Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Grasping at straws man. Your first argument didn't pan out so now you're digging deeper in the crazy uninformed barrel.
First, menarche is getting later and later. Around then, menarche was experienced around 11 or 12, and there's no evidence that Muhammed (pbuh) had his wife stay with him until she reached at least that.
Second, marriage in today's terms are much different than those even 4 generations ago. Being married off to an important figure in society was common, "love" didn't come into it until around the 1880's here.
Third, there's a huge debate in Islam on which Hadiths are indeed authentic. There are many Sunni scholars that dedicate their entire professional lives to giving rulings on that subject alone, and Sufi and Shi'a scholars tend to disregard them outright.
Fourth, you seem to have been reading way too much of the hate sites that try to promote "the real Islam" without actually doing a lick of research. So, no, the first site you posted wasn't fact: it was opinion. For me to care about it references and citations are key, plus peer review. It was lacking that so I can only assume the person writing it had their own ax to grind with wonton disregard for facts and context.
And finally, how does my religion (which I chose for theological reasons) affect that flying a banner that real and true damage and pain is inconsiderate and flies in the face of true history? You're looking for moral justification and there's none to be found at this well. I'll help you out though: I'm also part Irish so why not grill me about my use and like of the Irish Free State (Modern Tri-colour) flag because it kind of represents the summer of terror.
You are the one who called an entire culture brown shirt Nazis all the while being involved with a "culture" that is far from stain free.
No culture is stain free, least of which the ones of which I'm a part of. Fortunately Yankees, Greeks, and the Irish have their low points as well as their high points. The Civil War pining though examples much of what is just terrible in humanity from the actual war to all the mythology after it. That particular symbol has too much baggage: from sharecropping, church bombings, the Jim Crow laws, to the KKK, all are associated with that banner and for good reason. All of which are totalitarian repressive forces. I have less problems with the CSA Flag, at least it has historical importance to the Civil War. I was referring to the use of the "Confederate Flag" as it is known today, which undeniably has powerful and tarnished recent history.
And why should I even care for the CSA or its' goals? First off, they lost and badly. Secondly, the entire system from 1800 to the Civil War was tilted in their favour, they were just upset that they didn't get their way 100% of the time. Sound more like whiny cry-babies then heroes. I'm sorry but to develop a country revolving around chattel slavery and crushing the common man is not something I would ever support. A caveat, the soldiers that joined the CSA after the North started their brutal war of attrition I genuinely sympathise with. However the upper elites that forced the issue I do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JViello
Lets assume she was 12 (Not likely) it's still pedophilia by any standard and none the less with a 53 year old pervert.
"Not likely?" You're the one making the claim, against centuries of research. Just because it doesn't fit into your boogeyman notions doesn't change it as the most likely scenario.
PS, It's not pedophilia when the person is consensual, in an arrangement not too outside of the social norms of their situation, and can produce children. Pedophilia as a disease has little to do with sexual vindication, anyway. He had many wives, mostly tribal arrangements to avoid conflict so why would Aisha be different? Again, grasping at straws.
Personally, I don't care if you bad mouth the Prophet. But I try to rebut any silly hate-filled rhetoric, kind of my nature. I used to defend the Jewish Talmud against similar attacks, which shares in this situation as fear of the easily researchable.
I dont think its got anything to do with the south winning, unless you didn't notice that wars been over a long time. I think its just a personal expression of a person of a rebellious nature or one that wishes to be viewed as such. I'v got a friend who's always had one on his front license plate. He always felt it expressed his frustration with an over bearing intrusive state govt.
Theres alot of things in CT a person might find reason to want to express rebellion against or resistance to, especially seeing as we call ourselves the "Constitution state" while regulateing everything under the sun with little respect for individual liberty or rights.
But hey, if folks want to believe its a ressurection of Dixieland I wont stop them.
Of course I noticed the war is over, hence "hoped".
The flag represents The Confedarate United states, sure there was some rebellion they no longer wanted to be aprt of the United States of America. Now why would a person feel accord with such thought it beyond me. You definitely don't need a flag to support states rights.
Of course I noticed the war is over, hence "hoped". The flag represents The Confedarate United states, sure there was some rebellion they no longer wanted to be aprt of the United States of America. Now why would a person feel accord with such thought it beyond me. You definitely don't need a flag to support states rights.
Ok I'll bite. A person could write volumes about why they wouldn't like or want to be part of the US both then or now. At the time they didn't want to because they saw the Feds as overstepping their Constitutional authority and they were correct. Whether you liked slavery or not it existed at the countries conception & was an accepted practice of many if not most of the founding fathers. So telling people in the south that because the north no longer liked it they should, no, they HAD to change their way of life was sure to cause conflict. Its a fact that most of the people in the South didn't even have slaves & were fighting more to protect their families & states from an invading army than to perpetuate slavery.
Today, while slavery is gone the feds still regularly overstep their constitutional limitations in scores of ways and some people resent that. While they may not wish to leave the union there is nothing wrong & everything right about expressing frustration with a govt run amuck.
There is NO constitutional provision permitting taxing personal income, theres no constitutional provision permitting banning of drugs, no constitutional provision permitting laws limiting the peoples acess to firearms, no constitutional provision for forcing us to participate in Social Security and the list goes on & on. If the constitution doesn't say the fed can do something then the fed cant do it. Yet they do & jails are full of people who violated laws that the law says the feds cannot have.
Is it your belief that we should support the allmighty hypocrites in Washington regardless of how THEY ignore the laws & persecute the people?
You may not NEED a flag to support states rights, but there is no reason you shouldn't if you so desire & if that flag means to you that the person flying it supports slavery or some other silly notion thats a personal problem. The Civil war was not about slavery & people flying the flag, if they are even flying it for political reasons, in most cases arent doing so to spread hatred. Its not a Swastica for crying out loud.
Whether you liked slavery or not it existed at the countries conception & was an accepted practice of many if not most of the founding fathers.
Yes and no. Slavery was a real point of contention in the formation of the Constitution. Many in the north didn't want slavery even then, and the southern reps either wanted to preserve the system outright in the text or establish a system that would protect it. The Connecticut and 3/5ths compromises were sloppy but done to keep everyone at the table. Here's the kicker though, many of the Southern Reps at the convention didn't see slavery expanding (although some clearly wished for it too) as holding slaves for cash crops was becoming increasingly unprofitable, this remained true until the invention of the cotton gin. Even after that, it was court cases that really ended up mucking the system up (the supreme court sided with the Southern interests in a failed attempt to stifle the boiling issue).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
So telling people in the south that because the north no longer liked it they should, no, they HAD to change their way of life was sure to cause conflict.
And the Southern areas were innocent of this? Not a chance, they often times tried to assert their policies at the complete detriment of the North, and in particular New England.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
Its a fact that most of the people in the South didn't even have slaves & were fighting more to protect their families & states from an invading army than to perpetuate slavery.
From what I understand, the North relied heavily on volunteers and the South relied primarily on conscription. And there were absolutely brutal attempts to perpetuate and expand slavery, remember "Bleeding Kansas" from high school civics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
Today, while slavery is gone the feds still regularly overstep their constitutional limitations in scores of ways and some people resent that.
There's a clear distinction between Unconstitutional and policy disagreements. It's hardly a perfect system but only about 9 members of the country at the time actually decide what is and what isn't according to the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
While they may not wish to leave the union there is nothing wrong & everything right about expressing frustration with a govt run amuck.
There's also not much wrong with thinking that people that take the Confederate flying approach inappropriate and silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
There is NO constitutional provision permitting taxing personal income,
If the constitution doesn't say the fed can do something then the fed cant do it. Yet they do & jails are full of people who violated laws that the law says the feds cannot have.
Centuries of law say otherwise. Marbury v Madison and the Louisiana Purchase are commonly thought to be the death of strict Constitutional reading in practice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
The Civil war was not about slavery & people flying the flag, if they are even flying it for political reasons, in most cases arent doing so to spread hatred.
The people in charge of the South during the Civil War would disagree with you on the point that it wasn't about slavery. Was it the only issue? Not even close. Was it the biggest aspect? Unquestionably.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
Its not a Swastica for crying out loud.
Interesting distinction. In some ways its' worse because the Rebel Flag nearly ONLY represents horrific events. The Swastika on the other hand also represents life and peace to Hindus. They still put it on their wedding invitations.
There is NO constitutional provision permitting taxing personal income
This is the most ludicrous thing I've read on here.
Assuming you've read the constitution, how could you make this statement?
The enumerated powers of congress in Article I SPECIFICALLY allow taxation at the federal level. And, beyond that, it's the FIRST in the list! The 'general welfare' part of the wording was left intentionally broad, and both the Supreme Court and Congress itself have interpreted in various ways since the inception of the country.
You may disagree with the correct boundaries of that term, but to state what I've quoted here is just flat out wrong on its face.
Ok I'll bite. A person could write volumes about why they wouldn't like or want to be part of the US both then or now. At the time they didn't want to because they saw the Feds as overstepping their Constitutional authority and they were correct. Whether you liked slavery or not it existed at the countries conception & was an accepted practice of many if not most of the founding fathers. So telling people in the south that because the north no longer liked it they should, no, they HAD to change their way of life was sure to cause conflict. Its a fact that most of the people in the South didn't even have slaves & were fighting more to protect their families & states from an invading army than to perpetuate slavery.
Today, while slavery is gone the feds still regularly overstep their constitutional limitations in scores of ways and some people resent that. While they may not wish to leave the union there is nothing wrong & everything right about expressing frustration with a govt run amuck.
There is NO constitutional provision permitting taxing personal income, theres no constitutional provision permitting banning of drugs, no constitutional provision permitting laws limiting the peoples acess to firearms, no constitutional provision for forcing us to participate in Social Security and the list goes on & on. If the constitution doesn't say the fed can do something then the fed cant do it. Yet they do & jails are full of people who violated laws that the law says the feds cannot have.
Is it your belief that we should support the allmighty hypocrites in Washington regardless of how THEY ignore the laws & persecute the people?
You may not NEED a flag to support states rights, but there is no reason you shouldn't if you so desire & if that flag means to you that the person flying it supports slavery or some other silly notion thats a personal problem. The Civil war was not about slavery & people flying the flag, if they are even flying it for political reasons, in most cases arent doing so to spread hatred. Its not a Swastica for crying out loud.
No the flag certainly supports slavery, as they were fighting for the state's right to continue with slavery. There is no intelligent way of separating the civil war and slavery. But that had nothing to do with what I said, that's your straw man. I never mentioned slavery. A person in the Southern United States flying the flag wouldn't seem odd, that was their flag, a person from CT flying it just looks like an idiot. In any event the Confederate Flag has nothing to do with rebelling against big government, there were likely proponents of small government in the North I'm sure they didn't fly the confederate flag. I submit anyone who flies is ignorant about the run up towards the Civil War as you appear to be.
racism... really?? maybe its pride and respect to their ancestors. if its so racist to you say something to the person, take a little pride in yourself and say what you have to say to that person.. atleast they have pride in whatever reason they're flying it. don't judge people because more than likely your wrong yet alone biased. in this country were allowed to fly flags as such, you don't like it move elsewhere. Other than that stop crying because i guarantee you, it will still be flying long after we're gone.
Well, this has been one interesting and, at times, humorous thread to read. I'm a Southerner, married to a Southerner, gave birth to one too - I even used to live on a plantation! Thus, I feel as though I can speak with some first hand experience on a few things. The Confederate flag has a long and varied history here in the South. The flag as a symbol really came about during the Civil Rights fight during the 60s. It was used both as a means of intimidation and method of protesting the federal government's move to push the South towards Civil Rights which was read as interference in state's rights. However, in the last twenty years or so, it has been met as a more regional symbol than anything else. Want to display a flag that really represents Southern pride and rebellion? Try the Bonnie Blue.
However, I think there was one poster that hit the nail on the proverbial head. We are quite proud of our states and our region and take any opportunity to display that pride. For example, here in South Carolina, you see people wearing and proudly displaying South Carolina gear all the time. It's just part of our lives. Additionally, people love to celebrate the South as a region because, to us, it represents our entire way of life and our pride in said culture. Something else to note is that we actually embrace our history - both the good and the bad. In some ways, I think we love to celebrate our defeats just to show how we could perservere even in the face of adversity. We are a lyrical and nostalgic people and thus our celebrating a defeat that shaped so much of our landscape and history goes hand in hand with those qualities.
Oh, and by the way, redneck still means redneck no matter which area of the country you are in, whether it be the North or the South. Yes, it does have a negative connotation and while some country singers may have songs about it, it's more of a tongue in cheek. People do not aspire to be rednecks, they just are. Might be why we get so darn angry when we hear television personalities calling all Southerners rednecks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Civil war was not about slavery & people flying the flag, if they are even flying it for political reasons, in most cases arent doing so to spread hatred. Its not a Swastica for crying out loud.
