holycow-she-is-avof asked:

What kind of flashback do you think you'd like to see??. I'm of the mindset they first had sex beginning of s7 way before All Things. How would you like a potential "flirting/romantic/first time scene" to be? My thoughts are kinda haughty lol ;)p

You’re not alone. I feel like they hooked up before all things. I know that’s what they’ve ‘head canon’ decided but I sort of feel that the shadow man was correct that on one lonely night she invited mulder to her bed and that was not all things.  So if they do a  flash back when they got together then I want that to be it. Maybe like what was happening that made her decide to take that chance with Mulder.

My head canon for the first scene between them that  I’ve been wanting since the start is a scene where we hear laughter as the camera pulls over the bed to see that they’re under the covers seeing nothing really but sheets moving and hearing laughter and moans as the phone starts ringing  and mulder fumbling his way to get his arm out of the covers to read the phone. Mulder answering and the other end mysteriously saying “We need you”. LOL

-RM

poopoopoop666 asked:

Holy shit dude you just embarassed the fuck out of yourself what kind of self drag was that

Sure, says the one running a “poop” blog. But, hey, keep telling yourself that, usually people do that when they cannot face facts, and by constantly doing that they convince themselves of the biggest lies ever told. So hey, if it makes you happy, by all means be my guest.

It’s all documented here if you actually care to read :)

Thank you for the reminder, now others can read the whole thing easier!

Why is opposing Sharia Law “Controversial”?

Why is it deemed “controversial” to oppose Sharia law? I am not even sure why there is a debate about it? This isn’t me attacking or insulting Islam, but it has everything to do with opposing Sharia law as someone who cares about humanity. There are many Muslims in the world, including almost every Muslim I know, opposing Sharia law. They not only oppose it for society, but they do not even want to live their own personal lives by Sharia. In fact, there are numerous Muslim countries that do not live under Sharia, including several which live under secular laws (Some examples of Muslim majority countries that live under secular law include Albania, Turkey, Burkina Faso, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Chad, Tajikistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo,  Turkmenistan, Gambia, Guinea, Mali, Senegal, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan.)

Under Sharia law:

- The minimum age of marriage for females is nine, for males is twelve.

- A Muslim man can marry only a Muslim, Christian or Jewish woman. He cannot marry an atheist, agnostic or polytheist, while a Muslim woman can marry only a Muslim man. She cannot marry a Christian, Jew, atheist, agnostic or polytheist.

- A Muslim minor girl’s father or guardian may arrange the marriage of a girl, without her consent, before she reaches adulthood.

- A man can divorce his wife any time he wants, without reason. A woman cannot divorce her husband without reason. She may file for divorce for reason, such as he is impotent, missing or biologically related to her.

- A Muslim man can marry four Muslim women, while a Muslim woman can marry only one Muslim man.

- Under sharia law crimes against God have fixed and severe punishments

- Drinking alcohol is considered a crime

- Sex outside of marriage is considered a crime (the punishment is 100 lashes)

- Publicly disputing an Imam is considered a crime

- Apostasy (leaving Islam and converting to another religion or becoming an atheist) is considered a crime

- Under Sharia law when a victim is compensated, Muslim women receive less compensation than Muslim man, and non-Muslims receive less compensation than Muslims.

- The punishment for for theft is amputating (cutting off) the hands or feet.

- Homosexuality is considered a crime to be punished with death.

Having said that, I’m not sure what the debate is about! I am not attacking Islam or Muslims here. In fact, millions of Muslims are strongly opposed to Sharia law. I am not here to put Islam down in any way. I am merely standing up for humanity. There should be no debate about this. We should all be against Sharia law as a system that governs members of society. If someone wants to live within the confines of these ideas listed above, that’s their choice, but trying to impose that on other members of society is outrageous!

—————————-

The ensuing discussion:

Part 1:

fxcking-corrupt: Yeah they all sound bad if there’s no context to it. Also, this is so simplified that even Muslims reading this would oppose it. Maybe if you spoke to a Sheikh about the Sharia or a professor in Islamic Law you’d have a clearer understanding. It’s easy to call it barbaric and say you oppose the Sharia because you’re “standing up for humanity” when one) you take the punishments (and the whole thing in general) out of context, two) you simplify it to a four year old’s level and three) when no country in the world lives under Sharia and haven’t done so in 150 years.P.S. You forgot to mention the fact that before any death sentence is given they are given a trial and need four male witnesses who are specialists in the Qur'an/Hadith and have never missed any of the five compulsory prayers. If they lack any of these their witness statement is invalid. Technically it’s impossible to get this because why would four bearded men who never missed a pray be watching someone while they commit illegal sexual activities? It’s not practical. Be realistic. Stop being a sheep. Pls stop embarrassing yourself.

iranian-atheist: I oppose it because I’ve taken the time to talk to the so called scholars you speak of! You can make up whatever you’d like but I’ve lived in 2 countries that are ruled by Sharia, but of course I guess they just didn’t understand it, right? Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Why is it so hard to understand millions of us oppose the death penalty no matter what? Why is it so difficult to understand that under no circumstances or under any “context” would any of this be acceptable in my mind before invoking the “context” argument? Why is it that you think people who oppose Sharia just don’t get it? Is it so hard to understand that we get it, we respect your right to believe it and live your life by it, but would always oppose it and disagree with it and would never want it enforced on others? I guess not, because we are apparently just a bunch of “sheep”.Since you are such an expert and I’m so ignorant as you claim, feel free to clarify under which context it is okay to put a homosexual individual to death? That’s just one example!I have spent my life standing up for Muslims when I come across anti-Muslim hatred, when I find religion to be misrepresented, and when people make ignorant remarks about Islam. I’ve taken a lot of time to understand and appreciate the religion for the good it brings, but just because I understand it, it doesn’t mean I have to believe it or agree with it. I’m not the one who makes up the Sharia rules, these come directly from other Muslims who are ruling other countries by these laws, ironic that you want to direct me to the very same “Sheikhs”!

Part 2:

fxcking-corrupt: Yeah like I said no country lives under the full Sharia so your point is irrelevant. I didn’t say everyone has to support the death penalty lmao I just said that when you simplify it to the extent that you did obviously it seems to be unjust. The reason I say you mostly don’t understand it is because it hasnt been put into practice in modern history or day… Is that hard to understand? You’re an atheist so it comes as no suprises to me that you would reject any kind of religious law even though your morals come from religion, but that’s a different topic. I never claimed to an expert in Islamic Law hence why I said you should speak to a Sheikh or professor about it. But like I said, if you would just be a little more open minded, look at the criteria you need (i.e four religious witnesses) to put a homosexual to death, it’s practically impossible to find such a witness therefore the punishments acts as a deterrence to not do some things in public (in most Muslim countries it’s frowned upon for heterosexual couples to show affection as well so this is not an argument to say homosexuals are deprived of showing affection since no one really does it anyway) I never said anything about you being Islamophobic or anti-muslim. I was just simply saying that you’ve simplified a very complex issue into something as simple as put a person who commits adultery or leaves Islam to death when really it’s much more complicated than that. And a sheikh and the leader of the country are not the same thing since sheikhs study the Sharia whereas leaders use some aspects of it when it benefits them…. Kinda like most governments around the world tbh. You can reject sharia, I don’t have a problem with that obviously we don’t even share the same beliefs so I wouldn’t expect you to agree with it. What I was trying to say is dont reduce a way of life to a few bullet points to a text post on Tumblr and have everyone believe that what you are saying true.

iranian-atheist: You said, “You’re an atheist so it comes as no suprises to me that you would reject any kind of religious law even though your morals come from religion”Actually that’s not true at all, since much of my morals contradict religious law, such as LGBT rights, not seeing anyone differently because of their beliefs, understanding how barbaric the death penalty is, having pre-marital safe sex is natural, healthy, and good for you, etc. Those are just a few examples.

You said, “I never claimed to an expert in Islamic Law hence why I said you should speak to a Sheikh or professor about it”I have and that’s why I oppose it.You said, “But like I said, if you would just be a little more open minded, look at the criteria you need (i.e four religious witnesses) to put a homosexual to death, it’s practically impossible to find such a witness therefore the punishments acts as a deterrence to not do some things in public”So what is the point of having something as law if it’s impossible to prove?

You said, “I never said anything about you being Islamophobic or anti-muslim. I was just simply saying that you’ve simplified a very complex issue into something as simple as put a person who commits adultery or leaves Islam to death when really it’s much more complicated than that”I’m sorry but I did not simplify anything, these are the laws practiced by countries that claim to rule under Sharia. Don’t point the finger at me, do it to them if anything. Isn’t that great about religion? How, everyone always assumes only their interpretation is right and everyone else is wrong?

You said, “And a sheikh and the leader of the country are not the same thing since sheikhs study the Sharia whereas leaders use some aspects of it when it benefits them…. Kinda like most governments around the world tbh.”
I understand that, there are several Sheikhs who believe homosexuals should be put to death, women should be stoned for ‘non-crimes’, people who have sex outside of marriage should be punished, and people should also be punished for drinking alcohol. Actually there are more than plenty.

You said, “You can reject sharia, I don’t have a problem with that obviously we don’t even share the same beliefs so I wouldn’t expect you to agree with it. What I was trying to say is dont reduce a way of life to a few bullet points to a text post on Tumblr and have everyone believe that what you are saying true.”I wish it was really that simple, so go ahead and explain what Sharia is then? And if you can actually make a convincing argument as to why we have to respect it, and explain why you have it right and why all those others are wrong, and if the criteria you present is worthy of respect, then I’ll be very happy to hear it and even share it with others. I’ve spent my life to get a better understanding and respect for different religions, but please, do not force me to respect aspects which I strongly and completely disagree with.

Part 3:

fxcking-corrupt: There’s a difference between morals and politics though… Wait are you really gonna say that Islam tells one to treat their non-muslim neighbours different? Seriously what kind of sheikhs did you talk to??

I did say that it acts as a deterrence but ignore that it’s okay…

Oh So I finally see you got the fact that no country lives under Sharia, thank God for that. I’m not pointing the finger at you, I’m just pointing out your obviously mistakes

Honestly, this is getting so tiring like how many times. If a sheikh is giving his opinion rather than what is according to the Qur'an and Sunnah since thats where the Sharia comes from then you don’t take his opinions on board simple as.

Seriously wtf is wrong with you?? I never tried to force you to agree or accept the Sharia where the hell did that come from?? I never said anyone should live under it I was correcting your mistake. If me correcting you means I’m forcing you to accept something you don’t agree with then seriously that’s so fucked up. I never said those who don’t live under it are wrong either that would mean everyone is wrong, seriously this some fuckboy behaviour foh. You just said you’ve spoken to sheikhs about the Sharia why are you asking me to explain it to you. Faults here in your story buddy. And I’ve just told you that it’s complex so how do you expect me to explain a system of government to you in detail over Tumblr and when I’ve told you I’m not an expert in this field?????? Seriously mate.

iranian-atheist: You said, “There’s a difference between morals and politics though”I understand that, but what is your point? I am talking about morals. I see absolutely nothing wrong with having safe pre-marital sex, in fact, it is healthy and very good for you. But morally speaking Islam and Christianity, as well as many religions out there are against it. I am giving this as an example, there are numerous others examples.

You said, “ I did say that it acts as a deterrence but ignore that it’s okay…”If this is in reference to homosexuality, it still is a weak argument. Why should people be deterred from acting out on their natural sexual desires. Is it so difficult to understand that some people in this world are gay? Is that so hard to comprehend? So you think it’s perfectly fine to have some sort of deterrence telling people they cannot take part in what is their natural sexual orientation. Sure, I guess we should make up some sort of scare tactics to tell heterosexual people that they should refrain from having sex with the opposite sex… So I’m sorry, but doesn’t prove a point whatsoever!

You said, “Wait are you really gonna say that Islam tells one to treat their non-muslim neighbours different?”No I’m not saying that, I am saying exactly what the Sheikhs state. So then please clarify, if a Muslim individual wants to leave the religion of Islam and become an atheist, should they be punished? I have not come across one Sheikh who says that the individual is free to do as he/she wishes.

You said, “Seriously wtf is wrong with you?? I never tried to force you to agree or accept the Sharia where the hell did that come from?? I never said anyone should live under it I was correcting your mistake. If me correcting you means I’m forcing you to accept something you don’t agree with then seriously that’s so fucked up”You didn’t, but plenty of people want to force us to accept Sharia as the greatest thing for everyone. You haven’t even explained what is good about Sharia, this is not really helping the cause. Every Sheikh I’ve spoken to, every Islamic website I come across, every Islamic text I read, only further justifies why I am against Sharia. That doesn’t mean I am against Islam, but I have the right to disagree with Sharia law and not want to live under it. That’s really simple.

You said, “You just said you’ve spoken to sheikhs about the Sharia why are you asking me to explain it to you.”For one reason, and one reason only, because you are not happy with my understanding of Sharia which comes from my discussion with different sheikhs.

You said, “I’ve just told you that it’s complex so how do you expect me to explain a system of government to you in detail over Tumblr and when I’ve told you I’m not an expert in this field?????? Seriously mate.”If that is the case, then don’t argue about it. If you cannot make a point and all you are going to do is say you are right and I am wrong without giving a reason then do not comment. We discuss issues, we hear each other out, and through dialogue we learn from one another. If you cannot do that, and if you are going to resort to pointing fingers then what is the point? Why are you even commenting then?

Part 4:

fxcking-corrupt: Well starting with your last point, I simply commented on your post because you had made mistakes on there. I never came here to change your mind or make you accept it or even come here to explain it to you. I just wanted to let you know that you’re giving out incorrect information, why are you exacerbating it?

So if that’s the case then why were you implying that I was forcing you to accept or even respect sharia? I didn’t come here to explain to why it’s a good thing. You’re an atheist. I’m a person of Religion. Our views on how our lives should be are not the same. We don’t share the final end goal or aims. I’m not here to tell you to live under Sharia how many times do I have to tell you that?

Autopsy is meant to prevent treason against the state. This is practised in almost every country so why it is that when it’s a religious law everyone suddenly has a problem with it? When it’s used to keep patriotism high or protect the national interest everyone’s for it but when the same happens in an Islamic society for practically the same reason you lot call it barbaric?

To address your first two issues that’s the difference between religion and atheism. One lives for this world and it’s desires whilst the other lives for the after life therefore living under such laws that may conflict with western society which is based on atheism anyway.

iranian-atheist: You said, “Well starting with your last point, I simply commented on your post because you had made mistakes on there. I never came here to change your mind or make you accept it or even come here to explain it to you. I just wanted to let you know that you’re giving out incorrect information, why are you exacerbating it?”First of all, how about starting with the first point and actually addressing everything I say instead of ignoring more than half of it? Secondly, so what you’re saying is that, you decided to comment on a post by saying it’s wrong and then following that up by saying you don’t know why because you don’t have enough knowledge to comment on it, AND the ones that do are wrong because they gave me the wrong information. Great logic! Sure does prove a point!

Then you said, “So if that’s the case then why were you implying that I was forcing you to accept or even respect sharia? I didn’t come here to explain to why it’s a good thing.”So then do you mind explaining to us what you’re trying to do? The list in my original post regarding what sharia law constitutes is not some list that I mistakenly made up, it is one that is regarded as acceptable by Muslim leaders and clerics, from Iran, to Saudi Arabia, to Northern Nigeria, to Sudan, to Yemen, etc, which they derive from the Quran and the prophet’s Sunnah. This is a list that you consider a “mistake” but will not explain why! This is not something I am putting together. Like I said, I respect Muslims and highly appreciate what people can gain from faith, though I don’t need it, and I find meaning, happiness, and great joy in life by believing in myself and doing what brings me pleasure without harming others, I respect what Islam means to people.

You said, “Autopsy is meant to prevent treason against the state. This is practised in almost every country so why it is that when it’s a religious law everyone suddenly has a problem with it? When it’s used to keep patriotism high or protect the national interest everyone’s for it but when the same happens in an Islamic society for practically the same reason you lot call it barbaric?”If I am not mistaken you meant apostasy? Okay, so let’s get this straight, by virtue of your logic, an individual living in a Muslim country, under Sharia, must remain a Muslim and practice the religion, and not doing so makes them a target to be killed, and this is acceptable? I am sorry, but this is not an attack on religion. In many secular countries, people are free to criticize their governments, in fact, politicians do it with one another, it doesn’t make one less patriotic, nor does it give reason to kill the person. Not only that, we are talking about “faith”. You cannot force people to believe something they do not want to, nor have faith it, furthermore, you cannot threaten to kill them for it! How you justify this in such a nonchalant manner is rather disturbing! Tell me the last time someone in Canada was executed for disagreeing with the government and becoming less patriotic? I don’t know if you realize but perhaps 70% of this country strongly opposes and harshly criticizes the current Conservative government, to the point of calling them fascists. So your point is not only invalid, but ignorant. Besides, we are talking about a religion and a faith that many do not have or want.

You said, “To address your first two issues that’s the difference between religion and atheism. One lives for this world and it’s desires whilst the other lives for the after life therefore living under such laws that may conflict with western society which is based on atheism anyway.”Sure, one may assume because a religious text says something is good or bad, then it must be so, regardless of the time and setting that this religion emerged from, but one has no right to enforce that on society and kill/punish people for it. I will use the same example again, which was having safe pre-marital sex, which I reiterate is healthy and very good for you. But morally speaking Islam and Christianity, as well as many religions out there are against it. Still doesn’t change the point, and you still haven’t made one valid point, except to constantly say I am mistaken, so in other words those Muslim clerics who derive these laws out of the Quran and the Sunnah are mistaken, so you are disagreeing with them but cannot explain why, which leads me to one conclusion, there is no mistake in my OP, you just do not like to hear it.

Part 5:

fxcking-corrupt: So now if someone disagrees with you that means they’re forcing you to change your views?// No apostasy is only punished if someone rejects the faith publically and it threatens the state (just like treason is practised in America etc). You can change your religion privately there’s no problem with that. There’s no compulsion in religion in Islam. You can’t force someone to accept it, that’s a fundamental.// I dont even understand why you fear Canada or any non-muslim country being ruled by sharia anyways like that’s impossible since its not a Muslim country and never has been so therefore the Sharia wouldn’t be suitable for that country anyway. That’s just common knowledge.// the mistake you made was you simplified it and put no context to it, I’ve told you that in almost every single reply. For example you mention the age of marriage. Firstly since you’re an atheist your views on the age of marriage will change over time so what’s normal for you now may be wrong for you tomorrow, so your argument with regards to the age is pretty irrelevant. Secondly, marriage in Islam is not the same as marriage in the Western world which is largely influenced by Christianity. Whilst in Christianity marriage means it’s okay to have sex, in Islam this is a period of trying to understand one another etc and then when you reach a time when you both feel as though you are ready then do what you want. So this doesn’t mean a nine year old girl getting married means she’s gonna have children now that’s just so narrow minded. Besides, no one even gets marriage that young anymore. Those who do have no choice (ie girls in Afghanistan. Do you really think their mother would want to get their child marriaged off so young?)// you also mentioned alcohol, this is honeslty just laughable. I’m sure you’re aware of the consequences of alcohol and given that’s it’s prohibited in Islam I don’t even understand the logic is even bringing that up?// the Sharia is meant to be for Muslims since its laws benefit Muslims and to some extent Jews and Christians, if Muslims are happy to live under a system of government which is to benefit them then why as an atheist are you complaining? (again, sharia cannot be practised in a non-Muslim country)// anyways, it was a nice discussion, but just remember no on is forcing you to accept a way of life you don’t agree with. You don’t believe in religion why would you believe in laws created for people of religion?

iranian-atheist: I am not sure if you realize that you are not sole exclusive spokesperson for the entire Muslim world, nor are you trying to acknowledge that this conversation is not just about you and I talking, but regarding millions of people around the world who are directly impacted by religious laws which they strongly disagree with. Of course you cannot force people to believe something when they do not want to, and nobody should ever be forced to keep their beliefs a secret. I do not care if one lives in Canada or Saudi Arabia, if they want to publicly declare that they are atheist, Christian, Muslim, or Hindu, and converted in and out of any of those to something else, they should be more than free to do so. That is why I am against atheist states, as much as I am against religious states.Your apostasy = treason argument is exactly what I tell people when they insult Islam for “killing people who leave their religion”! So you see, I do not even think you realize how much knowledge I have about Islam, and to what extent I go to clarify misconceptions about it! All I am telling you is that when it comes to religion, everyone assumes only they and their clerics alone have the exact right version!You keep claiming that I made some `mistake`, which is laughable because these are not my words, these are not my statements, these are not some arbitrary laws I randomly came up with. These are statements, regulations and laws put together by other Muslim clerics and sheikhs, which you can easily look up for yourself or alternatively travel to Saudi Arabia, Northern Nigeria, Sudan, etc. to experience first hand, and when you ask them how they came up with it, they point to the Quran and the prophet`s Sunnah. Your marriage argument was really weak! While, I appreciate that you can acknowledge how sex with children is wrong, let us be intellectually honest about this disaster! Especially since the Hadith mentions the word `consummated`, which means there was a sexual relationship. The marriage was at age 6, it was consummated when Aisha was 9. So yes, you are correct that there was a period of `trying to understand one another before having sex`, that period was, according to the Hadith, from the age of 6-9, at the age of 9, it was `consummated`, meaning they had sex. Look, I realize and understand that many of these Hadiths are not authentic, so no, I would not ignorantly and hatefully throw insults, but the fact of the matter is that it is there, and it is not as if I am just making these things up. This is from scripture, and it is actually backed up and supported by numerous sheikhs in Saudi Arabia.

Then you said, ``you also mentioned alcohol, this is honeslty just laughable. I’m sure you’re aware of the consequences of alcohol and given that’s it’s prohibited in Islam I don’t even understand the logic is even bringing that up?“Well, considering how I mentioned moderate alcohol consumption, meaning for example a couple of glasses of wine in moderation being good for you, and this is a proven fact which you cannot refute, as it is good for your health in more ways than one, and then decided to resort to pointing at something else, well, if there is anything laughable, it is your statement of distorting and changing what I said, while ignoring well-known facts about moderate and healthy alcohol consumption (not excessive destructive drinking which any sane human being can agree and acknowledge is horrendous)

Then you said, “The Sharia is meant to be for Muslims since its laws benefit Muslims and to some extent Jews and Christians, if Muslims are happy to live under a system of government which is to benefit them then why as an atheist are you complaining?”Does it ever occur to you that not everyone in a Muslim country is Muslim? Do you realize how many atheists live in Muslim countries? I personally know atheists in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. Why should they be subjected to a law that discriminates against them so harshly simply because they do not want to believe in something that is truly unbelievable? Of course I have the right to oppose Sharia law, just as I would oppose State Atheism, that forces atheism on society. Canada, however, is not an atheist state, it is a secular state, which guarantees freedom for all, be it Muslims, atheists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhist, or whoever, to believe and practice their faith, or to have no faith at all, and not have to live under a system that makes its laws to only benefit the majority. You, however, cannot understand this and selfishly assume that it is perfectly fine for all non-Muslim members of society to live under Islamic rule, just because the majority of the citizens of the country are Muslim.

Then you said, “just remember no on is forcing you to accept a way of life you don’t agree with. You don’t believe in religion why would you believe in laws created for people of religion?”Sure, nobody can force me to accept it, but you do not speak for everyone. And I am sorry, but I beg to differ! Try telling that to the numerous non-Muslim relatives and friends of mine living in Iran, FORCED to live and abide by ISLAMIC law. So please, do not make such outrageously selfish and cruel statements to ignore and push aside the suffering of so many people. In fact, you are wrong, it is only in a secular state that nobody is forced to follow and abide by religious laws, and as I said, I strongly oppose state atheism as well!

Part 6:

fxcking-corrupt: But have you considered how the majority are Muslims and the majority would be happy with it? Would Canada bring sharia law for the Muslim minorities? No, so why should xyz country change their laws for the non-monotheistic minority? As a Muslim I’m not allowed to drink alcohol, the UK sells alcohol, isn’t this not fair on me since they’re not thinking about my beliefs? Well since the majority of the people here are non-muslims and happy with it I can’t make them change that as thats not entirely fair on the majority. Look at France, people cant wear religious symbols in public, that’s a secular state and to some extent people are forced to live under a state that won’t let them have their religious freedom. Point I’m trying to make is if you live in a country live by the laws. A lot of the uk’s laws conflicts with my religious beliefs but am i telling them to change it? No. Your argument is weak and works both ways. Your point about alcohol doesn’t answer my more important question which is why would you even debate that when it’s forbidden to drink in Islam? The issue of marriage; you’re talking about 6th century Arabia and comparing it with 2015 norms. That’s invalid since that was the norm of the time, why is that even an issue you lot keep referring to? I said you made a mistake because you gave no context and gave a simplified few points, I’ve repeated this so many times now. Why are you not understanding that? Of course when you present it like the way you did it appears to be unjust but when you actually look at it, just like when you read literature, you find a deeper meaning to it. Seriously, if we’re talking politics; freedom presented by western countries is just a false propaganda tool. You have to consider what is de jure and what is de facto. This applies to secular states, atheistic law and religious law. And I’m not underestimating your knowledge on Islam, I can see that you’re and ex-muslim.

iranian-atheist: You said, “But have you considered how the majority are Muslims and the majority would be happy with it?”I have absolutely no problem with Muslims wanting to handle their personal life matter through a system which is based on specific frameworks of what was the norm in seventh century deserts of Arabia, so long as it does not impact anyone else. You see, that is not how it works in countries which are governed by Islamic law. This is where our opinions differ. I would fight to death for a Muslim to have the right to pray, practice their religion, to be free to worship, and not be forced to become what goes against their religion, such as forcing a person to drink alcohol or “forcing” a person to be gay, though sexual orientation is not something you force, plenty of people in religious jurisdiction want to force it. I would fight for every Muslim to be free to believe as they wish and never be forced to dress a certain way, for Muslim women to have the freedom to wear what they want even if Muslims make up 0.1% of the population. Do you see the difference? But how often does that happen in countries ruled by Islamic law? I should not say all, because in some cases they do accommodate depending on jurisdiction, such as in Malaysia, but when a country is completely governed by religious law, it is unfair to numerous members of society. If an individual wants to live their lives according to those laws, I am in no position to tell them they shouldn’t, but the second they want to enforce that on all members of society, such as many countries which govern by Islamic law, that I’ve mentioned several times in this discussion, then of course, for the sake of humanity and equality I have every right to stand up against it!

You said, “As a Muslim I’m not allowed to drink alcohol, the UK sells alcohol, isn’t this not fair on me since they’re not thinking about my beliefs?”Horrendously comical example! Nobody will force you to drink alcohol in the U.K, you have the option to do so or to not. The difference is the choice. There is no choice when religious laws are pushed on all members of society. There is only one option!

You said, “Look at France, people cant wear religious symbols in public, that’s a secular state and to some extent people are forced to live under a state that won’t let them have their religious freedom.”If you knew to what extent I oppose France’s ban on religious headgear, you probably would not make that point. That is not secularism, that is forcing people to abide by something that suits one’s personal beliefs and for that reason I never once have and never will support that law.

You said, “Your point about alcohol doesn’t answer my more important question which is why would you even debate that when it’s forbidden to drink in Islam?”Not sure what you mean? I would never tell Muslims to drink alcohol, no matter how many verified scientific research papers prove that drinking 2 glasses of wine in moderation is very good for your health. When did I say Muslims have to drink? In fact, I would hope they never do! What are you talking about? But if I want to legally purchase a bottle of wine in Iran and enjoy it with my girlfriend in the privacy of my own home I should not be punished as a criminal for doing two normal, natural, and healthy things without harming anyone, which the Islamic Republic considers a “crime” based on Islamic law. It is very simple.

You said, “The issue of marriage; you’re talking about 6th century Arabia and comparing it with 2015 norms. That’s invalid since that was the norm of the time, why is that even an issue you lot keep referring to? I understand and agree with your point. It is not like I fuss about this and insult the religion for it the way some ignorant people do. Why I bring it up is for two basic reasons, one being the fact that it is still regarded as a means of doing things in the year 2015 as we see in countries governed by Islamic law since technically it is part of the Prophet’s Sunnah, and secondly because while times and settings have changed, while societies have progressed, what we are told from birth is that Muhammad is the most perfect man whose actions must be emulated in every way possible. Once again, this is not me just making things up, these are direct words and messages from numerous Muslims sheikhs, who by virtue of that logic defend the idea of an adult having sex with a 9-year old girl, as we have noticed with many young girls in Yemen dying of internal bleeding when their adult ‘husbands’ tried having sex with them.You said, “I said you made a mistake because you gave no context and gave a simplified few points, I’ve repeated this so many times now. Why are you not understanding that? Of course when you present it like the way you did it appears to be unjust but when you actually look at it, just like when you read literature, you find a deeper meaning to it.”It is not that I do not understand it, it is the fact that I disagree with it, and the bigger fact which is that I have looked deeper into it and still disagree with it. I appreciate their context and framework for what they can teach us about the time and setting in which they emerged from, but I would not agree with them in any shape or form as a means of governing a society. More importantly, this is not my ‘mistake’ – if you even want to call it that – this is directly the simplified law practiced in several Muslim countries.

Then you said, “Seriously, if we’re talking politics; freedom presented by western countries is just a false propaganda tool.”Dude, you are talking to a person who considers all governments corrupt and all political parties useless, you do not even need to say a word to convince me that there is propaganda in the whole presentation of “freedom”. I have even given up on the Green party of Canada after Bruce Hyer voted later year for Canada to carry out airstrikes on Iraq. Sure it shattered my heart that the very last bit of support I had left for a political party was destroyed. So no, you do not need to tell this confirmed atheist who believes in no government or political system, that there is corruption and propaganda. All I believe in is love and kindness for all humanity!

So I’ve been thinking

Because of the poor pacing and direction A/Z had taken, we never actually get to see Asseylum visit Slaine in prison. She didn’t even write him a letter. I feel the final scene between Inaho and Slaine would have been far effective if Asseylum herself was present to explain to Slaine, or if she took Inaho’s place instead. If you were in jail and suicidal, would you prefer the news to come from your enemy, or the person you loved?

We never learned if she even knew he was alive or not. If she did but didn’t bother to visit Slaine while he was incarcerated, she must be a really terrible friend.

What do you think?

The unquestioned Black classics in cinema:

Boyz N Da Hood
Menace II Society
Poetic Justice
Friday
Do The Right Thing
Love & Basketball
How High
How Stella Got Her Groove Back
Coming To America
The Wiz
Dolemite
Players Club
Don’t Be A Menace To South Central While Drinking Your Juice In the Hood
Juice
Set It Off
Cooley High
Lean On Me
What’s Love Got To Do With It
Class Act
Lady Sings The Blues
Soul Food
Roots
Waiting To Exhale

The underrated but actually better than all the previously mentioned Black classics in cinema:

X
Fresh
Love Jones
Crooklyn
School Daze
Squeeze
Brown Sugar
South Central
Why Did I Get Married
Eve’s Bayou
The Inkwell
Boomerang
Higher Learning
Jason’s Lyric
The Wood
The Five Heartbeats
Above The Rim
House Party 3
Dead Presidents
Sugar Hill
In Too Deep
Sunset Park
Akeelah & The Bee
New Jersey Drive
He Got Game
Thin Line Between Love And Hate
American Gangster
Amistad
Django Unchained

The hilariously overrated Black classics in cinema:

Belly
Best Man
EVERY OTHER TYLER PERRY MOVIE
ATL
You Got Stomped On The Drumline
Vampire In Brooklyn
Baps
Bad Boys
Tales From the Hood
Pootie Tang
The Barbershop
Hollywood Shuffle
Precious
Get Rich Or Die Tryin
Hustle & Flow
Notorious
Idlewild
Life
Training Day

Feel free to categorize and add any I missed…


…and I’m blocking anybody that mentions Big Mama’s House and/or Soul Plane

anonymous asked:

"I love the juxtaposition here..." What do you think how Steve in AoU seemed to say that Steve Rogers died in 1945 and there is only Captain America now. That he doesn't deserve home and family (with Natasha!) and there is only war for him. I was sadden by it for Cap has always been my favorite (especially with Evens Portrayal) I believe he deserves some peace (with Natasha!).

(x). Oh man, Anon. I feel like Steve’s PTSD was one of the few things Age of Ultron did right. (Although before I start, I should mention I don’t ship Natasha and Steve as anything but friends). There were so many lines in AOU that gave insight into Steve’s depression, listlessness, and feelings of disconnect. It’s woven into every Steve scene, and it’s amazing.

Right at the start of the movie, Sam encourages Steve to look for a place in Brooklyn, but Steve keeps resisting. He jokes that it’s too expensive, but he doesn’t reply when Sam says “But home is home, y’know?”. In fact, he looks forlorn, staring out at the party below – not joining in, separated from it all. It’s a thousand yard stare, typical of PTSD and the battle-worn soldier.

It’s questionable whether Brooklyn is Steve’s home anymore. Can Brooklyn still be home, if all the buildings are gone, the old neighbourhoods have vanished, friends and family are dead? What is home to Steve? 1945? Because if that’s true… he can never go home. The concept of ‘home’ definitely plagues Steve throughout the film.

In the same scene, he tells Bruce in a self-deprecating tone that he’s the “world’s leading authority on waiting too long”. It implies that he hasn’t moved on from Peggy and still feels regret. It’s important to note that this is all said and done at a party that’s happening because the Avengers have ‘put an end’ to HYDRA and the Chitauri. Steve should be thrilled, but instead you see how lonely and out of place he feels. He spends more time wandering than interacting with the other Avengers – with one exception. He spends significant time with Thor, who really IS the Outsider. It says a lot.

…And then Wanda’s vision scene. Where the dancing turns to brawling and the wine stains become blood. That moment gave the best insight into Steve’s PTSD. His perception is forever tainted: war is all he sees, and he can’t escape its horrible aftermath. Worse, when Peggy asks him to imagine going home, the dance hall empties. Steve literally can’t imagine it. 

He’s always on the outside, looking in: people celebrate the war being over as he walks through their scene, but his own dance hall is empty. There’s this horrible melancholia to the entire scene.

Then the farm. Again, it’s Thor and Steve – the outsiders – who are most uncomfortable with Clint’s family. Steve basically clings to Thor until Thor leaves, and then Steve can’t cross the threshold to go back inside the house. It’s a home he’ll never have, that slipped from his grasp when he crashed the plane. I think it hurts Steve to see the farm – it’s the American Dream he builds for others, but can’t have for himself. The American flag in contrast to Steve’s uniform is a nice touch.

When Tony mentions that Steve walked away from Wanda’s vision seemingly undisturbed, it’s just another tell. The vision didn’t shake Steve because it was nothing new, the same PTSD he lives with daily. And when Tony remarks “Isn’t why we fight so we can end the fight? So we can go home?”, Steve rips a log in half. Because again, what is home to Steve? He has no home. His fight doesn’t end, as his vision showed him. Steve’s lost sight – he doesn’t even know why he fights, anymore. There’s a line later on where he mentions they may be monsters, which is such an unusual line for Steve.

The only thing Steve feels like he has anymore is Captain America: it’s his only place, purpose, and sense of belonging. It sounds like it’s the only reason he leaves the house (”I have no plans tomorrow night”). In fact, the only time Steve has friends is when he’s Cap, when he’s fighting some battle. As he says, Steve Rogers was buried 75 years ago, and someone else came out of the ice – a different Captain America than the one he built. And Steve has no control over this Captain America. The idea became something beyond Steve while he was on ice, so even his superhero persona isn’t his own. Steve Rogers is fading fast, and this idealized Cap is taking over (”Language!”). There’s practically NOTHING that Steve can say is his: no home, no personality, and no persona. That’s jarring, and scary as hell. Because then you have to ask… who is Steve?

Of course, there’s hope. In CATWS, Natasha gets a glimpse of Steve Rogers, and she sees him as something more than Captain America – not the other way around. His friendship with Sam is a good way to bring stability to Steve’s life, although now Sam is an Avenger, so maybe not. But I think Bucky’s presence will help Steve most of all. Whether you ship them or not, you can’t deny that Bucky is Steve’s connection to who he once was.

Steve’s friendship with Bucky was huge part of his personality, back when he was skinny Steve Rogers. Bucky was with him through everything (”best friends since childhood…”) and helped shape who Steve became. They practically defined themselves through each other. What happened to Bucky is a reason for Steve to keep fighting, and watching Bucky find himself again may be the push Steve needs to find himself, too. I don’t think Steve Rogers is dead and gone – I think Steve’s completely lost himself. And I’m hoping in Civil War, his reunion with Bucky will bring him back to who he once was. Just like Steve carried with him who Bucky was, and helped Bucky remember – Bucky will help Steve remember himself, too. Because Bucky is home.

Yes, Furiosa exists in a lineage (see above), and, yes, plenty of other action films have featured female leads. But what’s notable here is how Furiosa being a woman both is and isn’t integral to her character. (In the same way that her missing arm both is and isn’t integral to her character.) In Alien, the character of Ripley was written as a man, then cast as a woman, which was a breakthrough at the time — but also a kind of cinematic drag act. Why can’t a woman play a man’s role? Well, sure — but the better question, only now being asked, is, Why can’t a woman’s role take the place of the man’s role? Furiosa could never be played by a man — the character would make no sense — and not, as with many other female action heroes, because of the kind of costume she wears. She is not simply Indiana Jones in hot pants or Lolita with armor-piercing rounds. Furiosa is a woman, and she is a hero, and she’s cool as hell, and she’s simultaneously recognizable and revelatory as all three. If you’re an action fan and you can’t admit that you’d eagerly watch ten more Furiosa films in the next ten years, then I’d have to ask again if you’re an action fan.
What’s Cultural Appropriation?

Just curious, can we get a show of hands how many people are Chinese-American or Chinese-Chinese? The admins have been discussing cultural appropriation and it seems like the term’s pretty much unheard of in China. The consensus seems to be that CN ppl respond to foreigners wearing CN elements with 挺好的,外国人在接受我国文化, while CN-Americans respond that foreigners are just culturally appropriating another culture.

What’s your opinion on this issue? For example, Met ball?

6

All of this Pilot discussion on my dash and it reminded me that I’ve had this set sitting in my drafts for ages because I really wanted to talk about this scene in particular. Pilot discussion time.

For the second time in the past few days, Henry has run away, been found and brought home by someone other than her, and that someone has been the birth mother she was never suppose to have to worry about being a part of her sons life. I don’t think we’re really meant to see how much this hurts Regina at the time (At this point we’re still suppose to be guessing whether she even loves Henry) but then you see this. Regina opening the door, blood-shot eyes, stuffing tissues in her jacket. She’s clearly been crying since she last saw Emma (after letting her help find Henry again, simply because it was best for Henry. Like how she let Emma pull Henry from the mines and asked David to get him from her vault, it’s just another testament to how Regina really would put her own feelings aside for Henry’s best interest. His safety has always come before her pride). Emotional exhaustion is etched into her face and stance, he won’t even glance at her, and she doesn’t try to say a word to him as he runs past her. It’s just a really emotionally tense moment. This and the scene later with Henry laying in bed really give off just how broken and strained their relationship is at this time, and how it’s a constant struggle and weight on both of them.

What I love about this moment is that it’s seconds long and yet shows so much about Regina and her relationship with Henry at the time. It was one of those humanizing moments that Lana added that deepened Regina and Regal Believer super early on. I didn’t notice it the first time I watched the pilot but there were many other moments in the first season similar to this (some subtle and some more blatant) that show Regina’s true colors. There were discussions the other day about why people seemed to love Regina so early on despite being led to believe how dark and evil she was. This is one of those reasons. The subtle bits of humanity that seeped through.

I think the writers had a lot of fun in S1 leading the audience on with Regina. Making us guess who she was and why she was the way she was. Was she pure evil? What were her intentions with the curse? Was she herself cursed? What happened to make her this way? Did she really love Henry? All questions we were suppose to be asking to make their reveals that much more poignant. I believe our initial impression was suppose to be Regina the big, bad and evil. That’s why they waited on revealing her backstory until the backhalf of the season rather than the second episode like they initially planned, and why they asked Lana to downplay Regina’s love for Henry for ambiguity purposes. It was all because those things humanized Regina and made her hard to villainize. For the most part they seemed successful, but I think Lana really found ways of humanizing Regina early on and in the end it worked to the shows benefit. It really helped consistency of her character and storyline. It’s nice being able to go back to the Pilot and still see real Regina, rather than a fake first viewing version meant to throw us off course of who she really is.

How easily one dimensional Regina could have ended up being back in S1 due to the producers intent and Lana’s lack of knowledge of the character. But going back, you really notice how much layer Lana added to Regina in S1 just by performance. Despite how little they told her, she still somehow added in all the layers the writers meant to reveal Regina having later, and more! This is just one of the many.

Music and lyrics are emotional, it’s what you listen to when your sad. So I don’t want to listen to it just casually, I don’t want to deal with those emotions. I am in a happy place, I’m a happy person, and I want to listen to happy music. Unless I’m listening to it for like creative interpretations or something. That’s why I listen to a lot of hip hop at the moment. It’s not too emotional, not too heavy. I wouldn’t say I’m not interested in those bands anymore, I just…I don’t know.
—  Dan Howell giving the most amazing waffle about music I have ever heard in my life.

Ep 97! Fariha is away this week but I’m joined by ‘Accidental Virgin’ writer and friend to the show Ashley Reese (offbeatorbit)! We’re talking amandla and Jaden Smith’s epic prom photos, racial humor and Crissle of The Read going in on a whitesplainer, answering a few listener questions, and finally talking a little about online dating, swirl culture, and sexuality. Breakdown:

4:41 - Amandla Stenberg + Jaden Smith At Prom: The Beauty of Black Teen Weirdness

8:12 - Dear White People: Blackface WILL NEVER BE OK. EVER! THE FUCK?!

15:30 - Listener Questions: writing, bruno mars, rita ora’s braids etc

22:35 - Online Dating While Black and the Perils of “Team Swirl” 

PS - the smoke alarms are twerking all over this week’s episode. I love you. Don’t hate me.

Like, Reblog, and Enjoy!

Ask Box

Twitter

Facebook

Soundcloud

Itunes

anonymous asked:

I actually think the sorting hat shouldn't let the children have a choice. I mean, how many eleven year olds know what's really best for them? Also, how many people are the same age 11 and 18? Conclusion Sorting Hat = Ill-conceived macguffin

Why do people keep saying that you get to choose your house? Theres so many messages in here about how Bellatrix CHOSE Slytherin or it put her there because she wanted it. 

Which, let me be clear here first, I wasn’t saying slytherin MADE her evil because slytherins ARE evil. I MEANT that Hufflepuff would’ve changed her and Slytherin was conducive to the way she was. Her family and all the other pureblood families and their ideas and ways of thinking have permeated that house for eons. So, no, not all slytherins are evil and the house doesn’t MAKE you evil but they wouldn’t have bothered to make Bella nice. I believe Hufflepuff would have. Sorry if that got misconstrued.

Anyway, this choosing houses thing. Is it because of Harry and his choice of Slytherin/Gryffindor? Because how does that even count? While Harry did have some traits that would fit into slytherin (but lets be honest, who DOESNT have traits that could fit into any of the houses) the only reason it pushed him towards slytherin so hard was because it was reading Voldemorts soul in his head.

“I always imagine that the Sorting Hat detected the presence of that piece of soul when Harry first tried it on, because it strongly tempted to put him in Slytherin.” JK Pottercast, December 2007  (same interview she said that Harry wasn’t ACTUALLY a horcrux, that dumbledore just called him that for convenience, if any of you want to read it. I know thats a popular debate topic.

And we know now that Neville ASKED to be put into Hufflepuff and the hat refused. So everytime this comes up I get really confused, what am I missing?


edit: Hermione didn’t CHOOSE gryffindor either. The hat “seriously considered” putting her in Ravenclaw, enough that she became a hatstall. But she didn’t PICK her house.

On of my favorite blogs, eternallyphan has had some recent discussion about TABINOF, and they comments I am seeing are not the first of their kind. I feel like people are taking three sides to the upcoming release of TABINOF: 1. they come out in the book (or around the book) and talk about their relationship openly in the book.  2. they aren’t together and the book is the nail in our shipping coffin or 3. they are together and the book is one big lie. I don’t think it is any of these things. I think people need to differ their expectations for the book. Yes, it will be amazing. But it isn’t Dan Howell and Phil Lester. It is “Danisnotonfire” and “Amazing Phil”.

You should not expect to see deep intellectual conversation and reflection. You should, however, expect to see witty banter and sarcasm and silliness. There are going to be pictures, telling of stories from vacations (like Japan) and funny anecdotes. Quizzes and games. As much as we would all love to hear their personal opinions and life stories, don’t expect it to go that deep. They have specified multiple times that they want to keep their private lives private, and I expect that the book will keep the same theme.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

What do you think of Asian actors playing ethnicities other than their own? e.g. a korean actress playing the role of a chinese character.

I think a lot of Asian actors are forced to take what minute amount of roles they can get since Asian people are so rarely represented in Hollywood. I also think it shows a lot about the (usually) white people casting them who don’t give two shits about whether or not the ethnicities of the characters are accurate because “all Asian people look the same!”

anonymous asked:

As someone who has been sexually abused, and gone to court for it, I can't see why anyone would want to relive that kind of experience everyday like the girl with the mattress. I don't know what really happened, but from what I've seen I lean towards her lying. I'm an art student too, and have made art expressing my past, but she's living it. Everyday, reminding herself of what happened to her. That doesn't make sense to me, at least.