lead, no matter what religion you are being controlled by.

• Q'uran 3:151. We [Allah] shall cast terror into the hearts of those [infidels] who disbelieve because they [infidels] ascribe unto Allah partners [idols and deities], for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their [infidels] habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong doers [infidels].

Views?

My view is that you are so blinded by your one-sided view of this religion that you are unable to see the big and true real picture of things.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

'Multiculturalism' my arse. More like multistupidism. Do they think she has a gun under that helmet? He could have a couple of bazookas under that thing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is a very interesting video;

Bank BANS woman in helmet but allows MAN in Burqa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky4poop-coY

This show the extent of stupidity the Islam apologists has gone to placate and coddle the ideology of Islam.

This also shows the extent of stupidity the christian apologists have gone to placate and coddle the ideology of christianity. But I suppose you did not notice that also in that video, am I correct?

There are Christian apologist but not to that degree.

Note this;



There are no violent riots to the above derogatory image.
There is free speech with Christianity and other religions but not to the extent Islam apologists placate and coddle the ideology of Islam.

But note this lady was banned from UK for stating 'Muhammad was Gay'.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/03/1 ... allah-gay/

WHY?
This cowardly act by the bank and in similar situations is because these Islam-apologists had been cowered and subdued from the strategies of terror threats carried out by Islamists as a divine duty in accordance to the commands within their holy texts.

What evidence do you have that this was a 'cowardly act' by the bank, and that the people who wrote those rules for this bank are so called islam-apologists, who have been cowered and subdued from the strategies of terror threats carried out by some people?

To me it just looks like some human beings have written some rules around the implementation of cloth wearing in regards to some religious beliefs, in some places.

As for how absolutely ridiculous those rules truly are, they are just stupid rules written around absolutely stupid religious views. Those rules are no more nor no less stupid than the other rules written around ALL the other absolutely stupid religions that you human beings continue to want to follow, and are therefore being lead by.

Those rules in banning helmets are very practical and necessary based on past experiences of robbers robbing banks wearing helmets to hide their identity. The critical issue is hiding their identity and the rules would have applied to someone wearing a balaclava, mask or anything that cover the face and identity of the person.

In the above case, there is a person wearing a burga which cover the whole face and identity which is clearly associated with Islam. Why is such a dressing given an exception?

The fact that the bank and its staff has committed this exception is evidence of their cowardly act in being scared of offending Muslims who would riot and kill.
Note this was what had happened with the rape gangs in UK where the authority dare not act because of their fear of being branded racists, bigots, islamophobes and any resulting physical threats.

Point is the inherent ethos of Islam has effectively subdued them [subliminally] with terror, evil and violence to be submissive to Islam in whatever ways. The above scenario is proof their strategies are working.

You are ALL as stupid as each other in regards to being coerced and lead, no matter what religion you are being controlled by.

True in general.
But this is an exceptional case of being stupid in being complicit to the terrors of Islam.

• Q'uran 3:151. We [Allah] shall cast terror into the hearts of those [infidels] who disbelieve because they [infidels] ascribe unto Allah partners [idols and deities], for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their [infidels] habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong doers [infidels].

Views?

My view is that you are so blinded by your one-sided view of this religion that you are unable to see the big and true real picture of things.

Nope I have already stated my focus on Islam is based on real empirical evidences [as below and elsewhere] of real terror, evil and violent acts committed by SOME evil prone Muslims.


Why I Focus on Religious-Based Evil Only?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=25284
especially from Islam.

I have a view but it is supported by empirical evidences and sound arguments.
Just show me with evidence and arguments where I have argued falsely?

[Age]

This is a very interesting video;

Bank BANS woman in helmet but allows MAN in Burqa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky4poop-coY

This show the extent of stupidity the Islam apologists has gone to placate and coddle the ideology of Islam.

This also shows the extent of stupidity the christian apologists have gone to placate and coddle the ideology of christianity. But I suppose you did not notice that also in that video, am I correct?

There are Christian apologist but not to that degree.

To what degree?

Stupidity is stupidity, no matter to what degree.

I always find it hilarious how adult human beings are totally unaware of their own stupidity, but yet think that stupidity is only of the "others". This goes for greed, abuse, wrong doing, et cetera, also.

Note this;



There are no violent riots to the above derogatory image.

How is that derogatory, to you?

There is free speech with Christianity and other religions but not to the extent Islam apologists placate and coddle the ideology of Islam.

What are you actually trying to argue for here?

Why are you, yourself, an islam-apologist?

But note this lady was banned from UK for stating 'Muhammad was Gay'.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/03/1 ... allah-gay/

And people are banned from countries like usa for stating that they are muslim.

People are banned from ALL around the world because of STUPID rules.

If we want to look at STUPIDITY, some people are banned from other countries just because they were not born into wealthy families. Some are even banned for just not being born in that country. We could just about go on forever looking at ALL the STUPID rules that you adult human beings make up, and love to follow.

Do you just sit back and allow any person to call your mom or dad any thing that they want to?

Do you expect governments to step in and stop people insulting and/or offending your (God-like) creator-figures?

Or, is any person allowed to yell at and abuse the ones that you love and admire anytime that they want to?

It is after-all utterly ridiculous that I should not be allowed to call your dad gay, and a little boy fucker, correct? And, also that you are the result of inbreeding between your great-grandfather and your mother. Your mother was a slut to all of her previous living relatives right?

Note: would I be banned from your home if I spoke like that?

Must I have the right to call your father gay?

Or are you just another parent-apologist, and would not allow such speaking like that in your home nor in another child's home?

Are you just another worshiper and follower, that is; just another follower of parents ideology and beliefs, and want to protect the rights of children?

Tell us what it is that you are actually trying to argue for here.

What evidence do you have that this was a 'cowardly act' by the bank, and that the people who wrote those rules for this bank are so called islam-apologists, who have been cowered and subdued from the strategies of terror threats carried out by some people?

To me it just looks like some human beings have written some rules around the implementation of cloth wearing in regards to some religious beliefs, in some places.

As for how absolutely ridiculous those rules truly are, they are just stupid rules written around absolutely stupid religious views. Those rules are no more nor no less stupid than the other rules written around ALL the other absolutely stupid religions that you human beings continue to want to follow, and are therefore being lead by.

Those rules in banning helmets are very practical and necessary based on past experiences of robbers robbing banks wearing helmets to hide their identity. The critical issue is hiding their identity and the rules would have applied to someone wearing a balaclava, mask or anything that cover the face and identity of the person.

In the above case, there is a person wearing a burga which cover the whole face and identity which is clearly associated with Islam. Why is such a dressing given an exception?

You obviously missed my whole point. As i said previously you are so blinded by your one-sided view of things that you are incapable of seeing the truth of things.

My whole point IS why is such a dressing given an exception, for ALL religions?

The answer is because of you adult human beings STUPID BELIEFS, in things.

The reason that ALL cloth wearing is given an exception is because of the stupid thing you human beings follow, which is called religion.

The reason human beings make rules up about what can be worn or not worn is because of the STUPID religions, which you human beings make up and believe in.

WHY is the cloth that YOU wear given an exception? BECAUSE of YOUR stupid beliefs, and the stupid rules that you follow, and are lead by.

You christian-apologists are cowered and subdued from the strategies of terror threats carried out by christians as a divine duty in accordance to the commands within their holy texts. You are just not yet ready to see this truth.

If you WANT to see the truth of ALL things, instead of looking at SOME of the stupid rules that you adult human beings make up, look at ALL of the stupid rules you adults make up.

The fact that the bank and its staff has committed this exception is evidence of their cowardly act in being scared of offending Muslims who would riot and kill.

Just making this exception is NOT evidence at all of a 'cowardly act' of being scared of offending Muslims who would riot and kill, at all.

In fact, if you WANT to look at the actual truth, who is more cowardly? Staff, who work in a place that is well known for armed robberies, who insist that ALL customers reveal their faces or who insist only some customers do? If i worked in a bank i would much prefer that ALL customers had to remove all head coverings. Allowing people to remain face-less because of respecting (stupid) beliefs takes more courage in my eyes. Admittedly, though, the ones who make these decisions are NOT the ones who have to be face-to-face with could be armed robbers. So, it is much easier for them to make this decision.

But, if the truth be known I would want ALL customers to remove ALL clothing before they entered the bank. However, because ALL adult human beings have, and follow, STUPID beliefs, which I am constantly informed must be respected, so I do NOT force my views onto others.

Why is there an exception for you to be able to wear gun concealing clothing when you walk into a bank?

The only 'cowardly act' here is how you all follow and are lead by YOUR chosen religion/s, with ALL of its stupid adult human being made up rules and regulations. You are all forced to follow because of your fear of the terror proposed by your chosen religion. I do not know why the people who make up the rules for allowing the covering of faces by muslim women in banks is done. It could be out of fear of terror, but could also be stupidly done in respect of another stupid rule, in religious form.

You have not yet proven people are cowering in banks from the prospect of terrorist acts. If you have some sort of evidence of this, then great. Let us see it. If people are cowering as much as you are suggesting here, then there would not be rules in particular parts of airports faces have to be shown. Why are those rule makers not cowering?

Note this was what had happened with the rape gangs in UK where the authority dare not act because of their fear of being branded racists, bigots, islamophobes and any resulting physical threats.

Point is the inherent ethos of Islam has effectively subdued them [subliminally] with terror, evil and violence to be submissive to Islam in whatever ways. The above scenario is proof their strategies are working.

If they are working, then great. If that is what you so believe, then you also WILL BE, eventually, subdued into "their" obedience.

You have been and are already effectively subdued into a religious belief now anyway, also subliminally, so why not move into another one. You are completely unaware that you have been subdued into this one. Why not into another one?

Also, are you at all aware that you are being, subliminally, influenced and subdued into a position, by a money-hungry newspaper conglomerate?

You are ALL as stupid as each other in regards to being coerced and lead, no matter what religion you are being controlled by.

True in general.
But this is an exceptional case of being stupid in being complicit to the terrors of Islam.

It is NOT an exceptional case of being stupid, to me. From how I see things YOU are also being very stupid in being complicit to the terrors of christianity. You, however, are so blinded that you can not even see how this has already happened yet. You, in fact, are so blinded that you are totally unaware that it has even been happening to you. You are also unaware of the terror placed into you by christianity. You are probably also blinded to the fact that this has even happened.

If you were even remotely or somewhat aware, then you would not be so defiantly looking at only one side in this issue.

My view is that you are so blinded by your one-sided view of this religion that you are unable to see the big and true real picture of things.

Nope I have already stated my focus on Islam is based on real empirical evidences [as below and elsewhere] of real terror, evil and violent acts committed by SOME evil prone Muslims.

Well you would be so much more of a fool if you had already stated your focus on islam is based on 'false' empirical evidences. As I have pointed out many times to you previously, you only BELIEVE it is "real" empirical evidence, because it SUPPORTS your already held BELIEFS.

What you say is NOT real empirical evidence.

What you are DOING is grasping onto any thing you can, which confirms your already held biases. This is OBVIOUS. But this, obviously, would not be obvious to YOU, just yet anyway.

Why I Focus on Religious-Based Evil Only?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=25284
especially from Islam.

I have a view but it is supported by empirical evidences and sound arguments.

But you have NOT argued anything yet. To 'argue' for some thing, a sound, valid argument has to be presented. An attempt at an argument is not a sound and valid argument.

You have only provided so called "arguements" for YOUR one sided-view of things.

As I said previously, you are so blinded by your one-sided views that you are unable to see the big and true real picture of things.

Just show me with evidence and arguments where I have argued falsely?

You have NOT provided evidence that the people, who made up the exception for wearing burqas in banks, was done out of fear of previous terrorist acts.

The truth is you may well be 100% correct, but until you provide evidence for your belief, then I for one, am open to the idea that 'respect' for another's religion might ALSO be equally the case for that (stupid) ruling. There are also other options and/or reasons that I am also open to you. Until I hear from the person who makes up stupid, or any, rules, then I would not be so stupid to assume that I KNOW what the reason is for those rules.

Just adding a quote out of the koran is falsely arguing that the people who make rules for deciding what can be worn or not worn into banks was done out of fear of terror.

As I said, you might be 100% correct, but WHAT makes you BELIEVE that you are correct, especially without having first hand knowledge of WHY another person has done what they did?

[Reflex]

Wrong forum. Belongs in political philosophy forum.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This also shows the extent of stupidity the christian apologists have gone to placate and coddle the ideology of christianity. But I suppose you did not notice that also in that video, am I correct?

There are Christian apologist but not to that degree.

To what degree?

Note with intelligence [IQ], there are objective measurements of degrees/grading albeit relatively and roughly. That also applies to the its opposite, i.e.s stupidity.

Note Christians complain but they are not that stupid to the extent of killing those who draw cartoons of Jesus or as the image below.

Stupidity is stupidity, no matter to what degree.
I always find it hilarious how adult human beings are totally unaware of their own stupidity, but yet think that stupidity is only of the "others". This goes for greed, abuse, wrong doing, et cetera, also.

Note my point in terms of degrees of intelligence.
I had defined stupidity in terms of subsumption of the minor premises with the major premise which comes in degree. It would be very stupid to subsume 'cats' within the category 'fruit' and conclude from that subsumption.

I do not deny I sometimes do stupid things but not on the topic in hand and in this context.

Note this;



There are no violent riots to the above derogatory image.

How is that derogatory, to you?

It is not derogatory to me.
It is derogatory to Christians but yet Christians do not riot, kill and ban people because of the above like SOME Muslims do in killing people who draw cartoons of their prophet.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well you would be so much more of a fool if you had already stated your focus on islam is based on 'false' empirical evidences. As I have pointed out many times to you previously, you only BELIEVE it is "real" empirical evidence, because it SUPPORTS your already held BELIEFS.

What you say is NOT real empirical evidence.
What you are DOING is grasping onto any thing you can, which confirms your already held biases. This is OBVIOUS. But this, obviously, would not be obvious to YOU, just yet anyway.

Note I have provided real empirical evidences and derived my BELIEFS therefrom.

I started with this sort of real empirical evidences;
e.g. [subject to refinements]


The above is only ONE convenient source and there are tons of sources of real empirical evidences.

It is starting from the above real empirical evidences that I traced the root cause to the inherent evil ethos of the religion.

Nope! I am not like theists who first believe in something due to underlying psychological impulses then begin to look for evidences to support that false belief.

I am well aware of such rhetoric used by Plato as highlighted by Kant;

It is, indeed, the common fate of Human Reason to complete its Speculative Structures as speedily as may be, and only afterwards to enquire whether the foundations are reliable.
All sorts of excuses will then be appealed to, in order to reassure us of their solidity, or rather indeed 3 to enable us to dispense altogether with so late and so dangerous an enquiry. B9

Don't be so stupid, it is obvious and default in any philosophical forum for anyone to defend their thesis [in addition to self criticism] and for you to counter my arguments with better arguments if any.

Important Note:
From your argument and complain, what you are ignorant is this;
Discussion in such a forum like this is very limited. It is not a rigor academic exercise. As such the evidences that can be presented here is also limited. What I have done is provided reference and links as a rough as a lead to greater details if necessary.

You complained I posted a verse from the Quran as if that is the sole evidence. Nope I honestly quoted one very relevant verse from the Quran [which is openly available for further check]. If you are skeptical we can get into all the 6236 verses of the Quran.

It is the same with all the limited reference and links I have taken the trouble to provide which open to greater details/discussion if necessary. In addition I have opened my threads to support specific points.
To maintain intellectual integrity and honesty, I believe I am one of those who has provided the most quotes, links and references currently in this forum. Tell me who else?

You? I don't think you have provided any or sufficient references and links at all to support your views but rather merely expressing your personal subjective opinions. This is very low grade and a lazy way of philosophical discussions. As evident your views lack credibility, rather they are merely noisy complains.

[Age]

There are Christian apologist but not to that degree.

To what degree?

Note with intelligence [IQ], there are objective measurements of degrees/grading albeit relatively and roughly. That also applies to the its opposite, i.e.s stupidity.

Note Christians complain but they are not that stupid to the extent of killing those who draw cartoons of Jesus or as the image below.

Does this apply for ALL situations and for ALL times?

Stupidity is stupidity, no matter to what degree.
I always find it hilarious how adult human beings are totally unaware of their own stupidity, but yet think that stupidity is only of the "others". This goes for greed, abuse, wrong doing, et cetera, also.

Note my point in terms of degrees of intelligence.
I had defined stupidity in terms of subsumption of the minor premises with the major premise which comes in degree. It would be very stupid to subsume 'cats' within the category 'fruit' and conclude from that subsumption.

I do not deny I sometimes do stupid things but not on the topic in hand and in this context.

As I said, I find it hilarious how adult human beings are totally unaware of their own stupidity, but yet think that stupidity belongs only to "others".

Do you REALLY believe that you are not being stupid here in regards to this topic and, especially, in this context?

Note this;

There are no violent riots to the above derogatory image.

How is that derogatory, to you?

It is not derogatory to me.
It is derogatory to Christians

Why do you think it is derogatory to those ones you label "christians"?

What do you propose is actually derogatory about it?

but yet Christians do not riot, kill and ban people because of the above like SOME Muslims do in killing people who draw cartoons of their prophet.

Have you proven this with world-wide empirical evidence?

Or are you just basing this "knowledge" on what you have noticed, from your own very limited perspective of things?

[Age]

Well you would be so much more of a fool if you had already stated your focus on islam is based on 'false' empirical evidences. As I have pointed out many times to you previously, you only BELIEVE it is "real" empirical evidence, because it SUPPORTS your already held BELIEFS.

What you say is NOT real empirical evidence.
What you are DOING is grasping onto any thing you can, which confirms your already held biases. This is OBVIOUS. But this, obviously, would not be obvious to YOU, just yet anyway.

Note I have provided real empirical evidences and derived my BELIEFS therefrom.

I started with this sort of real empirical evidences;
e.g. [subject to refinements]


The above is only ONE convenient source and there are tons of sources of real empirical evidences.

It is starting from the above real empirical evidences that I traced the root cause to the inherent evil ethos of the religion.

And how many deadly, terror, attacks have been carried out by human beings who are labelled "soldiers" (or "terrorists" by others), and who are themselves self-labelled "christians", since the given date of 11 of September, 2001 years AFTER the birth of just another human being with the label "christ"?

Nope! I am not like theists who first believe in something due to underlying psychological impulses then begin to look for evidences to support that false belief.

Are you absolutely 100% sure of this?

I am well aware of such rhetoric used by Plato as highlighted by Kant;

It is, indeed, the common fate of Human Reason to complete its Speculative Structures as speedily as may be, and only afterwards to enquire whether the foundations are reliable.
All sorts of excuses will then be appealed to, in order to reassure us of their solidity, or rather indeed 3 to enable us to dispense altogether with so late and so dangerous an enquiry. B9

Don't be so stupid, it is obvious and default in any philosophical forum for anyone to defend their thesis [in addition to self criticism] and for you to counter my arguments with better arguments if any.

Important Note:
From your argument and complain, what you are ignorant is this;
Discussion in such a forum like this is very limited. It is not a rigor academic exercise. As such the evidences that can be presented here is also limited. What I have done is provided reference and links as a rough as a lead to greater details if necessary.

More Important Note: (but obviously this is based upon what viewpoint one is coming from)
What is presented here, to me, is just obviously biased confirmed rhetoric.

You complained I posted a verse from the Quran as if that is the sole evidence.

No I did NOT.

You have completely taken out of context what I actually wrote, and also now trying to twist around and labelling "complaint". You did this intentionally, for obvious reasons, or unintentionally, also for obvious reason.

The truth is, and what I actually wrote was; "Just adding a quote out of the koran is falsely arguing that the people who make rules for deciding what can be worn or not worn into banks was done out of fear of terror".

Nope I honestly quoted one very relevant verse from the Quran [which is openly available for further check].

YES, you quoted ONE quote from the quran, but in that instance NOT for any other reason than to TRY TO argue for a point, which I have already shown that that quote does NOT provide any evidence of your claim that some people who work at banks made the decision that you BELIEVE they did.

You are just jumping to "A" conclusion, based on some thing you have read out of the quran previously. There is NO actual proof that the two link together, yet. As I have already implied, the two might link together but you have NOT provided absolutely any evidence of this, yet.

If you are skeptical we can get into all the 6236 verses of the Quran.

Great, let us get into it. I had tried to get into this before but you flatly refused to. But BEFORE we do that, let us make sure the readers are well aware of the very reason WHY I mentioned what I did. That was to show that just placing A quote out of the quran is NOT an argument for the reason you are giving for WHY the people within a banking system made the decision that they did. Is this understood by you?

If so, then now let us begin getting into any verse, and ALL verses if you like, of the quran. I have already explained many times previously that it is extremely simple and easy to kill a person without harming nor injuring the human body, but you continuously refused to "get into this" previously.

It is the same with all the limited reference and links I have taken the trouble to provide which open to greater details/discussion if necessary. terror.

This is the whole issue here. You BELIEVE it is NOT necessary to go into greater detail/discussion because you BELIEVE you already KNOW what is true, right, and correct.

As I have stated, in an annoyingly amount of times already, but you are NOT open at all. If you were, then you would have already shown some sign of inquisitiveness.

In addition I have opened my threads to support specific points.
To maintain intellectual integrity and honesty, I believe I am one of those who has provided the most quotes, links and references currently in this forum. Tell me who else?

The one labelled "timeseeker" also has a propensity to provide links to that what looks like it might, but does not, "support" their position.

Some people actually think that providing links from what "OTHERS" say and write is some sort of confirmation that supports their own biases, assumptions, and beliefs.

These people are NOT able to argue, soundly and validly, for their position because of that position's obvious flaws. These people are also obviously not able to think for themselves and find the sufficient argument. Obviously if they could then they would not have have to need "others" for "support".

Also what is obvious is if their position was as true, right, and correct as what they believe it is, then they would not have to argue for it. It would just speak for itself, as they say.

You? I don't think you have provided any or sufficient references and links at all to support your views but rather merely expressing your personal subjective opinions.

I do not need to.

The truthfulness,
Of what I say,
and write.
Will come to light.

Just some can recognize and see it much easier and quicker than others can.

This is very low grade and a lazy way of philosophical discussions. As evident your views lack credibility, rather they are merely noisy complains.

How long did it take a person to show that the sun does not revolve around the earth? The evidence was there, literally, right in front of them, just some people are NOT open to seeing and noticing evidence.

The reasons they are not I have explained enough times already.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To what degree?

Note with intelligence [IQ], there are objective measurements of degrees/grading albeit relatively and roughly. That also applies to the its opposite, i.e.s stupidity.

Note Christians complain but they are not that stupid to the extent of killing those who draw cartoons of Jesus or as the image below.

Does this apply for ALL situations and for ALL times?

Yes!
In principle, in Christianity the overriding maxim of 'love your enemies' 'give your right cheek' 'love your neighbor'. If otherwise they are going against God/Jesus's command and likely to be sent to Hell.

There are 'Christians' who had killed and murdered but in this case they are not killing as Christians but as evil humans. Christians have gone to war but again that is not Christianity per-se, they went/go to war as being humans, not as being Christians. In such situations they will have to leave it to God to show them mercy if they have a good excuse to fight wars as human beings.

In contrast, Islam sanction war and condone killing non-believers if threatened [which can be anything and misperceived most of the time].

Stupidity is stupidity, no matter to what degree.
I always find it hilarious how adult human beings are totally unaware of their own stupidity, but yet think that stupidity is only of the "others". This goes for greed, abuse, wrong doing, et cetera, also.

Note my point in terms of degrees of intelligence.
I had defined stupidity in terms of subsumption of the minor premises with the major premise which comes in degree. It would be very stupid to subsume 'cats' within the category 'fruit' and conclude from that subsumption.

I do not deny I sometimes do stupid things but not on the topic in hand and in this context.

As I said, I find it hilarious how adult human beings are totally unaware of their own stupidity, but yet think that stupidity belongs only to "others".

Do you REALLY believe that you are not being stupid here in regards to this topic and, especially, in this context?

No, I am not stupid in this case.
I have ensure I am not stupid in this context and I had I striven hard to provide evidences and arguments based on critical thinking. Since I have done my part it is up to you to counter with sound arguments and evidences.

Note this;

how is that derogatory, to you?

It is not derogatory to me.
It is derogatory to Christians

Why do you think it is derogatory to those ones you label "christians"?

What do you propose is actually derogatory about it?

Religion where one's quest for eternal life is hanging by a thread, is a very extraordinary sensitive matter to believers.
It is common sense [stupid to argue against it], most Abrahamic followers will take the above insulting context as derogatory.

but yet Christians do not riot, kill and ban people because of the above like SOME Muslims do in killing people who draw cartoons of their prophet.

Have you proven this with world-wide empirical evidence?

Or are you just basing this "knowledge" on what you have noticed, from your own very limited perspective of things?

Do you keep with the News and current affairs?

The above is based on reported cases in the News.
There are so many cases of Muslims rioting and killing those who draw cartoons of Muhammad but we don't hear of such thing from the Christians even when all sorts of 'offensive' Jesus cartoons are drawn.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You? I don't think you have provided any or sufficient references and links at all to support your views but rather merely expressing your personal subjective opinions.

I do not need to.

The truthfulness,
Of what I say,
and write.
Will come to light.

Just some can recognize and see it much easier and quicker than others can.

You are really a jerk.

When I ask to reference, quotes, links, evidence and argument, you confidently stated;
"I do not need to."

On the other hand, you complained I have not provided sufficient evidence and arguments, i.e.

It is the same with all the limited reference and links I have taken the trouble to provide which open to greater details/discussion if necessary. terror.

This is the whole issue here. You BELIEVE it is NOT necessary to go into greater detail/discussion because you BELIEVE you already KNOW what is true, right, and correct.

As I have stated, in an annoyingly amount of times already, but you are NOT open at all. If you were, then you would have already shown some sign of inquisitiveness.

Not OPEN, not inquisitive, wtf is that?
I have always strive to approach an issue as widely and deeply as possible but as I had stated I can only present limited finding in a limited forum like this.

You? your approach is too narrow and shallow plus lack in critical thinking.

Note your onus is to counter my arguments with evidence and sound counter arguments or provide your own reasonable justified thesis.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well you would be so much more of a fool if you had already stated your focus on islam is based on 'false' empirical evidences. As I have pointed out many times to you previously, you only BELIEVE it is "real" empirical evidence, because it SUPPORTS your already held BELIEFS.

What you say is NOT real empirical evidence.
What you are DOING is grasping onto any thing you can, which confirms your already held biases. This is OBVIOUS. But this, obviously, would not be obvious to YOU, just yet anyway.

Note I have provided real empirical evidences and derived my BELIEFS therefrom.

I started with this sort of real empirical evidences;
e.g. [subject to refinements]


The above is only ONE convenient source and there are tons of sources of real empirical evidences.

It is starting from the above real empirical evidences that I traced the root cause to the inherent evil ethos of the religion.

And how many deadly, terror, attacks have been carried out by human beings who are labelled "soldiers" (or "terrorists" by others), and who are themselves self-labelled "christians", since the given date of 11 of September, 2001 years AFTER the birth of just another human being with the label "christ"?

I condemn all sorts of evil and violent acts from whatever the source.
Doctrine wise, Christianity do not condone killing of non-believers [maxim: love your enemies].
On the other hand, Islam sanctions the killing of non-believers in the slightest condition of threat.

Nope! I am not like theists who first believe in something due to underlying psychological impulses then begin to look for evidences to support that false belief.

Are you absolutely 100% sure of this?

Yes, 100% absolutely. Prove if you think otherwise?

I am well aware of such rhetoric used by Plato as highlighted by Kant;

It is, indeed, the common fate of Human Reason to complete its Speculative Structures as speedily as may be, and only afterwards to enquire whether the foundations are reliable.
All sorts of excuses will then be appealed to, in order to reassure us of their solidity, or rather indeed 3 to enable us to dispense altogether with so late and so dangerous an enquiry. B9

Don't be so stupid, it is obvious and default in any philosophical forum for anyone to defend their thesis [in addition to self criticism] and for you to counter my arguments with better arguments if any.

Important Note:
From your argument and complain, what you are ignorant is this;
Discussion in such a forum like this is very limited. It is not a rigor academic exercise. As such the evidences that can be presented here is also limited. What I have done is provided reference and links as a rough as a lead to greater details if necessary.

More Important Note: (but obviously this is based upon what viewpoint one is coming from)
What is presented here, to me, is just obviously biased confirmed rhetoric.

Your above response is stupidity.
I have provided some basic arguments above.

You complained I posted a verse from the Quran as if that is the sole evidence.

No I did NOT.

You have completely taken out of context what I actually wrote, and also now trying to twist around and labelling "complaint". You did this intentionally, for obvious reasons, or unintentionally, also for obvious reason.

The truth is, and what I actually wrote was; "Just adding a quote out of the koran is falsely arguing that the people who make rules for deciding what can be worn or not worn into banks was done out of fear of terror".

Problem is you are too dense due to ignorance and a deliberate stance not to learn more.
I quoted that verse to support the strategy of terror used by Islam to subdue non-Muslims.
I have given example of the UK rape gangs where the authorities were so subdued by this terror-based terrorists that they fear to investigate the perpetrators because they were Muslims.

The same effect is applicable to the bank staff who fear to offend the Muslims in his bias again the lady with the helmet.
If you are of average intelligence you would have sense the correlation and then the cause are from the same sources, i.e. verses from the Quran.

There are no many cases to support my point. Note how the European leaders are so politically-correct so as not to offend Islam.

Nope I honestly quoted one very relevant verse from the Quran [which is openly available for further check].

YES, you quoted ONE quote from the quran, but in that instance NOT for any other reason than to TRY TO argue for a point, which I have already shown that that quote does NOT provide any evidence of your claim that some people who work at banks made the decision that you BELIEVE they did.

You are just jumping to "A" conclusion, based on some thing you have read out of the quran previously. There is NO actual proof that the two link together, yet. As I have already implied, the two might link together but you have NOT provided absolutely any evidence of this, yet.

Note my explanation above on how the bias of the bank staff is traced to the verse in the Quran.

If you are skeptical we can get into all the 6236 verses of the Quran.

Great, let us get into it. I had tried to get into this before but you flatly refused to. But BEFORE we do that, let us make sure the readers are well aware of the very reason WHY I mentioned what I did. That was to show that just placing A quote out of the quran is NOT an argument for the reason you are giving for WHY the people within a banking system made the decision that they did. Is this understood by you?

If so, then now let us begin getting into any verse, and ALL verses if you like, of the quran. I have already explained many times previously that it is extremely simple and easy to kill a person without harming nor injuring the human body, but you continuously refused to "get into this" previously.

Note my explanation above of the strategy of terror recommended in the Quran to subdue the non-believers in a state of fear and submission.

There are many verses spouting striking terror in the heart of non-believers together with the various themes to subdue non-believers into submission with fears.
Let's begin with this verse I had used 3:151. i.e.

• 3:151. We [Allah] shall cast terror [R3B: l-ruʿ'ba] into the hearts of those [infidels] who disbelieve because they [infidels] ascribe unto Allah partners [ShRK: ashrakū idols and deities], for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their [infidels] habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong doers [l-ẓālimīna] [infidels].

Why is the above irrelevant to the strategy of terror used by Islam?

[Age]

Note with intelligence [IQ], there are objective measurements of degrees/grading albeit relatively and roughly. That also applies to the its opposite, i.e.s stupidity.

Note Christians complain but they are not that stupid to the extent of killing those who draw cartoons of Jesus or as the image below.

Does this apply for ALL situations and for ALL times?

Yes!
In principle,

In WHAT "principle" is that? In YOUR principle?

in Christianity the overriding maxim of 'love your enemies' 'give your right cheek' 'love your neighbor'.

Are you under some sort of illusion that ANYONE follows these things, wholeheartedly?

By the way have you noticed how you read some thing, and then interpreted in the way that you WANT it to read. That is; in a way that fits in with your already held assumptions and BELIEFS.

If otherwise they are going against God/Jesus's command and likely to be sent to Hell.

And, surely there is NO person who goes against God's commands, are there?

If human beings were really afraid of some place called "hell", then they would not do any wrong. Do you know of any adult human being who does not do wrong? I certainly do not.

I have explained to you many times already. God's so called "commands" get misinterpreted by YOU, human beings, and that is the reason WHY things are written down as they are. Remember, it is through human being's, and specifically from their hands, that is WHERE the written word, literally, comes from.

There are 'Christians' who had killed and murdered but in this case they are not killing as Christians but as evil humans.

So, let me see if I have this right. From your perspective when a human being who is labelled "christian" kills and murders another human being, then that is because they are a now labelled "evil" human being, but when a human being who is labelled "muslim" kills and murders another human being, then that is not because they are an "evil" human being but because they are a "muslim", is this now correct?

I asked you before about your belief that the ones called "christians" have not killed other human beings due to inappropriateness (drawing of inappropriate pictures) to "christianity" for ALL time before. Are you now saying that since human beings and so called "christianity" has existed there has not been just one so called "christian" who has not murdered/killed another human being out of "christianity"?

Christians have gone to war but again that is not Christianity per-se, they went/go to war as being humans, not as being Christians. In such situations they will have to leave it to God to show them mercy if they have a good excuse to fight wars as human beings.

To me that brain is coming up with more and more hallucinations of what REALLY happens.

In contrast, Islam sanction war and condone killing non-believers if threatened [which can be anything and misperceived most of the time].

That is YOUR interpretation and BELIEF?

There is NO where in the quran that I interpret, that interpretation that you have.

It is YOUR interpretation that could be WRONG here. I have told you this many times already. You are just unable to accept this.

Also, does not just about every adult human being, society and government sanction and condone killing of others, if threatened?

I am not sure if you have noticed WHY you, human beings, create and build weapons. On only the very rarest of occasions where a weapon may be needed to protect oneself from a non human animal, there is NO other reason to build weapons other than to kill other HUMAN BEINGS, usually under the pretense of being threatened.

This is how stupid you, human beings, really are. You build weapons to protect yourselves, from yourselves. You have well and truly surpassed where you need weapons to protect yourself from anything else, other than your own stupid selves.

As I said, I find it hilarious how adult human beings are totally unaware of their own stupidity, but yet think that stupidity belongs only to "others".

Do you REALLY believe that you are not being stupid here in regards to this topic and, especially, in this context?

No, I am not stupid in this case.

If that is what you BELIEVE, then so be it.

I have already learned that it is impossible to show the Truth to those who BELIEVE otherwise. I have also already explained WHY. But I will continue to look for a way. Learning how to communicate (this) better is the goal I have set.

I have ensure I am not stupid in this context and I had I striven hard to provide evidences and arguments based on critical thinking.

That is it, use the 'critical thinking' terminology to fool one's self, and maybe a few others, that you are NOT acting and being stupid.

Since I have done my part it is up to you to counter with sound arguments and evidences.

As I have already suggested, you have NOT argued for any thing yet. But you have obviously certainly convinced your self that you are absolutely true, right, and correct. All you have really done here is shown how stupid human beings can be, and ARE, when they have and hold BELIEFS.

Why do you think it is derogatory to those ones you label "christians"?

What do you propose is actually derogatory about it?

Religion where one's quest for eternal life is hanging by a thread, is a very extraordinary sensitive matter to believers.
It is common sense [stupid to argue against it], most Abrahamic followers will take the above insulting context as derogatory.

You were not even close to answer MY two actual question here. In fact you are getting further afield.

Have you proven this with world-wide empirical evidence?

Or are you just basing this "knowledge" on what you have noticed, from your own very limited perspective of things?

Do you keep with the News and current affairs?

Is that the same news and current affairs which is run and controlled by money hungry moguls?

Yes I do see it now and then but I would not say I "keep with" it. Have you ever heard the saying, 'Do not let the truth get in the way of good story?' It is sometimes used by people with a love and desire for money, over other things.

The above is based on reported cases in the News.

Is that the cases reported in the news in christian dominated readers, watches and FOLLOWERS, or in the islamic dominated societies, or in both?

Feel free to answer that as openly and honestly as you so wish.

There are so many cases of Muslims rioting and killing those who draw cartoons of Muhammad

How many is "so many"?

but we don't hear of such thing from the Christians even when all sorts of 'offensive' Jesus cartoons are drawn.

Has the christian society been put to the test?

How often are so called "offensive" jesus cartoons being drawn?

In fact, how often do the ones labelled "muslims", "jews", "buddhists", et cetera, draw offensive cartoons of jesus? Are these human beings actually at this kind of level of society to do this sort of thing?

Imagine what would happen if one group of human beings did go about continually ridiculing and making offending comments and pictures of just one more of YOU other (stupid) beings named, that one being named "jesus". Jesus is after all just another stupid human being who misinterpreted, took out of context, and misunderstood WHAT was actually being directed and said. None of YOU is better nor worse than another. YOU ALL misinterpreted, take out of context, and misunderstand the actual Truth about Life and living. Even though It is staring you in the face, you, adult human beings, are unable to SEE It.

I have already explained enough times already WHY you are ALL missing the mark.

If there were ANY intelligent ones, then you would KNOW what to do, by NOW. I have explained it enough times to you already. Obviously, ALL of you still do NOT get It.

[Age]

You? I don't think you have provided any or sufficient references and links at all to support your views but rather merely expressing your personal subjective opinions.

I do not need to.

The truthfulness,
Of what I say,
and write.
Will come to light.

Just some can recognize and see it much easier and quicker than others can.

You are really a jerk.

When I ask to reference, quotes, links, evidence and argument, you confidently stated;
"I do not need to."

On the other hand, you complained I have not provided sufficient evidence and arguments, i.e.

It is NOT a complaint. It is a fact.

I am NOT complaining. I am just commenting.

What you provide is obviously sufficient evidence and arguments, for you, alone (and maybe a few others). But it is NOT sufficient for an absolute evidence nor sound and valid argument. What is sufficient to YOU and what is sufficient for Truth and Reality can be two very distinctly different things.

It is the same with all the limited reference and links I have taken the trouble to provide which open to greater details/discussion if necessary. terror.

This is the whole issue here. You BELIEVE it is NOT necessary to go into greater detail/discussion because you BELIEVE you already KNOW what is true, right, and correct.

As I have stated, in an annoyingly amount of times already, but you are NOT open at all. If you were, then you would have already shown some sign of inquisitiveness.

Not OPEN, not inquisitive, wtf is that?

Not OPEN, means that you are closed.

Not inquisitive, means that you are not wanting to learn more.

Both mean that you believe that you have enough sufficient evidence and arguments already.

That is wtf that is.

I have always strive to approach an issue as widely and deeply as possible but as I had stated I can only present limited finding in a limited forum like this.

I agree that you present a very, very limited finding.

So limited as to be rather very funny and amusing, i might add.

Why do you not present your "finding" in an appropriate place if you think it is to limited here?

You? your approach is too narrow and shallow plus lack in critical thinking.

If that is what you think or believe, then that is fine.

You are free to think and believe whatever you like.

Note your onus is to counter my arguments with evidence and sound counter arguments or provide your own reasonable justified thesis.

I do NOT have a duty nor responsibility to do any thing other than I what I WANT and CHOOSE to do.

I am here, in this forum, to learn from you people who call yourselves "philosophers".

I have learned that the best way to learn how to communicate better, in order to be heard and understood better, is to learn from the most arrogant and self-"justifying" human beings, such as your self. From what I have seen the most self-believing and thus closed human beings are the ones who TRY TO argue for their already held position.

If I can learn how to get through an adult human being with a strongly held position, then the more I will learn. So, the ones with the strongest BELIEFS, who are the most CLOSED human beings, are the ones I seek out. They are the ones who are the most unable to learn and understand, thus from those who are most stupid, the more I can learn.