Observation or undergoing, two sides of an "absolute"

[nothing]

You are exsesivly abstract. Or, merely inteligable, rather than reasonable.

The accuser is the accused: you are drawing from your own nature.
Stick to content, not ad hominem - once ad hominem starts I know
they have nothing left.

Belief in god is unreasonable: thus unreasonableness begins there.
Any all-knowing god must know all: not to believe, thus
would not be rooted in any belief, rather the negation of: knowledge.

It's reasonble to observe that there are laws. We either try to change them to make them better, or we try to keep them the same. If we ignore the problem others wont. Those others will determine the laws. Either they or the dead. The Americans, did, indeed, swear by "natures God" and his "self evident" "truths." It is a claim to know natural right vouchsafed by God. The alternative is mere "posative" law based on the power of the state or land.

The only "law" the Muhammadan religion observes is Islamic, based on a book they "BELIEVE" was delivered to their idol. Even if they are in a non-Muslim nation, that territory is designated as being a part of the "House of War" as Islam divides humanity into two: House of Islam (believer) vs. House of War (unbeliever) thus 'war' is the default state of Islam if/when there are any non-Muslim nations. That is why for 1400 years Islam has been invading / genociding yet blaming others for what they are themselves guilty of, such to attempt to scapegoat their own crimes against humanity. That is why Islam needs BELIEF: nobody knows, they merely BELIEVE all the accusations. The warlord politics relies on character assassinations, and the same is being attempted on U.S. President by the Muslim Brotherhood, as the "hate" for Trump is all jihad. They blame the "Jews" for what they themselves do: control the media. All the mainstream media corporations are aligned by the House of Islam and their ongoing Nazi jihad against the free world. Humanity did not defeat Nazism after WWII: Hitler did not figure out who the real "Jews" were, and ended up becoming a puppet for the very people he hated, not knowing the real "Jews" are the Muslim Brotherhood. They are the book-worshiping pedophiles that religiously abuses women/children as a religion. The same is the geopolitical entity behind the entire Left.

I recommend to you the Heart Fuller debate.

Your comments on Islam are charicature. A serious knowledge of Sharia law brings another view.

I've studied Sharia law for 4 years - I also studied the history of Islam and particularly the Qur'an, and know
where it came from: not a god. Thus I know Sharia is just as man-made as any, thus is evaluated on equal terms.
I know women are designated inferior to men, and men are granted "permission" to beat their wives into submission.
Any ideology that sanctions any abuse of others is intrinsically abusive, as Islam is absolutely abusive
given women are treated as inferior slaves that must do everything the man says/wants as commanded.

Islam does not even respect the 1:1 ratio according to Genesis, it grants a 1:4 ration (Muhammad 1:9+).
That kind of disproportionalism is rooted in patriarchy and sexual degeneracy: the two characteristics
of Muhammad, him having been a pedophile man.

My comments on Islam are correct: it is not a religion of peace, but of perpetual conflict, given it divides humanity on the basis of "believer vs. unbeliever". That is a division, thus perpetual conflict of "us vs. them". The ideology is divisive, and their modus operandi begins with pointing their fingers at others and taking all attention away from themselves.

Your comments are discouraging that you should encourage a law drafted by a pedophile man. Very disgusting, and doubly so should you even attempt to point your finger somewhere else: Muhammad establishes a global precedent for pedophilia on the planet, and this is without going deep into the Muhammadan rape gangs wherein they shout Qur'anic "law" at "unbelieving" women before raping/killed, in accordance with their "BELIEF" of what it means to take women as captive: do whatever you want to them.

That's not a humanistic ideology, that is barbarism, thus is Sharia, thus is Islam.

[TheVisionofEr]

You are exsesivly abstract. Or, merely inteligable, rather than reasonable.

The accuser is the accused: you are drawing from your own nature.
Stick to content, not ad hominem - once ad hominem starts I know
they have nothing left.

Belief in god is unreasonable: thus unreasonableness begins there.
Any all-knowing god must know all: not to believe, thus
would not be rooted in any belief, rather the negation of: knowledge.

It's reasonble to observe that there are laws. We either try to change them to make them better, or we try to keep them the same. If we ignore the problem others wont. Those others will determine the laws. Either they or the dead. The Americans, did, indeed, swear by "natures God" and his "self evident" "truths." It is a claim to know natural right vouchsafed by God. The alternative is mere "posative" law based on the power of the state or land.

The only "law" the Muhammadan religion observes is Islamic, based on a book they "BELIEVE" was delivered to their idol. Even if they are in a non-Muslim nation, that territory is designated as being a part of the "House of War" as Islam divides humanity into two: House of Islam (believer) vs. House of War (unbeliever) thus 'war' is the default state of Islam if/when there are any non-Muslim nations. That is why for 1400 years Islam has been invading / genociding yet blaming others for what they are themselves guilty of, such to attempt to scapegoat their own crimes against humanity. That is why Islam needs BELIEF: nobody knows, they merely BELIEVE all the accusations. The warlord politics relies on character assassinations, and the same is being attempted on U.S. President by the Muslim Brotherhood, as the "hate" for Trump is all jihad. They blame the "Jews" for what they themselves do: control the media. All the mainstream media corporations are aligned by the House of Islam and their ongoing Nazi jihad against the free world. Humanity did not defeat Nazism after WWII: Hitler did not figure out who the real "Jews" were, and ended up becoming a puppet for the very people he hated, not knowing the real "Jews" are the Muslim Brotherhood. They are the book-worshiping pedophiles that religiously abuses women/children as a religion. The same is the geopolitical entity behind the entire Left.

I recommend to you the Heart Fuller debate.

Your comments on Islam are charicature. A serious knowledge of Sharia law brings another view.

I've studied Sharia law for 4 years - I also studied the history of Islam and particularly the Qur'an, and know
where it came from: not a god. Thus I know Sharia is just as man-made as any, thus is evaluated on equal terms.
I know women are designated inferior to men, and men are granted "permission" to beat their wives into submission.
Any ideology that sanctions any abuse of others is intrinsically abusive, as Islam is absolutely abusive
given women are treated as inferior slaves that must do everything the man says/wants as commanded.

Islam does not even respect the 1:1 ratio according to Genesis, it grants a 1:4 ration (Muhammad 1:9+).
That kind of disproportionalism is rooted in patriarchy and sexual degeneracy: the two characteristics
of Muhammad, him having been a pedophile man.

My comments on Islam are correct: it is not a religion of peace, but of perpetual conflict, given it divides humanity on the basis of "believer vs. unbeliever". That is a division, thus perpetual conflict of "us vs. them". The ideology is divisive, and their modus operandi begins with pointing their fingers at others and taking all attention away from themselves.

Your comments are discouraging that you should encourage a law drafted by a pedophile man. Very disgusting, and doubly so should you even attempt to point your finger somewhere else: Muhammad establishes a global precedent for pedophilia on the planet, and this is without going deep into the Muhammadan rape gangs wherein they shout Qur'anic "law" at "unbelieving" women before raping/killed, in accordance with their "BELIEF" of what it means to take women as captive: do whatever you want to them.

That's not a humanistic ideology, that is barbarism, thus is Sharia, thus is Islam.

The claim that critisim is a personal attack or "ad hominem" brings one bellow the level of serious discussion into political rhetoric. The conversation can't continue at that level as it becomes mere noise.

All cultures or orders of human beings have seeming failings. We can only speak of a failing by distinguishing good from bad practises. It's empty to say something is from a book. We don't know what inspiered the writers or why it was deemed to be worth treating as of the most importance.

To say something comes from man is vauge. Meaningless without a polemical counterpart. If everything from man is merely arbitrary or intrested whim then it is better to go to God or reason. The two being names, in all practical senses, for the same thing: namely non-arbitrary and good beliefs about how to act.

Also, women's liberation and the like are recent features of the west linked to the material transformations of the industrial revolutions and technology and not fairly or sensibly hoisted on socities in differing external conditions as condemnations.

[nothing]

The claim that critisim is a personal attack or "ad hominem" brings one bellow the level of serious discussion into political rhetoric. The conversation can't continue at that level as it becomes mere noise.

Then don't engage in it? The claim is not unsound: "You are exsesivly abstract." (sic) is directed ad hominem.

All cultures or orders of human beings have seeming failings. We can only speak of a failing by distinguishing good from bad practises. It's empty to say something is from a book. We don't know what inspiered the writers or why it was deemed to be worth treating as of the most importance.

And to each their own respective gravity and implication: for example believing that a dead pedophile warlord is the greatest model for living establishes pedophilia as state-sanctioned, given the idol is state-sanctioned, thus if it is written in a book to take "unbelieving" women as sex slaves, so it happens, and so tens of millions have been raped across Europe. What is the gravity of that, or does it not even weigh on the conscience at all?

To say something comes from man is vauge. Meaningless without a polemical counterpart. If everything from man is merely arbitrary or intrested whim then it is better to go to God or reason. The two being names, in all practical senses, for the same thing: namely non-arbitrary and good beliefs about how to act.

Which 'God' ? Because if the so-called "Abrahamic" one:



Belief is not a solution, it is actually the problem itself. Hence: "BELIEVER vs. UNBELIEVER" is not a uniting endeavor, it is divisive
and reflects the very dilemma presented in the Edenic account of the fall of man, thus both implicitly and explicitly concerns
the roots of Judaism/Christianity/Islam indiscriminate. Though the Muslim wishes "peace" upon Moses, they have no knowledge
of what is written by him (alleged) for being "believers" in/of some other imaginary thing, instead of rooting in the same as an all-knowing god must be rooted in: knowledge, not "belief". It certainly takes a "believer" to ever somehow become bound to "believe" evil is good, thus all eaters of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are "believers", and so-stands the world accordingly.

Also, women's liberation and the like are recent features of the west...

Again: pointing fingers elsewhere at others? What is the yield?

Abuse/human suffering is not a 'recent feature': it is fixed in/of supremacist ideologies such as Islam,
(whose religion is to pathologically scapegoat their own supremacism onto others, hence their need for "BELIEF")
Muslims have been abused / lied to for 1400 years by their own leaders, thus they irrationally fear a man-made god,
thus their actions are irrational for knowing not their suffering is a product of Islam itself: to "BELIEVE" rather than to "KNOW"
hence their being stagnated in the 7th century "us vs. them" mindset of war, looting and abusing women as war spoils.

"BELIEVER vs. UNBELIEVER" is not a religion, it is a division
responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions. What is
the gravity of that, considering Muslims are being lied to
and the truth actively kept from them?

Truth as authority, rather than authority as truth
is the alignment needed to cease human suffering.

[TheVisionofEr]

The claim that critisim is a personal attack or "ad hominem" brings one bellow the level of serious discussion into political rhetoric. The conversation can't continue at that level as it becomes mere noise.

Then don't engage in it? The claim is not unsound: "You are exsesivly abstract." (sic) is directed ad hominem.

All cultures or orders of human beings have seeming failings. We can only speak of a failing by distinguishing good from bad practises. It's empty to say something is from a book. We don't know what inspiered the writers or why it was deemed to be worth treating as of the most importance.

And to each their own respective gravity and implication: for example believing that a dead pedophile warlord is the greatest model for living establishes pedophilia as state-sanctioned, given the idol is state-sanctioned, thus if it is written in a book to take "unbelieving" women as sex slaves, so it happens, and so tens of millions have been raped across Europe. What is the gravity of that, or does it not even weigh on the conscience at all?

To say something comes from man is vauge. Meaningless without a polemical counterpart. If everything from man is merely arbitrary or intrested whim then it is better to go to God or reason. The two being names, in all practical senses, for the same thing: namely non-arbitrary and good beliefs about how to act.

Which 'God' ? Because if the so-called "Abrahamic" one:



Belief is not a solution, it is actually the problem itself. Hence: "BELIEVER vs. UNBELIEVER" is not a uniting endeavor, it is divisive
and reflects the very dilemma presented in the Edenic account of the fall of man, thus both implicitly and explicitly concerns
the roots of Judaism/Christianity/Islam indiscriminate. Though the Muslim wishes "peace" upon Moses, they have no knowledge
of what is written by him (alleged) for being "believers" in/of some other imaginary thing, instead of rooting in the same as an all-knowing god must be rooted in: knowledge, not "belief". It certainly takes a "believer" to ever somehow become bound to "believe" evil is good, thus all eaters of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are "believers", and so-stands the world accordingly.

Also, women's liberation and the like are recent features of the west...

Again: pointing fingers elsewhere at others? What is the yield?

Abuse/human suffering is not a 'recent feature': it is fixed in/of supremacist ideologies such as Islam,
(whose religion is to pathologically scapegoat their own supremacism onto others, hence their need for "BELIEF")
Muslims have been abused / lied to for 1400 years by their own leaders, thus they irrationally fear a man-made god,
thus their actions are irrational for knowing not their suffering is a product of Islam itself: to "BELIEVE" rather than to "KNOW"
hence their being stagnated in the 7th century "us vs. them" mindset of war, looting and abusing women as war spoils.

"BELIEVER vs. UNBELIEVER" is not a religion, it is a division
responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions. What is
the gravity of that, considering Muslims are being lied to
and the truth actively kept from them?

Truth as authority, rather than authority as truth
is the alignment needed to cease human suffering.

"Then don't engage in it? The claim is not unsound: "You are exsesivly abstract." (sic) is directed ad hominem.
"

What do you take "ad hominem" to mean?

[nothing]

What do you take "ad hominem" to mean?

Observe:

You are exsesivly abstract. Or, merely inteligable, rather than reasonable.

'You' is a personal address.
'are' is a definite.
"You're a..." is ad hominem.

Alternatives:
"Your idea..."
"The idea that..."
etc.

Whereas the latter focuses on the substance of the idea,
the former ad hominem whence the idea comes, hence ad hominem.

Further, it is labeling: the crux of Nazism/fascism.
It begins in/as any "us vs. them" mentality,
the same as Cain comparing himself to Abel
such to grow enmity and desire to spill blood.

See "believer vs. unbeliever" concerning what Nazism is: "believers" labeling others
according to what they believe not, if even for absolutely sound reason, such as
it is absolutely not possible to bear a true witness of a dead man, thus the Islamic shahada
is a necessarily false witness contrary even to the ten commandments, thus concerns not
any possible "Abrahamic" god.

Muslims have been killing non-Muslims for not bearing a false witness of a dead man,
not to mention he was a polygamous (infidel) pedophile (sex, sex and sex - Mark of the Beast)
genocidal (as like Adolph Hitler) warlord (not "peace").

However, they would have the world "BELIEVE" that it is the other way around, as
the Muhammadan ideology scapegoats their own crimes against humanity onto others,
just as the Cananaites sacrificed others for the sake of the sins of the tribe. That is Islam.

Anyone who supports Sharia (which is certainly man-made) is absolutely insane.

It takes a "believer" to ever "believe" themselves superior to another, thus
all supremacists are "believers". Thus the "believers" must scapegoat their own
supremacism onto others (such as "white men"). Islam: the world is their scapegoat
because they never learned to take responsibility for their own actions. That is
the essence of Sharia: blame the woman for the inability of the man to control himself,
hence Muhammadan men tend to blame women for their being raped, just as Adam blamed Eve
for his own eating of the tree (original sin captured in/as the hijab).

That is the Sharia: blame, blame and blame. It may be the reason why A'isha would say
"I have never seen anyone suffering like the believing woman."
She had it more right than Muhammad ever did - and that is the problem with Islam,
pig-headed men who religiously abuse women and call it a "mercy". Absolutely insane.

[TheVisionofEr]

What do you take "ad hominem" to mean?

Observe:

You are exsesivly abstract. Or, merely inteligable, rather than reasonable.

'You' is a personal address.
'are' is a definite.
"You're a..." is ad hominem.

Alternatives:
"Your idea..."
"The idea that..."
etc.

Whereas the latter focuses on the substance of the idea,
the former ad hominem whence the idea comes, hence ad hominem.

Further, it is labeling: the crux of Nazism/fascism.
It begins in/as any "us vs. them" mentality,
the same as Cain comparing himself to Abel
such to grow enmity and desire to spill blood.

See "believer vs. unbeliever" concerning what Nazism is: "believers" labeling others
according to what they believe not, if even for absolutely sound reason, such as
it is absolutely not possible to bear a true witness of a dead man, thus the Islamic shahada
is a necessarily false witness contrary even to the ten commandments, thus concerns not
any possible "Abrahamic" god.

Muslims have been killing non-Muslims for not bearing a false witness of a dead man,
not to mention he was a polygamous (infidel) pedophile (sex, sex and sex - Mark of the Beast)
genocidal (as like Adolph Hitler) warlord (not "peace").

However, they would have the world "BELIEVE" that it is the other way around, as
the Muhammadan ideology scapegoats their own crimes against humanity onto others,
just as the Cananaites sacrificed others for the sake of the sins of the tribe. That is Islam.

Anyone who supports Sharia (which is certainly man-made) is absolutely insane.

It takes a "believer" to ever "believe" themselves superior to another, thus
all supremacists are "believers". Thus the "believers" must scapegoat their own
supremacism onto others (such as "white men"). Islam: the world is their scapegoat
because they never learned to take responsibility for their own actions. That is
the essence of Sharia: blame the woman for the inability of the man to control himself,
hence Muhammadan men tend to blame women for their being raped, just as Adam blamed Eve
for his own eating of the tree (original sin captured in/as the hijab).

That is the Sharia: blame, blame and blame. It may be the reason why A'isha would say
"I have never seen anyone suffering like the believing woman."
She had it more right than Muhammad ever did - and that is the problem with Islam,
pig-headed men who religiously abuse women and call it a "mercy". Absolutely insane.

And why is it wrong to point to the source of errors? In the "you?"

If it were wrong it would be as wrong to say "you" use ad hominems. Self negating.

Really it is just trick to avoid the reality. The reality is that just as in weighing things one needs a good scale, one needs a good "you" or man equiped with judgment in discussion. That is nessisary.

In this case you simply used it to dodge a sensible criticsim.

All the generalizations about Nazis and so on are substancless. Because if some group really has a defect there is no error involved in saying so plainly. The reverse, covering it up with missused Latin, is precisely the error.

[nothing]

And why is it wrong to point to the source of errors? In the "you?"

Because you are pointing in the wrong direction - accusing me of what you are yourself guilty of.
Such is the pathology of Nazis: they ignore the sediment of their own nature by trying to condemn/blame others for the same.
This is the same reason why Muhammadans accuse all others of being "Islamophobes" - it is their own phobia projected/scapegoated onto others.
Ad hominem only happens when the ideas themselves can't be addressed, hence the need for Nazism/fascism. See: Islam.

If it were wrong it would be as wrong to say "you" use ad hominems. Self negating.

Really it is just trick to avoid the reality. The reality is that just as in weighing things one needs a good scale, one needs a good "you" or man equiped with judgment in discussion. That is nessisary.

The scale should ultimately concern 'what' and not 'who'. It's not about who is right/wrong, it is about what is right/wrong.
People who polarize against other people are not focusing on ideas, they are focusing on people. That begins the making of a Nazi.

Stick to ideas, or continue to prove my point for me - I do not mind either.

In this case you simply used it to dodge a sensible criticsim.

All the generalizations about Nazis and so on are substancless. Because if some group really has a defect there is no error involved in saying so plainly. The reverse, covering it up with missused Latin, is precisely the error.

It was stated plainly - it is your own attempt to cover up the criticism. Also:

I'm not sure I'd be talking about "missused" (sic) Latin, as by your own "criticsim" (sic)
it is "nessisary" (sic) to spell words correctly, else the "criticsim" (sic) is "substancless" (sic).

Any comparison of "us vs. them" viz. "believer vs. unbeliever" is rooted in supremacist Nazism on the part of the "believer", as
it takes a "believer" to ever "believe" themselves superior to others. Thus in any conceivable "believer vs. unbeliever" situation,
all Nazis are "believers", thus pinned to one side of such a conflict. So-called Satan is the same: it takes a "believer" to ever "believe"
evil is good / Satan is God. Again, see: Islam.

[TheVisionofEr]

I find most of what you write trivialy absurd. "Us vs them" if we understand this reasonably, through simple examples, it is obvious someone must say something. And if others don't agree they are the "them."

Human judgment, heart or mind, whatever the "who" or "hominem" is believed to refer to in the rampant abuse of the term now prevailing, could be called a "what" and treated as something working correctly or incorrectly. Your who/what is verbal play in this instance.