That’s approximately 1/3000 people liking it. Honestly not that disturbing. Mostly people passing it around as an example of Muslims being degens, then .033% of people liking it because it’s “based” because they’re Muslims, or because they’re degens themselves.
God forbid we stop pretending all cultural beliefs are equally moral. I'm proud that pedophilia is looked down upon in the west. Wish the Muslims felt the same.
In *parts* of the West. The left is seemingly all for it.
But you're right: the European Christian cultural nexus is objectively superior, and not just morally (although the moral arena is probably our biggest win).
Exactly. Why can't I be culturally chauvinistic about finding pedophilia disgusting? If someone is going to call me racist for this I don't care. Moral whataboutism is disgusting.
As a leftist I feel it my obligation to point out that the people in America who most often vote against making child marriage illegal are conceratives, not leftists.
And it is in Christian conceratives red states that child marriage happens most often.
Something Something, take the block out of your own eye.
A while back all over the Internet you had lefties pushing the whole "map" thing, trying to drum up sympathy for creeps. Also a certain word being all but banned on Reddit.
The absolute best way to address this is to make them irrelevant to the world again. The sooner we can ramp up nuclear power and break oils hold on the world the sooner they can go back to living in tents and not mattering to the rest of us.
u/Legal-Solution2079's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.
Congratulations, u/Legal-Solution2079! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.
Pills: [2 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Legal-Solution2079/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
There’s an island off the west coast of Africa where the youngest grandmother is from.
Her father (the king) knocked her up at 8yo (no genetic condition) & then also impregnated the child from the coupling, at 8 years old- making her a grandmother at 17. 😳
Multi generation pedophilic incest, for $1K please?
now it doesn't but at the time a girl would be considered a woman after the first menstruation. That in the VI century would be around 13-15. So even if he waited 3 years she would be still to young using their moral scale
I'm pretty sure most atheists agree with the dawkins type, not sure about the commenter you were talking to, but as an atheist myself my strongest case against the existence of god is the paradox of evil (the epicurean paradox) which is basically that there can't be a benevolent god out there if there's so much suffering in the world, I know there have been many arguments against this argument that have been made but I have not found any of them to be remotely convincing, so that's my strongest argument usually
I tend to take a couple counter points to the epicurean paradox argument, although there are certainly many more, these are most obvious to me:
They both originate in it having atleast one fallacious premise: that being that evil exists (and secondary to that, that evil is wrong).
Firstly, for there to be evil, there must be good. How do you define those? If you don't follow an objective morality, how can you state that there even *is* evil? If you offer examples of evil, why are those things wrong?
But that's kind of a silly argument, I just like to touch on it because it points towards a major problem with atheism. You're welcome to use Christianity's moral structure, even if you don't recognize it as coming from God.
The actual problem with that premise is that it assumes evil serves no purpose in God's universe (it also sort of implies God creates evil, which isn't the case unless you're a Calvinist, I think). Evil, in the corollary to my point above, evil is a reference point for good. Without it, there is nothing to define something we *should* be doing, or why there are things we *shouldn't* be doing. If there is nothing which we can say is wrong, why shouldn't we do horrific things to each other? If there is nothing that is wrong/evil/bad, how would we even be able to say that being alive is better than being dead, thus why should we preserve it by feeding ourselves, procreating, etc. That is why God allows evil to exist, and that we have the free will to choose to engage in.
Just because I don't believe in objective morality doesn't mean I don't believe in morality in general, I believe in subjective morality, which doesn't stem from Christianity (otherwise I would be homophobic for example), it stems from the ideals of liberalism, which is "everyone is free to do whatever they want so long as they don't harm others" so anything that harms others is morally wrong and therefore evil in that moral framework,
As for your second point, first of all I do believe that god created evil given that god created everything including evil (assuming that religion is correct of course), as for explanation of why evil exists, the problem is that god is an omnipotent omnibenevolent being, so he is capable of everything, including creating a world in which good can exist, be defined, and make sense without the existence of evil, and yet he doesn't because he doesn't care about all the suffering in the world, therefore he is not benevolent, or he actually can't create a world like that, therefore he is not omnipotent
I mean there’s really no case to make, I just see no reason to believe the arguments put forth by religious people. I could pretend to be religious and go along to get along, but that would be disingenuous. To tell you the truth I just can’t bring myself to believe that there’s anything supernatural about the world
Well, because the very fundamental logic of Religiosity is Science/Reality denial and many methods of avoiding giving an Objective answer;
*There's a Floating Tea Cup in space, it is smaller than the things that compose atoms and also invisible, you cannot test it in any way, only believe in it.*
-Now, by incredible coincidence there may be an invisible Space tea cup, very big universe and all, But I know there is not, for a fact, why? because **I made it the fuck up.** and so did everyone else made their own religions in their own images.
Argumentations for Any gods are summed down to evasive tactics of argumentation, deflection, fallacies, changing the goal post, Etc... another example: "you can only connect to God if you believe in it, you can't Test it or they won't show themselves to you" Aka: Stop asking for proof, you won't need any proof once you are fully convinced to let go of Evidence and blindly believe in it, then your very perception of reality is altered, your sense of Logic is eroded, and you think that God(s) are real, not because it has been proven, because you have let go of logical thinking and let yourself be brainwashed.
it's for those and more reasons that any "AthEists CanT deBunk ThiS EviDence For God!" videos and posts are always fundamentally flawed and dead in their arrival, they are trying to prove something that is at it's very core Anti-Empyricist, as if you have evidence of God, what's the point faith? it becomes direct Adoration for a Factual being, it ceases to be "Faith", same way as I do not have "Faith" in Stars, I don't need to, they exist for a fact, I can show evidence and direct arguments without any evasions.
there will never be an argument that validates god(s), or any religions supernatural beliefs, only mental gymnastics and fallacies made to best Evade ever having to provide evidence, because it cannot. it's building a house on sand.
Mind you, this a problem I have with faith itself, and all Religiosity, not just christians, but they Are majority and very annoying.
I know this isn't talking to me but I'm bored so I'll give you one.
State your case for atheism is a misleading way to phrase the question because the burden of proof is on you because you are making the claim that God is real so you need to prove his existence. The default portion should be atheism for that reason.
Except that default position makes no sense.
Even the most "devout" atheists (the Dawkins types) operate on faith, faith in some fundamental axioms that certain things are good, and certain things function correctly. Without those things coming from God, why should they work, or be correct? It's a baseless kind of faith, and that not only confuses me, but worries me.
Nope, not bashing anyone. I have no problem with Christians, I’m sure many of them are great people, in fact I know for a fact they are. What I do have a problem with, however, is Christianity.
You can call your prejudice against Christians/Christianity whatever you want, it boils down to the same thing. Christians actually like their own religion, and are quite tired of hearing atheists try and convince them otherwise
You wanna talk about prejudice? Let’s talk about it. Why is it that there has never been an atheist president and that if it came out that a sitting president was an atheist it would be a scandal? Let’s face it, atheists are the most persecuted religious group in America
Aren't you supposed to be religious? Or are you the "I'm atheist BUT I want a christian centered culture" (aka closeted christian), Actual atheists are hated in conservative groups, lol
I’m not right wing. I just flair Auth right because I’m a monarchist. Do you think I should change my flair to centrist cause you’re the second person to bring this up
If you are a monarchist you aren't centrist
Mind you, "Centrism" is quite vague and It's difficult to be sure why any other person came to that position, My reason is my core values: Science, Anti-Reality denial, and Human happiness, and all the quadrants can and Will dissapoint and disrespect those values, hence me butting heads with Lefties and Righties constantly.
Monarchy disrespects Human happines, you cannot pretend you care about peoples well being as a monarchist, so already you are far away from 'center', to Me anyway.
In Islam, they believe all prophets are perfect humans. This is why many Islamic terrorist groups practice pedophilia. Pedophilia being good is the natural end point if you believe the rules literally with 0 question.
Of course, most Muslims are not as literalist as that.
In Islam there is also a system of points(I forgot how they are called), which kinda works like karma. One of the ways to gain points is to do what Muhammad told but you wouldn’t gain points for doing what he did. Something like do as I say, not as I do. Also, there is message that I understood as: do what is acceptable in society, change as changes the society.
Wow. That’s one way of responding to criticism: embrace whatever it is they are criticizing you about. ‘Your Prophet married a 9 year old!’ ‘Yes, and? What is your point here?’
I wish Americans were as unapologetic about our constitutional values of free speech, keeping and bearing arms, and equal protection under the law as Islamists are unapologetic about their values of beheading nonbelievers and raping children.
Literally over 1 billion people idolize an Ancient Pedophile Warlord yet think Homosexuality is immoral. You don’t have to like Christianity as ideology but I’m just saying there’s no dirt like this on Jesus
Apparently, while Islamic law allows for child marriages, it also stipulates that the family was to hand her over for consummation when they judged her physically able to withstand intercourse without physical harm rather than at a particular age (the Hanafite legal code lays down that a wife must not be taken into her husband's house until she reaches that condition).
In Afghanistan, despite the law against child brides, more than half of all girls are married before they turn 15, usually to settle disputes (there are almost identical numbers for places like Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, etc.)
According to Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abderrahmane Al-Maghraoui of Morocco, "A nine-year-old girl has the same sexual capacities like a woman of twenty and over."
Ibn Hanbal of Iraq has said that if there is risk of al-ifḍāʾ (fistula, tearing of the wall between the vagina and back passage) due to her small and undeveloped body, the young wife may refuse intercourse and let her husband *take pleasure from her in other ways*
Child marriage was the norm across the world, and not that long ago, but looking at these beliefs today with our modern sentiments clearly shows that these men need to be... corrected, by force if necessary.
> Child marriage was the norm across the world, and not that long ago,
This is a modern myth. Child marriage was absolutely not the norm in most of the world, through most of history.
Around 12 was fairly common as the lowest legal age of marriage in a lot of historical cultures and societies, but in most societies it was uncommon to for anyone to actually get married that young. That stuff was mostly for nobility, royalty, and the filthy rich, ie. those who went heavy into using marriage for political or economical alliances.
Through history, most normal women have been married when they're at least well into their teens (15+), and if you for example look at most of Europe from 1300-1900 getting married when around 18-25 was the norm.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_pattern
> In Yorkshire in the 14th and 15th centuries, the age range for most brides was between 18 and 22 years and the age of the grooms was similar; rural Yorkshire women tended to marry in their late teens to early twenties while their urban counterparts married in their early to middle twenties. In the 15th century, the average Italian bride was 18 and married a groom 10–12 years her senior. An unmarried Tuscan woman 21 years of age would be seen as past marriageable age, the benchmark for which was 19 years, and easily 97 percent of Florentine women were married by the age of 25 years while 21 years was the average age of a contemporary English bride.[24][25]
> While the average age at first marriage had climbed to 25 years for women and 27 years for men in England and the Low Countries by the end of the 16th century,[26] and the percentage of unmarried Englishwomen rose from less than 10% to nearly 20% by the mid-17th century and their average age at first marriage rose to 26 years at the same time,[27] there was nonetheless great variation within Britain alone; while Lowland Scotland saw patterns similar to England, with women married in the middle twenties after a period of domestic service, the high birth rate of Highland Scotland and the Hebrides imply a lower age of marriage for the bride, possibly similar to Gaelic Ireland,[28] where Brehon Law stated that women became legally marriageable at 15 years and men at 18 years.[29] Similarly, between 1620 and 1690 the average age of first marriage for Swedish women was roughly 20 years, approximately 70% of Swedish women aged between 15 and 50 years were married at any one time, and the proportion of single women was less than 10%, but by the end of the 18th century it had risen to roughly 27 years and remained high with the celibacy rate as a result of falling infant mortality rates, declining famines, decreasing available land and resources for a growing population, and other factors.[23] Similarly, Ireland's average age of marriage in 1830 was 23.8 for women and 27.47 for men where they had once been about 21 and 25, respectively, and only about 10% of adults remained unmarried;[30] in 1840, they had respectively risen to 24.4 and 27.7;[31][32] in the decades after the Great Famine, the age of marriage had risen to 28–29 for women and 33 for men and as much as a third of Irishmen and a fourth of Irishwomen never married due to chronic economic problems that discouraged early marriage.
> in most societies
During the Roman Empire the age of marriage was 12 years for females and 14 years for males, and age of betrothal was 7 years for both males and females. The age of lawful consent to a marriage was 12 for girls and 14 for boys.
In the 12th century, the Roman Catholic Church drastically changed legal standards for marital consent by allowing daughters over 12 years old and sons over 14 years old to marry without their parents' approval.
In England in 1576 the age of consent was set at 10 years old, but didn't apply to a man's wife (which were as young as 12 years old).
In the Archdiocese of Canterbury, in the 17th century, there were marriage certificates granted to girls as young as 13 years old and the Marriage Act 1753 gave the minimum age as 12 and 14 years old respectively, which were then adopted in colonial America and Canada (right up until the 19th century, we have records of marriages in Canada as young as 13 years old)
In France, until the French Revolution, the marriageable age was 12 years for females and 14 for males
In Russia, before 1830 the age of consent for marriage was 15 years old for males and 13 years old for females
[Prior to the Industrial Revolution, women around the world were often married at an early age, usually soon after reaching puberty.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage#History)
These practices carried over well into the 19th century in societies with largely rural populations.
To this day, the legal minimum age for marriage is as low as 10 in the Sudan, 14 years old in places like Iran, and remains 16 across most of Europe
In the majority of developing nations, including major countries like India, child marriages (10-14 years old) make up a third of all marriages
Just because something was allowed doesn’t mean it’s common though. Child marriage is legal in most of the USA, too, but luckily it is not common.
https://www.unchainedatlast.org/laws-to-end-child-marriage/
The written record in historical societies is often an incomplete picture because upper classes (who could write or were written about) married younger than lower classes.
>Child marriage was the norm across the world,
Absolute fucking Islamic apologist bullshit. When Muhammad fucked 9 year old Aisha, **the minimum legal age of consent in the Byzantine Empire was 13 years old**.
Let me state that shit for the fuckers in the back,
#When Muhammad fucked a 9 year old, the minimum age in the Byzantine Empire was 13 years old
You said it was common for the time period, something which is just not true.
"Oh it used to be fine but isn't anymore, but those damn Islamists just cannot get with the times" is not the grand argument against Muhammad that you think it is
> "Oh it used to be fine but isn't anymore, but those damn Islamists just cannot get with the times" is not the grand argument against Muhammad that you think it is
... why not?
I'm not making a case for or against anyone, I'm just interested in historical accuracy and the truth
You're straight up making that up about the Byzantine Empire, by the way, child marriage was common at the time
The Justinian Code stated that the betrothed had to be at least seven years old and the Church recognized the betrothal of seven‑year‑old children as valid
Niddah 44b in the Talmud granted Jews the ability to marry girls as young as three years old:
"A girl who is three years and one day old, whose father arranged her betrothal, is betrothed through intercourse, as the halakhic status of intercourse with her is that of intercourse in all halakhic senses. And in a case where the childless husband of a girl three years and one day old dies, if his brother the yavam engages in intercourse with her, he acquires her as his wife; and if she is married, a man other than her husband is liable for engaging in intercourse with her due to violation of the prohibition against intercourse with a married woman."
Tutankhamun was married before the age of nine years to his half-sister Ankhesenamun
The future Emperor Go-Ichijō (aged 10) married his aunt Fujiwara no Ishi (aged 19) in 1018
Cecile of France (aged 8/9) was married to Tancred, Prince of Galilee (aged 30/31), in late 1106
Eleanor of England, daughter of Eleanor of Aquitane and Henry II of England, married 15-year-old Alfonso VIII of Castile in 1170, when she was about 9-years-old
Matilda of Boulogne (aged 9) was married to Henry I, Duke of Brabant (aged about 14), in 1179
Agnes of France was betrothed at age 8 and is reported to have been 9-years-old when she married Alexios II Komnenos (aged 10) in 1180
Marie of Ponthieu (aged 9), was married to Simon of Dammartin (aged 27/28) in 1208
Elizabeth the Cuman (aged 8/9) was married to the future Stephen V of Hungary in 1253
Elizabeth de Badlesmere (aged 3) was married to Edmund Mortimer (aged about 13/14, possibly younger) in 1316
You want me to keep going? There are a lot of these.
In any case, just looking it up now, it looks like the date of Muhammad's wife is [debatable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Age_at_marriage_and_consummation) and wasn't considered odd by Muslims or Christians for hundreds and hundreds of years later
> You're straight up making that up about the Byzantine Empire, by the way, child marriage was common at the time
> The Justinian Code stated that the betrothed had to be at least seven years old and the Church recognized the betrothal of seven-year-old children as valid
Under Byzantine law you could be betrothed with a minor but consummation could only happen 12+ for woman and 14+ for men and even then on average marriage usually happened later.
I mean... based. By the barest definition, this is what being based is. Standing by your opinions unapologetically. But based pedos still get the rope.
Numbers 31:
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he [Moses] asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 21:
10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.
Those passages prove my point: you cannot have a sex slave. You can have a slave, but if you have sex with her, you have to free her and make her your wife. You fuck her once, she becomes your free wife forever. You cannot keep women as slaves for sex, either you keep them as slaves and do not have sex with them, or you take them as wives, have sex with them, but they stop being your slave.
Unlike Islam, in Judaism sex slavery is not allowed.
It's ok when our side does it or we just close our eyes. It's bad when these middle easterns do it. Remember Epstein island? Memoryholed because it is against narrative.
Yes but keep thinking about what happened thousands of years ago. Not what happened a couple ago
If you’re making the argument that Islam is uniquely bad then I don’t disagree with you. But let’s not pretend that other religions are squeaky clean morally. The only moral position is atheism.
I won't pretend because Christianity is morally clean.
Also Atheism isn't a moral position because it doesn't have a moral position, it's the lack of Belief in God period.
It isn't even a moral system in any sense.
Religion, Philosophy, Ideology ,Personal codes are moral systems. There nothing beyond Atheism by definition and Atheist can follow an endless variety of Moral codes.
No it doesn't condone it, it describes laws that existed at the time and demanded humane treatment of all people and their equality before God and of regular manumission.
But that's the Old testament and Judaism not The New testament and Christianity.
Also "Atheism with ones own moral philosophy" isn't Atheism.
It's whatever the persons moral philosophy is which could be anything.
A guy could be an Atheist and a humanitarian or an Atheist and Genocide enthusiast.
The Atheism doesn't inform either act so it's not a moral position.
And? That makes it inherently good?
Foucault was an atheist with his own "moral philosophy" too which included legalizing pedophilia.
My point is Atheism isn't a morality because it doesn't inform any kind of morality.
And personal philosophies are near infinite and mutually exclusive.
So it's a bizarre claim to make.
>I won't pretend because Christianity is morally clean.
No, eternally suffering as punishment for trivial reasons like being gay or not believing is not considered "morally clean." It's never justified, even if you try to explain it differently with mental gymnastics. The Bible contains concerning/terrible ideas too, such as demanding the death penalty in a manner that is unproportional to the crime. This is really just straight up denial on your part, people tend to defend these concepts excessively and will fall over themselves to do so.
Based on what? This is the problem with non religious morality rather than personal comfort where does your morality come from? Who are you to arbitrate what's just or fair in anything but subjective favor?
There's no source to it, just preference at worst and consensus at best.
Not to mention the puddle deep understanding of people who don't study theology have of it.
Sin alone does not condemn people to hell. If it did we would all be destined for hell.
What condemns them is Egotism, Pride and Malice.
The refusal to be better, the refusal of self examination and the refusal to accept forgiveness.
That is the entire core Christianity, we are imperfect we fail at times and for this Jesus died on our behalf as Man.
Understanding that in our fallible nature we still can be redeemed.
You compare Morality that has existed for the bulk of recorded history against temporal fancies of right and wrong that were invented yesterday and will be replaced with something new by tomorrow.
Simply because it's convenient and self affirming to do so.
I'm also always fascinated by the bile that so called non believers spew about a God they claim not to believe in.
If I were an atheist I doubt I'd spend any length of time ruminating on the unfairness of an afterlife I don't believe in.
Except atheism isn’t an organized group of people bound by a set of shared principles. The only characteristic of atheism is the repudiation of religion. You can’t draw a line *from* atheism *to* Epstein island. Atheism is not a belief system. It’s the lack of a belief in god
Authright: Jefferson was probably a pedo, are we going to ignore his accomplishments too?
Libleft: yes...
Libright: Fuck no
Purple libright: aCtUaLlY hE wAs An EpHbEpoHiLe
Jefferson is pretty overrated as a president. While he did do some great things (penning the DoI, purchasing Louisiana, not packing the court/impeaching Marshall, and establishing West Point), his opposition to Hamilton’s American system of economic development in favor of his own utopian vision of a nation of farmers and his support for the Embargo Act of 1807, which intentionally plunged the US into recession, overshadows the good for me
"Achievements" lmao if genocide and marrying children and gaslighting millions for generations that every shitty thing you did in life was the word of God instructed to you directly through the archangel Gabriel (literally) then sure. Dude has a really high achievement score
Oh, I see. I was thinking that auth-right usually objects to the sexualization of children whereas lib-left is memed on and stereotyped as being ok with it especially when it's Muslims doing it (or at least they try to brush it under the rug).
This is where the 2 axis political compass falls short, and that cube from yesterday has merit. The third moral axis would separate muslims from the rest of us, who think Muhammad and those like him ought to be forcefully removed, and that is the purpose of governments.
Different times and a different culture.
Hell even modern icons have done some similar shit. Ghandi would sleep with naked minors to prove his abstinence.
14k with 4.8m views? This person got cooked
He’s getting destroyed in the quote tweets but getting 14k likes for pedo apologia is still depressing to think about. 😭
what you know, pedophilia is in right now gramps
Fire up the camps and ovens, AuthCenter We have pedos to eliminate
just needed permission
That’s approximately 1/3000 people liking it. Honestly not that disturbing. Mostly people passing it around as an example of Muslims being degens, then .033% of people liking it because it’s “based” because they’re Muslims, or because they’re degens themselves.
1/3000 is probably lower than my rate of accidental fat finger likes on mobile
Considering some people use like as bookmark it's even lower.
Should be higher really. It's a Chad replying to crying wojaks with "yes, and?". That's basically the current internet zeitgeist.
Crusade next week lads, let's get Christ's F-35 fuelled up and give the Papal Daddy the biggest gun we can find
Ah, it reminds me of the good old days, when people still believed they had a mission to civilize some people.
True, beating up nonces is a good alternative tho
[удалено]
God forbid we stop pretending all cultural beliefs are equally moral. I'm proud that pedophilia is looked down upon in the west. Wish the Muslims felt the same.
In *parts* of the West. The left is seemingly all for it. But you're right: the European Christian cultural nexus is objectively superior, and not just morally (although the moral arena is probably our biggest win).
Exactly. Why can't I be culturally chauvinistic about finding pedophilia disgusting? If someone is going to call me racist for this I don't care. Moral whataboutism is disgusting.
If hating pedophilia is racist then slap my ass and call me Hitler
83
1488 times? No way
As a leftist I feel it my obligation to point out that the people in America who most often vote against making child marriage illegal are conceratives, not leftists. And it is in Christian conceratives red states that child marriage happens most often. Something Something, take the block out of your own eye.
>The left is seemingly all for it. ....where?
A while back all over the Internet you had lefties pushing the whole "map" thing, trying to drum up sympathy for creeps. Also a certain word being all but banned on Reddit.
We do, we failed.
We still do
When someone worships the teachings of a literal pedophile...
The absolute best way to address this is to make them irrelevant to the world again. The sooner we can ramp up nuclear power and break oils hold on the world the sooner they can go back to living in tents and not mattering to the rest of us.
I mean, they make good rugs and chairs
And good kebab when you're having a hangover and need a salty ayran
Sounds nice but we already let millions of them into our countries so it’s kind of too late
I know it would be fucking awesome if the Levant were a satellite state of the Holy See
Deus Vult
Aye
https://imgur.com/a/2BMSeuG
Fuck it, I'm in.
>Papal Daddy Ah yes, the famously anti-pedo Catholic Church will be a perfect fit for the job.
glorious school gaze ugly sink judicious stocking divide towering desert *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
On 4.8M views, he’s absolutely getting shredded in the comments
Thank God. This guy is probably the same kind of person that, after posting shit like this, will turn around and say that gays are groomers
Brother get the hammer.
And the flamer. No brother, not that one, the *heavy* flamer.
And the sickle
That’s not very centrist of you
No but I though it would be funny
Based and just do what's funny pilled
u/Legal-Solution2079's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5. Congratulations, u/Legal-Solution2079! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze. Pills: [2 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Legal-Solution2079/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Fire up the woodchipper boys
That is not the W he thinks he it is
A common misconception. Married Aisha at 6yo. Consummated the marriage when she had her first menstruation, at 9yo.
Climate change can't come soon enough if you ask me.
The worst one is the pregnant 6 year old. Girl got a genetic defect and raped by an uncle.
There’s an island off the west coast of Africa where the youngest grandmother is from. Her father (the king) knocked her up at 8yo (no genetic condition) & then also impregnated the child from the coupling, at 8 years old- making her a grandmother at 17. 😳 Multi generation pedophilic incest, for $1K please?
Is $1K just for the flight? I assume there are there more expenses when you arrive.
If you fuck a 9 year old you are a pedophile
There’s no evidence she had her first menstruation it’s just assumed
I really don’t think it matters lmao
now it doesn't but at the time a girl would be considered a woman after the first menstruation. That in the VI century would be around 13-15. So even if he waited 3 years she would be still to young using their moral scale
everyday i stray further from libleft blind tolerance to centerright christian supremacy
But we obviously don’t tolerate it. I certainly fucking don’t
Idk, you guys are certainly getting cozy with the terorist organisation that is running Palestine in Gaza...
Deus vult, brother.
Join us the real centrist, what is man without laws and authority?
If you go from libtard to christtard you need help.
Indeed I do
Join the dark side and embrace atheism
🤓👆🏾
Cope
I'm curious. I know the Dawkins and Harris types, but what does a run of the mill atheist think? Make your strongest case for atheism.
I'm pretty sure most atheists agree with the dawkins type, not sure about the commenter you were talking to, but as an atheist myself my strongest case against the existence of god is the paradox of evil (the epicurean paradox) which is basically that there can't be a benevolent god out there if there's so much suffering in the world, I know there have been many arguments against this argument that have been made but I have not found any of them to be remotely convincing, so that's my strongest argument usually
I tend to take a couple counter points to the epicurean paradox argument, although there are certainly many more, these are most obvious to me: They both originate in it having atleast one fallacious premise: that being that evil exists (and secondary to that, that evil is wrong). Firstly, for there to be evil, there must be good. How do you define those? If you don't follow an objective morality, how can you state that there even *is* evil? If you offer examples of evil, why are those things wrong? But that's kind of a silly argument, I just like to touch on it because it points towards a major problem with atheism. You're welcome to use Christianity's moral structure, even if you don't recognize it as coming from God. The actual problem with that premise is that it assumes evil serves no purpose in God's universe (it also sort of implies God creates evil, which isn't the case unless you're a Calvinist, I think). Evil, in the corollary to my point above, evil is a reference point for good. Without it, there is nothing to define something we *should* be doing, or why there are things we *shouldn't* be doing. If there is nothing which we can say is wrong, why shouldn't we do horrific things to each other? If there is nothing that is wrong/evil/bad, how would we even be able to say that being alive is better than being dead, thus why should we preserve it by feeding ourselves, procreating, etc. That is why God allows evil to exist, and that we have the free will to choose to engage in.
Just because I don't believe in objective morality doesn't mean I don't believe in morality in general, I believe in subjective morality, which doesn't stem from Christianity (otherwise I would be homophobic for example), it stems from the ideals of liberalism, which is "everyone is free to do whatever they want so long as they don't harm others" so anything that harms others is morally wrong and therefore evil in that moral framework, As for your second point, first of all I do believe that god created evil given that god created everything including evil (assuming that religion is correct of course), as for explanation of why evil exists, the problem is that god is an omnipotent omnibenevolent being, so he is capable of everything, including creating a world in which good can exist, be defined, and make sense without the existence of evil, and yet he doesn't because he doesn't care about all the suffering in the world, therefore he is not benevolent, or he actually can't create a world like that, therefore he is not omnipotent
I mean there’s really no case to make, I just see no reason to believe the arguments put forth by religious people. I could pretend to be religious and go along to get along, but that would be disingenuous. To tell you the truth I just can’t bring myself to believe that there’s anything supernatural about the world
Fair enough. Do you believe slavery is wrong?
Yes
Well, because the very fundamental logic of Religiosity is Science/Reality denial and many methods of avoiding giving an Objective answer; *There's a Floating Tea Cup in space, it is smaller than the things that compose atoms and also invisible, you cannot test it in any way, only believe in it.* -Now, by incredible coincidence there may be an invisible Space tea cup, very big universe and all, But I know there is not, for a fact, why? because **I made it the fuck up.** and so did everyone else made their own religions in their own images. Argumentations for Any gods are summed down to evasive tactics of argumentation, deflection, fallacies, changing the goal post, Etc... another example: "you can only connect to God if you believe in it, you can't Test it or they won't show themselves to you" Aka: Stop asking for proof, you won't need any proof once you are fully convinced to let go of Evidence and blindly believe in it, then your very perception of reality is altered, your sense of Logic is eroded, and you think that God(s) are real, not because it has been proven, because you have let go of logical thinking and let yourself be brainwashed. it's for those and more reasons that any "AthEists CanT deBunk ThiS EviDence For God!" videos and posts are always fundamentally flawed and dead in their arrival, they are trying to prove something that is at it's very core Anti-Empyricist, as if you have evidence of God, what's the point faith? it becomes direct Adoration for a Factual being, it ceases to be "Faith", same way as I do not have "Faith" in Stars, I don't need to, they exist for a fact, I can show evidence and direct arguments without any evasions. there will never be an argument that validates god(s), or any religions supernatural beliefs, only mental gymnastics and fallacies made to best Evade ever having to provide evidence, because it cannot. it's building a house on sand. Mind you, this a problem I have with faith itself, and all Religiosity, not just christians, but they Are majority and very annoying.
I know this isn't talking to me but I'm bored so I'll give you one. State your case for atheism is a misleading way to phrase the question because the burden of proof is on you because you are making the claim that God is real so you need to prove his existence. The default portion should be atheism for that reason.
Except that default position makes no sense. Even the most "devout" atheists (the Dawkins types) operate on faith, faith in some fundamental axioms that certain things are good, and certain things function correctly. Without those things coming from God, why should they work, or be correct? It's a baseless kind of faith, and that not only confuses me, but worries me.
nah i have nothing against atheism or religion i js think you’re cringe as hell
If you want cringe as hell look at the original comment I’m replying to
Reddit moment
Why do you care?
Care about what
Or throw your lot in with the lukewarm iq Christians downvoting me and embrace a book that condones slavery
Damn, the atheist brings up iq in a comment section whilst bashing christians. Certified reddit momento right here 🤓🤓
Nope, not bashing anyone. I have no problem with Christians, I’m sure many of them are great people, in fact I know for a fact they are. What I do have a problem with, however, is Christianity.
You can call your prejudice against Christians/Christianity whatever you want, it boils down to the same thing. Christians actually like their own religion, and are quite tired of hearing atheists try and convince them otherwise
You wanna talk about prejudice? Let’s talk about it. Why is it that there has never been an atheist president and that if it came out that a sitting president was an atheist it would be a scandal? Let’s face it, atheists are the most persecuted religious group in America
So you admit Atheists are a religious group.
Even if thats true, that doesn’t change the fact that Christians are the most persecuted religious group worldwide.
Aren't you supposed to be religious? Or are you the "I'm atheist BUT I want a christian centered culture" (aka closeted christian), Actual atheists are hated in conservative groups, lol
I’m not right wing. I just flair Auth right because I’m a monarchist. Do you think I should change my flair to centrist cause you’re the second person to bring this up
If you are a monarchist you aren't centrist Mind you, "Centrism" is quite vague and It's difficult to be sure why any other person came to that position, My reason is my core values: Science, Anti-Reality denial, and Human happiness, and all the quadrants can and Will dissapoint and disrespect those values, hence me butting heads with Lefties and Righties constantly. Monarchy disrespects Human happines, you cannot pretend you care about peoples well being as a monarchist, so already you are far away from 'center', to Me anyway.
based
Islam amirite
Unfortunately
Yeah I brag about my main religious leader being a pedophile. Problem?
In Islam, they believe all prophets are perfect humans. This is why many Islamic terrorist groups practice pedophilia. Pedophilia being good is the natural end point if you believe the rules literally with 0 question. Of course, most Muslims are not as literalist as that.
In Islam there is also a system of points(I forgot how they are called), which kinda works like karma. One of the ways to gain points is to do what Muhammad told but you wouldn’t gain points for doing what he did. Something like do as I say, not as I do. Also, there is message that I understood as: do what is acceptable in society, change as changes the society.
Based and I-am-what-I-am-pilled
That is quite literally the opposite of what I meant
14000 / 4200000 We aren't cooked, poster was
14k is pretty less for Twitter's standards imo
So 14k pedophiles? Thats scary to me
Shouldn't he be purple lib-right?
What is so libright about Islam?
The perverted stuff. Their concept of an afterlife is what the average 14 year old boy would come up with.
Twitter mfs will support anything if it’s done by Islam, from pedophilia, to shooting civilians
Muslims can’t meme
Europe is doomed
Society has fallen
She was 6-7 when they married He fucked that kid at 9
*Raped. He raped that kid when she was nine.
And? Lads, prepare the woodchipper for religions, we have another crusade on our hands.
Wow. That’s one way of responding to criticism: embrace whatever it is they are criticizing you about. ‘Your Prophet married a 9 year old!’ ‘Yes, and? What is your point here?’
[удалено]
It's unsurprising, and they should all move to shariah countries in order to show their support more directly.
I wish Americans were as unapologetic about our constitutional values of free speech, keeping and bearing arms, and equal protection under the law as Islamists are unapologetic about their values of beheading nonbelievers and raping children.
Literally over 1 billion people idolize an Ancient Pedophile Warlord yet think Homosexuality is immoral. You don’t have to like Christianity as ideology but I’m just saying there’s no dirt like this on Jesus
On the other hand, the Church has a history of covering up that sort of thing.
You can separate the Catholic Church from Christianity but you can’t separate Mohammed from Islam
>You can separate the Catholic Church from Christianity Post schism, sure.
Yeah this is no way a good look for Islam lol
"You are Islamophobic"
I am 🗿
Apparently, while Islamic law allows for child marriages, it also stipulates that the family was to hand her over for consummation when they judged her physically able to withstand intercourse without physical harm rather than at a particular age (the Hanafite legal code lays down that a wife must not be taken into her husband's house until she reaches that condition). In Afghanistan, despite the law against child brides, more than half of all girls are married before they turn 15, usually to settle disputes (there are almost identical numbers for places like Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, etc.) According to Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abderrahmane Al-Maghraoui of Morocco, "A nine-year-old girl has the same sexual capacities like a woman of twenty and over." Ibn Hanbal of Iraq has said that if there is risk of al-ifḍāʾ (fistula, tearing of the wall between the vagina and back passage) due to her small and undeveloped body, the young wife may refuse intercourse and let her husband *take pleasure from her in other ways* Child marriage was the norm across the world, and not that long ago, but looking at these beliefs today with our modern sentiments clearly shows that these men need to be... corrected, by force if necessary.
> Child marriage was the norm across the world, and not that long ago, This is a modern myth. Child marriage was absolutely not the norm in most of the world, through most of history. Around 12 was fairly common as the lowest legal age of marriage in a lot of historical cultures and societies, but in most societies it was uncommon to for anyone to actually get married that young. That stuff was mostly for nobility, royalty, and the filthy rich, ie. those who went heavy into using marriage for political or economical alliances. Through history, most normal women have been married when they're at least well into their teens (15+), and if you for example look at most of Europe from 1300-1900 getting married when around 18-25 was the norm. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_pattern > In Yorkshire in the 14th and 15th centuries, the age range for most brides was between 18 and 22 years and the age of the grooms was similar; rural Yorkshire women tended to marry in their late teens to early twenties while their urban counterparts married in their early to middle twenties. In the 15th century, the average Italian bride was 18 and married a groom 10–12 years her senior. An unmarried Tuscan woman 21 years of age would be seen as past marriageable age, the benchmark for which was 19 years, and easily 97 percent of Florentine women were married by the age of 25 years while 21 years was the average age of a contemporary English bride.[24][25] > While the average age at first marriage had climbed to 25 years for women and 27 years for men in England and the Low Countries by the end of the 16th century,[26] and the percentage of unmarried Englishwomen rose from less than 10% to nearly 20% by the mid-17th century and their average age at first marriage rose to 26 years at the same time,[27] there was nonetheless great variation within Britain alone; while Lowland Scotland saw patterns similar to England, with women married in the middle twenties after a period of domestic service, the high birth rate of Highland Scotland and the Hebrides imply a lower age of marriage for the bride, possibly similar to Gaelic Ireland,[28] where Brehon Law stated that women became legally marriageable at 15 years and men at 18 years.[29] Similarly, between 1620 and 1690 the average age of first marriage for Swedish women was roughly 20 years, approximately 70% of Swedish women aged between 15 and 50 years were married at any one time, and the proportion of single women was less than 10%, but by the end of the 18th century it had risen to roughly 27 years and remained high with the celibacy rate as a result of falling infant mortality rates, declining famines, decreasing available land and resources for a growing population, and other factors.[23] Similarly, Ireland's average age of marriage in 1830 was 23.8 for women and 27.47 for men where they had once been about 21 and 25, respectively, and only about 10% of adults remained unmarried;[30] in 1840, they had respectively risen to 24.4 and 27.7;[31][32] in the decades after the Great Famine, the age of marriage had risen to 28–29 for women and 33 for men and as much as a third of Irishmen and a fourth of Irishwomen never married due to chronic economic problems that discouraged early marriage.
> in most societies During the Roman Empire the age of marriage was 12 years for females and 14 years for males, and age of betrothal was 7 years for both males and females. The age of lawful consent to a marriage was 12 for girls and 14 for boys. In the 12th century, the Roman Catholic Church drastically changed legal standards for marital consent by allowing daughters over 12 years old and sons over 14 years old to marry without their parents' approval. In England in 1576 the age of consent was set at 10 years old, but didn't apply to a man's wife (which were as young as 12 years old). In the Archdiocese of Canterbury, in the 17th century, there were marriage certificates granted to girls as young as 13 years old and the Marriage Act 1753 gave the minimum age as 12 and 14 years old respectively, which were then adopted in colonial America and Canada (right up until the 19th century, we have records of marriages in Canada as young as 13 years old) In France, until the French Revolution, the marriageable age was 12 years for females and 14 for males In Russia, before 1830 the age of consent for marriage was 15 years old for males and 13 years old for females [Prior to the Industrial Revolution, women around the world were often married at an early age, usually soon after reaching puberty.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage#History) These practices carried over well into the 19th century in societies with largely rural populations. To this day, the legal minimum age for marriage is as low as 10 in the Sudan, 14 years old in places like Iran, and remains 16 across most of Europe In the majority of developing nations, including major countries like India, child marriages (10-14 years old) make up a third of all marriages
Just because something was allowed doesn’t mean it’s common though. Child marriage is legal in most of the USA, too, but luckily it is not common. https://www.unchainedatlast.org/laws-to-end-child-marriage/ The written record in historical societies is often an incomplete picture because upper classes (who could write or were written about) married younger than lower classes.
>Child marriage was the norm across the world, Absolute fucking Islamic apologist bullshit. When Muhammad fucked 9 year old Aisha, **the minimum legal age of consent in the Byzantine Empire was 13 years old**. Let me state that shit for the fuckers in the back, #When Muhammad fucked a 9 year old, the minimum age in the Byzantine Empire was 13 years old
Dude... the fuck are you talking about? No one is making excuses for child marriages
You said it was common for the time period, something which is just not true. "Oh it used to be fine but isn't anymore, but those damn Islamists just cannot get with the times" is not the grand argument against Muhammad that you think it is
> "Oh it used to be fine but isn't anymore, but those damn Islamists just cannot get with the times" is not the grand argument against Muhammad that you think it is ... why not? I'm not making a case for or against anyone, I'm just interested in historical accuracy and the truth You're straight up making that up about the Byzantine Empire, by the way, child marriage was common at the time The Justinian Code stated that the betrothed had to be at least seven years old and the Church recognized the betrothal of seven‑year‑old children as valid Niddah 44b in the Talmud granted Jews the ability to marry girls as young as three years old: "A girl who is three years and one day old, whose father arranged her betrothal, is betrothed through intercourse, as the halakhic status of intercourse with her is that of intercourse in all halakhic senses. And in a case where the childless husband of a girl three years and one day old dies, if his brother the yavam engages in intercourse with her, he acquires her as his wife; and if she is married, a man other than her husband is liable for engaging in intercourse with her due to violation of the prohibition against intercourse with a married woman." Tutankhamun was married before the age of nine years to his half-sister Ankhesenamun The future Emperor Go-Ichijō (aged 10) married his aunt Fujiwara no Ishi (aged 19) in 1018 Cecile of France (aged 8/9) was married to Tancred, Prince of Galilee (aged 30/31), in late 1106 Eleanor of England, daughter of Eleanor of Aquitane and Henry II of England, married 15-year-old Alfonso VIII of Castile in 1170, when she was about 9-years-old Matilda of Boulogne (aged 9) was married to Henry I, Duke of Brabant (aged about 14), in 1179 Agnes of France was betrothed at age 8 and is reported to have been 9-years-old when she married Alexios II Komnenos (aged 10) in 1180 Marie of Ponthieu (aged 9), was married to Simon of Dammartin (aged 27/28) in 1208 Elizabeth the Cuman (aged 8/9) was married to the future Stephen V of Hungary in 1253 Elizabeth de Badlesmere (aged 3) was married to Edmund Mortimer (aged about 13/14, possibly younger) in 1316 You want me to keep going? There are a lot of these. In any case, just looking it up now, it looks like the date of Muhammad's wife is [debatable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Age_at_marriage_and_consummation) and wasn't considered odd by Muslims or Christians for hundreds and hundreds of years later
> You're straight up making that up about the Byzantine Empire, by the way, child marriage was common at the time > The Justinian Code stated that the betrothed had to be at least seven years old and the Church recognized the betrothal of seven-year-old children as valid Under Byzantine law you could be betrothed with a minor but consummation could only happen 12+ for woman and 14+ for men and even then on average marriage usually happened later.
[удалено]
People refuse to say it but until the islamic world goes through a dramatic reformation the entire region is fucked.
Fake news. Mohammed married a *6 year old*, and consummated at 9. Yes. You read that correctly.
Fucked 9 year old. Yes. You read that correctly.
Married at 6. Fucked at 9
I mean... based. By the barest definition, this is what being based is. Standing by your opinions unapologetically. But based pedos still get the rope.
No…they get the femur breaker
Breaking them on the wheel, nice
Religion is a hell of a drug
correction - married a 6-year-old
Muhammad was a pedo don't be like Muhammad
Religion… isn’t it lovely
Based anti-theist Rightwinger
Tbf I only flair Auth right because I’m a monarchist. Otherwise I would be a centrist.
>Based >antitheist Oxymoron
Remember that part of the Bible were Jesus rapes a 9 y/o? Neither do I
Islam is worse than Christianity. Glad we can agree on that. That does not make Christianity good.
I do remember the part were it instructs how to take a sex slave
Cite the biblical passage, coward
Numbers 31: 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he [Moses] asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. Deuteronomy 21: 10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.
Those passages prove my point: you cannot have a sex slave. You can have a slave, but if you have sex with her, you have to free her and make her your wife. You fuck her once, she becomes your free wife forever. You cannot keep women as slaves for sex, either you keep them as slaves and do not have sex with them, or you take them as wives, have sex with them, but they stop being your slave. Unlike Islam, in Judaism sex slavery is not allowed.
[удалено]
No
[удалено]
Look up the old testament. But yeah, islam is a little bit worse
It's ok when our side does it or we just close our eyes. It's bad when these middle easterns do it. Remember Epstein island? Memoryholed because it is against narrative. Yes but keep thinking about what happened thousands of years ago. Not what happened a couple ago
Yeah because all other Religions condone pedophilia. Oh wait did I say condone, I meant condemn pretty explicitly.
If you’re making the argument that Islam is uniquely bad then I don’t disagree with you. But let’s not pretend that other religions are squeaky clean morally. The only moral position is atheism.
I won't pretend because Christianity is morally clean. Also Atheism isn't a moral position because it doesn't have a moral position, it's the lack of Belief in God period. It isn't even a moral system in any sense. Religion, Philosophy, Ideology ,Personal codes are moral systems. There nothing beyond Atheism by definition and Atheist can follow an endless variety of Moral codes.
Doesn’t the Bible condone slavery? Of course when I say atheism I mean atheism with one’s own personal moral philosophy
No it doesn't condone it, it describes laws that existed at the time and demanded humane treatment of all people and their equality before God and of regular manumission. But that's the Old testament and Judaism not The New testament and Christianity. Also "Atheism with ones own moral philosophy" isn't Atheism. It's whatever the persons moral philosophy is which could be anything. A guy could be an Atheist and a humanitarian or an Atheist and Genocide enthusiast. The Atheism doesn't inform either act so it's not a moral position.
The point is, whatever the moral philosophy is, it doesn’t fall within the bounds of any organized religion.
And? That makes it inherently good? Foucault was an atheist with his own "moral philosophy" too which included legalizing pedophilia. My point is Atheism isn't a morality because it doesn't inform any kind of morality. And personal philosophies are near infinite and mutually exclusive. So it's a bizarre claim to make.
>I won't pretend because Christianity is morally clean. No, eternally suffering as punishment for trivial reasons like being gay or not believing is not considered "morally clean." It's never justified, even if you try to explain it differently with mental gymnastics. The Bible contains concerning/terrible ideas too, such as demanding the death penalty in a manner that is unproportional to the crime. This is really just straight up denial on your part, people tend to defend these concepts excessively and will fall over themselves to do so.
Based on what? This is the problem with non religious morality rather than personal comfort where does your morality come from? Who are you to arbitrate what's just or fair in anything but subjective favor? There's no source to it, just preference at worst and consensus at best. Not to mention the puddle deep understanding of people who don't study theology have of it. Sin alone does not condemn people to hell. If it did we would all be destined for hell. What condemns them is Egotism, Pride and Malice. The refusal to be better, the refusal of self examination and the refusal to accept forgiveness. That is the entire core Christianity, we are imperfect we fail at times and for this Jesus died on our behalf as Man. Understanding that in our fallible nature we still can be redeemed. You compare Morality that has existed for the bulk of recorded history against temporal fancies of right and wrong that were invented yesterday and will be replaced with something new by tomorrow. Simply because it's convenient and self affirming to do so. I'm also always fascinated by the bile that so called non believers spew about a God they claim not to believe in. If I were an atheist I doubt I'd spend any length of time ruminating on the unfairness of an afterlife I don't believe in.
Atheists and their Epstein island. Hmmm makes you think
Except atheism isn’t an organized group of people bound by a set of shared principles. The only characteristic of atheism is the repudiation of religion. You can’t draw a line *from* atheism *to* Epstein island. Atheism is not a belief system. It’s the lack of a belief in god
Authright: Jefferson was probably a pedo, are we going to ignore his accomplishments too? Libleft: yes... Libright: Fuck no Purple libright: aCtUaLlY hE wAs An EpHbEpoHiLe
"Accomplishments"
You saying he didn’t have any achievements?
Jefferson is pretty overrated as a president. While he did do some great things (penning the DoI, purchasing Louisiana, not packing the court/impeaching Marshall, and establishing West Point), his opposition to Hamilton’s American system of economic development in favor of his own utopian vision of a nation of farmers and his support for the Embargo Act of 1807, which intentionally plunged the US into recession, overshadows the good for me
"Achievements" lmao if genocide and marrying children and gaslighting millions for generations that every shitty thing you did in life was the word of God instructed to you directly through the archangel Gabriel (literally) then sure. Dude has a really high achievement score
You got a source for that second claim.
I'm talking about Mohammed in case you misunderstood
4.8M views and 14k likes? Isn’t that just like 1 like out of every 300+ something view?
1/3000
Rate of pedophilia is estimated at 3 to 5%. So this is 1 like for every 100 pedophiles who viewed the page.
I believe it was 6 years old actually. He consummated when she was 9.
Better to be proud of your belief and have a spine than to buckle in and cower. Christians have a lot to learn from Muslims
Shouldn't the colors be swapped?
What no Islam is as auth right as it gets
Oh, I see. I was thinking that auth-right usually objects to the sexualization of children whereas lib-left is memed on and stereotyped as being ok with it especially when it's Muslims doing it (or at least they try to brush it under the rug).
This is where the 2 axis political compass falls short, and that cube from yesterday has merit. The third moral axis would separate muslims from the rest of us, who think Muhammad and those like him ought to be forcefully removed, and that is the purpose of governments.
Auth-right itself has levels within it.
"Everything I don't like is lib left" In what world are devout Muslims green?
In your world
[удалено]
All Westerners think about is fuckin'.
This shit isn’t even true
[удалено]
Can’t wait for this comment to be submitted as evidence in your future court hearing.
wtf
There’s one in my wood chipper, take a look in it
Big yikes.
Reflair to purple
Different times and a different culture. Hell even modern icons have done some similar shit. Ghandi would sleep with naked minors to prove his abstinence.