A challenge about women and marriage in Islam

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Temper temper, child.

What you indicated that was that muslims "don't do x" because they would then contravene some god's divine legilsation and legislative plan, inferring that they would thus be living contrary to said god's law and thus not behaving in the way a Muslim would/should.

Now, are we able to have a nice conversation or are we going to have to sit you on the naughty step and send you to bed without dinner?

Read properly you prick. I didn't imply that no Muslim drinks or any of the bullshit you grabbed out of your arse. Didn't your mother teach you how to read or is she as illiterate as you?

But you're not responding to any of the inferences you made in your original point.

Instead you're acting like a wickle ickle boy (or girl).

But thanks for taking time out to respond so coherently and in such depth that your natural intellect shines through. If you had indeed made a point worth responding to, it has since been eloquently dealt with by yourself through the manner of reply that you no doubt have become accustomed to utilising in dealing with inconvenient questions/issues with the the posts that write.

Good show, child. I haven't been called a prick in over a decade, well, except by really bad ass BMW M3 drivers who like to cut people up on the motorway without indicating. But please don't read any inference into that; I have no doubt you're not old enough to drive.

[ideologue08]

Read properly you prick. I didn't imply that no Muslim drinks or any of the bullshit you grabbed out of your arse. Didn't your mother teach you how to read or is she as illiterate as you?

But you're not responding to any of the inferences you made in your original point.

Instead you're acting like a wickle ickle boy (or girl).

But thanks for taking time out to respond so coherently and in such depth that your natural intellect shines through. If you had indeed made a point worth responding to, it has since been eloquently dealt with by yourself through the manner of reply that you no doubt have become accustomed to utilising in dealing with inconvenient questions/issues with the the posts that write.

Good show, child. I haven't been called a prick in over a decade, well, except by really bad ass BMW M3 drivers who like to cut people up on the motorway without indicating. But please don't read any inference into that; I have no doubt you're not old enough to drive.

Yeah, yeah keep pulling stuff out of your arse. I don't bother being coherent with internet nobodies and trolls like you, go complain to somebody who gives a shit about you concerns, because I do not.

[The Grand Nudger]

Did I say that no Muslim drinks beer? Did I say that Muslims who eat pork or drink beer are not true Muslims? The answer to both questions is NO, you fucking idiot. Read properly next time.

Excellent, so muslims do drink beer, they do eat pork - and presumably they could find the "divine law" to be as sick a list of fetishes as I do, right?

[Violet]

It's ironic that you take my quote out of context as an example how how I was taking things out of context.

I don't believe in stoning people to death for adultery because I think it's barbaric and inhumane, atheism is a lack of belief in god it doesn't effect my belief in not stoning people to death. But yeh you're correct I also don't believe sharia is law from god.

You missed out the last part.

Firstly, welcome to edits (I took everything as it came into my reply box, it wasn't there at the time). I often also edit my posts within the first couple of minutes, sometimes within the full two hours. Sometimes I read them some five hours later, and wish I could edit them.

Secondly... this addition on your part is irrelevant to what rayaan said.

Muslims believe in the Shariah as a code of behavior and discipline that was divinely revealed through the Quran and the Hadiths (or the sayings of Muhammad), so that is the system that they follow. You don't believe in (^)that(^), since you're an atheist, so you can follow or agree with whatever system that you feel is correct.

Edit: added this in to save you time, which is really too kind of me.

---

Yeah, yeah keep pulling stuff out of your arse. I don't bother being coherent with internet nobodies and trolls like you, go complain to somebody who gives a shit about you concerns, because I do not.

You don't bother being coherent? Excellent, you and Paul must be buddies

If you aren't interested in discussing what you say, then why post in the first place? I mean, everyone's an 'internet nobody', and everyone 'trolls' (not that he's trolling, broski). It's a lonely world where the only one you hear is yourself.

---

Now that's just ignorant. I have fucking disease noted in there. Please take this time to reconfigure your argument.

I don't know whether or not there's some lag involved in the forum or you're just copying and pasting parts of my argument without including all of it but I actually have edited the post minutes after I posted it, you should have been able to see that, not that it makes much difference anyway.

Just to finish this off I don't have the time to read through a million paragraphs of bullshit to try and get to what point you're trying to make, I don't have the time to tell you about things that you should already know but seem to be denying.

I'm pressing reply, and replying. You'll notice how few [ hr ] lines are in my posts responding to only one person (usually: none)? That's because I hit reply (which copies your post along with whatever emphasis you decided to use). If I amend this with only a quote and an /quote removal: I will post your post as you posted your post.

If you don't read through all my paragraphs of argument, counterargument, actual data (unlike that nonsense from muslim scholar earlier), and specific bolds just so that you are assisted in finding my points: I'm inclined to believe that you don't have the time to be honest either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cT_Ulmcrys

Honestly, not reading through the posts could look like anything, for instance: appearing to 'deny' points. It could also look like chocolate swirls. Or the runs, if you're in a hurry.

Oh? Then don't be a twat when I respectfully inform you that I intend to get to a post later

Ok stop being such an ugly lady boy, or whatever it is you are.

Firstly, when someone tells you to not be a twat, they are not telling you that you are a twat, only that you run the risk of being one.

Secondly, I should stop being a seriously sexy transexual woman with laser focus and mountains of data to back up her arguments? Why... so you can win an argument with puerile antagonism? I guess if you cannot be bothered to construct an argument... that's all you've got left.

That, and the butthurt. Fascinatingly, this isn't the first argument you've supplied only with generalizations, mischaracterizations, and incredulity... and that's just on this forum in the short time you've been here.

Edit: never mind, I apparently skipped over it Thank you for editing that post... which means that we're in agreement over that point! Hooray!

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Excellent, so muslims do drink beer, they do eat pork - and presumably they could find the "divine law" to be as sick a list of fetishes as I do, right?

I've got a number of Muslim friends who enjoy a few beers on an evening. It's as subjective as any other law, dependent entirely on the people (and their ideologies) that the context is derived from (eg. Turkey's secular liberal constitution, which is unfortunately under attack from the loony tune conservatives).

[paulpablo]

RAINN Wrote:15% of sexual assault and rape victims are under age 12.

29% are age 12-17.
44% are under age 18.
80% are under age 30.
12-34 are the highest risk years.
Girls ages 16-19 are 4 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.

Wow so you mean you found data that says when girls are young attractive teenagers who have become sexually mature they are more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted, not at all surprising and nothing to do with the topic as usual, just add that to the pile of babble I have to go through when I read your posts.

---

Experience really only brings you so far... that is to say: until you have been financially abused, you probably don't understand very well what it is like to be financially abused. We often learn by being abused... but if we're lucky, we can learn such things second hand. Now THAT would be a more effective schooling system for 9 year olds

I know about it because I was taught about it, but I probably didn't know very much about it at age 9.

---

Physiological abuse is when the functioning of an organism/its parts is abused. One example of this can be found in addicting someone to a drug, and using it as coercion/leverage against them, usually for purpose of control (take the whores of pimps, for instance). Most physiological abuses involve drugs, given that they modify the functioning itself (therein: physiological), but fringe cases of surgical abuses would fall under this, as well as forcing hypothermia/hyperthermia upon someone (a relatively common abuse up in alaska, I'd think).

Add this then to the other types of abuses that 9 year olds are more vulnerable to than 16 year olds, their bodies are smaller and less developed and will typically need less drugs to get them addicted to drugs, controlling 9 year old children is much easier typically than controlling teenagers.

---

Theoretically, they grew. Now they are more vulnerable to the shortcomings of being tall(er). Socially, they're expected to have a pretty significant grasp of etiquette (and are thus vulnerable to not meet an expectation that was far easier to meet at nine (consists mostly of "keep your pants on")). Physiologically, they've been absolutely flooded with hormones, and they are thus far more vulnerable to inflicting themselves with STIs, pregnancy, angst in general, etc.

Yes you are correct, typically teenagers do want sex, 9 year olds typically don't want sex, exactly what I have been saying.

---

In 1995, local child protection service agencies identified 126,000 children who were victims of either substantiated or indicated sexual abuse.

Of these, 75% were girls.
Nearly 30% of child victims were between the age of 4 and 7.

Babbling statistics that have no point as usual. These statistics are quite bad and they come from a place where child marriage is illegal and you can't legally have sex with children, do you propose we make it better by not calling it sexual abuse anymore and just calling it normal legal sex with children?

---

Can you isolate specifically what makes a person fuckable or marriageable? If we base our notions of fuckability and marriageablity off of experience as shown above: we cannot be fuckable until we are first fucked, and we cannot be marriageable until we are first married.

Repeated babble, and making it look like I implied things which I didn't, I didn't say you have to have experience of sex or marriage to know all about it and as for the rest of the questions I already have told you these things and you didn't listen the first time.

---

Pray tell us all: what are you teaching children in school at nine years of age that isn't basic arithmetic or language skills? Basic geography? PE? Please: when you find something that a 9 year old learns in school that will impact their lives... come find me Smile Don't forget the practical work experience they could be getting in a job in your calculations.

English maths and science, IT and yes PE is a good one.

[Violet]

Wow so you mean you found data that says when girls are young attractive teenagers who have become sexually mature they are more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted, not at all surprising and nothing to do with the topic as usual, just add that to the pile of babble I have to go through when I read your posts.

I'm not sure if trolling... or just stupid.

You're arguing the horrors of oft-sexually less mature 9 year olds being abused, I observe that in a 'civilized' first-world nation: it is people from 12-34 who suffer the most of this, and that those 16-19 are of particularly significant risk.

It's illegal in the nation in question, should we not expect similar results of abuses in nations where women are considered a form of property? Note... not simply nine year olds: women in general.

I know about it because I was taught about it, but I probably didn't know very much about it at age 9.

And was such learning nearly so informative as your first experience with sex, financial abuse, etc?

I'm sure it's all well and good to be told poking it into a pussy is pleasurable... but if you haven't done it, well...

Add this then to the other types of abuses that 9 year olds are more vulnerable to than 16 year olds, their bodies are smaller and less developed and will typically need less drugs to get them addicted to drugs, controlling 9 year old children is much easier typically than controlling teenagers.

The only issue with physiological abuse is what the abuser is willing to do. If they're already willing to commit physiological abuses, and they find an avenue by which to procure their tools: the acquiring of additional tools is cake.

However, you're correct: less blood volume means more vulnerabilities to drugs This includes life-saving pharmaceuticals.

Yes you are correct, typically teenagers do want sex, 9 year olds typically don't want sex, exactly what I have been saying.

The very thing I'm arguing is, if we seek 'just and moral' laws: the dismissal of applying laws to typicality. The very fact that there are teenagers who do not want sex, and nine year olds who do... illustrates that age is not a perfect blanket of identicalness between those within their own group.

Of course, you were telling me that teenagers are less vulnerable than nine year olds. Simplifying this as "Oh I was right" by dismissing every strike against what you were saying... you're not, by chance, a marketing executive?

Babbling statistics that have no point as usual. These statistics are quite bad and they come from a place where child marriage is illegal and you can't legally have sex with children, do you propose we make it better by not calling it sexual abuse anymore and just calling it normal legal sex with children?

126,000 is... bad? The statistics come from the "U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. 1995 Child Maltreatment Survey. 1995." according to the site I got it from. If you have particular issue with US government statistics, I guess you would call the statistics bad *tinfoil hat*. Is there a reason these statistics are bad?

I already presented to you statistics of the areas where child marriage is legal (in particular: sub-saharan africa, middle-east, indian subcontinent), showing that they were horrible for ADULT WOMEN and LATE TEENAGERS across the board. What they do to children is not related specifically to children, but to what is already being done (that is to say: their being a child has nothing to do with the fact they are being abused). IF sex is legal with children, and sexual abuse is still not legal with children: what do you have against it?

What my last statistic set was for, was to demonstrate that even when these crimes are completely and utterly illegal in a first world country: they are still committed in a similar manner to where these crimes are also illegal (sexual abuse is illegal anywhere you go), but the third world countries are less adept with enforcing such. All that changes between them is 'what constitutes sexual abuse'... you've suggested that it is sexual abuse to have sex with a child, they disagree.

I suggest that you recognize that sexual abuse and sex with children are not necessarily one and the same... the latter can involve sexual abuse (just as sex with adult humans can involve sexual abuse), but inherently is not.

Can you isolate specifically what makes a person fuckable or marriageable? If we base our notions of fuckability and marriageablity off of experience as shown above: we cannot be fuckable until we are first fucked, and we cannot be marriageable until we are first married.

Repeated babble, and making it look like I implied things which I didn't, I didn't say you have to have experience of sex or marriage to know all about it and as for the rest of the questions I already have told you these things and you didn't listen the first time.

*coughs*

Less experience with people is a wash, since we're all at least somewhat inexperienced with people. If we weren't: we would never be surprised by what people do. We would also be significantly less prone to outrage. You're going to have less experience with sex until you have sex, and really: there's a point where you can have too much experience with sex... more of a wash than the last one. Can you isolate specifically what makes a person fuckable or marriageable? If we base our notions of fuckability and marriageablity off of experience as shown above: we cannot be fuckable until we are first fucked, and we cannot be marriageable until we are first married.

I never said you went so far as to say that experience is a bar by which anyone might be denied legal ability to marry or to have sex, but it was a part of your answer as to why 9-year olds should be barred having sex with <arbitrary>. Hence I took experience to it's conclusion, and removed it from the argument. If you would like to keep experience as a tag by which anyone be allowed <anything>... then they must contradict you to be allowed <anything>. Would you challenge this point? It must be on a non-logical basis if you do.

You've yet to answer me as to "Can you isolate specifically what makes a person fuckable or marriageable?"... so I'm inclined to say that no, you cannot isolate such to me, as you are incapable of doing so. How about you prove my inclination wrong?

If you can infact isolate the roots of fuckability and marriageability, and reconcile such with your valid belief that 9 year olds in general do not meet these observations, and write such down in form of a logical argument that follows to point of the formulation of a non-ageline law that performs a more accurate function of what you are attempting to relegate... you might actually get somewhere

English maths and science, IT and yes PE is a good one.

English: basic language skill. Mathematics and science are basic arithmetic skills (logic). What is IT? Information Technology? I wasn't aware they taught that in elementary school at all... and PE is irrelevant: exercise can be had anywhere if you have the ability to move.

Anything useful, then? Sounds like they would have better time usage collaborating with others to get real physical work (or theoretical work) done within their community.

[paulpablo]

What is IT? Information Technology? I wasn't aware they taught that in elementary school at all...

They did teach it in my primary school (english elementary school)

[Violet]

What is IT? Information Technology? I wasn't aware they taught that in elementary school at all...

They did teach it in my primary school (english elementary school)

You consider very basic computer skills (which anyone with access to a computer can learn) to be IT?

That's funny, because most of the students played games on the computers, including me. The teachers were pissed. (Well, teacher and the two aides)

[paulpablo]

[/quote]English: basic language skill. Mathematics and science basic arithmetic skills (logic). What is IT? Information Technology? I wasn't aware they taught that in elementary school at all... and PE is irrelevant: exercise can be had anywhere if you have the ability to move.

Anything useful, then?

So you would just tell a 9 year old who wants to be a marine biologist, or surgeon, or chemist, doctor, knee specialist, accountant, so on and so on and so on to just use their logic and basic arithmetic skills?

I didn't take PE in school as a subject later on but I know the the later lessons involved much more than just doing the exercise and my friends who did take the subject enjoyed it and learned from it.

---

[quote]You consider very basic computer skills (which anyone with access to a computer can learn) to be IT?

Yes and not everyone with access to a computer can learn them and not everyone has access to a computer. Especially not when I was in school.