PDA

View Full Version : What is hardline?



xsecx
08-17-2003, 12:22 PM
Hardline is not militant straight edge, as a lot of people seem to believe. Hardline began in Tennesee in 1986 and was an offshoot of the Straight edge movement.

Below is the hardline manifesto.

The time has come for an ideology and for a movement that is both physically and morally strong enough to do battle against the forces of evil that are destroying the earth (and all life upon it). One that cannot be bought, nor led astray by temptation. A movement free of the vices that sedate the mind and weaken the body. An ideology that is pure and righteous, without contradictions or inconsistencies. One that judges all things by one standard and emphasizes personal responsibility and accountability above all else. An overall view on life that not only deals with the external, but also the internal -- realizing that a
physical entity of oppression, such as the capitalist system (where all life is deemed an expendable resource), is merely an outward manifestation of the warped values held by the people who run the institutions that control our lives, influence our culture and destroy the earth.

It must also recognize the intrinsic flaw of single issue causes, where the concept of justice is always a selective one (with each special interest group fighting for the rights of those that fall under their personal concern, while neglecting, or in some cases, opposing those rights for others) -- moving beyond such failed approaches -- to a logical and all encompassing system of thought and program of action, which can and will succeed.

That ideology, that movement, is Hardline. A belief system, and a way of life that lives by one ethic -- that all innocent life is sacred, and must have the right to live out it's natural state of existence in peace, without interference, This single ethic ensures that all life, from a foetus, or a grown human (black, white, male or female), to an animal, or it's habitat, is guaranteed equal rights, with liberty for all, regardless of someone's personal bias against them. Under the principals of the Hardline ideology, all shall be permitted to do as they please as long as their actions do not harm, in any way, the rights of others. Any action that
does interfere with such rights shall not be considered a "right" in itself, and therefore shall not be tolerated. Those who hurt or destroy life around them, or create a situation in which that life or the quality of it is threatened shall from then on no longer be considered innocent, and in turn will no long have rights.

Adherents to the hardline will abide by these principals in daily life. They shall live at one with the laws of nature, and not forsake them for the desire of pleasure -- from deviant sexual acts and/or abortion, to drug use of any kind (and all other cases where ones harms all life around them under the pretext that they are just harming themselves). And, in following with the belief that one shall not infringe on an innocent's life - no animal product shall be consumed (be it flesh, milk or egg). Along with this purity of everyday life, the true hardliner must strive to liberate the rest of the world from it's chains - saving life in some cases, and in others, dealing out justice to those guilty of destroying it.

Only with this dedication, and conviction -- living a life that is in harmony with our stated goals and beliefs, gaining strength from out purity of body and mind, while actively opposing those who are guilty destroying the world with their poisonous thoughts, deeds and pollution, can we be victorious in the struggle.

flame_still_burns
08-18-2003, 05:03 PM
i don't think i've read that since i had the misfortune of buying the vegan reich 7".

although i will admit to tapping my foot once or twice to that raid band.

xsecx
08-18-2003, 05:05 PM
i don't think i've read that since i had the misfortune of buying the vegan reich 7".

although i will admit to tapping my foot once or twice to that raid band.

would you believe that the kids today think that hardline is the same as militant straight edge and use them interchangiably. I wonder if this makes Issac Golub sad.

flame_still_burns
08-18-2003, 05:12 PM
i know... the term "hardline" gets used incorrectly all the time.

since my finger isn't on the pulse anymore is there any remaining vestiges of a hardline scene? i thought maybe earth crisis might of inspired a slight resurgence.

xsecx
08-18-2003, 05:15 PM
i know... the term "hardline" gets used incorrectly all the time.

since my finger isn't on the pulse anymore is there any remaining vestiges of a hardline scene? i thought maybe earth crisis might of inspired a slight resurgence.

nah it's pretty much dead. which is why kids get away with misusing it.

flame_still_burns
08-18-2003, 05:22 PM
nah it's pretty much dead. which is why kids get away with misusing it.

if they had better bands they could have kept it going.

look how many kids started wearing tulsi beads and reading the bhagavad gita when ray went krishna. you can get kids into anything as long as the music is good.

flame_still_burns
08-18-2003, 05:36 PM
I wonder if this makes Issac Golub sad.

its quite funny you should mention issac golub because i was flying home from chicago today and i was in the middle seat listening to my headphones. for some reason i had chorus of disapproval with me and i played it. the guy next to me apparently could hear it and was giving me a strange look because i was in my pilot uniform and was listening to what he probably though was some heavy metal band.

speaking of bad covers..there version of DYS's wolfpack is beyond terrible.

Creation Imperfect
09-02-2003, 03:51 PM
What I dont understand, is that they still eat plants and stuff, when they're supposed to be giving all life equal rights...

Do plants not live? o.O

flame_still_burns
09-02-2003, 07:32 PM
in all seriousness i beleive that even the most steadfast carnivore would admit that there is a profound difference between animal and plant life. i believe that animals feel love and sadness. i don't believe plants do.

xsecx
09-02-2003, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Creation Imperfect
What I dont understand, is that they still eat plants and stuff, when they're supposed to be giving all life equal rights...

Do plants not live? o.O

a lot of people are fruitarian because of that.

Creation Imperfect
09-03-2003, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by flame_still_burns
in all seriousness i beleive that even the most steadfast carnivore would admit that there is a profound difference between animal and plant life. i believe that animals feel love and sadness. i don't believe plants do.

Of course there is a difference, but by going on what Dusty posted originally...they are just hypocritical when it comes to the fact that they belive the environment around us should have equal raights and yadda yadda...but still they eat it? Yet they dont eat animals?...


Originally posted by xsecx
a lot of people are fruitarian because of that.

Fruitarian AND vegan? What the hell do they eat?!

straightXed
09-03-2003, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Creation Imperfect
Of course there is a difference, but by going on what Dusty posted originally...they are just hypocritical when it comes to the fact that they belive the environment around us should have equal raights and yadda yadda...but still they eat it? Yet they dont eat animals?...



Fruitarian AND vegan? What the hell do they eat?!

fruit? and nuts.

Creation Imperfect
09-04-2003, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by straightXed
fruit? and nuts.

Oh yeah.... O.o *duh*

xvunderx
11-26-2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Creation Imperfect
Fruitarian AND vegan? What the hell do they eat?! [/B]

I used to know fruitarian, but I lost touch with him befor i could ask that question.

i think it had something to do with eating fruit etc that had fallen, and there for is already "dead" and cut off, or something like that.

sabresnmets
11-26-2003, 07:25 PM
so then they all use recycled paper, and shit like that, right? this seems like more of a hippie thing, am i right? it just seems like that is a hard way to live. it limits your way of life so much. not even the eating thing, ive talked about that before. it seems like you have to be too careful to me.

xvunderx
11-26-2003, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by sabresnmets
so then they all use recycled paper, and shit like that, right? this seems like more of a hippie thing, am i right? it just seems like that is a hard way to live. it limits your way of life so much. not even the eating thing, ive talked about that before. it seems like you have to be too careful to me.

I would say for me it's worring too much about the impact of your diet on the world, like it has to at that point become a huge part of your life. I guess for me to go vegan, and consentrate on other issues along side that would be a more productive life choice, but thats just me, and I;m only a half ass vegetarian.

sabresnmets
11-26-2003, 08:36 PM
i like the lion kings idea its all a part of the great circle of life. i guess if its a part of life then it just comes natural. but i just feel like i would be too careful that im not stepping on an ant hill or eating spiders in my sleep. (of course im going overboard but you know what im getting at)

XprennaX
11-30-2003, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by sabresnmets
so then they all use recycled paper, and shit like that, right? this seems like more of a hippie thing, am i right? it just seems like that is a hard way to live. it limits your way of life so much. not even the eating thing, ive talked about that before. it seems like you have to be too careful to me.

For one thing, it's not a hippy thing, it's just that some people care enough about the state of the planet to make certain changes to lessen their impact. It's not a hard way to live at all, it takes a little effort to change certain habits and that's it. When it comes down to it, it's all just a matter of whether you care enough or not. If environmental, human, and animal issues don't matter that much to you then you aren't going to make the effort to change. Those of us who think it is important enough live this way do, those who don't think it's that important don't.

This isn't meant as a value judgement by the way. I'm not saying that people who live this way are better, we just have different priorities is all.

LakeEffectGabe
12-05-2003, 02:04 PM
im vegan, straight edge, pro-life, against corporations and slave labor (dont buy from wal-mart, fast food chains, and so on) but im not down with the "dealing out justice" its not my place to do so. I will educate, but i wont kill or harm someone for doing other than myself. but yeah, i remember reading that a long time ago....and looking into and asking questions when i was posting here 3 years ago.

xsecx
12-05-2003, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by LakeEffectGabe
im vegan, straight edge, pro-life, against corporations and slave labor (dont buy from wal-mart, fast food chains, and so on) but im not down with the "dealing out justice" its not my place to do so. I will educate, but i wont kill or harm someone for doing other than myself. but yeah, i remember reading that a long time ago....and looking into and asking questions when i was posting here 3 years ago.

how do you reconcile being vegan, straight edge and christian?

LakeEffectGabe
12-05-2003, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
how do you reconcile being vegan, straight edge and christian?


im not sure i get what you mean...elaborate please and i will try and explain

xsecx
12-05-2003, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by LakeEffectGabe
im not sure i get what you mean...elaborate please and i will try and explain

how can you be all 3. I can understand being vegan and straight edge. I don't see how you can christian and vegan or christian and straight edge.

LakeEffectGabe
12-06-2003, 01:01 AM
ok i will try and explain my reasoning to the best of my ability...


as far as straight edge and christian, that's a tired argument gone over many times by many people. I've found it's up to a matter of opinion. If you can give my biblical facts saying sXe is wrong or to not be sXe, then I would take those facts into serious consideration...


now for vegan and christian...I don't see how there could be any problem with this whatsoever. God gave us dominion over the animals. They are ours to care for, and yes, even eat. However, man has twisted this privelage into something disgusting. With today's factory farms animals are pumped full of hormones, steroids, and basically a bunch of junk. They are treated inhumanely and genetically altered. Do I think God condones this? Not at all. Christians will say "Oh but God said to eat meat!" Well He said, let he who eats meat, eat meat; and let he does not, not. (not an exact quote, sorry I don't have my Bible right handy to look it up...if anyone can correct me if i'm wrong that would be much appreciated!). So regardless of the inhumane treatment, I don't see how it would be a problem to be christian and vegan. It's a choice. The use and consumption of animal products this day and age is completely unnecesary (sp?). There was a time when all that was available was leather for clothing, or meat, milk, and egg for essential vitamens. But in that time, nothing (or almost nothing) was wasted. There were not huge farms with animals packed into to tiny spaces, pumped full of chemicals and then sucked dry. If someone wants to eat meat from an animal raised properly without hormones or other chemicals I'd much sooner condone that than to grab a buger at McD's or even buy a slab of beef from Giant Eagle (or other grocery store...) However I would not eat it myself because like I said, it is unecesary (i need a spell checker).

Um I think I explained myself...It's kinda late and I'm kinda tired so I may have left something out...I guess I'll see what kind of response I get.

sabresnmets
12-06-2003, 01:32 AM
dont they have free range meat, the kind where there are no crap pumped into them and they can roam free in a real feild? and if there is anyone who has tasted it, does it taste any different?

XprennaX
12-06-2003, 04:35 AM
Originally posted by LakeEffectGabe
now for vegan and christian...I don't see how there could be any problem with this whatsoever. God gave us dominion over the animals. They are ours to care for, and yes, even eat. However, man has twisted this privelage into something disgusting. With today's factory farms animals are pumped full of hormones, steroids, and basically a bunch of junk. They are treated inhumanely and genetically altered. Do I think God condones this? Not at all. Christians will say "Oh but God said to eat meat!" Well He said, let he who eats meat, eat meat; and let he does not, not. (not an exact quote, sorry I don't have my Bible right handy to look it up...if anyone can correct me if i'm wrong that would be much appreciated!). So regardless of the inhumane treatment, I don't see how it would be a problem to be christian and vegan. It's a choice. The use and consumption of animal products this day and age is completely unnecesary (sp?). There was a time when all that was available was leather for clothing, or meat, milk, and egg for essential vitamens. But in that time, nothing (or almost nothing) was wasted. There were not huge farms with animals packed into to tiny spaces, pumped full of chemicals and then sucked dry. If someone wants to eat meat from an animal raised properly without hormones or other chemicals I'd much sooner condone that than to grab a buger at McD's or even buy a slab of beef from Giant Eagle (or other grocery store...) However I would not eat it myself because like I said, it is unecesary (i need a spell checker).


I can't remember the exact reference but I believe it may state in the Book of Timothy that it is sinful to be vegetarian and vegan. Something about how we must not refuse any of God's food that he provides for us.
How do you reconcile that with being both a xtian and vegan?

XprennaX
12-06-2003, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by sabresnmets
dont they have free range meat, the kind where there are no crap pumped into them and they can roam free in a real feild? and if there is anyone who has tasted it, does it taste any different?

The legal definition of free range in relation to chickens is that the enclosures must be above a certain size, which I can't remember off the top of my head but it isn't big. The idea that free range chickens are allowed to wander around playing in the farmyard is in most cases nonsense. Your livestock can still be called free range even if you pump them full of chemicals and hormones. It is only organic meat that isn't allowed to be fed that kind of stuff.

xsecx
12-06-2003, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by LakeEffectGabe
ok i will try and explain my reasoning to the best of my ability...


as far as straight edge and christian, that's a tired argument gone over many times by many people. I've found it's up to a matter of opinion. If you can give my biblical facts saying sXe is wrong or to not be sXe, then I would take those facts into serious consideration...


now for vegan and christian...I don't see how there could be any problem with this whatsoever. God gave us dominion over the animals. They are ours to care for, and yes, even eat. However, man has twisted this privelage into something disgusting. With today's factory farms animals are pumped full of hormones, steroids, and basically a bunch of junk. They are treated inhumanely and genetically altered. Do I think God condones this? Not at all. Christians will say "Oh but God said to eat meat!" Well He said, let he who eats meat, eat meat; and let he does not, not. (not an exact quote, sorry I don't have my Bible right handy to look it up...if anyone can correct me if i'm wrong that would be much appreciated!). So regardless of the inhumane treatment, I don't see how it would be a problem to be christian and vegan. It's a choice. The use and consumption of animal products this day and age is completely unnecesary (sp?). There was a time when all that was available was leather for clothing, or meat, milk, and egg for essential vitamens. But in that time, nothing (or almost nothing) was wasted. There were not huge farms with animals packed into to tiny spaces, pumped full of chemicals and then sucked dry. If someone wants to eat meat from an animal raised properly without hormones or other chemicals I'd much sooner condone that than to grab a buger at McD's or even buy a slab of beef from Giant Eagle (or other grocery store...) However I would not eat it myself because like I said, it is unecesary (i need a spell checker).

Um I think I explained myself...It's kinda late and I'm kinda tired so I may have left something out...I guess I'll see what kind of response I get.

the logic is pretty simple. jesus is god right? jesus is without fault and without sin, right? Therefore you should do everything jesus did.
To say that something jesus did was wrong is to say that he is without fault. Therefore introducing that the fact that god is flawed. Conclusion god was wrong. God can't be wrong by definition.

LakeEffectGabe
12-06-2003, 12:42 PM
to prenna: please show me this verse*. do you think God would condone what is going on within the meat industry?

to sec: when did i say anything Jesus did was wrong? If you are referring to Him drinking wine or eating fish, I think you are stretching what I said.




*edit

xsecx
12-06-2003, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by LakeEffectGabe
to prenna: please show me this verse*. do you think God would condone what is going on within the meat industry?

to sec: when did i say anything Jesus did was wrong? If you are referring to Him drinking wine or eating fish, I think you are stretching what I said.




*edit

If Jesus isn't wrong, then why don't you eat meat or drink wine?

LakeEffectGabe
12-06-2003, 09:51 PM
there is no need to eat meat or drink wine as there was then.

xsecx
12-06-2003, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by LakeEffectGabe
there is no need to eat meat or drink wine as there was then.

vegetarians existed then as did people who didn't drink.

like I said if Jesus was right why was he only right within the context of a specific time period?

coughslashcool
01-12-2004, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
If Jesus isn't wrong, then why don't you eat meat or drink wine?

are there any verses in the bible that say jesus was eating fish or drinking wine, or just that he fed people fish and made wine from water?

xsecx
01-12-2004, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by coughslashcool
are there any verses in the bible that say jesus was eating fish or drinking wine, or just that he fed people fish and made wine from water?

last supper he drank wine. there's also verses that are considered by some that jesus got drink. when I"m not at work I'll look them up.

coughslashcool
01-12-2004, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
last supper he drank wine. there's also verses that are considered by some that jesus got drink. when I"m not at work I'll look them up.

word, id like to see them.

xsecx
01-12-2004, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by coughslashcool
word, id like to see them.

Matthew 11 19
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' But wisdom is proved right by her actions."


Mark 14 25
"I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God."


Luke 24


Jesus Appears to the Disciples

36While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."
37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."
40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.

coughslashcool
01-13-2004, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
Matthew 11 19
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' But wisdom is proved right by her actions."


Mark 14 25
"I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God."


Luke 24


Jesus Appears to the Disciples

36While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."
37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."
40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.

well there you go.

adr
01-19-2004, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by LakeEffectGabe
to prenna: please show me this verse*. do you think God would condone what is going on within the meat industry?

Sorry to butt in where I wasn't called, but if prenna hasn't told you the verse, it's Timothy 4 1-5.

"1 Now that the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of the devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their concience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be recieved with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."

Sorry if that's not the one you meant prenna, I had a look and that's what I found.

veganedge
09-21-2004, 07:05 PM
My beliefs are very close to hardline.... And just as a vegan edge kid I try to use recycled paper/plastics as much as possible, buy organic fruits/vegetables.... it's not that hard... To me hardline is more of an extreme vegan aspect, not extreme straightedge.... it comes down to this, being straightedge does nothing, being vegan does.... standing up against injustice does....

xsecx
09-21-2004, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by veganedge
My beliefs are very close to hardline.... And just as a vegan edge kid I try to use recycled paper/plastics as much as possible, buy organic fruits/vegetables.... it's not that hard... To me hardline is more of an extreme vegan aspect, not extreme straightedge.... it comes down to this, being straightedge does nothing, being vegan does.... standing up against injustice does....

how does being straight edge do nothing but being vegan does?

veganedge
09-21-2004, 07:21 PM
I guess being edge does something slowly, if you try to convince others that this is how they should live....

By being vegan you no longer kill, rape, or imprison animals. You are directly living in peace with animals. Being vegan doesn't just mean a vegan diet... you stop buying products that are tested on animals, stop supporting circuses and other things with animal exploitation, you stop wearing dead animals as leather,fur,suede,nubuck......

xsecx
09-21-2004, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by veganedge
I guess being edge does something slowly, if you try to convince others that this is how they should live....

By being vegan you no longer kill, rape, or imprison animals. You are directly living in peace with animals. Being vegan doesn't just mean a vegan diet... you stop buying products that are tested on animals, stop supporting circuses and other things with animal exploitation, you stop wearing dead animals as leather,fur,suede,nubuck......

so by being edge you're not directly living in peace with people? you stop buying products that are related to drugs and alcohol. You stop supporting bars and drug dealers. you stop adding to human suffering.

every action and every choice effects change.

veganedge
09-21-2004, 07:26 PM
what if you aren't edge, but you don't drink, smoke, use illegal drugs??? many people don't do those, but aren't edge.... there's a difference.

xsecx
09-21-2004, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by veganedge
what if you aren't edge, but you don't drink, smoke, use illegal drugs??? many people don't do those, but aren't edge.... there's a difference.

they're still effecting change then, aren't they?

veganedge
09-21-2004, 07:29 PM
yes, but I'm asking what are EDGE kids doing? Maybe what I should really be asking is is it enough?

xsecx
09-21-2004, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by veganedge
yes, but I'm asking what are EDGE kids doing? Maybe what I should really be asking is is it enough?

in terms of what? do you honestly believe that you can't be an agent of change based on how you live your life and the choices you make?

how do you measure change? is it a contest?

veganedge
09-21-2004, 07:35 PM
you're going off the point.... you asked why vegans are making a change and straightedge kids aren't... they are. They are just making the same change as people who aren't straightedge but don't do those things. So, that's not neccessarily sxe people making changes. How are straightedge people making a change, that normal people aren't...

veganedge
09-21-2004, 07:37 PM
also just by being sxe you aren't not adding to human suffering. what about if you still buy clothing from nike, gap, or other known sweatshops?

xsecx
09-21-2004, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by veganedge
you're going off the point.... you asked why vegans are making a change and straightedge kids aren't... they are. They are just making the same change as people who aren't straightedge but don't do those things. So, that's not neccessarily sxe people making changes. How are straightedge people making a change, that normal people aren't...

I'm not going off the point at all. you are trying to play one against the other like it's a contest.

So following your logic, what are vegans doing that really poor people in underdeveloped countries aren't already doing? How do you measure change?

Being vegan is a label. it's nothing more. it's a lack of consuming something.

straightXed
09-21-2004, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by veganedge
you're going off the point.... you asked why vegans are making a change and straightedge kids aren't... they are. They are just making the same change as people who aren't straightedge but don't do those things. So, that's not neccessarily sxe people making changes. How are straightedge people making a change, that normal people aren't...

so what about lactose intollerant people, they don't support the dairy industry but they aren't vegan, and people who cut out dairy and meat for health reasons. therefore vegans are just making changes that other people are also.

straightXed
09-21-2004, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by veganedge
also just by being sxe you aren't not adding to human suffering. what about if you still buy clothing from nike, gap, or other known sweatshops?

life is suffering :)

xsecx
09-21-2004, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by veganedge
also just by being sxe you aren't not adding to human suffering. what about if you still buy clothing from nike, gap, or other known sweatshops?

double negative homie.

do you drive a car? ever buy film? travel by anything other than a bike?

veganedge
09-21-2004, 10:19 PM
So following your logic, what are vegans doing that really poor people in underdeveloped countries aren't already doing? How do you measure change?

I'm making a change where I live...Really poor people usually live in balance with the earth (a sustainable life), don't really need to make a change for their species to survive like western countries do.....


so what about lactose intollerant people, they don't support the dairy industry but they aren't vegan, and people who cut out dairy and meat for health reasons. therefore vegans are just making changes that other people are also.

veganism is more than just your diet, just like sxe is more than just abstaining.....


do you drive a car? ever buy film? travel by anything other than a bike?

yes, I do drive a car when needed (in my current situation of having a 1 1/2 yr old daughter I can't due to weather...) no I don't buy film, I use digital.... I do the best I can and I strive to do better, that's all I can do. And that's all I ask everybody to do.

xsecx
09-22-2004, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by veganedge
I'm making a change where I live...Really poor people usually live in balance with the earth (a sustainable life), don't really need to make a change for their species to survive like western countries do.....


and you completely ignored the second half the question. how do you measure change? How are people in non western countries apart of a different species? How is survial the root issue? Survial of what?



veganism is more than just your diet, just like sxe is more than just abstaining.....


How is veganism more than just not consuming?



yes, I do drive a car when needed (in my current situation of having a 1 1/2 yr old daughter I can't due to weather...) no I don't buy film, I use digital.... I do the best I can and I strive to do better, that's all I can do. And that's all I ask everybody to do.

So then why are you going to make comparisons and statements that the only thing that matters is being vegan? That nothing else encourages or adds to change? How do you know that there is a greater impact from being vegan than another behavior? And if you do, why does it matter?

XprennaX
09-22-2004, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by veganedge
I guess being edge does something slowly, if you try to convince others that this is how they should live....

By being vegan you no longer kill, rape, or imprison animals. You are directly living in peace with animals. Being vegan doesn't just mean a vegan diet... you stop buying products that are tested on animals, stop supporting circuses and other things with animal exploitation, you stop wearing dead animals as leather,fur,suede,nubuck......

I'm jumping into this late but I have to point out that you're wrong on your initial argument. Veganism is only about ceasing the consuming and wearing of animal products. Vegans could theoretically still support zoos, circuses and other forms of animal slavery. There are people who are vegan for health reasons alone so they don't avoid the other aspects of animal slavery.

Both straightedge and veganism create change as they both begin the process of shifting the marketplace. Straightedge cuts down the demand for alcohol and drugs, which in turn affects the amount of these products being a part of society. Veganism shifts that marketplace away from animal products, which affects the amount of animals enslaved and killed as well as the impact on the environment. Just because it seems like a higher percentage of vegans get involved in other aspects of changing society/the world, does not mean that veganism inherently does more than straightedge to change things.

XprennaX
09-22-2004, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by adr
Sorry to butt in where I wasn't called, but if prenna hasn't told you the verse, it's Timothy 4 1-5.

"1 Now that the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of the devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their concience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be recieved with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."

Sorry if that's not the one you meant prenna, I had a look and that's what I found.

I know this is really old (I'd forgot all about it) but yes that is the verse I was meaning.

veganedge
09-22-2004, 12:11 PM
and you completely ignored the second half the question. how do you measure change? How are people in non western countries apart of a different species? How is survial the root issue? Survial of what?

I'm not really sure how I measure change, how do you measure change? They are not part of a different species, their species is our species.... But they live differently than we do, and it shows. I didn't say surviving was the root issue, it's just that we need to change to survive. We are destroying the earth and all life that is inhabiting it.


How is veganism more than just not consuming?

It's not (if your definition of consuming is based off of consumer, not consuming as in ingesting).


So then why are you going to make comparisons and statements that the only thing that matters is being vegan? That nothing else encourages or adds to change? How do you know that there is a greater impact from being vegan than another behavior? And if you do, why does it matter?

I'm not... veganism is not the ONLY thing that matters, it's just very important. I agree that everything adds to change it's just a matter of degree. I know there is a greater impact from being vegan than being sxe, I said nothing about any other behaviors. It matters because we should all being doing all we can.

veganedge
09-22-2004, 12:15 PM
I'm jumping into this late but I have to point out that you're wrong on your initial argument. Veganism is only about ceasing the consuming and wearing of animal products. Vegans could theoretically still support zoos, circuses and other forms of animal slavery. There are people who are vegan for health reasons alone so they don't avoid the other aspects of animal slavery.

I'm sorry to say, but no veganism is not just about your diet. A vegan diet is, but not veganism... Being vegan (not just eating a vegan diet) means that animals are not here for our appetites, for us to wear, to experiment on, or exploit in entertainment....
I use to believe as you that it was just a vegan diet, but I now believe that it is more. You're welcome to your opinion (not that you need my permission).

XprennaX
09-22-2004, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by veganedge
I'm sorry to say, but no veganism is not just about your diet. A vegan diet is, but not veganism... Being vegan (not just eating a vegan diet) means that animals are not here for our appetites, for us to wear, to experiment on, or exploit in entertainment....
I use to believe as you that it was just a vegan diet, but I now believe that it is more. You're welcome to your opinion (not that you need my permission).

Well as it is defined by the Vegan Society, who actually created the term, it is only a matter of consumption. It doesn't matter what the johnny-come-lately's would have people believe, veganism (and being vegan) is purely a matter of what you consume.

xsecx
09-22-2004, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by veganedge
I'm not really sure how I measure change, how do you measure change? They are not part of a different species, their species is our species.... But they live differently than we do, and it shows. I didn't say surviving was the root issue, it's just that we need to change to survive. We are destroying the earth and all life that is inhabiting it.


I don't. I'm not the one making a contest out of it. They live differently because they have to, not because they choose to. What shows is socio economic factors and not willing veganism.



It's not (if your definition of consuming is based off of consumer, not consuming as in ingesting).


you just said it was?



I'm not... veganism is not the ONLY thing that matters, it's just very important. I agree that everything adds to change it's just a matter of degree. I know there is a greater impact from being vegan than being sxe, I said nothing about any other behaviors. It matters because we should all being doing all we can.

How do you know that there is a greater impact from being vegan than being sxe? how can you even measure it? That's the entire point. You're making the assumption and therefore the comparison that one is a greater force of change than the other with no way of measurement.

heraclitus
11-07-2004, 01:07 PM
From an interview with Sean Muttaqi, the creator of the hardline movement.

Being a Muslim, do you think it necessary to claim to be straightedge, since religion already prohibits drinking and having promiscuous sex, do you see anything wrong with a Muslim claiming to be straightedge?

One can be a Muslim and still be a part of various tariqas or "paths" as long as they don't conflict with the basic understanding that Allah is One. I mean, even though the message of Islam is universalism, if one is living in an occupied country, it would be in line with Islam's principles of Justice to be a part of a "nationalist" movement to throw the oppressors out. Likewise, one could be a part of a martial arts society, and similarly, "Straight Edge" is a path that one can be a part of while being a Muslim. Obviously there are a lot of similarities, and I can see the natural affiliation and desire for Muslim kids to be a part of it (especially in the West, where they are lacking Islamic movements to be a part of). However, I think it must be seen for what it is, and equally for what it isn't. Certainly, "Straight Edge" did not bring to this earth, the message of drug free living, and sexual morality. It is the message that every Prophet has brought, and it exists in the true form of every world religion. So people should not confuse the level of importance of "Straight Edge" in and of itself. Also, one should not elevate western notions of morality above their religious background. By this, I mean, the notion of abstinence and purity runs through every culture and religion. However, within many of these same spiritual paths, are also certain beliefs that may on the external level seem to conflict with the western notion of purity or morality. For instance, many Native American Indians, who are absolutely against drug use, do use peyote in their spiritual ceremonies. Some Muslim holy men smoke a pipe. What one shouldn't do, is make the mistake of thinking that the "Straight Edge" perception of reality and of right and wrong, is automatically superior to the ancient spiritual traditions perception of such things. This is not to say that everything which is "tradition" is automatically superior. But it is saying to beware replacing one's own vast cultural and spiritual understanding of things, with a more simplistic western notion, which is based upon the song of one man who didn't even hold true to his own words.

thexbarrettx
02-01-2005, 12:31 PM
i know... the term "hardline" gets used incorrectly all the time.

since my finger isn't on the pulse anymore is there any remaining vestiges of a hardline scene? i thought maybe earth crisis might of inspired a slight resurgence.

i am hardline, some people mistake hardline with hate edge, especially around here (northern utah) so i just go by straight edge.

thexbarrettx
02-01-2005, 12:42 PM
yes, but I'm asking what are EDGE kids doing? Maybe what I should really be asking is is it enough?


im sorry im posting this so late in the thread, but i felt i had something to say. edge kids are taking those values of not drinking, smoking, etc... and bringing them into the hardrock community where they are most present, to say that edge is not having an effect is absurd, its just that the forum they choose to try and effect is much more corrupt and therefore the change is less noticable as it is not dominant enough as of yet to be fully appreciated by the masses. i hope everyone understood all that.

xsecx
02-01-2005, 01:24 PM
i am hardline, some people mistake hardline with hate edge, especially around here (northern utah) so i just go by straight edge.
hardline doesn't exist anymore. unless you count the crazy muslim guys that hardline became.

pineapple
02-02-2005, 12:15 AM
ok so fruits nuts and then limiting ourselves from what we can eat ok whatever floats every 1's boats

xsecx
02-02-2005, 08:28 AM
ok so fruits nuts and then limiting ourselves from what we can eat ok whatever floats every 1's boats
yes. if you wanted to be hardline. which no one here is.

xResolvex
03-14-2005, 09:05 PM
i dont think anyone uses the term hardline for themself anymore after the events in Salt Lake. Its a retarded idea with lots of holes, like a steven king novel.

xsecx
03-14-2005, 09:08 PM
i dont think anyone uses the term hardline for themself anymore after the events in Salt Lake. Its a retarded idea with lots of holes, like a steven king novel.
most of the slc kids weren't hardline.

xGriffox
03-14-2005, 09:14 PM
most of the slc kids weren't hardline.

what happened in SLC?

xResolvex
03-14-2005, 09:20 PM
most of the slc kids weren't hardline.
no, but the ones who firebombed tandy leather and mcdonalds were.

xResolvex
03-14-2005, 09:20 PM
what happened in SLC?
just look up straight edge 20/20, they did a huge report on it in 1998 and it got straightedgers on the list of potential threats for the winter olympics there

xGriffox
03-14-2005, 09:25 PM
just look up straight edge 20/20, they did a huge report on it in 1998 and it got straightedgers on the list of potential threats for the winter olympics there


OHH YEAH! i read about edge people being on a list of "terrorist organizations" who might try to mess up the winter olympics. disregard my last post.

xsecx
03-15-2005, 06:04 AM
no, but the ones who firebombed tandy leather and mcdonalds were.

and the ones that knifed the kid weren't.

xResolvex
03-15-2005, 08:57 AM
and the ones that knifed the kid weren't.
wait, did the guy that knifed the kid get straightedge on a terrorist watch list? i dont think so. quit trying to sound intelligent, and cram your bentedge bs.

xsecx
03-15-2005, 09:05 AM
wait, did the guy that knifed the kid get straightedge on a terrorist watch list? i dont think so. quit trying to sound intelligent, and cram your bentedge bs.


actually yes, because it's what got the SLC pd to put them on a gang list, which in turn got it on the watchlist, you fucking newjack idiot.

xResolvex
03-15-2005, 09:07 AM
i believe the correct spelling is "nujack". get in touch with your thug side.

the slc pd already knew about the mcdonalds and tandy leather incidents before the knifing, as well as various assaults on people in the street.

xsecx
03-15-2005, 09:09 AM
i believe the correct spelling is "nujack". get in touch with your thug side.

the slc pd already knew about the mcdonalds and tandy leather incidents before the knifing, as well as various assaults on people in the street.

where you around when it was all happening? Were you involved in straight edge then?

xResolvex
03-15-2005, 09:14 AM
does it matter? ive read all the pd reports and all that stuff already.

and if you are gonna point that out, id like to point out that you werent involved either because you dont even support a clean lifestyle.

xsecx
03-15-2005, 09:16 AM
does it matter? ive read all the pd reports and all that stuff already.

and if you are gonna point that out, id like to point out that you werent involved either because you dont even support a clean lifestyle.
actually yeah it does.

I don't even support a clean lifestyle? how so, exactly?

xResolvex
03-15-2005, 09:24 AM
actually yeah it does.

I don't even support a clean lifestyle? how so, exactly?
because you dont even know what straightedge is. you are just like those militant fags over at seventhdagger that think using a rubber is respecting themselves.

xsecx
03-15-2005, 09:28 AM
because you dont even know what straightedge is. you are just like those militant fags over at seventhdagger that think using a rubber is respecting themselves.

you really like just making statements and not backing it up, huh? How don't I know what straight edge is, exactly.

xResolvex
03-15-2005, 09:34 AM
well you dont even believe in the tenents of straightedge. i mean no promiscuous sex is and always has been part of it.

xsecx
03-15-2005, 09:41 AM
well you dont even believe in the tenents of straightedge. i mean no promiscuous sex is and always has been part of it.

not really no. it was in one song. and some people listened to that song and took half it to heart and ignored the second half where it talks about how this isn't a set of rules. and apparently since you've run into a similar viewpoint at seventh dagger, then can't really say it's always been part of it, can you?

straightXed
03-15-2005, 11:43 AM
well you dont even believe in the tenents of straightedge. i mean no promiscuous sex is and always has been part of it.


Well talk about jumping to conclusions, isn't a tennent of straightedge although some people choose to adhere to that along side straightedge, just like veganism isn't straightedge. Many many people don't see sex as a tennent of straightedge but how does that make them unclean you dopey twonk? Where have you got the idea he participates in promiscuity?

im apirate
05-05-2005, 08:19 PM
If everyone was a Hardliner. The planet would be destroyed. If you can only use recycled paper, No one would ahve used the first original piece of paper. If we all ate nuts and berries, the enviornment would collapse due to lack of plant life in the world. This would result to a catostrophic drop in oxygen levels. then. the sXe kids, and vegetarians and such, etc. would tehn be the ones eatin gmeat, and doing all the toehr things. to stable out the world.

My View on things.
xDanx

xResolvex
05-05-2005, 11:16 PM
If everyone was a Hardliner. The planet would be destroyed. If you can only use recycled paper, No one would ahve used the first original piece of paper. If we all ate nuts and berries, the enviornment would collapse due to lack of plant life in the world. This would result to a catostrophic drop in oxygen levels. then. the sXe kids, and vegetarians and such, etc. would tehn be the ones eatin gmeat, and doing all the toehr things. to stable out the world.

My View on things.
xDanx

first, recycled paper - hardline is a recent thing, so that is kinda retarded that you brought up paper.

second, berries - there is enough natural food in the world to support EVERYONE, bigger nations have stores though "just in case". the problem is not coming up short, but being greedy. there are plenty of plants nobody fucking eats to provide oxygen.

edge has nothing to do with veganism, and if everyone was hardline then these two labels would cease to exist wouldnt they? good try though.

xsecx
05-06-2005, 08:41 AM
If everyone was a Hardliner. The planet would be destroyed. If you can only use recycled paper, No one would ahve used the first original piece of paper. If we all ate nuts and berries, the enviornment would collapse due to lack of plant life in the world. This would result to a catostrophic drop in oxygen levels. then. the sXe kids, and vegetarians and such, etc. would tehn be the ones eatin gmeat, and doing all the toehr things. to stable out the world.

My View on things.
xDanx

you have a weird idea on how veganism and the world works. I don't know how you go from people only eating nuts and berries to the environment collapsing due to a lack of plant life.

XuntaintdbloodX
07-11-2005, 11:31 AM
the logic is pretty simple. jesus is god right? jesus is without fault and without sin, right? Therefore you should do everything jesus did.
To say that something jesus did was wrong is to say that he is without fault. Therefore introducing that the fact that god is flawed. Conclusion god was wrong. God can't be wrong by definition.


jesus didnt do heroin and wasnt a christian, christians say it is wrong to be a jew, if this was true jesus knew who he was and should have broke off from jeudism but then that would have made god mad... that statement is just to broad

XuntaintdbloodX
07-11-2005, 11:41 AM
yes, but I'm asking what are EDGE kids doing? Maybe what I should really be asking is is it enough?


are you supporting the use of drugs but not the use of animals??? i think there is a mix up of priorities. not eating meat isnt really good for you

O_o
07-11-2005, 12:18 PM
are you supporting the use of drugs but not the use of animals??? i think there is a mix up of priorities. not eating meat isnt really good for you
if I understand correctly, you are saying that not eating meat is not good for you?
explain please.
O_o

XuntaintdbloodX
07-11-2005, 01:11 PM
if I understand correctly, you are saying that not eating meat is not good for you?
explain please.
O_o

yes that is what i am saying, besides the people who do not eat meat for truly dietrary problems like high cholestoral or whatever it really is not healthy to not eat meat. the protein and other vitamins in it are good for your body and help balance it out. I agree though that the crap the farmers put into the meat is not good for you bot preservatives and pesticides are in everything else what doesnt kill you makes you stronger i guess. but this is my opinion dont ask me to back it up i'm not going to waste my time to as you like, there are healthy alternitives but i dont think they are as healthy as eating normal meat would be i am no doctor... plus i hear soy is nasty

O_o
07-11-2005, 02:51 PM
yes that is what i am saying, besides the people who do not eat meat for truly dietrary problems like high cholestoral or whatever it really is not healthy to not eat meat. the protein and other vitamins in it are good for your body and help balance it out. I agree though that the crap the farmers put into the meat is not good for you bot preservatives and pesticides are in everything else what doesnt kill you makes you stronger i guess. but this is my opinion dont ask me to back it up i'm not going to waste my time to as you like, there are healthy alternitives but i dont think they are as healthy as eating normal meat would be i am no doctor... plus i hear soy is nasty
ok then. I'm seriously considering eating meat again, after more than ten years without it, and no medical problems, thanks to your explanation!
I just love it when people say 'I hear this or that is nasty'!

...

O_o

XuntaintdbloodX
07-11-2005, 03:13 PM
ok then. I'm seriously considering eating meat again, after more than ten years without it, and no medical problems, thanks to your explanation!
I just love it when people say 'I hear this or that is nasty'!

...

O_o


glad i could change your mind! =D

xsecx
07-11-2005, 08:02 PM
jesus didnt do heroin and wasnt a christian, christians say it is wrong to be a jew, if this was true jesus knew who he was and should have broke off from jeudism but then that would have made god mad... that statement is just to broad

this statement doesn't make any sense.

xsecx
07-11-2005, 08:04 PM
yes that is what i am saying, besides the people who do not eat meat for truly dietrary problems like high cholestoral or whatever it really is not healthy to not eat meat. the protein and other vitamins in it are good for your body and help balance it out. I agree though that the crap the farmers put into the meat is not good for you bot preservatives and pesticides are in everything else what doesnt kill you makes you stronger i guess. but this is my opinion dont ask me to back it up i'm not going to waste my time to as you like, there are healthy alternitives but i dont think they are as healthy as eating normal meat would be i am no doctor... plus i hear soy is nasty

wow. you're a really uninformed idiot.

XuntaintdbloodX
07-12-2005, 08:32 AM
wow. you're a really uninformed idiot.

i try to be as scene as possible

straightXed
07-12-2005, 05:45 PM
i try to be as scene as possible

By scene you mean dumb.

drughate_vegan
09-20-2005, 05:02 AM
http://www.vegan-straight-edge.org.uk/

straightXed
09-20-2005, 10:34 AM
http://www.vegan-straight-edge.org.uk/

Theres an old site that i haven't seen in ages, i swear no one updates that site ever.

drughate_vegan
09-21-2005, 11:15 PM
Theres an old site that i haven't seen in ages, i swear no one updates that site ever.
that sucks.

xstepaheadx
11-06-2005, 06:04 PM
i know... the term "hardline" gets used incorrectly all the time.

since my finger isn't on the pulse anymore is there any remaining vestiges of a hardline scene? i thought maybe earth crisis might of inspired a slight resurgence.


I know what you mean I have a friend thats try to tell me all these things hardline people have done nad hes bin sending me articles

xstepaheadx
11-06-2005, 06:09 PM
ok so after reading this manifesto I'm having a problem with it when it says "all shall be permitted to do as they please as long as their actions do not harm, in any way, the rights of others."

would that prove that hardline would be a volence free way of living?

xsecx
11-06-2005, 08:57 PM
ok so after reading this manifesto I'm having a problem with it when it says "all shall be permitted to do as they please as long as their actions do not harm, in any way, the rights of others."

would that prove that hardline would be a volence free way of living?

hardline was never a violent free way of living though, even by the guy who wrote the manifesto.

xCrucialDudex
08-18-2006, 11:43 AM
dusty, you previously said that hardline does not exist anymore, but still I guess there are kids out there following the manifesto. Is hardline movement supposed to have a certain number of participants who are an organized entity in order we could consider it alive, not dead? Is it so?

xsecx
08-18-2006, 11:45 AM
dusty, you previously said that hardline does not exist anymore, but still I guess there are kids out there following the manifesto. Is hardline movement supposed to have a certain number of participants who are an organized entity in order we could consider it alive, not dead? Is it so?

yes, hardline was an actual organization with a head and an official roster. the dude who ran it disbanded it when he started getting into the wacky muslim shit that he and the former hardline people are now into.

xCrucialDudex
08-18-2006, 12:34 PM
yes, hardline was an actual organization with a head and an official roster. the dude who ran it disbanded it when he started getting into the wacky muslim shit that he and the former hardline people are now into.

I see, thanks for clarifying.

STRAIGHT EDGE 4 LIFE
10-04-2006, 11:24 PM
so then they all use recycled paper, and shit like that, right? this seems like more of a hippie thing, am i right? it just seems like that is a hard way to live. it limits your way of life so much. not even the eating thing, ive talked about that before. it seems like you have to be too careful to me.



i very much agree with this it would make life way to hard having to worry about all this

NorskVegan
10-07-2006, 04:43 PM
So are you saying that all vegans are hypocrites? I interpreted what that says about equal rights to mean that all living things must be respected. For instance, many pagan societies world wide showed respect to everything before they used it, trees and plants included. They still had to eat something, though. I support fruitarianism as a boycott of the meat and agricultural industries, but I think it is most important to destroy the industries based on sentient creatures first, non?

I thought some movie recently came out about hardlines in California. Looked interesting. I at least think it is an interesting philosophy.

xsecx
10-07-2006, 04:59 PM
So are you saying that all vegans are hypocrites? I interpreted what that says about equal rights to mean that all living things must be respected. For instance, many pagan societies world wide showed respect to everything before they used it, trees and plants included. They still had to eat something, though. I support fruitarianism as a boycott of the meat and agricultural industries, but I think it is most important to destroy the industries based on sentient creatures first, non?

I thought some movie recently came out about hardlines in California. Looked interesting. I at least think it is an interesting philosophy.

who are you talking to?

NorskVegan
10-07-2006, 05:13 PM
Yeah, sorry. I should have put a quote in there somewhere...

Someone brought up the idea that it doesn't make sense to not eat meat and then eat plants if you say you're trying to give all innocent life equal rights.

straightXed
10-07-2006, 05:41 PM
I thought some movie recently came out about hardlines in California. Looked interesting. I at least think it is an interesting philosophy.

By interesting you mean crazy right?

NorskVegan
10-07-2006, 05:45 PM
By interesting you mean crazy right?

Interesting in the way schizophrenia is interesting, yeah. That and the fact that it was apparently like a pimple on the ass of sXe, so it's worth studying.

straightXed
10-07-2006, 05:48 PM
Interesting in the way schizophrenia is interesting, yeah. That and the fact that it was apparently like a pimple on the ass of sXe, so it's worth studying.

Yeah, in order to avoid and be aware of the inherent craziness.

Tahir
10-18-2006, 10:50 PM
hardline doesn't exist anymore. unless you count the crazy muslim guys that hardline became.

it's true that Hardline as an organization doesn't exist anymore, but Hardline was just a name for something that existed from the beginning of time... so there are alot of people out there who still call themselves HL. i still wear HL shirts, do i not exist? i still live the "lifestyle" do i not exist? and i know alot of people who are getting more and more interested in re-organizing Hardline.

could you explain the "crazy muslim guys" comment?

straightXed
10-19-2006, 01:51 PM
it's true that Hardline as an organization doesn't exist anymore, but Hardline was just a name for something that existed from the beginning of time... so there are alot of people out there who still call themselves HL. i still wear HL shirts, do i not exist? i still live the "lifestyle" do i not exist? and i know alot of people who are getting more and more interested in re-organizing Hardline.

could you explain the "crazy muslim guys" comment?

You shouldn't exist if you support hardline as that is extremely idiotic, hope you understand what you are standing for.

xsecx
10-19-2006, 08:38 PM
it's true that Hardline as an organization doesn't exist anymore, but Hardline was just a name for something that existed from the beginning of time... so there are alot of people out there who still call themselves HL. i still wear HL shirts, do i not exist? i still live the "lifestyle" do i not exist? and i know alot of people who are getting more and more interested in re-organizing Hardline.

could you explain the "crazy muslim guys" comment?

existed from the beginning of time? oh yeah? what are some examples of it through out time?
hardline was an organization and not a lifestyle, so if the organization doesn't exist anymore how are you hardline?

and sure, taliyah and the whole muslim trend that you're clearly a part of falls into the same crazy bucket as HL did.

Tahir
10-20-2006, 02:14 AM
existed from the beginning of time? oh yeah? what are some examples of it through out time?
hardline was an organization and not a lifestyle, so if the organization doesn't exist anymore how are you hardline?

and sure, taliyah and the whole muslim trend that you're clearly a part of falls into the same crazy bucket as HL did.

the beginning of time, as in the natural order is not man-made. HL was only the name to an ATTEMPT of a bunch of anarcho punk kids to strive towards a society of natural living. the idea of living intune with nature has long existed with indigenous cultures around the world since the beginning of time.

much like the drug free lifestyle was around since the beginning of time, and is nothing new with the name "straightedge."

i never said i was hardline, i just said that i still wear hl shirts and i am alive. meaning i still live the same way i did when hl was around. and didn't stop just because the official dissolving of the HCC in 1999..it was written in the Vanguards that HL was only a name, and will "dissolve" and the names will change, but the goal remains. HL was officially dissolved in 1999 as an organization, but adherents to the HL lifestyle would continue to work together on and underground level. which eventually led to the Ahl i`Allah, which eventually turned into Taliy'ah al-Mahdi and which eventually turned into something else which is still networking today (with a brief KMS existence in between.... which was more or less a "joke".)

and clearly, the whole mulsim trend is not something i am a part of anymore than you are a part of the whole fat ugly straightedge guy thinking his shit doesn't stink and somehow convinces a message board of little kids that he knows everything about straightedge, religion and hardline trend.

peace.
-Tahir.

Tahir
10-20-2006, 02:17 AM
You shouldn't exist if you support hardline as that is extremely idiotic, hope you understand what you are standing for.

why don't you tell me.

xsecx
10-20-2006, 09:10 AM
the beginning of time, as in the natural order is not man-made. HL was only the name to an ATTEMPT of a bunch of anarcho punk kids to strive towards a society of natural living. the idea of living intune with nature has long existed with indigenous cultures around the world since the beginning of time.


yeah, see I'd like to see some history to back up this statement, since most history and sciene point to indigenous cultures eating meat and fucking a lot and getting drunk or high.



much like the drug free lifestyle was around since the beginning of time, and is nothing new with the name "straightedge."


uh huh.



i never said i was hardline, i just said that i still wear hl shirts and i am alive. meaning i still live the same way i did when hl was around. and didn't stop just because the official dissolving of the HCC in 1999..it was written in the Vanguards that HL was only a name, and will "dissolve" and the names will change, but the goal remains. HL was officially dissolved in 1999 as an organization, but adherents to the HL lifestyle would continue to work together on and underground level. which eventually led to the Ahl i`Allah, which eventually turned into Taliy'ah al-Mahdi and which eventually turned into something else which is still networking today (with a brief KMS existence in between.... which was more or less a "joke".)


would you make up your mind?



and clearly, the whole mulsim trend is not something i am a part of anymore than you are a part of the whole fat ugly straightedge guy thinking his shit doesn't stink and somehow convinces a message board of little kids that he knows everything about straightedge, religion and hardline trend.


wow dude, you're really showing me. I mean. now I'm fat and ugly, but I have magical poo. you're definitely showing me that I'm wrong and you have it all figured out. I'm sure you're a world class scholar, so please educate us all with your whitty insults and deep insight into how wrong you are on other topics.

straightXed
10-20-2006, 11:27 AM
why don't you tell me.

Well its kinda hard, you don't seem to be able to decide yourself. But if you live in accordance with hardline then i think you are a fool, but nows your chance to prove it.

Tahir
10-21-2006, 12:04 PM
[QUOTE=xsecx]yeah, see I'd like to see some history to back up this statement, since most history and sciene point to indigenous cultures eating meat and fucking a lot and getting drunk or high.

i never said that eating meat can not be in line with the natural order. this is not the stance of HL and never was. HL as an ideology, and as a spiritual path understands that there are situations where the consumption of animals is essential to sustain your existance.
you can't hold someone living in Chiapas involved with the Zapatista's accountable for consuming animals or wearing leather. that's just not justifiable. nor can you hold a Palestinian accountable for wearing leather when they have to fight for their very existance.

Indigenous cultures living in order with nature, eat meat because it's not always possible to grow food. nor is it possible for them to go the the grocery store and buy a fucking tofu burger. and every indigenous culture when killing an animal for their existance, give thanks to that animal and it's Creator (swt) and aknowledge what that animal has given. and will utilize every piece of said animal.

getting drunk or high in indigenous cultures were more often than not, spiritual practices that were used in an attempt to get closer to the Creator (swt). i'm not saying i agree with it, it's just how they practiced spirituality. much like Sweat Lodges and peyote within Native American spirtuality. and Rastafarians.

Sex is in accordance with the natural order also. i'm sure you know this. HL was not against sex. HL took the stance that deviant sexual desires were against nature. it's pretty simple to understand.





would you make up your mind?

make up my mind about what? i'm simply saying that HL was only a name and was written that the name will eventually dissolve, and the goals remain. if a woman getts married and changes her last name is she no longer a part of her maiden family name?

this is a recurring problem with alot of "straightedge" people. you need labels and specific "names" to shape your identity and existance. where would you be without the name "straightedge?" ...."....oh then that's just drug free..." what's with all the labels? does straightedge not exist because there is no Central Comittee?
the only thing that made HardLine an Organization was the HCC which didn't form until years later. before that chapters were springing up all over the place, which eventually led to the need for the HCC.

members of the BPP started the BLA, but sitll affiliated themselves with the BPP years after the party had ceased to exist as an organization. were they wrong in doing so? even when they still held conferences and used "all power to the people" a widely known BPP slogan, wore Black Berets, and made references to the BPP and even called people as fellow BPP members. and even reffering to themselves as "Black Panthers".



wow dude, you're really showing me. I mean. now I'm fat and ugly, but I have magical poo. you're definitely showing me that I'm wrong and you have it all figured out. I'm sure you're a world class scholar, so please educate us all with your whitty insults and deep insight into how wrong you are on other topics.

i normally would never attack somebody personally on their appearance, but since you seem to believe that you can attack people's personal beliefs than you obviously shouldn't care when people attack you personally..
if you would debate without attacking peoples personal beliefes, then chances are nobody would lash back with personal insults. but since i'm obviously hurting your feel-bads i will stop. because the last thing i want is to hurt your feelings.

Tahir
10-21-2006, 12:07 PM
Well its kinda hard, you don't seem to be able to decide yourself. But if you live in accordance with hardline then i think you are a fool, but nows your chance to prove it.

a fool for what exactly? you're not very good at explaining yourself are you.
i mean you've only re-worded the orignal statement which i clearly asked you to explain.
what exactly am i supposed to prove?
-Tahir.

straightXed
10-21-2006, 01:47 PM
a fool for what exactly? you're not very good at explaining yourself are you.
i mean you've only re-worded the orignal statement which i clearly asked you to explain.
what exactly am i supposed to prove?
-Tahir.

ok, lets take this slowly for you. I feel hardline is an idiotic group of beliefs, i think thats pretty easy to derive that from my original statement.

"A fool for what exactly?" I believe you are a fool for living in accordance with those beliefs (those contained within the manifesto). If you are unable to derive that from the statement "But if you live in accordance with hardline then i think you are a fool" then i don't think its down to me being poor at explaining myself but rather down to you not being able to pick up on the contents of a simple statement.

You want me to tell you what i hope you understand? Ok i hope you understand how ridiculous and inept the drive behind the beliefs contained in the manifesto are, how they are flawed and illegal and show contempt for other humans. If you understand thats what you stand for then you will also understand why i think you should not exist.

Although you are already steadily proving it you asked me what you were supposed to prove even though it was contained withing the sentence. Lets look at that shall we - "But if you live in accordance with hardline then i think you are a fool, but nows your chance to prove it." Can you see it yet? Thats right, its your chance to prove you are a fool, good luck with that not that you will need it.

xsecx
10-21-2006, 02:08 PM
i never said that eating meat can not be in line with the natural order. this is not the stance of HL and never was. HL as an ideology, and as a spiritual path understands that there are situations where the consumption of animals is essential to sustain your existance.
you can't hold someone living in Chiapas involved with the Zapatista's accountable for consuming animals or wearing leather. that's just not justifiable. nor can you hold a Palestinian accountable for wearing leather when they have to fight for their very existance.



so the animals are only innocent and worthy of protection only some of the time?



Indigenous cultures living in order with nature, eat meat because it's not always possible to grow food. nor is it possible for them to go the the grocery store and buy a fucking tofu burger. and every indigenous culture when killing an animal for their existance, give thanks to that animal and it's Creator (swt) and aknowledge what that animal has given. and will utilize every piece of said animal.


and that's nice, but it's still against the manifesto. it's still killing "innocent" life. Even if hardline were ever to be successful there would still be places on earth where growing food sn't possible.



getting drunk or high in indigenous cultures were more often than not, spiritual practices that were used in an attempt to get closer to the Creator (swt). i'm not saying i agree with it, it's just how they practiced spirituality. much like Sweat Lodges and peyote within Native American spirtuality. and Rastafarians.

so you're ok with rasta's getting high? if it's "spiritual" then it falls into hardline is ok with it camp? So what about all the times through history where spirituality had nothing to do with it? the biggest issue I've ever had with hardline is that you're not actually looking at history, it's like americans with the 50s. You have this incorrect romantized version of "natural order" that there is just no evidence that it ever existed and then make claims that it's been there since the beginning of time.



Sex is in accordance with the natural order also. i'm sure you know this. HL was not against sex. HL took the stance that deviant sexual desires were against nature. it's pretty simple to understand.


hl is against sex for any reason other than procreation specifically. so how is sex when not trying to have a kid a deviant sexual desire?



make up my mind about what? i'm simply saying that HL was only a name and was written that the name will eventually dissolve, and the goals remain. if a woman getts married and changes her last name is she no longer a part of her maiden family name?


so it's just a name and wasn't an organization? That's what you need to make your mind up agout.



this is a recurring problem with alot of "straightedge" people. you need labels and specific "names" to shape your identity and existance. where would you be without the name "straightedge?" ...."....oh then that's just drug free..." what's with all the labels? does straightedge not exist because there is no Central Comittee?
the only thing that made HardLine an Organization was the HCC which didn't form until years later. before that chapters were springing up all over the place, which eventually led to the need for the HCC.

members of the BPP started the BLA, but sitll affiliated themselves with the BPP years after the party had ceased to exist as an organization. were they wrong in doing so? even when they still held conferences and used "all power to the people" a widely known BPP slogan, wore Black Berets, and made references to the BPP and even called people as fellow BPP members. and even reffering to themselves as "Black Panthers".


no, for something to be a movement it requires labels and 'specific names' other wise it's just a bunch of disconnected people with no cohesion and no commonality. And no, what made hardline an organization was the fact that there was a defined and recognized leader.





i normally would never attack somebody personally on their appearance, but since you seem to believe that you can attack people's personal beliefs than you obviously shouldn't care when people attack you personally..
if you would debate without attacking peoples personal beliefes, then chances are nobody would lash back with personal insults. but since i'm obviously hurting your feel-bads i will stop. because the last thing i want is to hurt your feelings.

I think you've mistaken my mocking of your lack of debating skills as you "hurting my feelings". As is usually the case people will shift "attacks" onto something that doesn't have a bearing on the conversation, in this instance my appearance, when they don't actually have anything useful to say. The fact that you have to rely on calling someone ugly as an insult and believe that you're somehow hurting my feelings is really funny. Now I guess I hurt your feelings since you felt the need to respond to your personal beliefs being questioned with the same insult a 5 year old would use. Do you need a hug? I mean, I know you're not very secure and it's really clear you're a follower and not a thinker, but it'll be ok I'm sure all the other hardline guys can reassure you. If I said that you really hurt me by calling me fat and ugly would it help you feel better about yourself and your incorrect beliefs?

Tahir
10-22-2006, 10:27 AM
straightXed]ok, lets take this slowly for you. I feel hardline is an idiotic group of beliefs, i think thats pretty easy to derive that from my original statement.

I understand your statement, i'm asking you to explain WHY you feel the beliefs are "idiotic" and foolish to follow.


"A fool for what exactly?" I believe you are a fool for living in accordance with those beliefs (those contained within the manifesto). If you are unable to derive that from the statement "But if you live in accordance with hardline then i think you are a fool" then i don't think its down to me being poor at explaining myself but rather down to you not being able to pick up on the contents of a simple statement.

again, WHY is it so foolish? explain to me why it's foolish to be active against racism,sexism,speciesism, and to live on an ital diet, abstain from harmful ingredients and toxins in my foods and to elevate spirituality above hardcore shows and "X"s on my hands. . i think YOU are foolish not to.

but since you seem to be XsecX's personal cheerleader and are unable to formulate your own ideas and comments, since everything you seem to say on this entire website are basically regurgitated bullshit that he has said, just reworded, then it's no wonder you have avoided explaining, by trying to claim that I am the one that doesn't understand your statement.



You want me to tell you what i hope you understand? Ok i hope you understand how ridiculous and inept the drive behind the beliefs contained in the manifesto are, how they are flawed and illegal and show contempt for other humans. If you understand thats what you stand for then you will also understand why i think you should not exist.

again, no explaination. just regurgitated bullshit that people have been saying for years about HL. to make this easier for you let me lay it out in numbered questions, like they do in grade school....
1.what is ridiculous about it?
2.how are they flawed?
3. how are they illegal?
4.and how do they show contempt for other humans?

it's pretty simple really, just back up your claims and comments with explainations.


Although you are already steadily proving it you asked me what you were supposed to prove even though it was contained withing the sentence. Lets look at that shall we - "But if you live in accordance with hardline then i think you are a fool, but nows your chance to prove it." Can you see it yet? Thats right, its your chance to prove you are a fool, good luck with that not that you will need it.

so i'm the fool, because i understand your comment, yet you can't even back it up. or are you waiting for XsecX to say something so you can basically say ..." yeah what he said..." since that seems to be your way of communicating. in other words, WHY WHY WHY (i'm assuming you understand the word why) is it so foolish? you have avoided the question. and i don't want to read, "because it's homophobic, illegal, idiotic, shows contempt for other humans, flawed, and ridiculous." because that is not an explanaition, those are opinions. and not even well thought out opinions at that. so explain smartguy.

also considering the entire sentence and not just the end of it, it could read either proving that i live in accordance with HL or that i'm a "fool".... but whatever.

straightXed
10-22-2006, 11:02 AM
I understand your statement, i'm asking you to explain WHY you feel the beliefs are "idiotic" and foolish to follow.

well if you want to keep turning this round then i guess its my go, why do you feel it isn't foolish.




again, WHY is it so foolish? explain to me why it's foolish to be active against racism,sexism,speciesism, and to live on an ital diet, abstain from harmful ingredients and toxins in my foods and to elevate spirituality above hardcore shows and "X"s on my hands. . i think YOU are foolish not to.


Its not foolish to be against those things but i manage to do all these without the need to incur violence on others, i also find hardline to have a skewed perception on some of these things. I abhor violence and believe it should only be resorted when all other paths have been exhausted. Forcing others to live in accordance with these beliefs of hardline seems a lot more foolish than living in adherence to beliefs without the insecurity of needing to make everyone else follow them. I feel your beliefs are flawed if you need to use violence to get the point across and i feel hardline fails before it begins based on this.


but since you seem to be XsecX's personal cheerleader and are unable to formulate your own ideas and comments, since everything you seem to say on this entire website are basically regurgitated bullshit that he has said, just reworded, then it's no wonder you have avoided explaining, by trying to claim that I am the one that doesn't understand your statement.

Well you didn't understand it did you even though it was clear.





again, no explaination. just regurgitated bullshit that people have been saying for years about HL. to make this easier for you let me lay it out in numbered questions, like they do in grade school....
1.what is ridiculous about it?
2.how are they flawed?
3. how are they illegal?
4.and how do they show contempt for other humans?

it's pretty simple really, just back up your claims and comments with explainations.

thanks thats helps loads!

1. The drive behind the manifesto
2. because they assume that the manifesto should be adhered to by everyone and that it is just to stop people living in accordance of different beliefs, directly opposing certain things by using a judgement based on ideas and when faced with opposing views what is resorted to?
3. because the law is set out in such a way that it makes dishing out your own justice for things you feel are wrong as illegal acts.
4. by ignoring human rights if they don't live in accordance with your beliefs, as if that somehopw makes them sub human.





so i'm the fool, because i understand your comment, yet you can't even back it up. or are you waiting for XsecX to say something so you can basically say ..." yeah what he said..." since that seems to be your way of communicating. in other words, WHY WHY WHY (i'm assuming you understand the word why) is it so foolish? you have avoided the question. and i don't want to read, "because it's homophobic, illegal, idiotic, shows contempt for other humans, flawed, and ridiculous." because that is not an explanaition, those are opinions. and not even well thought out opinions at that. so explain smartguy.

but this is an opinion, i said i think its foolish, its all about my opinion you prat! If you don't want to read my opinion of why i think its foiolish why do you keep asking for it. Homophobia is idiotic, breaking the law is idiotic, disregarding other humans rights is idiotic and all of your beliefs are geard towards conflict which is idiotic. Why do i think its foolish, perhaps because it was made by a fool, are at least someone who was very confused. And its obvious you didn't understand my comment and that it is my opinion, you really are smart!


also considering the entire sentence and not just the end of it, it could read either proving that i live in accordance with HL or that i'm a "fool".... but whatever.

well either way i think you are a fool, and you just love to latch onto that don't you, must be the insecurity again.

Tahir
10-23-2006, 04:23 AM
so the animals are only innocent and worthy of protection only some of the time?

animals need to be protected, but at the same time humans need to survive. i don't understand why this is so hard for you to get. yes the manifesto may not be the best written piece of literature, but it was only meant as an introduction. all of the topics in the manifesto were later expanded on and looked into deeper than what was written in what would be the "jist" of the ideology.



and that's nice, but it's still against the manifesto. it's still killing "innocent" life. Even if hardline were ever to be successful there would still be places on earth where growing food sn't possible.

you're right, there will always be places where growing food isn't possible. but does that mean that in places where there are alternatives, we should allow animals to remain prisoners/slaves just to satisfy our own greed? no, that is oppressive and wrong.
indigenous cultures are not factory farming billions of animals, and mis-treating them the way so-called "civilized" societies are treating them. to think that the manifesto, is calling for justice to these cultures where hunting and trapping is essential for their existance is plain ridiculous and is not what HL stood for as that would be oppressive to said cultures. like i said the manifesto was just meant to be an introduction to the ideology.


so you're ok with rasta's getting high? if it's "spiritual" then it falls into hardline is ok with it camp? So what about all the times through history where spirituality had nothing to do with it?

yes i am okay with rastas getting high, just as i am okay with anybody getting high, as long as it is consentual and not forced since i am not at liberty to tell somebody what they can and can not do as long as what they are doing does not interfere with anybody else's safety..
what i am not okay with is the fact that people get high and commit crimes against innocent people. i am not okay with drunk driving or driving while under the influece of other drugs. and i am not okay with the production and sells of drugs.

HL never attempted to oppress peoples spiritual paths (rastafarians etc.), in fact if you read more of the HL publications you would see that adherants to the HL ideology could and should learn alot from the Rasta farians, and native american cultures.

and if i remeber correctly i said something along the lines of "this is their spirtiual path, even though i don't agree with it, it is still their path to get closer to their Creator (swt)."

it is in line with HL to reject the practice of indigenous cultures who have equally fallen from their primordial state, by worshiping idols, and being sbjugated by the powers of nature. not all indigenous traditions are in line with the natural order. i think you are confusing my statement to imply i am saying "all indiginous cultures are right" while "all of western society is wrong", which is absolutely NOT what i'm saying at all.



the biggest issue I've ever had with hardline is that you're not actually looking at history, it's like americans with the 50s. You have this incorrect romantized version of "natural order" that there is just no evidence that it ever existed and then make claims that it's been there since the beginning of time.

let me get this straight. by your logic, there has never existed a "natural order."
so you're telling me that, since the beginning of time there has always been sky-scrapers?
radiation plants? abortion "clinics"? crack houses? fast food joints? processed food plants? tofu burgers? additives and toxins in food? etc etc. the list could continue to go on for days...
why don't you show me YOUR evidence, mr. make a comment without thinking about it first guy that there has never existed a Natural Order?.



hl is against sex for any reason other than procreation specifically. so how is sex when not trying to have a kid a deviant sexual desire?

HL is NOT against sex. to say that is to say that HL is against eating. sex is probably the only natural instinct humans have left other than eating, and to attempt to suppress that would be an attempt to suppress nature. but people don't pay money to wheel a table full of food out and watch it, like they do with pornography for instance.
HL understands that the main reason for sex is procreation. and HL understands that the need for sex to be pleasurable is to ensure the existance of the species.

i'm assuming you are talking about the homosexual aspect of the HL stance?
you understand the jist of "the birds and the bees" right, it's not the "birds and the birds" nor is it "the bees and the bees". meaning both Yin and Yin can not possibly create life, just as Yang and Yang can not create life. i'm sure you're old enough to know that it takes a mixture of Yin and Yang essence to create life.... this is not "homophobia, this is fact.
about sex without conception between Yin and Yang essence, you can't choose when you will conceive a child. even if you "calculated" menstrual cycles and "fertility" or Ovulation, it is still hit or miss. so to say that you can only have sex to procreate is not only false, but it is a complete facade of reality.



so it's just a name and wasn't an organization? That's what you need to make your mind up agout.

although it was just a name, it was an official organization under the same name. the HCC (Hardline Central Commitee) only officially lasted for roughly a year and a half. while the ideology is still existing. so was it just a name or was it an organization? both. it is possible you know.





no, for something to be a movement it requires labels and 'specific names' other wise it's just a bunch of disconnected people with no cohesion and no commonality.
what do specific names and labels have to do with having a common goal? which is ultimately what a "movement" is. a group of people working toward a common goal



And no, what made hardline an organization was the fact that there was a defined and recognized leader.

but Shahid left HL LONG before HL dissolved. after he had stopped working within HL, there were still chapters, publications etc. being produced with no defined and recognized "leader". not to mention, Shahid never wanted to be anybodies "leader".




I think you've mistaken my mocking of your lack of debating skills as you "hurting my feelings". As is usually the case people will shift "attacks" onto something that doesn't have a bearing on the conversation, in this instance my appearance, when they don't actually have anything useful to say.

actually i was being sarcastic about the hurting your feel-bads comment, i'm sure it was obvious... but since you keep bringing it up despite the apparent obvious sarcasm, i'm only left to assume i struck a nerve.... so sorry again, little buddy.



The fact that you have to rely on calling someone ugly as an insult and believe that you're somehow hurting my feelings is really funny.

although this is very touching and heartwarming, it's not true. i absolutely do not need to rely on name calling. and i've already apologized for calling you fat and ugly. what more do you want from me? buck up little camper, i'm sure it will be okay.


Now I guess I hurt your feelings since you felt the need to respond to your personal beliefs being questioned with the same insult a 5 year old would use. Do you need a hug? I mean, I know you're not very secure and it's really clear you're a follower and not a thinker, but it'll be ok I'm sure all the other hardline guys can reassure you.

you really didn't hurt my feelings since you haven't attacked my beliefs in an insulting way as you did my Christian brothers and sisters faith.
but my reasoning behind it is still the same. just as i said you felt the need to attack PEOPLEs personal beliefs and not MY personal beliefs since i don't believe Jesus (as) is God (swt) how did you attack my beliefs?
and trust me i'm secure enough, i don't need you deviants giving me any hugs. and how exactly am i a "follower"? mr. first guy to ever be straightedge. and mr. first guy to ever talk shit on HL without really understanding what the manifesto means.


If I said that you really hurt me by calling me fat and ugly would it help you feel better about yourself and your incorrect beliefs?

again with the bringing up old shit. i said i'm sorry, and i'm sorry. i can't take back what i said, but i can tell you that you can finally give it a rest. i don't think you look fat in those jeans, and you're haircut is not ugly. okay? is that better? will you finally shut up about the fat and ugly comment?....

and what "incorrect beliefs" are you talking about exactly? because i don't think my beliefs are incorrect, i think your perception of reality is incorrect. and your supposed facts are slightly... well bullshit.

xsecx
10-23-2006, 10:05 AM
animals need to be protected, but at the same time humans need to survive. i don't understand why this is so hard for you to get. yes the manifesto may not be the best written piece of literature, but it was only meant as an introduction. all of the topics in the manifesto were later expanded on and looked into deeper than what was written in what would be the "jist" of the ideology.


And it's still a contradiction in beliefs. Either all life is innocent and should be protection or some life is innocent and should be protected. Unless you want to explain to me how some means all?





you're right, there will always be places where growing food isn't possible. but does that mean that in places where there are alternatives, we should allow animals to remain prisoners/slaves just to satisfy our own greed? no, that is oppressive and wrong.
indigenous cultures are not factory farming billions of animals, and mis-treating them the way so-called "civilized" societies are treating them. to think that the manifesto, is calling for justice to these cultures where hunting and trapping is essential for their existance is plain ridiculous and is not what HL stood for as that would be oppressive to said cultures. like i said the manifesto was just meant to be an introduction to the ideology.


this is the problem with extreme views on subjects though and use of terms like ALL. Now, if the manifesto is wrong, why wasn't it recended?



yes i am okay with rastas getting high, just as i am okay with anybody getting high, as long as it is consentual and not forced since i am not at liberty to tell somebody what they can and can not do as long as what they are doing does not interfere with anybody else's safety..
what i am not okay with is the fact that people get high and commit crimes against innocent people. i am not okay with drunk driving or driving while under the influece of other drugs. and i am not okay with the production and sells of drugs.


so how do rastas get high without the production and sale of drugs?



HL never attempted to oppress peoples spiritual paths (rastafarians etc.), in fact if you read more of the HL publications you would see that adherants to the HL ideology could and should learn alot from the Rasta farians, and native american cultures.


so drugs are ok if they're used for spiritual paths? I must have missed that part of the manifesto.



and if i remeber correctly i said something along the lines of "this is their spirtiual path, even though i don't agree with it, it is still their path to get closer to their Creator (swt)."


So if that's the case, then why don't you take drugs to get closer to your creator?



it is in line with HL to reject the practice of indigenous cultures who have equally fallen from their primordial state, by worshiping idols, and being sbjugated by the powers of nature. not all indigenous traditions are in line with the natural order. i think you are confusing my statement to imply i am saying "all indiginous cultures are right" while "all of western society is wrong", which is absolutely NOT what i'm saying at all.


ok, then what are you saying then? what constitutes getting closer to their creator and what equals worshipping idols?





let me get this straight. by your logic, there has never existed a "natural order."
so you're telling me that, since the beginning of time there has always been sky-scrapers?
radiation plants? abortion "clinics"? crack houses? fast food joints? processed food plants? tofu burgers? additives and toxins in food? etc etc. the list could continue to go on for days...
why don't you show me YOUR evidence, mr. make a comment without thinking about it first guy that there has never existed a Natural Order?.


I'm saying your version of it never existed. There has never been any society to ever live within your version of a "natural" order. That there has always been people getting drunk and high and fucking in every single group in history. Do you need evidence of this?





HL is NOT against sex. to say that is to say that HL is against eating. sex is probably the only natural instinct humans have left other than eating, and to attempt to suppress that would be an attempt to suppress nature. but people don't pay money to wheel a table full of food out and watch it, like they do with pornography for instance.
HL understands that the main reason for sex is procreation. and HL understands that the need for sex to be pleasurable is to ensure the existance of the species.


so sex without the explict reason for procreation and instead for pleasure is ok?



i'm assuming you are talking about the homosexual aspect of the HL stance?
you understand the jist of "the birds and the bees" right, it's not the "birds and the birds" nor is it "the bees and the bees". meaning both Yin and Yin can not possibly create life, just as Yang and Yang can not create life. i'm sure you're old enough to know that it takes a mixture of Yin and Yang essence to create life.... this is not "homophobia, this is fact.
about sex without conception between Yin and Yang essence, you can't choose when you will conceive a child. even if you "calculated" menstrual cycles and "fertility" or Ovulation, it is still hit or miss. so to say that you can only have sex to procreate is not only false, but it is a complete facade of reality.


You do understand that homosexuality exists in nature, so how does that work within the realm of "natural order"? As for the other stuff, that's all fine and well but there are things that can be done to decrease the chance of pregnancy from sex. You can decide to only have sex while trying to have a child and then stop when you're not. Or is that not the case?





although it was just a name, it was an official organization under the same name. the HCC (Hardline Central Commitee) only officially lasted for roughly a year and a half. while the ideology is still existing. so was it just a name or was it an organization? both. it is possible you know.

sure it's possible, but I'm not the one saying it was only a name.





what do specific names and labels have to do with having a common goal? which is ultimately what a "movement" is. a group of people working toward a common goal

because that's how people identify that they are actually working toward the common goal? If you don't then you have a bunch of individuals with no ability to locate each other.





but Shahid left HL LONG before HL dissolved. after he had stopped working within HL, there were still chapters, publications etc. being produced with no defined and recognized "leader". not to mention, Shahid never wanted to be anybodies "leader".


whether he wanted to be or not is irrelevant, because he was. I'm also not quite sure why it's relevant that things continued after he left? Does that somehow not make it an organization?




actually i was being sarcastic about the hurting your feel-bads comment, i'm sure it was obvious... but since you keep bringing it up despite the apparent obvious sarcasm, i'm only left to assume i struck a nerve.... so sorry again, little buddy.


Wait, you being an idiot is obvious sarcasm?





although this is very touching and heartwarming, it's not true. i absolutely do not need to rely on name calling. and i've already apologized for calling you fat and ugly. what more do you want from me? buck up little camper, i'm sure it will be okay.


it's not true but you were motivated to do it twice in 2 seperate discussions? Dude, it's ok to admit that you've got the debating skills of a 5 year old.




you really didn't hurt my feelings since you haven't attacked my beliefs in an insulting way as you did my Christian brothers and sisters faith.
but my reasoning behind it is still the same. just as i said you felt the need to attack PEOPLEs personal beliefs and not MY personal beliefs since i don't believe Jesus (as) is God (swt) how did you attack my beliefs?


so what beliefs aren't personal? And what insulting way did I attack christians? You keep making shit up to justify your retarded outbursts. But if it'll make you feel better we can talk about how stupid islam is.



and trust me i'm secure enough, i don't need you deviants giving me any hugs. and how exactly am i a "follower"? mr. first guy to ever be straightedge. and mr. first guy to ever talk shit on HL without really understanding what the manifesto means.


sure you are big guy. Where did you come into islam? What came first islam or hl for you?
and how do I not really understand what the manifesto means? Is it code?




again with the bringing up old shit. i said i'm sorry, and i'm sorry. i can't take back what i said, but i can tell you that you can finally give it a rest. i don't think you look fat in those jeans, and you're haircut is not ugly. okay? is that better? will you finally shut up about the fat and ugly comment?....


old shit? a couple of days ago counts as old shit in your brain? I'm just saying, if you want to try and actually debate with people and win hearts and minds, you need to do a better job than resorting to "you're fat and ugly" when you get frustrated and definitely don't try and hide behind some made up bullshit about how you were trying to teach me a lesson about talking about peoples personal beliefs. call a spade a spade you deviant.



and what "incorrect beliefs" are you talking about exactly? because i don't think my beliefs are incorrect, i think your perception of reality is incorrect. and your supposed facts are slightly... well bullshit.
your views on human sexuality, veganism, spirituality, islam. pretty much everything you've talked about up until this point is incorrect. And I'm sure you don't think they are, if you did, then you'd be an even bigger idiot. Now what supposed facts of mine are bullshit?

NorskVegan
10-24-2006, 04:16 PM
1) Had I heard Tahir's explanation of Hardline I would have been much more open to the concept.

2) The way you guys are bickering back and forth is very immature. If you feel it necessary, attack each other's ideas, but stop attacking each other. That way other people on the forum can actually learn something.

straightXed
10-24-2006, 04:58 PM
1) Had I heard Tahir's explanation of Hardline I would have been much more open to the concept.

2) The way you guys are bickering back and forth is very immature. If you feel it necessary, attack each other's ideas, but stop attacking each other. That way other people on the forum can actually learn something.

Ok you like tahirs explanantion but his explanation and the manifesto seem quite different. And why on earth would you be open to a movement that utilises violence to enforce its beliefs and convert others. A movement that takes away control of ones own body, someone who eats an egg has no rights, someone who has a normal sex life is a deviant, someone who drinks a beer in not innocent and it is down to hardliners to deal out the justice. If you are open to that you are nuts, just because tahir is dressing it up it doesn't change the drive of the whole thing. In short the movement says "if you aren't innocent by our standards we can ignore all the standards we live by for what we consider innocent and assalt you". Now i have my own considerations for innocent and hardliners to me are not innocent so why are they in a position to deal out justice as if they are. They aren't appointed, they are pretty much terrorists which a crazy agenda that harms innocent people. Hope you learnt something.

xsecx
10-24-2006, 06:41 PM
2) The way you guys are bickering back and forth is very immature. If you feel it necessary, attack each other's ideas, but stop attacking each other. That way other people on the forum can actually learn something.

I must have missed the part where anyone but tahir did anything immature, but please feel free to point it out. I wasn't aware that we weren't discussing ideas and that it was just insults, but thanks for the unneccessary attempt to moderate something that didn't need moderation.

Tahir
10-25-2006, 02:15 AM
And it's still a contradiction in beliefs. Either all life is innocent and should be protection or some life is innocent and should be protected. Unless you want to explain to me how some means all?

the manifesto never elevated animal rights over human rights. if a society needs to consume animals to survive, then they must survive. you are a fucking idiot if you can't understand this. i don't know how else i can spell it out for you.
all life is sacred, and all life should be protected and not transgressed. but at the same time a culture consuming animals out of necessity for their survivial is not transgression it is mere survival. there is a big difference between this and factory farming ya wing-nut.





this is the problem with extreme views on subjects though and use of terms like ALL. Now, if the manifesto is wrong, why wasn't it recended?

you mean extreme views as opposed to those of "straightedge" and "anti religion" views?
let's look at the "extreme views" you are so against:

'you're right, there will always be places where growing food isn't possible. but does that mean that in places where there are alternatives, we should allow animals to remain prisoners/slaves just to satisfy our own greed? no, that is oppressive and wrong.
indigenous cultures are not factory farming billions of animals, and mis-treating them the way so-called "civilized" societies are treating them. to think that the manifesto, is calling for justice to these cultures where hunting and trapping is essential for their existance is plain ridiculous and is not what HL stood for as that would be oppressive to said cultures. like i said the manifesto was just meant to be an introduction to the ideology."

what exactly is so "extreme" about these views? because to me they are based off of common courtesy and respect for cultures other than our own. and based off of respect for lives human and non-human alike. and i find your questioning these views and the way you are quick to call them "extreme" is just ignorant and prejudice against other cultures.
otherwise you would not have a problem with my statement in the first place.

i'm sure i typed it out in plain english for you to read that the manifesto was only meant to be an introduction to the views and stance of the HL ideology. and that the views were later expanded on in other publications. now either you are stupid, or you can't read. and since you can obviously read that only leaves us with one answer.



so how do rastas get high without the production and sale of drugs?

you do know that marijuana is a plant right? and you do understand that plants can be grown at home right? this is not to say that ALL rastas smoke home grown weed, but none the less it's possible that alot of them do.....




so drugs are ok if they're used for spiritual paths? I must have missed that part of the manifesto.

what people do and use for their spiritual path is none of my business. that is between them and the Creator (swt).



So if that's the case, then why don't you take drugs to get closer to your creator?

again, i was under the assumption that you could read. i specifically said:

and if i remeber correctly i said something along the lines of "this is their spirtiual path, even though i don't agree with it, it is still their path to get closer to their Creator (swt)."

now that's the THIRD time, i've had to lay that out in plain english.....



ok, then what are you saying then? what constitutes getting closer to their creator and what equals worshipping idols?

again, people get closer to their Creator (swt) however they feel they need to get closer. it is none of my business.
the second part of you question is pretty self-explanitory.
worshiping idols equals worshiping idols.
why do you constantly pick the most irrelevent part of my rebuttals to comment on, while missing the majority of the more relevent topics?



I'm saying your version of it never existed. There has never been any society to ever live within your version of a "natural" order. That there has always been people getting drunk and high and fucking in every single group in history. Do you need evidence of this?

well, never say never. there are people living within this society NOW that aren't getting drunk and high and fucking around. i'm surprised you didn't know this.. i mean aren't you the official straightedge know it all?

and just because there has been societies with all of the above things happening, doesn't mean EVERYBODY in these societies did them. so where is this proof of it never existing anyway. i would like to see it actually.





so sex without the explict reason for procreation and instead for pleasure is ok?

yes. couples have sex all the time for the pleasure. taking responsibility for the possible result is a different story.

but i have to ask: where do you get this information from? nowhere in the manifesto does it say anything like this.




You do understand that homosexuality exists in nature, so how does that work within the realm of "natural order"? As for the other stuff, that's all fine and well but there are things that can be done to decrease the chance of pregnancy from sex. You can decide to only have sex while trying to have a child and then stop when you're not. Or is that not the case?

homosexuality may exist in nature, i'm assuming you are referring to non-human animals correct?
if so, you must also agree that eating your own feces, eating your young and leaving your offspring alone to "fend for themselves" also exists in nature. so do you propose we start eating our babies if they are born with downs syndrome? or if they are born missing a leg?
at least be bright enough to not use non-human animals as a basis for your argument..
so obviously we are not supposed to live like non-human beings, and follow their example.

you're correct, there are things you can do to decrease the chance of pregnancy. you can in fact decide to only have sex while trying to conceive and then stop when not trying. i don't understand your point in saying this. this is something that is purely up to the "couple" to decide. and in no way does this counter my statement. you can decide to have sex according to ovulation but it doesn't mean you will conceive. and most likely you are going to enjoy the pleasure of trying. so obviously sex without conception but with pleasure is natural....
unless you seek pleasure from sex in an un-natural way. or unconsentual sex.




sure it's possible, but I'm not the one saying it was only a name.

you're right, you're the one saying it was only an organization. but i specifically recall saying it was only a name, then the HCC formed and it was an official organization.





because that's how people identify that they are actually working toward the common goal? If you don't then you have a bunch of individuals with no ability to locate each other.

well, the movement of working toward the common goal to end racism, doesn't really have a name or a "leader" but i'm sure that if i see someone wearing an end racism t shirt then it's somebody i can agree with on the topic, and can potentially work together with them on ending racism.
just to be clear, they don't even have to be wearing a t shirt, it can be somebody who is obviously against racism, for example an inter-racial couple, or somebody arguing with some racist pig etc.




whether he wanted to be or not is irrelevant, because he was. I'm also not quite sure why it's relevant that things continued after he left? Does that somehow not make it an organization?

it's relevant that things continued after he left because you claim it was only an organization, because he was the "leader" but if that's the only way it was an organization how did it continue after he left?

besides this is not even important. this is one of the single most pathetic arguments against HL: whether it was or wasn't an organization or a word. and i refuse to talk about this aspect of it anymore.





Wait, you being an idiot is obvious sarcasm?

yes. but i'm starting to learn that you have the sense of humor of a brick wall.





it's not true but you were motivated to do it twice in 2 seperate discussions? Dude, it's ok to admit that you've got the debating skills of a 5 year old.

if i had the debating skills of a 5 year old i would admit it... but since i am making more valid points than you seem to keep up with, since you only attack the more irrelevant aspects of my posts. but it's cool, keep telling yourself that "you're the winner..."( complete sarcasm... since you seem to lack the ability to differentiate between sarcasm and realism.)





so what beliefs aren't personal?

what are you even talking about?


And what insulting way did I attack christians? You keep making shit up to justify your retarded outbursts. But if it'll make you feel better we can talk about how stupid islam is.

to somebody that believes in the Christian faith and is straightedge, you are insulting their beliefs by claiming they can not be Christian and straightedge, that is insulting their beliefs.
you can talk about Islaam all you want, i'm sure it's nothing more than i've heard from the rest of the Islaamaphobic world.

i like how people like you can call HL "homophobic" all day (even though it isn't) and attack HL for being wrong and blah blah blah, yet you are obviously prejudice against Christians and Mu'min. explain that you hypocrite.




sure you are big guy. Where did you come into islam? What came first islam or hl for you?


it's true that i learned about Islaam after i learned about HL. i was 16 when i learned about HL and didn't get heavily into spirituality until my late 20's. this does not make me a follower, it makes me on a path of progression... MOST of my friends are atheist or agnostic. alot of them are Christian and Budhist, and some are Muslim. if i were so much of a follower i would have stayed on the EASY path of "agnosticism". since that is the norm with "straightedge" and "hardcore".
instead, i go into a Masjid covered from head to toe in tattoos, this is not something a follower of Islaam would normally do. i do not hide my tattoos and i do not hide the fact that i am into punk and hardcore. i go there as myself, and hang out with my friends at the masjid and i leave.

i go to HC shows, sometimes wearing a kufi, wearing HL shirts and talking to people about Islaam. this is not something somebody does in SLC and is "liked" for. SLC is a very anti-HL scene and HC in general is a very anti-religion sub-culture. it's sounding less and less as if i am the follower, and more and more as if YOU are the actual follower.... BAAAH!



and how do I not really understand what the manifesto means? Is it code?

because you don't understand what the actual meaning behind the statements in the manifesto mean. it is not code, it is just not the best written piece of literature. why must you make me constantly repeat myself.



old shit? a couple of days ago counts as old shit in your brain?

another obvious joke. yet another piece of evidence that your sense of humor is equal of a brick wall.


I'm just saying, if you want to try and actually debate with people and win hearts and minds, you need to do a better job than resorting to "you're fat and ugly" when you get frustrated and definitely don't try and hide behind some made up bullshit about how you were trying to teach me a lesson about talking about peoples personal beliefs. call a spade a spade you deviant.

again with the fat and ugly.... drop it fabio. is that what you wanted me to say?
people will make their own decisions. i'm sure my making sarcastic and joking remarks once in a while are not going to have much of a bearing in their decisions either way.
but if you want to convince anybody of anything you might want to address the more relevant aspects of the "debate" and quit crying over spilt milk....(the fat and ugly thing...)

i wasn't hiding behind anything. i simply pointed out my reasoning behind attacking your physical features. which in reality i really have no way of knowing your physical features, i don't even know if that mug is you or not.

and i definately was not trying to teach you any lessons.



your views on human sexuality, veganism, spirituality, islam. pretty much everything you've talked about up until this point is incorrect. And I'm sure you don't think they are, if you did, then you'd be an even bigger idiot.QUOTE]

my views on human sexuality are correct, you're the one who still thinks that what's natural can be gauged based off of non-human animals and their sexual habits.
my views on veganism are correct, what's your proof that i am somehow incorrect in my diet?
my spirituality is correct. since these are personal belifs who are you to call them incorrect?
how do you know that my views on Islaam are incorrect??

of course i don't think they are incorrect, they are my beliefs. if for some reason i felt they were incorrect, chances are... i wouldn't believe them.... dummy.

but if you are claiming they are incorrect, isn't it up to you to point out there flaws? which so far you have failed miserably.

[QUOTE] Now what supposed facts of mine are bullshit?

the problem with this question is that you really haven't produced any facts. but your opinions are what's bullshit. i mean, you've claimed to have alot of facts and proof about stuff, but when i've asked for the proof you ignored it to point out irrelevant arguments.


but for arguments sake, i'll point out a few flawed opinions...
you claim:
1. HL is against sex.
*it isn't.
2.Natural order never existed.
*it did.
3. human sexuality can be compared to non-human animal sexuality.
*it can't.
4.HL started in memphis
*it didn't. it only got big there. there were more HL bands in Memphis/midwest than there were in Ca where HL actually started. and Shahid only passed the responsibilities to people in Memphis.
5. "movements" require specific names and labels.
*they don't.
6.you claim i MUST rely on personal insults.
* i don't.
7. you claim i'm a follower, just because i got into Islaam.
* i'm not.
8. you believe that i only got into Islaam because of HL...
* I didn't. i actually got into Budhism before.
9. you claim that all rastas produce and sell drugs.
*they don't and this is a pretty racist claim.
10. you claim that HL was not a lifestyle.
*it was, and was refferred to as a lifestyle in MANY HL publications.
10. you claim that HL was never a violent free way of living.
* i can see where you get this thought, but it is wrong. I know alot of ex-HL dudes that are really non-violent hippy types, and were during HL. HL is very peaceful, and strives for peace, and to be anti HL is to support and side with the violent oppressors.
11.you claim that Shahid, disbanded HL when he got into Islaam.
* Shahid was actually into Islaam during the inception of HL. which is why there are quotes from Al Qur'aan on Vanguard #1. and on the Vegan Reich "The Wrath Of God" record why is there a crescent moon and star above the name? and the quote:
"By the power of the most high we shall carry on their jihad for truth and justice."
obviously Islaamic.

anyway, this is getting lame we will just have to agree to disagree.
besides i'm tired of repeating myself.
-Tahir.

Tahir
10-25-2006, 02:21 AM
1) Had I heard Tahir's explanation of Hardline I would have been much more open to the concept.

my explanations are more consistant with how HL really was. like i said, all of the topics in the manifesto were expanded on. it would be impossible to get into the complexion of the "natural order" on a single piece of paper that was sent out with records.





2) The way you guys are bickering back and forth is very immature. If you feel it necessary, attack each other's ideas, but stop attacking each other. That way other people on the forum can actually learn something.

i was unaware that other people were actually looking at this. and you're right it was very immature, and i must admit i'm a pretty immature person sometimes.... it's fun to me, i'm a very sarcastic and joking person. i understand it's hard to sense these things over a computer screen.
and apologize to anybody who may have been reading this to learn something about HL. or anything else we were discussing.
take care and stay safe.
peace.
-Tahir.

Tahir
10-25-2006, 03:07 AM
Ok you like tahirs explanantion but his explanation and the manifesto seem quite different.

you can't be serious! that's because i am EXPLAINING the manifesto.



And why on earth would you be open to a movement that utilises violence to enforce its beliefs and convert others.

this is another assumption. probably by somebody who has never even been around anybody that REALLY knew what HL was.
how is direct action "violent?" if you support the oppressors and exploiters of animals you are oppressive and violent. if you mock somebody for fighting for the rights of others to live out their natural existence, you are oppressive and violent.
since HL is anti oppression, and you are anti HL, that makes YOU anti peace. and a supporter of oppression and therefore "violent action" against you is justified.

if somebody was raping/attacking somebody, i would hope and i would expect you would step in and stop that threat to life, by any means necessary.


A movement that takes away control of ones own body, someone who eats an egg has no rights

how does HL take away the control of ones body?
someone who eats eggs, is not at fault. factory farming eggs is the target.


someone who has a normal sex life is a deviant,

the key word here is NORMAL...the word Deviant means to "deviate from normal."
so your statement is incorrect and an oxymoron.



someone who drinks a beer in not innocent and it is down to hardliners to deal out the justice.

someone who drinks beer made their own personal decisions... and unless someone drinks a beer and attacks an innocent person, they should not be dealt out justice... even then it is not because of the beer, but their actions. get your facts straight....



If you are open to that you are nuts, just because tahir is dressing it up it doesn't change the drive of the whole thing.

giving accurate descriptions and explanaitions is not "dressing it up" it is simply giving accurate descriptions and explanations.
why do you insist on trying to get people to believe you on a lifestyle and a movement that you were never even a part of? and why must you try and make someone who was actually around, believe your bullshit views about it?


In short the movement says "if you aren't innocent by our standards we can ignore all the standards we live by for what we consider innocent and assalt you".

you're arguments are literally laughable. even my wife is laughing at your statements. you should quit trying to argue about this and stick to what you do best, and be xsecx's personal cheerleader.... it's funny when you try and come up with your own arguments.

the standards that HL lives by is to protect the innocent. if you are guilty by those standards, then you must be dealt justice. it's pretty simple really. it is not to say that people should be dealt justice simply for disagreeing with the HL lifestyle. for example, drugs, homosexuality, ovo-lacto diets etc. it is not the people doing these things that are at fault, it is the ones making these choices possible that are at fault. factory farms, drug dealers, even gay-bashers are infringing on the rights of homosexuals to exist and therefore should be dealt justice.


Now i have my own considerations for innocent and hardliners to me are not innocent so why are they in a position to deal out justice as if they are.

apparantly your "considerations for innocent" are for those that are oppressing and exploiting innocent life. so why do you think i really give a shit about your thoughts on HL?
you're definition for "innocent" must read:"pity for the oppressor and for the torturer, and a desire to see they continue on in peace". HL is filled with compassion. compassion is the driving force behind ending the economic exploitation of the poor. it is the reasoning behind the struggle to end factory farming, vivisection etc.
don't blame HL for what the oppressors have done, don't blame HL because you have love in your heart for the wicked ones that don't know the meaning of that word. and until you live a life that is free from oppression, exploitation and strive for the end of pain and suffering of the innocent, don't even think for a second that you can judge HL.




They aren't appointed, they are pretty much terrorists which a crazy agenda that harms innocent people. Hope you learnt something.

aren't appointed what exactly? you are wrong about the terrorists comment. a terrorist, sides with the oppressor. a terrorist sides with the ones enslaving innocent life. a terrorist, supports the multi-million death industries of factory farming. a terrorist, allows sexism, racism and speciesism to go unchallenged. a terrorist, attacks somebody for their religious beliefs. the ANTI-terror advocate is justified in attacking all of these things.

you are so ass-backwards it's hilarious. HL PROTECTS innocent people. and challenges their attackers. the key words here are INNOCENT and ATTACKERS. if you were innocent HL would have no reason to challenge you, if you were guilty of infringing on another innocent beings life, you are a target. and rightfully so.

if i'm walking down the street, and i see somebody kick a dog in the head, i will challenge that person.
if i'm hanging out at a show and i see somebody attack someone for standing there minding their own business i will protect that person.
if i see somebody beating up a person for simply being gay, i will jump in and help the gay person. it's simple to understand really... i don't know why you are having such a hard time understanding it.

xsecx
10-25-2006, 09:44 AM
the manifesto never elevated animal rights over human rights. if a society needs to consume animals to survive, then they must survive. you are a fucking idiot if you can't understand this. i don't know how else i can spell it out for you.
all life is sacred, and all life should be protected and not transgressed. but at the same time a culture consuming animals out of necessity for their survivial is not transgression it is mere survival. there is a big difference between this and factory farming ya wing-nut.

and you're a fucking idiot if you think you can say that all life is equal and then have some situations where human life is elevated over animal rights. i.e. this part "This single ethic ensures that all life, from a foetus, or a grown human (black, white, male or female), to an animal, or it's habitat, is guaranteed equal rights, with liberty for all, regardless of someone's personal bias against them."




you mean extreme views as opposed to those of "straightedge" and "anti religion" views?
let's look at the "extreme views" you are so against:

'you're right, there will always be places where growing food isn't possible. but does that mean that in places where there are alternatives, we should allow animals to remain prisoners/slaves just to satisfy our own greed? no, that is oppressive and wrong.
indigenous cultures are not factory farming billions of animals, and mis-treating them the way so-called "civilized" societies are treating them. to think that the manifesto, is calling for justice to these cultures where hunting and trapping is essential for their existance is plain ridiculous and is not what HL stood for as that would be oppressive to said cultures. like i said the manifesto was just meant to be an introduction to the ideology."

what exactly is so "extreme" about these views? because to me they are based off of common courtesy and respect for cultures other than our own. and based off of respect for lives human and non-human alike. and i find your questioning these views and the way you are quick to call them "extreme" is just ignorant and prejudice against other cultures.
otherwise you would not have a problem with my statement in the first place.


The fact that you get to judge innocent and punishment, when you're in no position to do either is what makes it extreme view.



i'm sure i typed it out in plain english for you to read that the manifesto was only meant to be an introduction to the views and stance of the HL ideology. and that the views were later expanded on in other publications. now either you are stupid, or you can't read. and since you can obviously read that only leaves us with one answer.


the fact that you contradict what is written in the manifesto leads me to believe that you can't read or understand the written word.





you do know that marijuana is a plant right? and you do understand that plants can be grown at home right? this is not to say that ALL rastas smoke home grown weed, but none the less it's possible that alot of them do.....


you do know that growing marijuana is producing a drug and that most people who grow their own also sell it. If you're against the production of drugs, then why does where it's grown matter? So you don't have any conflict with people growing their own drugs? Can you be hardline and rasta?





what people do and use for their spiritual path is none of my business. that is between them and the Creator (swt).


uh... "They shall live at one with the laws of nature, and not forsake them for the desire of pleasure -- from deviant sexual acts and/or abortion, to drug use of any kind (and all other cases where ones harms all life around them under the pretext that they are just harming themselves)."





again, i was under the assumption that you could read. i specifically said:

and if i remeber correctly i said something along the lines of "this is their spirtiual path, even though i don't agree with it, it is still their path to get closer to their Creator (swt)."


and thanks for that but it doesn't actually answer the question I asked. I specifically asked "why don't you take drugs to get closer to your creator?" There's nothing your statement that addresses the question other than state that you don't agree with it.





again, people get closer to their Creator (swt) however they feel they need to get closer. it is none of my business.
the second part of you question is pretty self-explanitory.
worshiping idols equals worshiping idols.
why do you constantly pick the most irrelevent part of my rebuttals to comment on, while missing the majority of the more relevent topics?


If it's none of your business, then how do you get to decide what's innocent and what isn't?
and what makes an idol versus a creator? And how have I missed anything you've commented on since it's broken down point by point? Why can't you answer simple questions that are asked?




well, never say never. there are people living within this society NOW that aren't getting drunk and high and fucking around. i'm surprised you didn't know this.. i mean aren't you the official straightedge know it all?

and just because there has been societies with all of the above things happening, doesn't mean EVERYBODY in these societies did them. so where is this proof of it never existing anyway. i would like to see it actually.


And the people living within this society now that aren't getting drunk high and fucking are the vast minority. You do realize that for things to be the "natural order" it would be the default state of things. Since you don't seem to argue that this has happened throughout history it contradicts your concept that the natural order of humans is to not eat meat, drink, have "deviant sex", do drugs etc. If you do want to argue this, then please, get started.





yes. couples have sex all the time for the pleasure. taking responsibility for the possible result is a different story.

but i have to ask: where do you get this information from? nowhere in the manifesto does it say anything like this.


yes it does. "They shall live at one with the laws of nature, and not forsake them for the desire of pleasure -- from deviant sexual acts and/or abortion, to drug use of any kind (and all other cases where ones harms all life around them under the pretext that they are just harming themselves)."

So the laws of nature isn't that sex should be used for procreation? I mean, that's your issue with homosexuality right? That it can't result in child birth, so then why would sex that didn't result in childbirth not be deviant?







homosexuality may exist in nature, i'm assuming you are referring to non-human animals correct?
if so, you must also agree that eating your own feces, eating your young and leaving your offspring alone to "fend for themselves" also exists in nature. so do you propose we start eating our babies if they are born with downs syndrome? or if they are born missing a leg?
at least be bright enough to not use non-human animals as a basis for your argument..
so obviously we are not supposed to live like non-human beings, and follow their example.


So how does this relate at all to your argument that homosexuality is against nature? I like how you try and shift debates with irrelevant information so you don't actually have to address the question you were asked, so allow me to restate it for you. If homosexuality exists within nature, then how can you call it deviant or unnatural?



you're correct, there are things you can do to decrease the chance of pregnancy. you can in fact decide to only have sex while trying to conceive and then stop when not trying. i don't understand your point in saying this. this is something that is purely up to the "couple" to decide. and in no way does this counter my statement. you can decide to have sex according to ovulation but it doesn't mean you will conceive. and most likely you are going to enjoy the pleasure of trying. so obviously sex without conception but with pleasure is natural....
unless you seek pleasure from sex in an un-natural way. or unconsentual sex.


so what is sex in an un-natural way then?





you're right, you're the one saying it was only an organization. but i specifically recall saying it was only a name, then the HCC formed and it was an official organization.


ok. that's great, you've finally come to terms with the fact that it wasn't just a name.




well, the movement of working toward the common goal to end racism, doesn't really have a name or a "leader" but i'm sure that if i see someone wearing an end racism t shirt then it's somebody i can agree with on the topic, and can potentially work together with them on ending racism.
just to be clear, they don't even have to be wearing a t shirt, it can be somebody who is obviously against racism, for example an inter-racial couple, or somebody arguing with some racist pig etc.

that's not a movement though, that's just a common belief.
Main Entry: move·ment
Pronunciation: 'müv-m&nt
Function: noun
b : a series of organized activities working toward an objective; also : an organized effort to promote or attain an end <the civil rights movement>





it's relevant that things continued after he left because you claim it was only an organization, because he was the "leader" but if that's the only way it was an organization how did it continue after he left?

besides this is not even important. this is one of the single most pathetic arguments against HL: whether it was or wasn't an organization or a word. and i refuse to talk about this aspect of it anymore.


it's ok to admit that you're wrong you know. It was an organization, it wasn't just a name. thanks for playing!





yes. but i'm starting to learn that you have the sense of humor of a brick wall.

I have a great sense of humor, you just haven't said anything funny.






if i had the debating skills of a 5 year old i would admit it... but since i am making more valid points than you seem to keep up with, since you only attack the more irrelevant aspects of my posts. but it's cool, keep telling yourself that "you're the winner..."( complete sarcasm... since you seem to lack the ability to differentiate between sarcasm and realism.)


What valid points have you made that I have ignored?





what are you even talking about?


your apparent issue with me talking about people personal beliefs, so I'm asking what beliefs aren't personal?



to somebody that believes in the Christian faith and is straightedge, you are insulting their beliefs by claiming they can not be Christian and straightedge, that is insulting their beliefs.
you can talk about Islaam all you want, i'm sure it's nothing more than i've heard from the rest of the Islaamaphobic world.

How am I insulting their beliefs by asking them how they call themselves christian and think god is wrong? WHat about people who are christian themselves and asking other "christians" this same question. Is this insulting their beliefs as well?



i like how people like you can call HL "homophobic" all day (even though it isn't) and attack HL for being wrong and blah blah blah, yet you are obviously prejudice against Christians and Mu'min. explain that you hypocrite.


It is homophobic, which is why rat distanced himself from it. So how does someone having issue with the contradictions of the individuals of a faith equate to prejudice? I think you're wrong about your faith, but how does that relate to anything? Are you a hypocrite for thinking people who aren't muslim are wrong?




it's true that i learned about Islaam after i learned about HL. i was 16 when i learned about HL and didn't get heavily into spirituality until my late 20's. this does not make me a follower, it makes me on a path of progression... MOST of my friends are atheist or agnostic. alot of them are Christian and Budhist, and some are Muslim. if i were so much of a follower i would have stayed on the EASY path of "agnosticism". since that is the norm with "straightedge" and "hardcore".
instead, i go into a Masjid covered from head to toe in tattoos, this is not something a follower of Islaam would normally do. i do not hide my tattoos and i do not hide the fact that i am into punk and hardcore. i go there as myself, and hang out with my friends at the masjid and i leave.

i go to HC shows, sometimes wearing a kufi, wearing HL shirts and talking to people about Islaam. this is not something somebody does in SLC and is "liked" for. SLC is a very anti-HL scene and HC in general is a very anti-religion sub-culture. it's sounding less and less as if i am the follower, and more and more as if YOU are the actual follower.... BAAAH!


So your involvement with islam isn't directly linked to your involvement with HL?




because you don't understand what the actual meaning behind the statements in the manifesto mean. it is not code, it is just not the best written piece of literature. why must you make me constantly repeat myself.


Because just repeating yourself doesn't actually address the questions being asked. SO rather than looking at the question, you just spit out the same shit over and over again without actually reading the question. If it's not the best piece of literature, what parts am I not understanding, since you seem to contradict it?





another obvious joke. yet another piece of evidence that your sense of humor is equal of a brick wall.


your concept of obvious really needs to be examined. You do realize that written text doesn't really indicate tone and without knowing your personality at all, no one here really has any way to tell what you say is serious vs what is a "joke"



again with the fat and ugly.... drop it fabio. is that what you wanted me to say?
people will make their own decisions. i'm sure my making sarcastic and joking remarks once in a while are not going to have much of a bearing in their decisions either way.
but if you want to convince anybody of anything you might want to address the more relevant aspects of the "debate" and quit crying over spilt milk....(the fat and ugly thing...)

i wasn't hiding behind anything. i simply pointed out my reasoning behind attacking your physical features. which in reality i really have no way of knowing your physical features, i don't even know if that mug is you or not.

and i definately was not trying to teach you any lessons.


Could you seriously make up your mind here? Either your had reasoning, or it was a joke. If you had reasoning, then yes it would be to try and teach me a lesson, otherwise why would you make an attempt to insult me to illustrate what it must be like to insult peoples personal beliefs? It's amazing to me that you're too damn dense to understand this.




my views on human sexuality are correct, you're the one who still thinks that what's natural can be gauged based off of non-human animals and their sexual habits.

ok. so if you can't gauge what's natural based off nature, then what can you base it off of?



my views on veganism are correct, what's your proof that i am somehow incorrect in my diet?
because you illustrated examples where people can't live and be vegan or that it's the natural order, which it isn't.


my spirituality is correct. since these are personal belifs who are you to call them incorrect?
how do you know that my views on Islaam are incorrect??

just because something is a personal belief, (again, what isn't a personal belief), doesn't mean that it can't be wrong. and uh, you can't be vegan and muslim? Doesn't islam call for animal sacrifice at eid? Or do you just ignore that portion of it because it doesn't fit your "personal beliefs"?



of course i don't think they are incorrect, they are my beliefs. if for some reason i felt they were incorrect, chances are... i wouldn't believe them.... dummy.


or more to the point, you'd lie to yourself and convince yourself that they're right while ignoring evidence to the contrary.



but if you are claiming they are incorrect, isn't it up to you to point out there flaws? which so far you have failed miserably.


I have? Seems to me I've been able to point out your contradictions pretty well. Which is why you've had to go off onto wacky tangents to try and shift the focus from what's actually being discussed, like you do below.




the problem with this question is that you really haven't produced any facts. but your opinions are what's bullshit. i mean, you've claimed to have alot of facts and proof about stuff, but when i've asked for the proof you ignored it to point out irrelevant arguments.


ok. like what, specifically?



but for arguments sake, i'll point out a few flawed opinions...
you claim:
1. HL is against sex.
*it isn't.

sure it is.


2.Natural order never existed.
*it did.

ok. where? when? how? proof? Your version of the natural order, not the real one where people throughout time ate meat, fucked, did drugs and drank.



3. human sexuality can be compared to non-human animal sexuality.
*it can't.


ok. why can't it? You want to talk about natural order, but not include nature?



4.HL started in memphis
*it didn't. it only got big there. there were more HL bands in Memphis/midwest than there were in Ca where HL actually started. and Shahid only passed the responsibilities to people in Memphis.

one dude writing a piece of a "literature" doesn't mean a movement started. It isn't until people actually start getting involved that it's a beginning. Sean moved to memphis and that's why it started. Unless you want to tell me he stayed in CA the whole time?



5. "movements" require specific names and labels.
*they don't.

the dictionary disagrees with you.



6.you claim i MUST rely on personal insults.
* i don't.

yet, you did.



7. you claim i'm a follower, just because i got into Islaam.
* i'm not.


wow you got me there. Saying you're not a follower really makes it true. I'm sure your spirtual path to islam had nothing to do with HL and it's influence, right?



8. you believe that i only got into Islaam because of HL...
* I didn't. i actually got into Budhism before.


so you came to islam on your own and it's just a massive coincidence that you and everyone else involved in HL is into islam now?



9. you claim that all rastas produce and sell drugs.
*they don't and this is a pretty racist claim.


and here's a nice deflection. You now bring racism into it where no racism exists. It's pretty simple logic, which i know it's not your strong point, but try. If rasta's have to use drugs for their religion, then drugs have to be obtained. Now, if a rasta grows drugs, he's producing them, which you're against and if a rasta buy's drugs, you're against that too. Now if rasta's don't produce or buy or sell drugs, then how do they get them? And where did I say all rasta's produce and sell drugs? And most of all, how is saying that rasta's and involved in the drug trade racist?



10. you claim that HL was not a lifestyle.
*it was, and was refferred to as a lifestyle in MANY HL publications.


where did I claim that?



10. you claim that HL was never a violent free way of living.
* i can see where you get this thought, but it is wrong. I know alot of ex-HL dudes that are really non-violent hippy types, and were during HL. HL is very peaceful, and strives for peace, and to be anti HL is to support and side with the violent oppressors.


HL would only be a violent free way of living once all the "guilty" were punished. Until then by definition violence would be necessary, to "protect all innocent life". Protection is still violence.



11.you claim that Shahid, disbanded HL when he got into Islaam.
* Shahid was actually into Islaam during the inception of HL. which is why there are quotes from Al Qur'aan on Vanguard #1. and on the Vegan Reich "The Wrath Of God" record why is there a crescent moon and star above the name? and the quote:
"By the power of the most high we shall carry on their jihad for truth and justice."
obviously Islaamic.


No I didn't. I claimed that after it disbanded it morphed into this weird pseudo islamic group that it is today.



anyway, this is getting lame we will just have to agree to disagree.
besides i'm tired of repeating myself.
-Tahir.
good way to not repeat yourself would be to actually answer the questions being asked rather than the questions you've made up in your head.

straightXed
10-25-2006, 12:38 PM
you can't be serious! that's because i am EXPLAINING the manifesto.

If i eat meat is it not down to hardline people to deal out justice for that action?





this is another assumption. probably by somebody who has never even been around anybody that REALLY knew what HL was.

If you say so.



how is direct action "violent?" if you support the oppressors and exploiters of animals you are oppressive and violent.

How does this equate to the dealing out of justice? And if i support eating meat, why are my beliefs ignored and yours are somehow more important, what makes you so sure animals are innocent? they eat other animals, the beliefs are blinkered and refuse any movement and according to you i'm not innocent so why don't you punnish me big boy?



if you mock somebody for fighting for the rights of others to live out their natural existence, you are oppressive and violent.

I mock people who are so deluded they think they have the right to take the law into their own hands and ignore the rights and beliefs of others by oppressing them with their personal brand of justice. The whole integrity of the movement has been lost at that point.



since HL is anti oppression, and you are anti HL, that makes YOU anti peace. and a supporter of oppression and therefore "violent action" against you is justified.

Its far from justified, thats hilarious that you think it is. I am anti you dealing out justice, that doesn't make me anti peace. You see it as oppression as if its somehow out of human nature to do this yet your movement turns round and uses oppressive violence to enforce itself. You just proove the point of humanity using force to get its way yet ignore that nature withing the animal kingdom.


if somebody was raping/attacking somebody, i would hope and i would expect you would step in and stop that threat to life, by any means necessary.

rape is illeagal, eating an egg isn't, i live in accordance toa different set of laws to the ones hardline suggests and until you manage to get eating an egg banned without using a threating oppresive system its just futile.




how does HL take away the control of ones body?
someone who eats eggs, is not at fault. factory farming eggs is the target.

But my eating eggs gives them a demographic to market towards, come on punish me, i ate an egg. I had a mcdonalds too because i like the taste of beef, i would actually like to farm my own cow and eat it and unfortunately your movement is in no position to dictate that to be right or wrong mainly because of the route it takes in dealing with opposing views. And if i wanted to make my own pumpkin wine for halloween i am not allowed! Thats how i loose control of my own body and effecting it how i so wish too.




the key word here is NORMAL...the word Deviant means to "deviate from normal."
so your statement is incorrect and an oxymoron.

Ok so whats normal? For many the norm is paying for sex, for others the norm is one night stands. Just tell me what i can and can't do sexually if i was to adhere to the hardline way of thinking.





someone who drinks beer made their own personal decisions... and unless someone drinks a beer and attacks an innocent person, they should not be dealt out justice... even then it is not because of the beer, but their actions. get your facts straight....

I'm following the manifesto though, thats what it says. Are you now suggesting beer is irrelevent to being hardline and i can eat dairy and drink wine and still be innocent? even though the manifesto says:

They shall live at one with the laws of nature, and not forsake them for the desire of pleasure -- from deviant sexual acts and/or abortion, to drug use of any kind (and all other cases where ones harms all life around them under the pretext that they are just harming themselves). And, in following with the belief that one shall not infringe on an innocent's life - no animal product shall be consumed (be it flesh, milk or egg).

How can one get their facts straight when the manifesto doesn't give the facts you have self egineered? And even if i did attack someone when drunk, how do you determin the innocence of the victim? See you can attack me thinking i am just a drunk but i could be fighting a noble cause of some sort in adherence to other hardline beliefs. What is your method of trial to decide guilty or inocent?







giving accurate descriptions and explanaitions is not "dressing it up" it is simply giving accurate descriptions and explanations.

Its certainly dressed up enough to no longer resemble the words of the manifesto, that is indeed dressing up.


why do you insist on trying to get people to believe you on a lifestyle and a movement that you were never even a part of? and why must you try and make someone who was actually around, believe your bullshit views about it?

You assume a lot, but anyway if my views are bullshit ignore them, leave, this is the view point of a person at this site, i'm sure you find it hard to deal with different views because that immediately makes me guilty right!? I mean the question should be why do you insist on entertaining my views, asking me to explain them and then whine about me putting them forward. If you didn't want my opinion you shouldn't respond to my posts or post at a forum that allows me to express them. I mean we are all here listening to your bullshit views, the least you could to is the same in return.




you're arguments are literally laughable. even my wife is laughing at your statements. you should quit trying to argue about this and stick to what you do best, and be xsecx's personal cheerleader.... it's funny when you try and come up with your own arguments.

I always aim for a little humour, it helps things along, i see you are still trying to get a rise out of the cheerleader gag, well whatever works for you. Its funny when you try and come up with your own version of hardline that differs from the manifesto and then say it is the manifesto, you make me laugh a lot, especially with your complete inabilty to deal with an opposing view.


the standards that HL lives by is to protect the innocent. if you are guilty by those standards, then you must be dealt justice. it's pretty simple really. it is not to say that people should be dealt justice simply for disagreeing with the HL lifestyle. for example, drugs, homosexuality, ovo-lacto diets etc. it is not the people doing these things that are at fault, it is the ones making these choices possible that are at fault. factory farms, drug dealers, even gay-bashers are infringing on the rights of homosexuals to exist and therefore should be dealt justice.

ok so its simple i live by standards that make me non innocent, suppose i'm a junkie homesexual rent boy by choice who loves a nice steak, are you saying hardline has no beef (haha) with me for that? What if i work at a factory farm in order to keep my kids in clothes, am i excused from punishment? See the manifesto paints a very different picture and doesn't suggest this, which of course makes me an idiot i suppose?




apparantly your "considerations for innocent" are for those that are oppressing and exploiting innocent life. so why do you think i really give a shit about your thoughts on HL?

The fact you keep responding to them makes me think you give a shit. And how are you going to recruit people like me if you don't give a shit about what i think, how are you going to change my mind? By beating me up? How are you striving to liberate me from my chains?



you're definition for "innocent" must read:"pity for the oppressor and for the torturer, and a desire to see they continue on in peace". HL is filled with compassion. compassion is the driving force behind ending the economic exploitation of the poor. it is the reasoning behind the struggle to end factory farming, vivisection etc.

I know i am innocent, i don't see how you are showing me compassion.


don't blame HL for what the oppressors have done, don't blame HL because you have love in your heart for the wicked ones that don't know the meaning of that word. and until you live a life that is free from oppression, exploitation and strive for the end of pain and suffering of the innocent, don't even think for a second that you can judge HL.

I have lived such a life and i am free to make any judgement i wish regardless,just as you with your movement. You have made you judgement of me, and you have pretty much said that you don't care what i think, this doesn't entice me to change my ways, you need to learn better approaches because what i see hardline as directly effects how successful it is on me. I mean you now tell me i can make no judgement on this matter, if thats the case how would i get on to the path of hardline? I mean you say until i live hardline i can make no judgement but i would need to make a judgement in order to live hardline, would i not? I don't blame hardline for what oppresors have done, i blame them for using terrible tactics and for having a manifesto that preaches some shitty ideas. Ideas which you suggest aren't so which is fine but i can't make judgement on that and you wouldn't care what i thought if i did. Which puts me in a postion of seeing you setting yourself up as an enemy against me which naturally causes me to not change my ways.






aren't appointed what exactly? you are wrong about the terrorists comment. a terrorist, sides with the oppressor. a terrorist sides with the ones enslaving innocent life. a terrorist, supports the multi-million death industries of factory farming. a terrorist, allows sexism, racism and speciesism to go unchallenged. a terrorist, attacks somebody for their religious beliefs. the ANTI-terror advocate is justified in attacking all of these things.

No a terrorist is: An individual who uses violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve a result.




you are so ass-backwards it's hilarious. HL PROTECTS innocent people. and challenges their attackers. the key words here are INNOCENT and ATTACKERS. if you were innocent HL would have no reason to challenge you, if you were guilty of infringing on another innocent beings life, you are a target. and rightfully so.

I believe you are guily also, guilty of using a lot of charm when writing your posts.


if i'm walking down the street, and i see somebody kick a dog in the head, i will challenge that person.
if i'm hanging out at a show and i see somebody attack someone for standing there minding their own business i will protect that person.
if i see somebody beating up a person for simply being gay, i will jump in and help the gay person. it's simple to understand really... i don't know why you are having such a hard time understanding it.

well i would to do all those things, but does that make me hardline? NO, so making that statement and then saying you can't see why i have a hard time understanding it is pretty straightforward. The acts you describe aren't the sum of hardline at all are they, if it was there would be a shit load of hardliners right here. I have a hardtime with the other aspects i raised and how you got to your version from the manifesto, but you don't care what i think and shouldn't entertain my judgement on those things. Anyway captain charm, it was a pleasure.

Tahir
10-27-2006, 02:29 AM
and you're a fucking idiot if you think you can say that all life is equal and then have some situations where human life is elevated over animal rights. i.e. this part "This single ethic ensures that all life, from a foetus, or a grown human (black, white, male or female), to an animal, or it's habitat, is guaranteed equal rights, with liberty for all, regardless of someone's personal bias against them."

all life should be respected, and ONLY taken out of necessity, or in defense of self or others. all life IS equal, in the sense that if it is not obligatory to sustain your existence, you should not take a life, because it is "life". but if your survival depends on it, there is no fault in you for taking the necessary actions to sustain your existence. again, if you knew anything about HL, this would be pretty obvious. and again, the manifesto was only meant as an introduction.
sure an animal has the right to live out it's natural existence, but so do humans. and unfortunately sometimes humans MUST rely on consuming non-human animals.

i would agree with you IF and only IF you're problem was specifically about how the manifesto was written. but since this is not about how the manifesto was written, rather about the actual beliefs of HL i will disagree.
and secondly, since this entire thread is about HL not the HL manifesto, why must you keep bringing up the manifesto when i've already told you a handful of times that the manifesto was only an introduction, and all topics were expanded on in other HL publications/literature.

meaning you can't really argue about what HL actually stood for, unless you have actual HL literature can you?





The fact that you get to judge innocent and punishment, when you're in no position to do either is what makes it extreme view.

we are obligated as humans to judge between the innocent and guilty. Human beings are the only animals with the capacity to differentiate between "good" and "evil".

why am I personally in no positiion to judge? why am I not personally in the position to stand up for the oppressed and deal out justice to the oppressor? this is not a "privelege" it is an obligation of every human being on the planet.

if i were to walk through the park at night and see a girl being raped, am i in no position to stop that threat, by any means necessary, even if that means the use of violence???

your entire argument is on the side of the oppressor and supports violence against the innocent. HL is the opposite, why is this so bad? and why is this so hard to understand?
to say that one can NOT use violence to stop these threats to life, is not only siding with the guilty, but is an opinion to ensure that these victims will always remain victims. and therefore is oppressive and morally wrong.

but YOU can go ahead and keep relying on the "justice system" where Justice is only a concept lost in translation between "power" and "greed".

..... but don't tell me, that you have "faith" in this "justice system" now too.....?




the fact that you contradict what is written in the manifesto leads me to believe that you can't read or understand the written word.

again, this is not contradicting, it is expanding on an introduction. but since i've repeated this numerous times, leads me to believe that YOU can't read or understand the written word.....





you do know that growing marijuana is producing a drug and that most people who grow their own also sell it. If you're against the production of drugs, then why does where it's grown matter? So you don't have any conflict with people growing their own drugs?

yes i do know that growing marijuana is producing a drug... and i understand that alot of people who grow marijuana also sell it. but i also understand that not ALL people who grow it sell it.

i am against the production of drugs period. it doesn't matter where it's grown. i was simply implying that not all rastas get their marijuana from some "columbian drug lord." which in my opinion is alot worse than someone growing marijuana in their closet to smoke themselves and not sell.


Can you be hardline and rasta?

well since not ALL rastas smoke marijuana, i guess it would be possible.
While there is a clear belief in the beneficial qualities of cannabis, it is not compulsory to use it, and there are Rastas who do not do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafari_movement




uh... "They shall live at one with the laws of nature, and not forsake them for the desire of pleasure -- from deviant sexual acts and/or abortion, to drug use of any kind (and all other cases where ones harms all life around them under the pretext that they are just harming themselves)."

uh... this is talking about adherents to HARDLINE and not rastas, or anybody else for that matter....




and thanks for that but it doesn't actually answer the question I asked. I specifically asked "why don't you take drugs to get closer to your creator?" There's nothing your statement that addresses the question other than state that you don't agree with it.

umm. except for the part where i stated that " I don't agree with it."





If it's none of your business, then how do you get to decide what's innocent and what isn't?
spiritual practices are none of my business, the oppression of innocents is.


and what makes an idol versus a creator?

why does it matter?
but for arguments sake, an idol can be "visualized" meaning it has shape and limitations. and in spiritual practice is always either a human, or an object and not Allah (swt).


And how have I missed anything you've commented on since it's broken down point by point? Why can't you answer simple questions that are asked?

this is pretty irrelevent, but since i've answered questions and you still insist on asking the same questions just re-worded while even repeating my answer in some of the questions you ask, it's pretty safe to say that you've "missed" my point.

and although you may have in most cases "quoted" my posts in it's entirety, more often than not, you will pick the most irrelevent part of my posts to comment on...

and actually i am answering your questions. the problem is that you don't want answers you want debate. you don't want to admit when i say something you can't challenge. so you shift the focal point of the discussion, and decide instead to ask stupid questions like, "what makes an idol vs. a creator" and "can rastas be hardline".... you're questions are starting to resemble the debating skills of "straightxed"..... which isn't good for you, although may boost straightxed's ego a little since he obviously looks up to you..... how cute.




And the people living within this society now that aren't getting drunk high and fucking are the vast minority.

yet they still exist. so why do you insist on claiming that there has never been people living "against the grain" up until fairly recently?


You do realize that for things to be the "natural order" it would be the default state of things.

please explain.


Since you don't seem to argue that this has happened throughout history it contradicts your concept that the natural order of humans is to not eat meat, drink, have "deviant sex", do drugs etc. If you do want to argue this, then please, get started.

it is against the "natural order" to indulge in fast food, junk food, factory farming, and "simulated rape" (which is the dairy industry).
you're right i don't argue that deviant sex, drug use and animal consumption has existed throughout history. but i also realize that throughout history there have been some that have abstained from these things.






yes it does. "They shall live at one with the laws of nature, and not forsake them for the desire of pleasure -- from deviant sexual acts and/or abortion, to drug use of any kind (and all other cases where ones harms all life around them under the pretext that they are just harming themselves)."

do you not know the meaning of the word FORSAKE? it's pretty much contained in the quote. "they shall live at one with the laws of NATURE, and not FORSAKE them (the laws of nature) for THE DESIRE of pleasure--FROM DEVIANT SEXUAL ACTS..."

meaning forsaking the laws of nature simply for pleasure, completely disregarding the NATURAL aspect of sex (yin and yang essence, possible conception of a child etc.) is not "okay"...

meaning, it may be "natural" for a man to be sexually attracted to little boys. but only by FORSAKING the laws of nature can he act on such deviant sexual acts. which i hope i don't have to explain to you WHY this is wrong, and considered "deviant."



So the laws of nature isn't that sex should be used for procreation?

the law of nature is that sex IS for procreation. but the law of nature is also that sex IS pleasureable, and it is the law of nature that you can't plan the exact date of conception. meaning you can have sex, and just because a child is not conceived doesn't make it against the natural order.... do i need to draw a diagram?


I mean, that's your issue with homosexuality right? That it can't result in child birth,

homosexuality sex is "deviant" because it is IMPOSSIBLE to procreate life. again this is NOT a homophobic statement, this fact.
i believe that it can be completely natural for two men or two women to have feelings for eachother and love. i don't believe this is anti "the natural order" but homosexual sex, is against the natural order. do we have to get into why this is un-natural? other than it is physically impossible to conceive a child this way?


so then why would sex that didn't result in childbirth not be deviant?

again, because you can't time conception. you can attempt to but it is impossible. this is not to say that it is impossible to conceive when trying. some couples are lucky in that sense. but it isn't because of the "timing" rather because of nature taking it's course.




So how does this relate at all to your argument that homosexuality is against nature? I like how you try and shift debates with irrelevant information so you don't actually have to address the question you were asked, so allow me to restate it for you. If homosexuality exists within nature, then how can you call it deviant or unnatural?

... i didn't "shift" debates, i responded to your comment. you think that just because homosexuality occurs in non-human animals then it must be natural for humans. i simply said that ALOT of things occur in the non-human animal kingdom that is un-natural for humans. the information was certainly relevant, considering you are using non-human animals as a basis for the nature of humans. i'm surprised you didn't know that humans are a completely different species of ALL non-human animals.




so what is sex in an un-natural way then?

.... oh for a second there i thought i was responding to "straightxed".....

does it surprise you to learn that the anus is not meant for penetration? we can get into the science of it if you'd like....



ok. that's great, you've finally come to terms with the fact that it wasn't just a name.

i recall stating that it was only a name until the HCC was formed in the very beginning... specifically in my second post.... but again, this is pointless... but don't try and turn my refusing to talk about irrelevent bullshit as "coming to terms" with anything.



that's not a movement though, that's just a common belief.
Main Entry: move·ment
Pronunciation: 'müv-m&nt
Function: noun
b : a series of organized activities working toward an objective; also : an organized effort to promote or attain an end <the civil rights movement>

i'm sorry can you point out exactly where it says that a "movement" must have a recognized leader and a name, like you originally claimed? because i don't see it anywhere. you basically just reworded what i said.




it's ok to admit that you're wrong you know. It was an organization, it wasn't just a name. thanks for playing!


....irrelevent bullshit....




I have a great sense of humor, you just haven't said anything funny.

....



What valid points have you made that I have ignored?

you can go back through and figure it out if you want. if i had the time to go through it i would, maybe i'll do that later on.....








your apparent issue with me talking about people personal beliefs, so I'm asking what beliefs aren't personal?

i'm asking what did that even have to do with anything at all?



How am I insulting their beliefs by asking them how they call themselves christian and think god is wrong? WHat about people who are christian themselves and asking other "christians" this same question. Is this insulting their beliefs as well?

because straightedge is a part of their beliefs... and you somehow find the right to tell someone what they can and can not believe, but for some reason you claim that i'm wrong in my stance against oppression, and my willingness to fight for the oppressed and exploited???? explain that to me.

well from my understanding of Christianity (which i'll admit i'm not all that invested in it) not all Christians, believe that Jesus (as) is a god.... so i guess it would depend on individual Christian beliefs....



It is homophobic, which is why rat distanced himself from it.

so all this does is make Rat, just another person who doesn't understand the nature aspect of "sex" and what it's used for. this doesn't prove anything about "homophobia."


So how does someone having issue with the contradictions of the individuals of a faith equate to prejudice?

well for one, because if it's not YOUR belief it's none of your business. and your "you can't be straightedge if you're Christian.." bullshit is alot like... "you can't drink from this fountain, if you have black skin.." bullshit. you are trying to separate YOU from THEM, for nothing more than beliefs, and is prejudice.

HL never did this based on BELIEFS only based on ACTION. there is a difference between saying "you can't kill for greed..." and "you can't believe so and so..." but i'll admit that i am prejudice against the oppressors.



I think you're wrong about your faith, but how does that relate to anything? Are you a hypocrite for thinking people who aren't muslim are wrong?

i don't think anybody is "wrong" about their faith. i don't think anybody is "wrong" for not being Muslim. my wife isn't even a "muslim" in the sense that she doesn't practice Islaamic tradition. so you are assuming this and that without even knowing anything... again.

you're right, you THINK i am wrong about my faith... little do you know, that YOU are the one who is wrong about my faith..... am i supposed to wonder why you think i'm wrong in my faith??? that's the beauty of it being MY faith..... i don't care.




So your involvement with islam isn't directly linked to your involvement with HL?

my "involvement" with Islaam, is directly linked to my belief in Allah (swt).
my "involvement" with HL was directly linked to my love for nature.
Islaam is also reffered to Din al-Fitrah, which translates to "the way or the religion of nature." HL was heavily influenced by Islaam, when i finally took the initiative to learn more about Islaam i recognized the similarities more and more.
so ultimately i do thank Allah (swt) every day for leading me from something as simple minded as straightedge to something like HL because it strengthened my mind and my body enough to be open to the idea of spirituality. which eventually turned me onto Islaam, Taoism, Budhism, Judaism etc. which ultimately i chose Islaam as my path.

but my point is that if i were a "follower" i would have remained on the agnosticism path since that's where most of my friends are. and since straightedge and "hardcore" as a whole is generally agnostic..... which would have made it a hell of alot easier to stay there than to constantly debate and lose "friendships" over my spiritual beliefs.





Because just repeating yourself doesn't actually address the questions being asked.

i repeat myself because you and straightxed constantly re word the original question. even though i answer it.



SO rather than looking at the question, you just spit out the same shit over and over again without actually reading the question. If it's not the best piece of literature, what parts am I not understanding, since you seem to contradict it?

again with repeating myself... i'm not contradicting it i'm explaining it.
i'm not saying you aren't reading it correctly because i feel that you may be. the problem is that you don't UNDERSTAND it. because you haven't read all of the other literature that expanded on the topics within the manifesto. that's all there is to it.



your concept of obvious really needs to be examined. You do realize that written text doesn't really indicate tone and without knowing your personality at all, no one here really has any way to tell what you say is serious vs what is a "joke"

i swear i already said this....just in different words. you are so confused that not only are you re-wording your statements but mine as well....



Could you seriously make up your mind here? Either your had reasoning, or it was a joke. If you had reasoning, then yes it would be to try and teach me a lesson, otherwise why would you make an attempt to insult me to illustrate what it must be like to insult peoples personal beliefs? It's amazing to me that you're too damn dense to understand this.

the reasoning was because you felt you were somehow justified to attack personal beliefs. so in a joking way, ( i was under the impression that you would recognize sarcasm) i attacked you.... either way, i keep apologizing and that's it. i'm done talking about it.




ok. so if you can't gauge what's natural based off nature, then what can you base it off of?

this is obviously NOT what i am saying at all. rather i am saying that comparing humans with non-human animals is like comparing apples and oranges. we are too different to claim similarities....

just because a monkey might have homosexual sex, doesn't mean humans should do it too. just as monkey's have been known to be cannibalistic, does that mean it's okay to eat your neighbor?
and again, monkey's don't have the moral capacity to differentiate between what is "right" and what is "wrong".... humans do.


because you illustrated examples where people can't live and be vegan or that it's the natural order, which it isn't.

how does this conflict with my choice to be vegan? and how i view veganism?


just because something is a personal belief, (again, what isn't a personal belief), doesn't mean that it can't be wrong. and uh, you can't be vegan and muslim? Doesn't islam call for animal sacrifice at eid? Or do you just ignore that portion of it because it doesn't fit your "personal beliefs"?

animal sacrifice is NOT one of the 5 pillars of Islaam. meaning it is not obligatory to slaughter nor is it obligatory to eat meat. the Qur'aan talks about "sacrifice" meaning people were trying to make a personal sacrifice by sharing their limited means of survival with the poorer members of their community. animals were peoples main source of survival, so during Eid people would "sacrifice" or share their means of survival with the poor people of their community.
to answer your question, Yes you can be Vegan and Muslim, and NO Islaam doesn't "call for animal sacrifce" not only at Eid, but EVER!!!


or more to the point, you'd lie to yourself and convince yourself that they're right while ignoring evidence to the contrary.

i guess so... but show me where slaughtering animals is held with the 5 pillars of Islaam.



I have? Seems to me I've been able to point out your contradictions pretty well. Which is why you've had to go off onto wacky tangents to try and shift the focus from what's actually being discussed, like you do below.

well i don't recall you pointing out any contradictions. i recall you getting the wrong idea about alot of stuff and not understanding what i'm saying alot.



ok. like what, specifically?
i'm not going through the previous posts... you can do that. and if you find anything you've ignored then go ahead and comment on it.


sure it is.

sure it isn't... you aren't doing a very good job at proving "your points"


ok. where? when? how? proof? Your version of the natural order, not the real one where people throughout time ate meat, fucked, did drugs and drank.

again dipshit, just because people did that shit throughout history doesn't prove that there weren't people who abstained.



ok. why can't it? You want to talk about natural order, but not include nature?

because humans and non-human animals are DIFFERENT SPECIES... i'm sure there are websites you can go to that will teach you the jist of this.


one dude writing a piece of a "literature" doesn't mean a movement started. It isn't until people actually start getting involved that it's a beginning. Sean moved to memphis and that's why it started. Unless you want to tell me he stayed in CA the whole time?

i guess you don't count the other people of Vegan Reich that were involved, or shahids other friends???... but either way i'm not really concerned about this enough to make it a big deal...



the dictionary disagrees with you.

the dictionary never said "recognized leader" or "name" or "labels"
so your own answers disagree with you...



yet, you did.

but i don't rely on it...



wow you got me there. Saying you're not a follower really makes it true. I'm sure your spirtual path to islam had nothing to do with HL and it's influence, right?

well i guess by you saying that i am, makes it true? my spiritual path to Islaam, definately had alot to do with HL and i'm not denying that. but again, if i were a follower don't you think i would have followed all of my closer friends??? and avoided losing alot of "friends"?



so you came to islam on your own and it's just a massive coincidence that you and everyone else involved in HL is into islam now?

yes i did come to Islaam on my own. nobody forced me to learn about Islaam. and you're "massive coincidence" is a poorly formulated assumption. because "everyone else involved in HL" are NOT also into HL. that was one thing that eventually led to the dissolving of HL, were opposing beliefs on spirituality.... wow, you're proving to know less and less about HL every day.




and here's a nice deflection. You now bring racism into it where no racism exists. It's pretty simple logic, which i know it's not your strong point, but try. If rasta's have to use drugs for their religion, then drugs have to be obtained.

not all rastas use marijuana..... read a book once in a while.


Now, if a rasta grows drugs, he's producing them, which you're against and if a rasta buy's drugs, you're against that too. Now if rasta's don't produce or buy or sell drugs, then how do they get them? And where did I say all rasta's produce and sell drugs? And most of all, how is saying that rasta's and involved in the drug trade racist?

i may be against the marijuana use, but i am not a rasta. i swear i already pointed this out numerous times.....
the racist comment was an assumption on my part. my bad, i apologize as it was a pretty harsh assumption. but at least i can admit when i'm at fault.... you should take notes.




where did I claim that?

"hardline was an organization and not a lifestyle"
post #115.



HL would only be a violent free way of living once all the "guilty" were punished. Until then by definition violence would be necessary, to "protect all innocent life". Protection is still violence.

violence used against random hamburger eaters is not comparable to violence used to enforce peace and equality. the point is, HL strives for peace and sometimes "violence" is necessary to enforce peace and equality.




No I didn't. I claimed that after it disbanded it morphed into this weird pseudo islamic group that it is today.

"yes, hardline was an actual organization with a head and an official roster. the dude who ran it disbanded it when he started getting into the wacky muslim shit that he and the former hardline people are now into."

which while it's right there ^^^^ not all of the former HL people are "into" it.... just thought i'd point that out again.

the "group" today is completely different then what HL "morphed into"





good way to not repeat yourself would be to actually answer the questions being asked rather than the questions you've made up in your head.

are you talking to me or straightxed???

Tahir
10-27-2006, 04:05 AM
[QUOTE=straightXed]If i eat meat is it not down to hardline people to deal out justice for that action?

NO. random people on the streets were never intended on being the targets of HL justice. i have said this repeatedly.. learn how to fucking read you dweeb.






If you say so.

i do say so. you never even met someone who lived according to HL.





How does this equate to the dealing out of justice?

because if you support the oppressors you are guilty of oppression. it's pretty much as simple as 1+1=2.
if i drive a getaway car for somebody else to rob a bank, i am just as guilty of bank robbery....



And if i support eating meat, why are my beliefs ignored and yours are somehow more important, what makes you so sure animals are innocent? they eat other animals, the

eating meat isn't a belief. it's an ignorant and immoral action when considering you have access to the internet, i'm assuming you have access to alternatives to meat consumption.

and i'll have to admit that, believing in justice for the oppressed is a much more important belief than... "meat eating..." hahaha...


beliefs are blinkered and refuse any movement and according to you i'm not innocent so why don't you punnish me big boy?

well i don't know what "beliefs are blinkered and refuse any movement" is supposed to mean. and i'm sure you would like me to punnish you.



I mock people who are so deluded they think they have the right to take the law into their own hands and ignore the rights and beliefs of others by oppressing them with their personal brand of justice.

the problem with this statement, is that the "law" doesn't prevent exploitation, oppression, and violence towards innocent sentient beings. and "the law" you speak of is man-made. it is based off of capitalistic ideas. and has total disregard for the low income members of society.


The whole integrity of the movement has been lost at that point.

the whole integrity of your opinion has been lost as soon as you opened your mouth.




Its far from justified, thats hilarious that you think it is. I am anti you dealing out justice, that doesn't make me anti peace.

it actually does make you anti peace. if all i strive for is peace.
it's like if i'm driving from point A to point B, and you constantly block my path and say you are not against me making it to point B.


You see it as oppression as if its somehow out of human nature to do this yet your movement turns round and uses oppressive violence to enforce itself.

how can justice be oppressive? how can dealing out justice to an exploiter and oppressor of innocents be oppressive? is a police officer oppressive for "repressing" somebodies "right" to steal your car?
no, just as someone is not oppressive for putting an end to somebodies bloodthirsty ways of corporate murder, since lives are at stake.

were the people who revolted against their captives in nazi germany's concetration camps somehow at fault for their uprisings?


You just proove the point of humanity using force to get its way yet ignore that nature withing the animal kingdom.

what the hell are you trying to say?


rape is illeagal, eating an egg isn't, i live in accordance toa different set of laws to the ones hardline suggests and until you manage to get eating an egg banned without using a threating oppresive system its just futile.

okay.. i'm glad you cleared that up for me. dipshit.






But my eating eggs gives them a demographic to market towards, come on punish me, i ate an egg.

i can't hold you accountable for eating eggs. it would be unjust to "punish" the mentally challenged little kid with an egg fetish


I had a mcdonalds too because i like the taste of beef

i'm sure you do like the taste of beef.



, i would actually like to farm my own cow and eat it and unfortunately your movement is in no position to dictate that to be right or wrong mainly because of the route it takes in dealing with opposing views.

i can't believe i'm actually reading and responding to this crap....


And if i wanted to make my own pumpkin wine for halloween i am not allowed!

i could care less if you did that, but the king of straightedge (xsecx) might take away your X'ing up marker and kick you out of his club.


Thats how i loose control of my own body and effecting it how i so wish too.

wow, you're so smart. i guess i'll go re-think my beliefs.



Ok so whats normal? For many the norm is paying for sex, for others the norm is one night stands. Just tell me what i can and can't do sexually if i was to adhere to the hardline way of thinking.

i'm not going to give some little kid "the talk".. you're going to have to look elsewhere.




I'm following the manifesto though, thats what it says. Are you now suggesting beer is irrelevent to being hardline and i can eat dairy and drink wine and still be innocent? even though the manifesto says:

They shall live at one with the laws of nature, and not forsake them for the desire of pleasure -- from deviant sexual acts and/or abortion, to drug use of any kind (and all other cases where ones harms all life around them under the pretext that they are just harming themselves). And, in following with the belief that one shall not infringe on an innocent's life - no animal product shall be consumed (be it flesh, milk or egg).


you mean you couldn't even find your own part of the manifesto to quote? you had to quote the same exact part as xsecx? weird how you keep doing shit like this. i almost wonder if you're the same person.... but his responses are much more intelligent than yours.... which really isn't saying much.

but to answer your question, AGAIN.
somebody who is ignorant to the manifesto even existing is not held accountable for drinking a beer, eating an egg, masturbating to gay porn... or whatever. this is talking about ADHERENTS TO THE HARDLINE IDEOLOGY. in fact if you were to actually read it instead of just quoting the same piece that your mentor quoted, you read in the sentence before:
"adherents to the hardline will abide by these principles in daily life." it doesn't say some guy down the street that has never even heard of hardline and is chowing down animal carcasses will abide by these principles...


How can one get their facts straight when the manifesto doesn't give the facts you have self egineered? And even if i did attack someone when drunk, how do you determin the innocence of the victim? See you can attack me thinking i am just a drunk but i could be fighting a noble cause of some sort in adherence to other hardline beliefs. What is your method of trial to decide guilty or inocent?

yet another well thought out comment.....

well the manifesto again, was meant as an introduction. i have not "self engineered" anything. i just understand the HL ideology, more than you.

you're right, sometimes people attack based on moral justification. but sometimes it's obviously not morally just. for example, a drunk male assaults a woman by grabbing her ass, i will step in on a situation like that. and rightfully so. you are still thinking i'm talking about walking down the street fighting anybody who thinks differently and this is just not the case.



Its certainly dressed up enough to no longer resemble the words of the manifesto, that is indeed dressing up.

i guess the manifesto cleans up nicely when you actually understand it then.




You assume a lot, but anyway if my views are bullshit ignore them, leave, this is the view point of a person at this site, i'm sure you find it hard to deal with different views because that immediately makes me guilty right!?

hahaha....


I mean the question should be why do you insist on entertaining my views, asking me to explain them and then whine about me putting them forward.

well the problem is that you don't actually EXPLAIN them. you don't even understand them. and you are trying to tell people what HardLine was, when you don't even understand that. that is the only reason why i joined in on this, because i saw the shit some of you people were saying and thought i could actually give some insight. unaware that i was talking to people with the brain capacity of the chair i'm sitting on.


If you didn't want my opinion you shouldn't respond to my posts or post at a forum that allows me to express them. I mean we are all here listening to your bullshit views, the least you could to is the same in return.

first of all, i am reading your opinions and your bullshit views. how else do you think i know that you are fucking stupid?

secondly, the difference is that although you may disagree with my "bullshit views" and i'm sure alot more people that are reading this crap agree more with you and your boyfriend on this, then me. but i know about HL more than you do, and you keep pretending that you know more which just isn't true. so if you want to learn about it, quit trying to prove me "wrong" and ask questions that are relevent and worth answering. not this "if i make pumpkin wine for halloween am i guilty and will you come punish me.." bullshit.





I always aim for a little humour, it helps things along, i see you are still trying to get a rise out of the cheerleader gag, well whatever works for you. Its funny when you try and come up with your own version of hardline that differs from the manifesto and then say it is the manifesto, you make me laugh a lot, especially with your complete inabilty to deal with an opposing view.

again, it was an introduction to the beliefs of HL......
i can completely deal with opposing views, i just can't deal with stupidity and ignorance.



ok so its simple i live by standards that make me non innocent,

you said it, not me.


suppose i'm a junkie homesexual rent boy by choice who loves a nice steak, are you saying hardline has no beef (haha) with me for that?

people are people despite their personal "vice" and should not be infringed on. especially since "junkie homosexual rent boy" is only hurting himself. about the steak part, alot of people like steaks, my mother eats animals am i supposed to deal out justice to her? no, this is simply just not practical.... but that is not to say that the factory farms, and people that make a blood-stained living off of the exploitation and inhumane slaughter of animals that my mother may buy are not guilty of immoral crimes against nature.... because they are.


What if i work at a factory farm in order to keep my kids in clothes, am i excused from punishment?

there are other jobs out there, don't give me the "this is the only job bullshit" somebody who uses their children as an excuse to exploit and oppress innocent life are full of shit..
a diamond dealer in Africa may rely on blood-diamonds to feed his family does it make it okay?...




See the manifesto paints a very different picture and doesn't suggest this, which of course makes me an idiot i suppose?

you're right about one thing, you definately are an idiot. but it's not because of your misunderstanding of the manifesto. i get the feeling you were like that before you ever even heard of HL.





The fact you keep responding to them makes me think you give a shit. And how are you going to recruit people like me if you don't give a shit about what i think,

why would i want to "recruit" a junkie homosexual rent boy that loves the taste of tubesteak?


how are you going to change my mind? By beating me up? How are you striving to liberate me from my chains?

some people don't want to be liberated. you have the mentality of a "house slave" that doesn't want to think outside of your comfort zone. you want to remain in the shadow of ignorance...


I know i am innocent, i don't see how you are showing me compassion.

no one is innocent. but we are all obligated to do our best.




I have lived such a life and i am free to make any judgement i wish regardless,just as you with your movement. You have made you judgement of me, and you have pretty much said that you don't care what i think, this doesn't entice me to change my ways, you need to learn better approaches because what i see hardline as directly effects how successful it is on me.

if you would base whether or not you change your criminalistic ways based on if you will gain new "friends" or not, then you are pathetic. you should change your views and lifestyle based on whether or not it is oppressive, and exploiting to others.


I mean you now tell me i can make no judgement on this matter, if thats the case how would i get on to the path of hardline?

you are always welcome to your opinion and even to pass judgement. but why do you feel you are in some position to pass judgement on people you don't even understand their ideology? you've only read the manifesto, the introduction, and haven't looked enough into the ideology to pass an educated judgement.


I mean you say until i live hardline i can make no judgement but i would need to make a judgement in order to live hardline, would i not?

not necessarily.


I don't blame hardline for what oppresors have done, i blame them for using terrible tactics and for having a manifesto that preaches some shitty ideas.

so you hold no blame for the oppressors at all? only blame for someone trying to make a change, so what if the manifesto was written poorly? that is why you are siding with the oppressor, and why you are guilty of oppression.


Ideas which you suggest aren't so which is fine but i can't make judgement on that and you wouldn't care what i thought if i did. Which puts me in a postion of seeing you setting yourself up as an enemy against me which naturally causes me to not change my ways.

big deal! i can't be judged by The Most High (swt), for what you believe or what you support. ultimately that is your deal and you will have to face up to it. so have fun with that.... mr. enemy.



No a terrorist is: An individual who uses violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve a result.

results as in hamburgers?




I believe you are guily also, guilty of using a lot of charm when writing your posts.

thank you.... it's about time i get the recognition i deserve.




well i would to do all those things, but does that make me hardline? NO, so making that statement and then saying you can't see why i have a hard time understanding it is pretty straightforward.

you're right it is pretty "straight forward" and since you admit it's pretty straightforward, what is the problem?



The acts you describe aren't the sum of hardline at all are they, if it was there would be a shit load of hardliners right here.

no they aren't, but they are examples that HL would see worthy of dealing out justice.


I have a hardtime with the other aspects i raised and how you got to your version from the manifesto,

what other aspects? the junkie homosexual rent boy scenario?


but you don't care what i think and shouldn't entertain my judgement on those things. Anyway captain charm, it was a pleasure.


you're right i ultimately don't care what you think. i mean i will discuss, debate or even make fun of your thoughts but chances are nothing you say will change my mind, lifestyle or beliefs.
i don't mind "entertaining" your judgement and thoughts, it is in fact entertaining to me....

especially how you can't think for yourself. i mean you even use the same prefix as an insult as xsecx... he called me "captain islam" and you with the "captain charm"... it's cute really, how you two finish eachothers sentences.....

and the pleasure was all mine.

xsecx
10-27-2006, 10:47 AM
all life should be respected, and ONLY taken out of necessity, or in defense of self or others. all life IS equal, in the sense that if it is not obligatory to sustain your existence, you should not take a life, because it is "life". but if your survival depends on it, there is no fault in you for taking the necessary actions to sustain your existence. again, if you knew anything about HL, this would be pretty obvious. and again, the manifesto was only meant as an introduction.
sure an animal has the right to live out it's natural existence, but so do humans. and unfortunately sometimes humans MUST rely on consuming non-human animals.

Then what is necessity? For hardline to make sense you'd have to kill/get rid of most of humanity and only exist in places that could sustain fruit and vegetable farming. If humans have to rely of consuming non-human animals in even some instances then they're not equal. This entire concept still places humans at the top of the food chain.



i would agree with you IF and only IF you're problem was specifically about how the manifesto was written. but since this is not about how the manifesto was written, rather about the actual beliefs of HL i will disagree.
and secondly, since this entire thread is about HL not the HL manifesto, why must you keep bringing up the manifesto when i've already told you a handful of times that the manifesto was only an introduction, and all topics were expanded on in other HL publications/literature.


since you haven't actually backed your statements with sources and the only thing we have to go on for hardline actually is the manifesto, that's probably why. If the manifesto isn't a manifestio and doesn't represent what someone who is hardline believes then you're right it's irrelevant, but since it does, then it is.



meaning you can't really argue about what HL actually stood for, unless you have actual HL literature can you?

so the literature contradicts the manifesto? the concepts of HL are outlined in the manifesto and it's the concepts we're discussing, so how can't we?




we are obligated as humans to judge between the innocent and guilty. Human beings are the only animals with the capacity to differentiate between "good" and "evil".

why am I personally in no positiion to judge? why am I not personally in the position to stand up for the oppressed and deal out justice to the oppressor? this is not a "privelege" it is an obligation of every human being on the planet.


because your concept of good and evil differs from the majority of people. This is why laws and recognized representatives are intrusted with deciding guilt and innocence and punishment. Think about the history around your version of personal justice and then talk to me about how well it worked, especially in the US.



if i were to walk through the park at night and see a girl being raped, am i in no position to stop that threat, by any means necessary, even if that means the use of violence???


stopping the rapist isn't the same punishing him. Unless your idea of stop is to beat him to death. What do you do with the rapist after he's gotten off of the girl?



your entire argument is on the side of the oppressor and supports violence against the innocent. HL is the opposite, why is this so bad? and why is this so hard to understand?
to say that one can NOT use violence to stop these threats to life, is not only siding with the guilty, but is an opinion to ensure that these victims will always remain victims. and therefore is oppressive and morally wrong.

because and I know this is a hard one for you to understand is that most people don't agree with your concept of "the guilty" or even "victims". If you want to stick to just humans then sure, but then you run into trouble with the abortion part, since a lot of people would view HL stance on it as wrong and oppressive to the life that already exists.



but YOU can go ahead and keep relying on the "justice system" where Justice is only a concept lost in translation between "power" and "greed".

..... but don't tell me, that you have "faith" in this "justice system" now too.....?

I have more faith in the justice system than I do in individuals to decide right and wrong. So what justice have you dolled out? What are some examples?




again, this is not contradicting, it is expanding on an introduction. but since i've repeated this numerous times, leads me to believe that YOU can't read or understand the written word.....

yeah. when I point out something that's a contradiction, like where not all life is equal, you saying it's not a contradiction and that it's expanding on an introduction doesn't really do it. You can't say that all life is equal and should be protected and then say that it's ok to kill sometimes. This is the defintion of a contradiction. So either all life is equal and killing should never happen, which the manifesto says, or taking a life is ok and eating an animal is ok if you need to.




yes i do know that growing marijuana is producing a drug... and i understand that alot of people who grow marijuana also sell it. but i also understand that not ALL people who grow it sell it.

i am against the production of drugs period. it doesn't matter where it's grown. i was simply implying that not all rastas get their marijuana from some "columbian drug lord." which in my opinion is alot worse than someone growing marijuana in their closet to smoke themselves and not sell.
so wait, DO you have a problem with producing drugs or not? See on the one hand you've said that it's ok because it gets them closer to their creator but now you're saying you're against the production of drugs period. Please make up your mind.





well since not ALL rastas smoke marijuana, i guess it would be possible.
While there is a clear belief in the beneficial qualities of cannabis, it is not compulsory to use it, and there are Rastas who do not do so.

so then why would you be ok with them consuming it to get closer to their creator if it's not necessary?




uh... this is talking about adherents to HARDLINE and not rastas, or anybody else for that matter....

and for hardline to work and be sucessful wouldn't everyone need to be an adherent of hadline? Unless you're telling me it's not the best way to live and there are reasons why people shouldn't?






umm. except for the part where i stated that " I don't agree with it."

yeah that doesn't explain WHY you don't agree with it, which is the question I've asked now what 4 times?




spiritual practices are none of my business, the oppression of innocents is.

so spiritual practices never oppress the innocents? Like I don't know, say convince them that they should develop a drug habit to get closer to their god?




why does it matter?
but for arguments sake, an idol can be "visualized" meaning it has shape and limitations. and in spiritual practice is always either a human, or an object and not Allah (swt).

so you do think that people who aren't muslim are wrong because they're worshipping idols and not allah .




this is pretty irrelevent, but since i've answered questions and you still insist on asking the same questions just re-worded while even repeating my answer in some of the questions you ask, it's pretty safe to say that you've "missed" my point.

and although you may have in most cases "quoted" my posts in it's entirety, more often than not, you will pick the most irrelevent part of my posts to comment on...

and actually i am answering your questions. the problem is that you don't want answers you want debate. you don't want to admit when i say something you can't challenge. so you shift the focal point of the discussion, and decide instead to ask stupid questions like, "what makes an idol vs. a creator" and "can rastas be hardline".... you're questions are starting to resemble the debating skills of "straightxed"..... which isn't good for you, although may boost straightxed's ego a little since he obviously looks up to you..... how cute.

I pick the points in your argument that aren't consistant, which you label as irrelevant. You know like saying all life is equal and should be protected and then talk about how it's ok to kill, or how you're against drugs but there are cases where you're ok with their consumption. And I thought you were done with childish insults? Trying to bait either ed or I with bullshit comments to shift attention...how cute.




yet they still exist. so why do you insist on claiming that there has never been people living "against the grain" up until fairly recently?

Where did I insist that? Small groups of people here and there living a specific way doesn't make it the "natural order". So you're statement that it is the natural order and has existed through out history is incorrect. To say that there have been some small amount of people through out history that have lived some of those beliefs is correct, but so say that it is the natural order, which is to imply the majority of people at one time, is incorrect.




please explain.

natural order=default state. If it's the default state then the majority of people through out time would be following it, since they aren't and haven't than the natural order must be something different.



it is against the "natural order" to indulge in fast food, junk food, factory farming, and "simulated rape" (which is the dairy industry).
you're right i don't argue that deviant sex, drug use and animal consumption has existed throughout history. but i also realize that throughout history there have been some that have abstained from these things.

this way of thinking it's also against the natural order to live in houses, drive cars, have computers, cook food, have electricity. But yet, you're not living out in the open are you? Why? What is the natural order and what should people be doing to live in it? Should we all go back to living like primatives?





do you not know the meaning of the word FORSAKE? it's pretty much contained in the quote. "they shall live at one with the laws of NATURE, and not FORSAKE them (the laws of nature) for THE DESIRE of pleasure--FROM DEVIANT SEXUAL ACTS..."

meaning forsaking the laws of nature simply for pleasure, completely disregarding the NATURAL aspect of sex (yin and yang essence, possible conception of a child etc.) is not "okay"...

meaning, it may be "natural" for a man to be sexually attracted to little boys. but only by FORSAKING the laws of nature can he act on such deviant sexual acts. which i hope i don't have to explain to you WHY this is wrong, and considered "deviant."


Following this exact same logic would mean any sex that didn't lead to a child would be for pleasure and deviant. Also, comparing sex between consenting adults and a man and a child isn't quite far, is it?





the law of nature is that sex IS for procreation. but the law of nature is also that sex IS pleasureable, and it is the law of nature that you can't plan the exact date of conception. meaning you can have sex, and just because a child is not conceived doesn't make it against the natural order.... do i need to draw a diagram?


sure. or you could explain "The official Hardline stance on sex was that its natural purpose was purely procreative, but many hardliners played fast and loose with that idea and justified recreational sex within the context of committed relationships as "potentially procreative" by opting not to use artificial contraceptives." So if this isn't the official hl stance, then what is? If you are having sex but for pleasure and NOT to have a child then how is that not "unnatural"?




homosexuality sex is "deviant" because it is IMPOSSIBLE to procreate life. again this is NOT a homophobic statement, this fact.
i believe that it can be completely natural for two men or two women to have feelings for eachother and love. i don't believe this is anti "the natural order" but homosexual sex, is against the natural order. do we have to get into why this is un-natural? other than it is physically impossible to conceive a child this way?


This statement doesn't make sense. If the feelings are not against the natural order then how is the action? This is like christians with issues with homosexuality saying that it's not a sin to have the feelings, just a sin to act on them. So if a couple is sterile for natural reasons they should never have sex?




again, because you can't time conception. you can attempt to but it is impossible. this is not to say that it is impossible to conceive when trying. some couples are lucky in that sense. but it isn't because of the "timing" rather because of nature taking it's course.


So there aren't "natural" ways to increase or decrease your chances of conception?





... i didn't "shift" debates, i responded to your comment. you think that just because homosexuality occurs in non-human animals then it must be natural for humans. i simply said that ALOT of things occur in the non-human animal kingdom that is un-natural for humans. the information was certainly relevant, considering you are using non-human animals as a basis for the nature of humans. i'm surprised you didn't know that humans are a completely different species of ALL non-human animals.

How do you gauge what is and isn't natural for humans? How do you do that without looking at nature, unless you'd like to explain to me how humans aren't equal to all animal life, which HL states?



.... oh for a second there i thought i was responding to "straightxed".....

does it surprise you to learn that the anus is not meant for penetration? we can get into the science of it if you'd like....

oh look, another lame bait attempt. Sure. we can get into it. and then you can explain what other acts aren't natural but are pleasurable, which is part of the nature of sex?




i recall stating that it was only a name until the HCC was formed in the very beginning... specifically in my second post.... but again, this is pointless... but don't try and turn my refusing to talk about irrelevent bullshit as "coming to terms" with anything.

if it quacks like a duck...



i'm sorry can you point out exactly where it says that a "movement" must have a recognized leader and a name, like you originally claimed? because i don't see it anywhere. you basically just reworded what i said.


how do you get an organzied effort without them? That is what defined a movement.




....irrelevent bullshit....

....

you can go back through and figure it out if you want. if i had the time to go through it i would, maybe i'll do that later on.....


quack. sure, if you want to make statements accusing people of things and not back them up, then awesome. I really want someone who does that thinking they can dole out justice.



i'm asking what did that even have to do with anything at all?

because your issue was with me "attacking" peoples personal beliefs, so I keep asking you and you what beliefs aren't personal so I know what I can insult and what I can't.



because straightedge is a part of their beliefs... and you somehow find the right to tell someone what they can and can not believe, but for some reason you claim that i'm wrong in my stance against oppression, and my willingness to fight for the oppressed and exploited???? explain that to me.

is the fact that they call themselves straight edge is actually irrelveant to the fact that their beliefs contradict each other completely lost on you? telling someone their wrong and point out why isn't anywhere near the same as taking direct action against those people. you might have a point if I was saying people should use violence to get people to see my point.



well from my understanding of Christianity (which i'll admit i'm not all that invested in it) not all Christians, believe that Jesus (as) is a god.... so i guess it would depend on individual Christian beliefs....

your understanding is incorrect since jesus being the son of god and divine is actually the central point of the religion.



so all this does is make Rat, just another person who doesn't understand the nature aspect of "sex" and what it's used for. this doesn't prove anything about "homophobia."

so someone involved with hl leaving and saying it's because of homophobia doesn't prove anything? I find it funny that peoples spiritual beliefs aren't any of your business but their sexual habits are.




well for one, because if it's not YOUR belief it's none of your business. and your "you can't be straightedge if you're Christian.." bullshit is alot like... "you can't drink from this fountain, if you have black skin.." bullshit. you are trying to separate YOU from THEM, for nothing more than beliefs, and is prejudice.
no it's not anything like that, but good attempt to compare a logical argument to an irrational one. Can you even read? I don't agree with a shitload of religions but am I saying they can't be straight edge? No, and do you know why? Because the beliefs of those religions don't contradict being straight edge, christianity does. I know you read the thread that actually goes into great detail about it and it goes far beyond just saying you can't be straight edge and christian and actually looks at why scriptually and logically you can't think drinking is wrong and be a christian. That isn't prejudice at all, but thanks for trying to shift attention again, you're getting good at it.



HL never did this based on BELIEFS only based on ACTION. there is a difference between saying "you can't kill for greed..." and "you can't believe so and so..." but i'll admit that i am prejudice against the oppressors.
You can't have one without the other. By saying "you can't kill for greed" you're saying "you can't believe that eating animals is ok" or "you can't believe that abortion is right"





i don't think anybody is "wrong" about their faith. i don't think anybody is "wrong" for not being Muslim. my wife isn't even a "muslim" in the sense that she doesn't practice Islaamic tradition. so you are assuming this and that without even knowing anything... again.


so then you don't think your faith is right?



you're right, you THINK i am wrong about my faith... little do you know, that YOU are the one who is wrong about my faith..... am i supposed to wonder why you think i'm wrong in my faith??? that's the beauty of it being MY faith..... i don't care.

yeah this lets you ignore the points people bring up about your faith and deal with them. you get to hide behind, "it's my faith and I'll believe what I want" but that doesn't make those issues go away.



my "involvement" with Islaam, is directly linked to my belief in Allah (swt).
my "involvement" with HL was directly linked to my love for nature.
Islaam is also reffered to Din al-Fitrah, which translates to "the way or the religion of nature." HL was heavily influenced by Islaam, when i finally took the initiative to learn more about Islaam i recognized the similarities more and more.
so ultimately i do thank Allah (swt) every day for leading me from something as simple minded as straightedge to something like HL because it strengthened my mind and my body enough to be open to the idea of spirituality. which eventually turned me onto Islaam, Taoism, Budhism, Judaism etc. which ultimately i chose Islaam as my path.


so yeah, you followed people into islam, HL people.


but my point is that if i were a "follower" i would have remained on the agnosticism path since that's where most of my friends are. and since straightedge and "hardcore" as a whole is generally agnostic..... which would have made it a hell of alot easier to stay there than to constantly debate and lose "friendships" over my spiritual beliefs.


HL and what it became is essentially a cult because it controls every facet of your life and your beliefs. this is why you're a follower and not a thinker. Everything you spout was generated by someone other than you. Your "personal" beliefs aren't yours at all, they were given to you and not generated by you.






i repeat myself because you and straightxed constantly re word the original question. even though i answer it.

you don't answer it though. I ask you why you believe something and you respond with "I don't agree with it". I reword questions because you apparently don't understand the original one since your response doesn't actually address the question asked.




again with repeating myself... i'm not contradicting it i'm explaining it.
i'm not saying you aren't reading it correctly because i feel that you may be. the problem is that you don't UNDERSTAND it. because you haven't read all of the other literature that expanded on the topics within the manifesto. that's all there is to it.

the basic point that you're missing here is that the manifesto should be able to stand on it's own. you're saying it can't and start talking about literature that expanded on the ideas. Problem with that is you can't say ALL and then expand it to mean some.



i swear i already said this....just in different words. you are so confused that not only are you re-wording your statements but mine as well....

oh shit was this another "joke"?




the reasoning was because you felt you were somehow justified to attack personal beliefs. so in a joking way, ( i was under the impression that you would recognize sarcasm) i attacked you.... either way, i keep apologizing and that's it. i'm done talking about it.
whatever lies you tell yourself to get you through the day.



this is obviously NOT what i am saying at all. rather i am saying that comparing humans with non-human animals is like comparing apples and oranges. we are too different to claim similarities....


so humans and animals aren't equal and we should be able to decide what happens to them and not "must have the right to live out it's natural state of existence in peace, without interference"



just because a monkey might have homosexual sex, doesn't mean humans should do it too. just as monkey's have been known to be cannibalistic, does that mean it's okay to eat your neighbor?
and again, monkey's don't have the moral capacity to differentiate between what is "right" and what is "wrong".... humans do.

how can you compare something that doesn't hurt anyone to something that does? What is "wrong" about homosexual sex?




how does this conflict with my choice to be vegan? and how i view veganism?

because it's not the natural order?




animal sacrifice is NOT one of the 5 pillars of Islaam. meaning it is not obligatory to slaughter nor is it obligatory to eat meat. the Qur'aan talks about "sacrifice" meaning people were trying to make a personal sacrifice by sharing their limited means of survival with the poorer members of their community. animals were peoples main source of survival, so during Eid people would "sacrifice" or share their means of survival with the poor people of their community.
to answer your question, Yes you can be Vegan and Muslim, and NO Islaam doesn't "call for animal sacrifce" not only at Eid, but EVER!!!

So you can be a muslim and drink alcohol and be muslim? you can have premarital se and be muslim?



i guess so... but show me where slaughtering animals is held with the 5 pillars of Islaam.

so the only relevant beliefs/practices are the 5 pillars of islam? but thanks for proving the point.



the wrong idea is another way of saying contradiction. Your "beliefs" are illogical and inconsistant, there's really no way around that.



[quote]
i'm not going through the previous posts... you can do that. and if you find anything you've ignored then go ahead and comment on it.

I'm not the one making the accusation.




sure it isn't... you aren't doing a very good job at proving "your points"


yeah by bringing up facts and backing up my statements. shit. you're right.



again dipshit, just because people did that shit throughout history doesn't prove that there weren't people who abstained.

again dipshit an small number of people doesn't make it the natural order. I like how I ask you for specific examples and proof and you can't generate them.




because humans and non-human animals are DIFFERENT SPECIES... i'm sure there are websites you can go to that will teach you the jist of this.


different species that still exist in nature. So what is the natural order for humans and what is the natural order for animals and how do they differ?



i guess you don't count the other people of Vegan Reich that were involved, or shahids other friends???... but either way i'm not really concerned about this enough to make it a big deal...

yet you keep talking about it.




the dictionary never said "recognized leader" or "name" or "labels"
so your own answers disagree with you...

for something to be an organized it does, or do I need to provide you with the definition of that too?





but i don't rely on it...

sure you do, you tried calling me racist for no reason to try and shift attention.




well i guess by you saying that i am, makes it true? my spiritual path to Islaam, definately had alot to do with HL and i'm not denying that. but again, if i were a follower don't you think i would have followed all of my closer friends??? and avoided losing alot of "friends"?

The idea that you followed someone on a harder path doesn't somehow equate to you not being a follower. To be HL it's a total life handed to you. there isn't a facet of life that it doesn't dictate to you that allows you to have an individual opinion. That is what makes you a follower. your beliefs arent your own, they are the ones dictated to you from someone else, not just some of them, ALL of them.




yes i did come to Islaam on my own. nobody forced me to learn about Islaam. and you're "massive coincidence" is a poorly formulated assumption. because "everyone else involved in HL" are NOT also into HL. that was one thing that eventually led to the dissolving of HL, were opposing beliefs on spirituality.... wow, you're proving to know less and less about HL every day.

you just said it had a lot to do with HL? and the people who continued into what is now essentially HL all followed sean into islam, so how is it a poorly forumulate assumption? There isn't a group of people who were HL who are now muslim?






not all rastas use marijuana..... read a book once in a while.

yet they're encouraged to, so I don't see your point?



i may be against the marijuana use, but i am not a rasta. i swear i already pointed this out numerous times.....
the racist comment was an assumption on my part. my bad, i apologize as it was a pretty harsh assumption. but at least i can admit when i'm at fault.... you should take notes.

how was it an assumption when nothing was there for you to base it on? So you're against rasta's right?






"hardline was an organization and not a lifestyle"
post #115.
fair enough.





violence used against random hamburger eaters is not comparable to violence used to enforce peace and equality. the point is, HL strives for peace and sometimes "violence" is necessary to enforce peace and equality.


Why isn't it? You're still stopping an oppressor.





"yes, hardline was an actual organization with a head and an official roster. the dude who ran it disbanded it when he started getting into the wacky muslim shit that he and the former hardline people are now into."

which while it's right there ^^^^ not all of the former HL people are "into" it.... just thought i'd point that out again.

the "group" today is completely different then what HL "morphed into"


so there isn't a group of former hl people who are wacky muslims? I wasn't aware that I needed to address what every individual hl member is into now and that somehow makes the general statement incorrect. Now you say "that was one thing that eventually led to the dissolving of HL, were opposing beliefs on spirituality". Could you please keep your story straight?






are you talking to me or straightxed???
3 lame bait attempts. keep it up and you'll have a new record!

Tahir
11-02-2006, 07:22 AM
Then what is necessity? For hardline to make sense you'd have to kill/get rid of most of humanity and only exist in places that could sustain fruit and vegetable farming. If humans have to rely of consuming non-human animals in even some instances then they're not equal. This entire concept still places humans at the top of the food chain.

necessity is survival.... it's pretty simple to understand i'm sure.
i'm sure i don't have to explain once again, why factory farming is different from sustaining your existence within "indigenous cultures."

if you must rely on "animal consumption" to survive, you are equal with non-human animals.
if a lion could go grocery shopping and buy a fucking tofu burger, then maybe it would. but since it can't it must rely on "animal consumption".
therefore, in certain circumstances, "animal consumption" is within the "natural order".





since you haven't actually backed your statements with sources and the only thing we have to go on for hardline actually is the manifesto, that's probably why. If the manifesto isn't a manifestio and doesn't represent what someone who is hardline believes then you're right it's irrelevant, but since it does, then it is.

fair enough. since there happens to be a lack of HL literature these days (hence the reason so many people get it wrong and misunderstand it such as yourself.) i can't really post sources. although i have boxes of HL literature sitting in this room, i am not about to go through and re-type all of it out.


so the literature contradicts the manifesto? the concepts of HL are outlined in the manifesto and it's the concepts we're discussing, so how can't we?

because again, manifesto=introduction. topics within the manifesto=further expanded on in other HL literature.
the manifesto was written with intended targets in mind. for example punks, hardcore/straightedge kids etc. when the manifesto was written i doubt it was ever expected to reach Aboriginal Cultures with the expectation that they would adopt the HL lifestyle.

and you certainly can discuss the "concepts" of the manifesto. meaning, the "Concepts" behind the "manifesto, are merely Ideas, generated from an "instance" (the written manifesto)....
but the problem is you won't listen or you don't understand what the "concepts" of HL/the manifesto are. and you keep returning back to the Introduction to HL, and you really are NOT "discussing the concepts."



because your concept of good and evil differs from the majority of people. This is why laws and recognized representatives are intrusted with deciding guilt and innocence and punishment. Think about the history around your version of personal justice and then talk to me about how well it worked, especially in the US.

this is true, the majority of people do not see the evil in "thanksgiving" and the African Slave trade. the majority of people, still belive that "christmas" is Jesus' (as) birthday.
and the majority of people still beleive Punk/hardcore and it's subcultures are "a childish phase, that you grow out of."
so is the "majority" always "right?"

the "majority" will ALWAYS choose a lifestyle of convenience. why do we have automatic scissors? remote controls? instant meals? our society relies on instant gratification, and convenience to "survive". and i use that word survive loosly in this statement. that is why and only why, the "majority" disagrees with the HL lifestyle. there is no room for "consumerism" within the HL ideology. there is no "convenience" or "instant gratification" according to the "majority".

and you want to talk about "justice" within the US??? that is a laughable concept in itself. tell the Native american cultures about "justice", tell the African's who were robbed of their livlihood, religions,names and freedom. ask Iraqi children dying in the streets because of a government that can't accept fault and admit when "they" are wrong.tell the BPP, AIM, MOVE Mumia, Jalil, Leonard, Dr. Mutulu Shakur, Assata, Peter Young, Rod Coronado, Jeff "free" Leurs... .the list could continue for days... tell all of them how "just" the american "system" is and whether or not there needs to be alternatives.

do the "laws and recognized representatices" ALWAYS decide who is without a shadow of a doubt "guilty?" or do innocent men/women often get incarcerated for something they actually did not do? and do the guilty often walk free while somebody else does their "time"???
your faith in "the majority", "the law" and the "recognized representatives" is funny to me though.



stopping the rapist isn't the same punishing him. Unless your idea of stop is to beat him to death. What do you do with the rapist after he's gotten off of the girl?

well if you consider tapping a rapist on his shoulder and asking "politely" to "please unmount the innocent defenseless little girl, and for heaven sakes, please stop raping her." is stopping a rapist then, you are even more pathetic than i initially thought.

and "justice" doesn't have to consist of "beating somebody to death". but i assure you that if anybody did anything of that nature to anybody in my family i don't think i would be able to stop myself from beating that person to death, or at least trying.

and i never said that i am anti "law and order". it is only our obligation as humans to interfere when somebody is raping or attempting to rape, fondle,attack/ sexually harrass somebody.... what do you do with the rapist??? i guess you do whatever it takes. i'm sure different situations, call for different measures. and since we live in a police state, it wouldn't hurt to physically get that person off of his victim and then call the "police" or physically take them to the "police".... although i do not trust alot of cops and would certainly not wish to side with them, i find nothing wrong in a case like rape or child molestation to side with the cops.
and yes i understand that sometimes you can't over power everybody, but i would do my best.....
and although i do not believe that a rapist deserves to live, i certainly do not want to "beat him to death" as i do not wish to harm anybody and i hope that i never will again.
and i say again, not because i have "dealt justice" but because i've been in my fair share of fights in the past and do not wish to go down that path again, unless absolutely necessary.


because and I know this is a hard one for you to understand is that most people don't agree with your concept of "the guilty" or even "victims". If you want to stick to just humans then sure, but then you run into trouble with the abortion part, since a lot of people would view HL stance on it as wrong and oppressive to the life that already exists.

again, the majority do not agree with my concept of "guilty" vs. "victims" because the majority only recognize the concept of "convenience".

well since the majority of people who "lose their heart beats" on a hospital bed are considered "dead" specifically because of the lack of heart beating. which in contrast means that the "heart beat" is what is the deciding factor between "life and death" and a fetus develops a heart beat at approximately 3 weeks, whilst the "majority" of people don't even know they are pregnant until the 8th or 10th week, and most abortions are "performed" at around 12-14 weeks. that tells me that not only is the "mother" the only life that already exists but the life of the fetus as well.
so they can THINK i'm oppressive for being anti murder all they want.



I have more faith in the justice system than I do in individuals to decide right and wrong.

so tell me... is the "justice system" not made up of a group of individuals who decided what was to be considered "right" and "wrong?"


So what justice have you dolled out? What are some examples?

what are you even talking about, and how is this relevent to the conversation?



yeah. when I point out something that's a contradiction, like where not all life is equal, you saying it's not a contradiction and that it's expanding on an introduction doesn't really do it.

well i don't know what to tell you then.
because apparantly you don't understand what "expanding on an introduction" means.


You can't say that all life is equal and should be protected and then say that it's ok to kill sometimes. This is the defintion of a contradiction.

you are making it sound like i said it's okay to "kill" without justification. the Vegan Reich song "The Way It Is" even speaks of justifiable killing: "cos it's murder plain and simple no JUSTIFICATION for the taking of a life WITHOUT PROVOCATION, you'd be guilty of a crime in courts throughout the nation if the victim was human you could face execution."

since Vegan Reich was the first to vocally speak of HL, and the person who wrote the manifesto was in that band, i'd say it's not far off to show that it's was known at the beginning of HL that taking a life can be justified. in this verse, "provocation" may mean starvation. as starving will provoke you into doing alot of things, including and not limited to taking a life..
but as far as contradiction, i see your point. and the manifesto may be written in a contadicting way. but adherents of HL knew that there were circumstances where taking a life was necessary to sustain existence...... although i've pointed this out a number of times.
but again, the topic of this thread is "what is hardline" and not "what is the manifesto" so i'm telling you that HL understood the need for this. and was written for punks/hardcore/straightedge kids that had access to tofu burgers and shit like that.


So either all life is equal and killing should never happen, which the manifesto says, or taking a life is ok and eating an animal is ok if you need to.

well since i've already admitted that the manifesto was not the best written piece of literature, it's pretty safe to say that "taking a life is okay and eating an animals is okay if you need to.".... which is exactly what i've been saying this whole time.



so wait, DO you have a problem with producing drugs or not? See on the one hand you've said that it's ok because it gets them closer to their creator but now you're saying you're against the production of drugs period. Please make up your mind.

YES. i have a problem with drugs in general. and i never said "drug production was okay because it gets them closer to their Creator (swt)" i said "i'm okay with people getting high as long as they do not hurt innocent people when high." there is a difference. and i'm not saying that i'm supportive of people getting high, i'm just not mad at somebody that doesn't have the strength and conviction to abstain from drugs/alcohol. i am mad at the industry. i do not find it to be justifiable to hold somebodies addictive personality and habbits against them.

i am not at liberty to say what someone can and can not do to "get closer to God (swt)"
again this is THEIR spirtiual path. NOT mine. and is between them and God (swt).





so then why would you be ok with them consuming it to get closer to their creator if it's not necessary?

because it is THEIR path, and THEIR choice. it is not my belief that smoking marijuana get's you closer to God (swt). i believe that you can get better results through meditation and prayer. but this is something i had to learn through practice and it is something they will have to learn as well. or not, doesn't matter to me.


and for hardline to work and be sucessful wouldn't everyone need to be an adherent of hadline? Unless you're telling me it's not the best way to live and there are reasons why people shouldn't?

yes i've been telling you the whole time that there are instances where living according to the HL manifesto isn't the best way to live....
remember all the "indigenous culture" talks about hunting and what not???





yeah that doesn't explain WHY you don't agree with it, which is the question I've asked now what 4 times?

first of all , why does it matter why i don't agree with it? how is this relevent?

and secondly the question you've been asking isn't why i don't agree with it rather i believe it was more along the lines of "why don't you smoke marijuana to get closer to your creator"....

which the answer is "because i don't agree with it." i can type it in all caps if you'd like, even bold it again. i can even go through and put the dictionary meaning of the words. since you seem to like doing that alot.



so spiritual practices never oppress the innocents? Like I don't know, say convince them that they should develop a drug habit to get closer to their god?

i remember saying that i'm okay with any spiritual practice as long as it doesn't interfere with the safety of another beings innocents.
and if anybody was serious about learning about rasta farianism, they would learn that they don't have to smoke marijuana for spiritual practice.
so if they smoke marijuana it is not "rastafarianism" oppressing them it is them oppressing themselves.




so you do think that people who aren't muslim are wrong because they're worshipping idols and not allah .

i believe that if somebody worships an idol, and it keeps them on the path of progression then more power to them. as a Muslim, i do not worship Idols, and i do not believe that it is possible to "idolize" God (swt) so yes, worshipping idols is wrong TO ME. but i definately do not hold others practices against them. just as i don not hold it against anyone who wishes to remain agnostic. like i said before, this is between them and God (swt).




I pick the points in your argument that aren't consistant, which you label as irrelevant. You know like saying all life is equal and should be protected and then talk about how it's ok to kill, or how you're against drugs but there are cases where you're ok with their consumption.

hmm..... well i honestly do not know how else to answer these concerns more clearly than i already have.... so i guess you'll have to just either think about my answers for a couple months or whatever it's going to take you. or drop it.


And I thought you were done with childish insults? Trying to bait either ed or I with bullshit comments to shift attention...how cute.

i'll never be done with that shit... in fact i was just thinking about the last comment... why don't you and ed get together for a study date, so you can finally figure out what the hell i'm saying. maybe take turns reading all of the big words.




Where did I insist that? Small groups of people here and there living a specific way doesn't make it the "natural order". So you're statement that it is the natural order and has existed through out history is incorrect.

so.... you're saying that just because SOME small groups of humans abstained from that shit and lived according to "my version" of the natural order, doesn't count as "natural?"
but your claim that SOME small groups of non human animals take part in homosexual sex is enough to count as "natural"

which is it, does some count as natural or doesn't it? kind of a double edged sword huh... if you say "yes", then you will finally be forced to admit you are wrong about something. and if you say "no" then you're a liar.




To say that there have been some small amount of people through out history that have lived some of those beliefs is correct, but so say that it is the natural order, which is to imply the majority of people at one time, is incorrect.

"natural" doesn't mean the "majority" it just means it exists within nature. but this is not to be confused with comparing non-human animals and their activities to humans.




natural order=default state. If it's the default state then the majority of people through out time would be following it, since they aren't and haven't than the natural order must be something different.


As a genre, natural law is the law of nature—that is, the principle that some things are as they are, because that is how they are. so that is not to say that ALL or the "majority" of humans are to follow the same path. that is like saying, the majority of modern day society between the ages of 16 and 35 are partying right now, and it is un natural for me to be drug free. or the majority of the planet's humans are not "european" so it is unnatural to be "european". or the majority of humans are "female" so it is unnatural to be "male"



this way of thinking it's also against the natural order to live in houses, drive cars, have computers, cook food, have electricity. But yet, you're not living out in the open are you? Why? What is the natural order and what should people be doing to live in it? Should we all go back to living like primatives?

although i see how you could have misunderstood what i was saying, and got it twisted. i was not implying that we should strive for a future primitive..
HL is not against knowledge and progression, technique and skill. HL recognizes the need to progress.
it is natural for humans to progress, my point was that not all of these things have existed forever, not that we should do without all of them. some of them, yes. but not all.

if we are to change this, we must do it from inside the belly of the Beast. We cannot effect any serious change from the wilderness or forest. We were put here for a reason. That reason is not to turn on our heels and run, but to stand and fight Babylon face to
face.

the natural order, is basically to respect nature. stop using Mother Earth to pollute Father Sky. stop exploiting the earths "resources" end all unnecessary and excessive
damage to the Earth's environment. and stop exploiting life.to answer your question, what should people be doing to live within the natural order? whatever it takes...




Following this exact same logic would mean any sex that didn't lead to a child would be for pleasure and deviant.

your statement is not only untrue but obviously no thought went into it at all.
sex between Yin and Yang essence is healthy regardless of whether or not a child is concieved. so sex between Yin and Yang is not only for "pleasure" but of great bennefit to health and longevity.

sexual relations are as fundamental to human life as eating and sleeping. as human beings, we must not do anything that contradicts nature. when Yin and Yang are not in contact, they cannot complement and harmonize with eachother. we breathe in order to exchange stale old air(yin) for fresh new air(yang). If a man can learn how to control and regulate his ejaculations during sex, he may derive great benefits from this practice. the retention of semen is highly beneficial to a man's health. suppressing "emissions" and absorbing the womans "fluids" and making semen return to strengthen the brain is beneficial to attaining longevity.

a man must conserve his semen during intercourse, whenever he does emit it, the loss must be compensated by absorbing the "essence" of a woman's secretions.
this is why ejaculation through masturbation or homosexual relations are specially harmful to "yang essence" and energy. in sexual intercourse semen must be regarded as a most precious substance. by saving it a man protects his life. whenever he does ejaculate, the loss of semen must then be compensated by absorbing the woman's essence.

in both men and women, sexual secretions contain many pure, potent, biochemically active substances: hormones, enzymes,proteins, vitamins, and other elements. when female secretions are released into the vagina during intercourse they come in direct contact with the penis. body heat opens the pores and the penis abosrbs female "essence" or Yin Chi. at the same time, the females body re-absorbs and replenishes "loss" essence by never losing that essence in the first place. so when a man ejaculates he loses Yang Chi, but is replenished by receiving the womans Yin Chi.

not only does homosexual sex not create life, but homosexuals do not replenish their loss Yang essence with Yin essence., and this is why it is considered "deviant"


Also, comparing sex between consenting adults and a man and a child isn't quite far, is it?


true it is different. but the point is, just because a human has a "natural" desire to do something, doesn't mean it's right. a grown man may have a "natural" desire to have sex with another grown man, just as a grown man may have a "natural" desire to have sex with a little kid. they are still both "natural desires" but obviously, not "natural" at all.
somebody may have a natural desire to shoot heroin, does that mean it is healthy for them and the best idea to follow through on it? no.

i'm not saying two men can't have feelings..... but to act on them is un-natural and un-healthy. i'm sorry mother nature isn't PC enough for you to understand the basic fundamentals of "the birds and the bees"




sure. or you could explain "The official Hardline stance on sex was that its natural purpose was purely procreative, but many hardliners played fast and loose with that idea and justified recreational sex within the context of committed relationships as "potentially procreative" by opting not to use artificial contraceptives." So if this isn't the official hl stance, then what is? If you are having sex but for pleasure and NOT to have a child then how is that not "unnatural"?

i feel like i've already answered this question above. if you want more information on this i suggest the book "The Tao of Health, Sex and Longevity" by Daniel P. Reid.





This statement doesn't make sense. If the feelings are not against the natural order then how is the action? This is like christians with issues with homosexuality saying that it's not a sin to have the feelings, just a sin to act on them.

it is against the "natural order" because it can not create life no matter how hard you try, it will NEVER create life it is impossible to create life....

it can be natural to develope "feelings" for anybody regardless of gender... you can love your father and mother, but it doesn't mean you need to sleep with them does it? that's how the feelings are not un-natural but the action is.


So if a couple is sterile for natural reasons they should never have sex?

no. i never said this. and again, this is a matter of Yin and Yang essence. and is still benneficial to health and longevity.
not to mention, it is unnatural to supress the desire for sex.




So there aren't "natural" ways to increase or decrease your chances of conception?

yes there are. what is the relevence in asking this? i never said that there weren't certain herbs and practices to increase or decrease chances of conception. in fact semen retention is one of them.




How do you gauge what is and isn't natural for humans? How do you do that without looking at nature, unless you'd like to explain to me how humans aren't equal to all animal life, which HL states?

you can do lab tests on rats and it doesn't mean the outcome and potential "threats" are consistant with humans right? why? because human and non human animals anatomy and physiology are different. we are after all different species right? it is natural for a fish to live in water, but not for a monkey right? you do understand the difference between species right?




oh look, another lame bait attempt. Sure. we can get into it. and then you can explain what other acts aren't natural but are pleasurable, which is part of the nature of sex?

blah blah blah....


if it quacks like a duck...

yeah i guess... it's your website, tell it how you want.




how do you get an organzied effort without them? That is what defined a movement.

i don't believe a "movement" needs to have an organized effort. is "straightedge" a movement? or isn't it? because sure i see how it has changed the music scene specifically punk and hardcore and the hundreds of bands that carry the banner of "straightedge" justifies as a "movement" i suppose.... but where is the "recognized leader" you are so bent on saying a "movement" requires?
what is so "organized" about "straightedge?"



quack. sure, if you want to make statements accusing people of things and not back them up, then awesome. I really want someone who does that thinking they can dole out justice.

well i apologized for saying it was a "racist" comment, but i still stand by that it was a prejudice comment. because not all Rastas smoke weed. and since you assumed that, it is still ignorant. and "doling out justice" when somebody is physically oppressing and attacking someone is alot different from saying your a racist, for making an ignorant comment.


because your issue was with me "attacking" peoples personal beliefs, so I keep asking you and you what beliefs aren't personal so I know what I can insult and what I can't.

well i still don't see the relevence in this. so feel free to "attack" whatever you want i guess. thanks for asking for permission though. i'll be sure and pin a note on your shirt for your parents to see just how big of a gwown up you've turned out to be.



is the fact that they call themselves straight edge is actually irrelveant to the fact that their beliefs contradict each other completely lost on you? telling someone their wrong and point out why isn't anywhere near the same as taking direct action against those people. you might have a point if I was saying people should use violence to get people to see my point.

you can believe that their beliefs contradict eachother all you want, but who the hell are you to tell them they are "wrong" when they aren't hurting anybody by believing that?
and taking direct action doesn't always equate to "violence" that's just another assumption.



your understanding is incorrect since jesus being the son of god and divine is actually the central point of the religion.

i understand that, i was simply saying that there are "Christian" groups that don't believe that Jesus (as) was a god. and they are called "christian" because they follow Jesus (as).
there are also "Christian" groups that agree that the Bible was written far too long after Jesus (as) to follow as the actual written word of God (swt).
that's all. but like i said i'm not that invested in it so could really care less.



so someone involved with hl leaving and saying it's because of homophobia doesn't prove anything?

apparantly Shahid and Rat came up with the idea of an IDEOLOGY and a MOVEMENT together. but Rat NEVER agreed with Shahid on that. apparantly Rat wasn't even HL when the Statement 7" came out on HL records. and Shahid just released it to release it. but that's neither here nor there...

and people left HL for a number of reasons, whether it be spirituality, sexual politics, animal rights issues, drugs, etc. so no it doesn't prove anything.
since people "sellout" straightedge, and start shooting heroin, does that prove that "straightedge" is somehow "wrong?"


I find it funny that peoples spiritual beliefs aren't any of your business but their sexual habits are.

their sexual habits aren't either. i already said, i do not hold "homosexuality" against anybody personally. i just don't believe it is "natural" and i don't agree with the lifestyle.

is it not okay to disagree with people? do you hate absolutely EVERYBODY that smokes or drinks/drugs just because you're straightedge? i doubt you do, so why is it so hard for you to understand that i just disagree with the choices.


no it's not anything like that, but good attempt to compare a logical argument to an irrational one. Can you even read? I don't agree with a shitload of religions but am I saying they can't be straight edge? No, and do you know why? Because the beliefs of those religions don't contradict being straight edge, christianity does. I know you read the thread that actually goes into great detail about it and it goes far beyond just saying you can't be straight edge and christian and actually looks at why scriptually and logically you can't think drinking is wrong and be a christian. That isn't prejudice at all, but thanks for trying to shift attention again, you're getting good at it.

again, fair enough. since i'm not Christian and i have different beliefs about Jesus (as) i will not disagree/ debate with you on this. this is ultimately up to the Christians to decide.
and i get an Islaamic perspective of Jesus(as) and it makes your argument irrelevent. but like you said, you are questioning the beliefs of Christians and not Muslims. so there you have it.... i'm done with that one.


You can't have one without the other. By saying "you can't kill for greed" you're saying "you can't believe that eating animals is ok" or "you can't believe that abortion is right"

HL never did this based on BELIEFS only based on ACTION. there is a difference between saying "you can't kill for greed..." and "you can't believe so and so..."

you're quoting out of context. i was saying Beliefs and ACTION are different.
i may be misunderstanding your statement here... but you can definately have beliefs without action. you can believe anything you want. but as soon as you act on it, your action is what determines whether or not you have crossed that line between "infringing on anothers rights" or just believing it's okay.




so then you don't think your faith is right?

i don't know where you conjured up this bullshit?
just because i don't think someone is "wrong" if it is working for them, doesn't mean i don't think my faith is wrong.
there are ahadith (Islaamic tradition of the Prophet Muhammad (saws) that says something along the lines of "there is only One God (swt), but many paths you can take to get there." in Islaam there are 124,000 Prophets (as) from God (swt) ALL of whom practiced SUBMISSION to ALLAH(swt) which is what Islaam means. so how can followers of those faiths be "wrong"? to say that other faiths are "wrong" is to say that all faiths before Abrahamic tradition is somehow "wrong"? which i don't completely agree with.



yeah this lets you ignore the points people bring up about your faith and deal with them. you get to hide behind, "it's my faith and I'll believe what I want" but that doesn't make those issues go away.

oh, so i'm supposed to "learn" what Islaam believes from somebody who isn't even Muslim? how does that make sense? if i wanted to here all the Islamaphobic bullshit i just have to turn on the news. and listen to a bunch of racist redneck media outlets that don't even understand the meaning of the word Jihad.

but whatever, we can go that route if you'd like. but i don't know what the relevence is.



so yeah, you followed people into islam, HL people.

and you followed people into straightedge, so what?

do you understand the basic ideas behind formulating beliefs? you HAVE to learn to expand. your beliefs, like your personality is made up of past experiences and relationships. otherwise how do you produce a "belief?" sure i embraced Islaam years after alot of ex HL people embraced it. but so what. i don't live anywhere near any of them, don't even talk to most of them and barely stay in contact with the ones that i am in contact with. so how is this being a "follower?"

again, if i were a "follower" i would have followed the friends that i see on a daily basis down the "Agnosticism" road.



HL and what it became is essentially a cult because it controls every facet of your life and your beliefs. this is why you're a follower and not a thinker.

by this you claim that straightedge is a cult, because straightedge doesn't control every facet of your life?
like... i dunno, say perhaps dedicating a website that you are constantly on to straightedge. making it your duty to tell people when they can and can not call themselves a specific label. putting X's around your name, aim name, email, etc. how many straightedge stickers do you have on your car? computer? how many shirts do you wear that say straightedge on it? i know your type. you can't exist without your label. and you need that label to reflect a personality and identity. you're basically nothing without straightedge.




Everything you spout was generated by someone other than you. Your "personal" beliefs aren't yours at all, they were given to you and not generated by you.

wow, this is really touching coming from someone that basis their entire life off of a song.






you don't answer it though. I ask you why you believe something and you respond with "I don't agree with it". I reword questions because you apparently don't understand the original one since your response doesn't actually address the question asked.

you didn't ask why i don't agree with it, originally you asked why i don't use marijuana to get closer to God (swt).... and i don't because i don't agree with doing that. i already said, that i prefer prayer and meditation. these are safer, cleaner and healthier ways to get closer to God (swt).



the basic point that you're missing here is that the manifesto should be able to stand on it's own. you're saying it can't and start talking about literature that expanded on the ideas. Problem with that is you can't say ALL and then expand it to mean some.

the basic point that you are missing is that i've been saying the whole time that the manifesto wasn't very well written. so i'm not missing this point. but you seem to be missing the point that this entire topic is HARDLINE. which consists of MORE than just the manifesto. and when the Ideology grew and people started taking to it, the need to expand was recognized and in eventually expanded on.

again with the "all meaning some" crap. i can only explain it in plain english so many times until i finally have to just say, that's it i'm done you're too stupid to understand it.


oh shit was this another "joke"?

no this wasn't a joke.


whatever lies you tell yourself to get you through the day.

yeah i guess...




so humans and animals aren't equal and we should be able to decide what happens to them and not "must have the right to live out it's natural state of existence in peace, without interference"

without provocation, there is no justifiable homicide. if you are starving then it is survival and therefore not against the "natural order". but like i said, nobody that read the manifesto can't go to the store and buy a head of lettuce, and some pasta.

how many different scenarios do need to give you before you fucking understand this simple shit?




how can you compare something that doesn't hurt anyone to something that does? What is "wrong" about homosexual sex?

you mean besides the fact that it is un-natural? and besides all the stuff i listed above, about how detrimental to Yang essence it is? and again, homosexuals can do whatever they want. i just don't think it's natural, and not that any of this really matters but i don't agree with it, and i believe in the Taoist Yin and Yang essence exchange more.





because it's not the natural order?

how is it un-natural for me to live off of a vegan diet?
is it because our intestines are not "built" to sustain the damage dealt by meat consumption? is it because our bodies aren't fully capable of digesting meat?
carnivore’s short intestinal tract, which reaches about three times its body length. An herbivore’s intestines are 12 times its body length, and humans are closer to herbivores




So you can be a muslim and drink alcohol and be muslim? you can have premarital se and be muslim?
yes, but they are Haraam, and you will be judged for them, or forgiven by Allah (swt) the Most Merciful.


so the only relevant beliefs/practices are the 5 pillars of islam? but thanks for proving the point.

no. that's not what i said, i implied that you do not HAVE to sacrifice/slaughter animals at eid.



the wrong idea is another way of saying contradiction. Your "beliefs" are illogical and inconsistant, there's really no way around that.

wow, i guess you just proved your whole position.




again dipshit an small number of people doesn't make it the natural order. I like how I ask you for specific examples and proof and you can't generate them.

the natural order doesn't need to consist of "the majority". and i'm not convinced, just because you say that it does.




different species that still exist in nature. So what is the natural order for humans and what is the natural order for animals and how do they differ?

what is the natural order for animals vs. humans is irrelevent that's the whole point. different species, different "laws of nature".



sure you do, you tried calling me racist for no reason to try and shift attention.

you assumed all rastas were "black" and all rastas grow, sell and "smoke weed", sounds alot like these crackers that claim that all "black people sell and do drugs" doesn't it.




The idea that you followed someone on a harder path doesn't somehow equate to you not being a follower. To be HL it's a total life handed to you. there isn't a facet of life that it doesn't dictate to you that allows you to have an individual opinion. That is what makes you a follower. your beliefs arent your own, they are the ones dictated to you from someone else, not just some of them, ALL of them.

wow, mr. wizard. you're right, HL told me to get straightedge tattooed across my throat. oh wait, most HL people severed their ties with "straightedge" because of how narrow minded and single issued it is...
all HL people and muslims open tattoo shops, because that's what they do right? i followed all the ex HL people into doing that right???
you are a fucking idiot, and you pull shit out of your ass all the time. you don't know what the hell you are talking about.... pretty much ever, do you.




you just said it had a lot to do with HL? and the people who continued into what is now essentially HL all followed sean into islam, so how is it a poorly forumulate assumption? There isn't a group of people who were HL who are now muslim?

not all embraced Islaam. that is the point... in fact i'm willing to bet that most didn't. and Sean was into it long before alot of others got into it, why? because they including myself wanted to learn more about it. why? because just because Sean or anybody for that matter says it's "truth" doesn't mean that it is Truth. and should be further explored and studied before making a decision.






yet they're encouraged to, so I don't see your point?

well either way not all rastas smoke weed. that is the point.



how was it an assumption when nothing was there for you to base it on? So you're against rasta's right?

it was an assumption because i read too much into your statement. and i took little info and formulated an assumption... that's what makes it an assumption smarguy.

and why am i against rastas??? because i'm not, i just don't partake in some of their spiritual practice.




Why isn't it? You're still stopping an oppressor.

some random dude on the street that is hungry and bought a hamburger is not the oppressor. the piece of shit that factory farms the animals is.
how many times do i need to explain this?






so there isn't a group of former hl people who are wacky muslims? I wasn't aware that I needed to address what every individual hl member is into now and that somehow makes the general statement incorrect. Now you say "that was one thing that eventually led to the dissolving of HL, were opposing beliefs on spirituality". Could you please keep your story straight?

the point was you claimed that Shahid dissolved HL "when" he got into Islaam, and i was pointing out that he was actually into it from the inception of HL. all the rest of this crap is irrelevent.






3 lame bait attempts. keep it up and you'll have a new record![/QUOTE]

oh, shut up you big lug...


this shit has gone on too long. i've got a family to hang out with. so i'm over this. you can think whatever you want, and if anybody else is reading this and wants to hear more about my opinions on HL or anything else, without getting into page long posts. my email is Prepareforbattle@hotmail.com

no hard feelings.
peace.
-Tahir.

xvunderx
11-02-2006, 07:35 AM
Still kids, might be best to read the long posts to find out why you shouldn't bother using the email.

xsecx
11-02-2006, 12:56 PM
necessity is survival.... it's pretty simple to understand i'm sure.
i'm sure i don't have to explain once again, why factory farming is different from sustaining your existence within "indigenous cultures."

if you must rely on "animal consumption" to survive, you are equal with non-human animals.
if a lion could go grocery shopping and buy a fucking tofu burger, then maybe it would. but since it can't it must rely on "animal consumption".
therefore, in certain circumstances, "animal consumption" is within the "natural order".

And for that to be relevant all technology and human progress would have to be wiped out, so how is this relevant to the world today? How much of the human population lives as you describe?




fair enough. since there happens to be a lack of HL literature these days (hence the reason so many people get it wrong and misunderstand it such as yourself.) i can't really post sources. although i have boxes of HL literature sitting in this room, i am not about to go through and re-type all of it out.

oh ok, so we'll just take your word for it that it says that.



because again, manifesto=introduction. topics within the manifesto=further expanded on in other HL literature.
the manifesto was written with intended targets in mind. for example punks, hardcore/straightedge kids etc. when the manifesto was written i doubt it was ever expected to reach Aboriginal Cultures with the expectation that they would adopt the HL lifestyle.


since you apparently don't understand what words mean:

manifesto
: a written statement declaring publicly the intentions, motives, or views of its issuer
Expanding on it doesn't and shouldn't contradict it. But you're saying it does and should. That's the point. The manifesto says all, you're saying all actually means some. Dance around it all you want that doesn't change it.



and you certainly can discuss the "concepts" of the manifesto. meaning, the "Concepts" behind the "manifesto, are merely Ideas, generated from an "instance" (the written manifesto)....
but the problem is you won't listen or you don't understand what the "concepts" of HL/the manifesto are. and you keep returning back to the Introduction to HL, and you really are NOT "discussing the concepts."

Well see, you talk about all this other literature, don't cite it and expect us to take your word for it,"but it really means this'. The concepts of the manifesto and your words contradict each other. That being said, how are we not discussing the concepts of the manifesto that are essentially all life is equal and that people should live naturally?





this is true, the majority of people do not see the evil in "thanksgiving" and the African Slave trade. the majority of people, still belive that "christmas" is Jesus' (as) birthday.
and the majority of people still beleive Punk/hardcore and it's subcultures are "a childish phase, that you grow out of."
so is the "majority" always "right?"

the "majority" will ALWAYS choose a lifestyle of convenience. why do we have automatic scissors? remote controls? instant meals? our society relies on instant gratification, and convenience to "survive". and i use that word survive loosly in this statement. that is why and only why, the "majority" disagrees with the HL lifestyle. there is no room for "consumerism" within the HL ideology. there is no "convenience" or "instant gratification" according to the "majority".


And yet you're living that lifestyle of convenience. And I'm glad that you think that's the only reason why the majority disagrees with the HL lifestyle and not because they think it's the wrong way to live for a variety of reasons.




and you want to talk about "justice" within the US??? that is a laughable concept in itself. tell the Native american cultures about "justice", tell the African's who were robbed of their livlihood, religions,names and freedom. ask Iraqi children dying in the streets because of a government that can't accept fault and admit when "they" are wrong.tell the BPP, AIM, MOVE Mumia, Jalil, Leonard, Dr. Mutulu Shakur, Assata, Peter Young, Rod Coronado, Jeff "free" Leurs... .the list could continue for days... tell all of them how "just" the american "system" is and whether or not there needs to be alternatives.

do the "laws and recognized representatices" ALWAYS decide who is without a shadow of a doubt "guilty?" or do innocent men/women often get incarcerated for something they actually did not do? and do the guilty often walk free while somebody else does their "time"???
your faith in "the majority", "the law" and the "recognized representatives" is funny to me though.


How many people were lynched in this country because individuals thought they were "guilty" of something? I'd also like to know what system is perfect and what society on earth hasn't fucked up and how this somehow relates to your idea that you are more capable of judging right and wrong than the people elected by the people have? The argument that the system is wrong is not the same argument that individuals should be able to decide and deliver justice.



well if you consider tapping a rapist on his shoulder and asking "politely" to "please unmount the innocent defenseless little girl, and for heaven sakes, please stop raping her." is stopping a rapist then, you are even more pathetic than i initially thought.


yeah because that's what I said or even close to what I insinuated. Again with the distractions and attempts at personal attacks.



and "justice" doesn't have to consist of "beating somebody to death". but i assure you that if anybody did anything of that nature to anybody in my family i don't think i would be able to stop myself from beating that person to death, or at least trying.

and i never said that i am anti "law and order". it is only our obligation as humans to interfere when somebody is raping or attempting to rape, fondle,attack/ sexually harrass somebody.... what do you do with the rapist??? i guess you do whatever it takes. i'm sure different situations, call for different measures. and since we live in a police state, it wouldn't hurt to physically get that person off of his victim and then call the "police" or physically take them to the "police".... although i do not trust alot of cops and would certainly not wish to side with them, i find nothing wrong in a case like rape or child molestation to side with the cops.
and yes i understand that sometimes you can't over power everybody, but i would do my best.....
and although i do not believe that a rapist deserves to live, i certainly do not want to "beat him to death" as i do not wish to harm anybody and i hope that i never will again.
and i say again, not because i have "dealt justice" but because i've been in my fair share of fights in the past and do not wish to go down that path again, unless absolutely necessary.


so wait, you'd leave it up to the system to deal with him and not deliver justice? fucking a dude. make up your mind. Does your own blatant contradictions not drive you insane?



again, the majority do not agree with my concept of "guilty" vs. "victims" because the majority only recognize the concept of "convenience".


whatever lies you want to tell yourself, but don't you live a life of convenience? How much farming do you do?



well since the majority of people who "lose their heart beats" on a hospital bed are considered "dead" specifically because of the lack of heart beating. which in contrast means that the "heart beat" is what is the deciding factor between "life and death" and a fetus develops a heart beat at approximately 3 weeks, whilst the "majority" of people don't even know they are pregnant until the 8th or 10th week, and most abortions are "performed" at around 12-14 weeks. that tells me that not only is the "mother" the only life that already exists but the life of the fetus as well.
so they can THINK i'm oppressive for being anti murder all they want.


but you are because you're calling it anti murder, when in fact you don't care about the life of the mother at all and are only worried about the fetus. This doesn't make your views not oppressive.




so tell me... is the "justice system" not made up of a group of individuals who decided what was to be considered "right" and "wrong?"


see word group and not individual. see support around the creation of that group.





what are you even talking about, and how is this relevent to the conversation?


You really love saying this. It's your "hey look over there" comment. I want to know real world examples of how you're "keeping it real". What justice have you've delivered?




well i don't know what to tell you then.
because apparantly you don't understand what "expanding on an introduction" means.


or you don't understand what the word contradiction means. You could start by explaining how it doesn't contradict itself, rather than saying it's "expanding on an introduction".




you are making it sound like i said it's okay to "kill" without justification. the Vegan Reich song "The Way It Is" even speaks of justifiable killing: "cos it's murder plain and simple no JUSTIFICATION for the taking of a life WITHOUT PROVOCATION, you'd be guilty of a crime in courts throughout the nation if the victim was human you could face execution."

since Vegan Reich was the first to vocally speak of HL, and the person who wrote the manifesto was in that band, i'd say it's not far off to show that it's was known at the beginning of HL that taking a life can be justified. in this verse, "provocation" may mean starvation. as starving will provoke you into doing alot of things, including and not limited to taking a life..
but as far as contradiction, i see your point. and the manifesto may be written in a contadicting way. but adherents of HL knew that there were circumstances where taking a life was necessary to sustain existence...... although i've pointed this out a number of times.
but again, the topic of this thread is "what is hardline" and not "what is the manifesto" so i'm telling you that HL understood the need for this. and was written for punks/hardcore/straightedge kids that had access to tofu burgers and shit like that.
The entire concept that you can justify anything to yourself is the point and why the concept of individual justice is as retarded as you are. At least you finally accept the fact that it does contradict itself.




well since i've already admitted that the manifesto was not the best written piece of literature, it's pretty safe to say that "taking a life is okay and eating an animals is okay if you need to.".... which is exactly what i've been saying this whole time.


Great, so it contradicts itself and is wrong. That not all life is equal and it's ok to kill if you have a reason. But only if that reason is x y z.





YES. i have a problem with drugs in general. and i never said "drug production was okay because it gets them closer to their Creator (swt)" i said "i'm okay with people getting high as long as they do not hurt innocent people when high." there is a difference. and i'm not saying that i'm supportive of people getting high, i'm just not mad at somebody that doesn't have the strength and conviction to abstain from drugs/alcohol. i am mad at the industry. i do not find it to be justifiable to hold somebodies addictive personality and habbits against them.

i am not at liberty to say what someone can and can not do to "get closer to God (swt)"
again this is THEIR spirtiual path. NOT mine. and is between them and God (swt).


So you do have a problem, but you don't, but you do again, and sometimes it's your business and sometimes it's not?






because it is THEIR path, and THEIR choice. it is not my belief that smoking marijuana get's you closer to God (swt). i believe that you can get better results through meditation and prayer. but this is something i had to learn through practice and it is something they will have to learn as well. or not, doesn't matter to me.


but why would they when their religion encourages drug use?




yes i've been telling you the whole time that there are instances where living according to the HL manifesto isn't the best way to live....
remember all the "indigenous culture" talks about hunting and what not???


so then hardline isn't applicable and people shouldn't live by it, right?







first of all , why does it matter why i don't agree with it? how is this relevent?

and secondly the question you've been asking isn't why i don't agree with it rather i believe it was more along the lines of "why don't you smoke marijuana to get closer to your creator"....

which the answer is "because i don't agree with it." i can type it in all caps if you'd like, even bold it again. i can even go through and put the dictionary meaning of the words. since you seem to like doing that alot.


to illustrate the point. You talk out of both sides of your mouth and you're too stupid to realize it. You still can't even answer the simple question because you KNOW it fucks up your other statements, that's the point.




i remember saying that i'm okay with any spiritual practice as long as it doesn't interfere with the safety of another beings innocents.
and if anybody was serious about learning about rasta farianism, they would learn that they don't have to smoke marijuana for spiritual practice.
so if they smoke marijuana it is not "rastafarianism" oppressing them it is them oppressing themselves.


so rastafarians aren't encouraged to smoke weed?






i believe that if somebody worships an idol, and it keeps them on the path of progression then more power to them. as a Muslim, i do not worship Idols, and i do not believe that it is possible to "idolize" God (swt) so yes, worshipping idols is wrong TO ME. but i definately do not hold others practices against them. just as i don not hold it against anyone who wishes to remain agnostic. like i said before, this is between them and God (swt).

ok, so you don't think that being muslim is the right way to live?




hmm..... well i honestly do not know how else to answer these concerns more clearly than i already have.... so i guess you'll have to just either think about my answers for a couple months or whatever it's going to take you. or drop it.

or you could answer the questions asked rather than hiding behind "hey I already answered that" or "how is this relevant"




i'll never be done with that shit... in fact i was just thinking about the last comment... why don't you and ed get together for a study date, so you can finally figure out what the hell i'm saying. maybe take turns reading all of the big words.


at least you can admit your weakness, that's the first step to recovery.




so.... you're saying that just because SOME small groups of humans abstained from that shit and lived according to "my version" of the natural order, doesn't count as "natural?"
but your claim that SOME small groups of non human animals take part in homosexual sex is enough to count as "natural"

which is it, does some count as natural or doesn't it? kind of a double edged sword huh... if you say "yes", then you will finally be forced to admit you are wrong about something. and if you say "no" then you're a liar.


I didn't argue that some small groups of humans abstaining from shit was unnatural, but that it wasn't the natural order, because it wasn't. Just like I think homosexual sex is natural, so I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here? But thanks for ignoring the actual question. Now, how is it the "natural order"? And please define what the natural order is and why you think so?




"natural" doesn't mean the "majority" it just means it exists within nature. but this is not to be confused with comparing non-human animals and their activities to humans.


"natural order" does, but hey, thanks for ignoring what I actually said.






As a genre, natural law is the law of nature—that is, the principle that some things are as they are, because that is how they are. so that is not to say that ALL or the "majority" of humans are to follow the same path. that is like saying, the majority of modern day society between the ages of 16 and 35 are partying right now, and it is un natural for me to be drug free. or the majority of the planet's humans are not "european" so it is unnatural to be "european". or the majority of humans are "female" so it is unnatural to be "male"


this compares completely different concepts as if they're equal and they're not. How do you define the law of nature? By observing what occurs the most. It is the default state. now how does that compare to what you just said? it doesn't.





although i see how you could have misunderstood what i was saying, and got it twisted. i was not implying that we should strive for a future primitive..
HL is not against knowledge and progression, technique and skill. HL recognizes the need to progress.
it is natural for humans to progress, my point was that not all of these things have existed forever, not that we should do without all of them. some of them, yes. but not all.

if we are to change this, we must do it from inside the belly of the Beast. We cannot effect any serious change from the wilderness or forest. We were put here for a reason. That reason is not to turn on our heels and run, but to stand and fight Babylon face to
face.

the natural order, is basically to respect nature. stop using Mother Earth to pollute Father Sky. stop exploiting the earths "resources" end all unnecessary and excessive
damage to the Earth's environment. and stop exploiting life.to answer your question, what should people be doing to live within the natural order? whatever it takes...


So you want to live unnaturally but pretend it's natural? Pick a stance, seriously. You want to talk shit about other people living in convenience and you want to also live in that convenience. Whatever lies you have to tell yourself....






your statement is not only untrue but obviously no thought went into it at all.
sex between Yin and Yang essence is healthy regardless of whether or not a child is concieved. so sex between Yin and Yang is not only for "pleasure" but of great bennefit to health and longevity

sexual relations are as fundamental to human life as eating and sleeping. as human beings, we must not do anything that contradicts nature. when Yin and Yang are not in contact, they cannot complement and harmonize with eachother. we breathe in order to exchange stale old air(yin) for fresh new air(yang). If a man can learn how to control and regulate his ejaculations during sex, he may derive great benefits from this practice. the retention of semen is highly beneficial to a man's health. suppressing "emissions" and absorbing the womans "fluids" and making semen return to strengthen the brain is beneficial to attaining longevity.

a man must conserve his semen during intercourse, whenever he does emit it, the loss must be compensated by absorbing the "essence" of a woman's secretions.
this is why ejaculation through masturbation or homosexual relations are specially harmful to "yang essence" and energy. in sexual intercourse semen must be regarded as a most precious substance. by saving it a man protects his life. whenever he does ejaculate, the loss of semen must then be compensated by absorbing the woman's essence.

in both men and women, sexual secretions contain many pure, potent, biochemically active substances: hormones, enzymes,proteins, vitamins, and other elements. when female secretions are released into the vagina during intercourse they come in direct contact with the penis. body heat opens the pores and the penis abosrbs female "essence" or Yin Chi. at the same time, the females body re-absorbs and replenishes "loss" essence by never losing that essence in the first place. so when a man ejaculates he loses Yang Chi, but is replenished by receiving the womans Yin Chi.

not only does homosexual sex not create life, but homosexuals do not replenish their loss Yang essence with Yin essence., and this is why it is considered "deviant"


Do you even realize how non scientific everything you just typed was? The pleasure derived from sex, hetero, homosexual, vaginal, anal and oral all have marked health benefits. IF you'd like you could point to something other than yin and yang concepts to explain why homosexual activity is unhealthy and unnatural when medical evidence would indicate that it's both.



true it is different. but the point is, just because a human has a "natural" desire to do something, doesn't mean it's right. a grown man may have a "natural" desire to have sex with another grown man, just as a grown man may have a "natural" desire to have sex with a little kid. they are still both "natural desires" but obviously, not "natural" at all.
somebody may have a natural desire to shoot heroin, does that mean it is healthy for them and the best idea to follow through on it? no.

i'm not saying two men can't have feelings..... but to act on them is un-natural and un-healthy. i'm sorry mother nature isn't PC enough for you to understand the basic fundamentals of "the birds and the bees"


How is it unnatural if it exists in humanity and nature? I'm sorry that mother nature isn't dumb enough to think that homosexuality in humans is any less natural than it is in other animals.






i feel like i've already answered this question above. if you want more information on this i suggest the book "The Tao of Health, Sex and Longevity" by Daniel P. Reid.

well no you haven't, since I'm talking about the official HL stance that contradicts what you just said?





it is against the "natural order" because it can not create life no matter how hard you try, it will NEVER create life it is impossible to create life....

it can be natural to develope "feelings" for anybody regardless of gender... you can love your father and mother, but it doesn't mean you need to sleep with them does it? that's how the feelings are not un-natural but the action is.


it's impossible for sterile people to create life, yet you value that. dude, admit it, you're wrong.




no. i never said this. and again, this is a matter of Yin and Yang essence. and is still benneficial to health and longevity.
not to mention, it is unnatural to supress the desire for sex.


"it is against the "natural order" because it can not create life no matter how hard you try, it will NEVER create life it is impossible to create life.... "

so yeah, it's only unnatural to suppress the desire for sex if you're hetero?





yes there are. what is the relevence in asking this? i never said that there weren't certain herbs and practices to increase or decrease chances of conception. in fact semen retention is one of them.


is relevance your word of the week? The point that you appear to miss is that there are ways to have sex for pleasure, which HL is/was officially against and are trying to rationalize it with bullshit about how you can't control conception naturally. which you now say you can. So you're into deviant sex.






you can do lab tests on rats and it doesn't mean the outcome and potential "threats" are consistant with humans right? why? because human and non human animals anatomy and physiology are different. we are after all different species right? it is natural for a fish to live in water, but not for a monkey right? you do understand the difference between species right?


Can you answer basic questions? How do you gauge what is and isn't natural for humans? All the shit you just spewed doesn't actually address that.




blah blah blah....

oh look, the 5 year old is back.




yeah i guess... it's your website, tell it how you want.

great come back!






i don't believe a "movement" needs to have an organized effort. is "straightedge" a movement? or isn't it? because sure i see how it has changed the music scene specifically punk and hardcore and the hundreds of bands that carry the banner of "straightedge" justifies as a "movement" i suppose.... but where is the "recognized leader" you are so bent on saying a "movement" requires?
what is so "organized" about "straightedge?"

I'm sorry you don't believe what the definition says it right, but it does fit the trend of you not believing things that are right but that don't fit your narrow and incorrect world view. Where did I say that straight edge wasn't a movement? Are you going to try and argue that there haven't been "leaders" through out straight edge history? That there isn't a recognized hierarchy? Are you so bent on saying HL wasn't a movement when it fits EVERY characteristic? of course you are because you don't like dictionaries, you'd rather have your own language where you get to make up meanings of words like natural.





well i apologized for saying it was a "racist" comment, but i still stand by that it was a prejudice comment. because not all Rastas smoke weed. and since you assumed that, it is still ignorant. and "doling out justice" when somebody is physically oppressing and attacking someone is alot different from saying your a racist, for making an ignorant comment.

This statement only holds water if rastas aren't encouraged to smoke weed, but they are, so how is it ignorant? Because some portion of them don't? That doesn't change the fact that Rastas, generally, smoke weed as part of their religion. You shot your mouth off, spouted some unfounded shit, be a big boy and admit it, stop trying to rationalize it with more bullshit. The point being you can't even accuse people correctly, so why would/should anyone trust your judgment to about who deserves what when it actually matters?




well i still don't see the relevence in this. so feel free to "attack" whatever you want i guess. thanks for asking for permission though. i'll be sure and pin a note on your shirt for your parents to see just how big of a gwown up you've turned out to be.

if you don't see the relevance, (gold star) then why mention it to begin with and why call things personal beliefs if all beliefs are personal? Are you sure you don't suffer from some form of retardation? These are simple concepts.





you can believe that their beliefs contradict eachother all you want, but who the hell are you to tell them they are "wrong" when they aren't hurting anybody by believing that?
and taking direct action doesn't always equate to "violence" that's just another assumption.

Wait, aren't you telling me I'm wrong for telling them that they're wrong? How do this standard not apply to you? I mean I can believe what I want about HL, so who are you to tell me I don't understand it or that I'm wrong about it? oh shit, you just contradicted yourself again. When does direct action not equate to violence?





i understand that, i was simply saying that there are "Christian" groups that don't believe that Jesus (as) was a god. and they are called "christian" because they follow Jesus (as).
there are also "Christian" groups that agree that the Bible was written far too long after Jesus (as) to follow as the actual written word of God (swt).
that's all. but like i said i'm not that invested in it so could really care less.

The point being you can call yourself whatever you want but that doesn't make it right.





apparantly Shahid and Rat came up with the idea of an IDEOLOGY and a MOVEMENT together. but Rat NEVER agreed with Shahid on that. apparantly Rat wasn't even HL when the Statement 7" came out on HL records. and Shahid just released it to release it. but that's neither here nor there...

and people left HL for a number of reasons, whether it be spirituality, sexual politics, animal rights issues, drugs, etc. so no it doesn't prove anything.
since people "sellout" straightedge, and start shooting heroin, does that prove that "straightedge" is somehow "wrong?"


so wait, it's a movement now? And why doesn't it prove anything? If a person who helped found it left because he felt it was becoming homophobic, how doesn't it prove anything? i'm not talking about any person, I'm talking about someone who was fundamental in the foundation of it.




their sexual habits aren't either. i already said, i do not hold "homosexuality" against anybody personally. i just don't believe it is "natural" and i don't agree with the lifestyle.

is it not okay to disagree with people? do you hate absolutely EVERYBODY that smokes or drinks/drugs just because you're straightedge? i doubt you do, so why is it so hard for you to understand that i just disagree with the choices.

Why don't you believe it's natural and what about the "lifestyle" do you not agree with, if their sexual habits aren't your business? You can keep trying to contrast things with straight edge, but it doesn't hold. Consensual adultl sexuality doesn't hurt anyone. Drinking/smoking/drugs do.



again, fair enough. since i'm not Christian and i have different beliefs about Jesus (as) i will not disagree/ debate with you on this. this is ultimately up to the Christians to decide.
and i get an Islaamic perspective of Jesus(as) and it makes your argument irrelevent. but like you said, you are questioning the beliefs of Christians and not Muslims. so there you have it.... i'm done with that one.


So then why take issue to begin with and even above?




you're quoting out of context. i was saying Beliefs and ACTION are different.
i may be misunderstanding your statement here... but you can definately have beliefs without action. you can believe anything you want. but as soon as you act on it, your action is what determines whether or not you have crossed that line between "infringing on anothers rights" or just believing it's okay.


And that's how you can rationalize fucked up beliefs in your head. If actions are wrong, the how are the beliefs those actions are based on not?





i don't know where you conjured up this bullshit?
just because i don't think someone is "wrong" if it is working for them, doesn't mean i don't think my faith is wrong.
there are ahadith (Islaamic tradition of the Prophet Muhammad (saws) that says something along the lines of "there is only One God (swt), but many paths you can take to get there." in Islaam there are 124,000 Prophets (as) from God (swt) ALL of whom practiced SUBMISSION to ALLAH(swt) which is what Islaam means. so how can followers of those faiths be "wrong"? to say that other faiths are "wrong" is to say that all faiths before Abrahamic tradition is somehow "wrong"? which i don't completely agree with.


so there is a universal right and wrong for everything else but religion? but only those religions that don't worship idols? If those other faiths aren't wrong, then how is yours right? How can things that contradict each other all be right? How can christians be right that jesus was god and that muhammed was irrelevant, and you be right at the same time?



oh, so i'm supposed to "learn" what Islaam believes from somebody who isn't even Muslim? how does that make sense? if i wanted to here all the Islamaphobic bullshit i just have to turn on the news. and listen to a bunch of racist redneck media outlets that don't even understand the meaning of the word Jihad.

but whatever, we can go that route if you'd like. but i don't know what the relevence is.


How is anyone being islamaphobic? and again with relevance, are you getting paid per use?




and you followed people into straightedge, so what?

do you understand the basic ideas behind formulating beliefs? you HAVE to learn to expand. your beliefs, like your personality is made up of past experiences and relationships. otherwise how do you produce a "belief?" sure i embraced Islaam years after alot of ex HL people embraced it. but so what. i don't live anywhere near any of them, don't even talk to most of them and barely stay in contact with the ones that i am in contact with. so how is this being a "follower?"

again, if i were a "follower" i would have followed the friends that i see on a daily basis down the "Agnosticism" road.


I guess the point is lost of you that everything you believe was handed to you andI don't think you're even capable of individual thought and disagreeing with hl. Sorry to hurt you feelings by point out the obvious though.




by this you claim that straightedge is a cult, because straightedge doesn't control every facet of your life?
like... i dunno, say perhaps dedicating a website that you are constantly on to straightedge. making it your duty to tell people when they can and can not call themselves a specific label. putting X's around your name, aim name, email, etc. how many straightedge stickers do you have on your car? computer? how many shirts do you wear that say straightedge on it? i know your type. you can't exist without your label. and you need that label to reflect a personality and identity. you're basically nothing without straightedge.


no, because straight edge doesn't tell me what to think about every subject. It isn't a complete belief, you know, that thing you complained about and why HL tried to distance itself from straight edge because our beliefs were too narrow? can you please seriously pick something and stay with it? I'm glad to know that you think I'm nothing without straight edge when it's actually just a facet of my personality and life. I have 0 edge stickers on my car and computers. I have a handful of edge shirts. I'm glad you know my type and then completely incorrectly attempt to stereotype me.






wow, this is really touching coming from someone that basis their entire life off of a song.


what a witty remark from someone who has it tattooed across their throat.



you didn't ask why i don't agree with it, originally you asked why i don't use marijuana to get closer to God (swt).... and i don't because i don't agree with doing that. i already said, that i prefer prayer and meditation. these are safer, cleaner and healthier ways to get closer to God (swt).

You do realize you just answered nothing right? I don't agree because I don't agree isn't an answer. so there are safer cleaner and healthier ways to get closer to god, so using marijuana to get closer to god is wrong, right?





the basic point that you are missing is that i've been saying the whole time that the manifesto wasn't very well written. so i'm not missing this point. but you seem to be missing the point that this entire topic is HARDLINE. which consists of MORE than just the manifesto. and when the Ideology grew and people started taking to it, the need to expand was recognized and in eventually expanded on.

again with the "all meaning some" crap. i can only explain it in plain english so many times until i finally have to just say, that's it i'm done you're too stupid to understand it.


and your explanations aren't good enough, which I know you have trouble coming to terms with. You talk about what the ideology means but you've provided what to support it?




no this wasn't a joke.

oh then you really are that dumb that you can't understand plain english.



without provocation, there is no justifiable homicide. if you are starving then it is survival and therefore not against the "natural order". but like i said, nobody that read the manifesto can't go to the store and buy a head of lettuce, and some pasta.

how many different scenarios do need to give you before you fucking understand this simple shit?


Oh ok, so right and wrong are subjective and there are scenarios where the manifesto is wrong. Also, killing an animal isn't homicide, awesome use of making up new meanings though.




you mean besides the fact that it is un-natural? and besides all the stuff i listed above, about how detrimental to Yang essence it is? and again, homosexuals can do whatever they want. i just don't think it's natural, and not that any of this really matters but i don't agree with it, and i believe in the Taoist Yin and Yang essence exchange more.


But it is natural, because it exists in nature. You've failed to actually demonstrate how it's unnatural other than some wacky Yin and Yang bullshit, that doesn't explain why it's wrong or why you'd care if it completely doesn't effect you.





how is it un-natural for me to live off of a vegan diet?
is it because our intestines are not "built" to sustain the damage dealt by meat consumption? is it because our bodies aren't fully capable of digesting meat?
carnivore’s short intestinal tract, which reaches about three times its body length. An herbivore’s intestines are 12 times its body length, and humans are closer to herbivores


I didn't say unnatural, I said against the natural order. the natural order for humans is to eat meat.





yes, but they are Haraam, and you will be judged for them, or forgiven by Allah (swt) the Most Merciful.

no. that's not what i said, i implied that you do not HAVE to sacrifice/slaughter animals at eid.


oh ok. So you mentioned the pillars for absolutely no reason other than to try and shift attention away. If you don't have to sacrifice them, then why is it done and if that's the case then shouldn't you be doing direct action to stop it?





wow, i guess you just proved your whole position.

well yeah I have, as demonstrated by your multiple cases of contradiction. You have to lie to yourself to convince yourself that what you believe is right?



the natural order doesn't need to consist of "the majority". and i'm not convinced, just because you say that it does.

because that's what makes it the default state of things. But awesome examples here, if you tell yourself a lie enough times eventually it because the truth.



what is the natural order for animals vs. humans is irrelevent that's the whole point. different species, different "laws of nature".

so there aren't laws of nature that go across all similar species? Or laws of nature, ie everything dies that transcend them all? This is also another excellent example where you don't actually answer the question. You just make an irrelevant statement.





you assumed all rastas were "black" and all rastas grow, sell and "smoke weed", sounds alot like these crackers that claim that all "black people sell and do drugs" doesn't it.


now you're just making shit up. where did I assume or state that rastas were black? way to shoot any creditability you ever had. but it makes sense, your life is based on made up shit.




wow, mr. wizard. you're right, HL told me to get straightedge tattooed across my throat. oh wait, most HL people severed their ties with "straightedge" because of how narrow minded and single issued it is...
all HL people and muslims open tattoo shops, because that's what they do right? i followed all the ex HL people into doing that right???
you are a fucking idiot, and you pull shit out of your ass all the time. you don't know what the hell you are talking about.... pretty much ever, do you.


you know, tattoo's aren't natural and are against the natural order. Now that's great you did all those things, but how does that not make HL a complete ideology? unless you want to tell me that it isn't? If you wanted to demonstrate how you're not a follower you would have been better off stating examples of you disagree with HL, but you can't because you're a follower.




not all embraced Islaam. that is the point... in fact i'm willing to bet that most didn't. and Sean was into it long before alot of others got into it, why? because they including myself wanted to learn more about it. why? because just because Sean or anybody for that matter says it's "truth" doesn't mean that it is Truth. and should be further explored and studied before making a decision.

so yeah. my assumption was correct. thanks for that. wacky muslims.




well either way not all rastas smoke weed. that is the point.

That's not the point at all but you've tried to hard to shift attention that you've actually missed the point. Weed use is encouraged to get closer to god, you think that smoking weed is wrong, so you think rastas are wrong.





it was an assumption because i read too much into your statement. and i took little info and formulated an assumption... that's what makes it an assumption smarguy.

and why am i against rastas??? because i'm not, i just don't partake in some of their spiritual practice.

no, you made shit up. you projected your feelings onto my words and made up the rest. you're against drug use aren't you?




some random dude on the street that is hungry and bought a hamburger is not the oppressor. the piece of shit that factory farms the animals is.
how many times do i need to explain this?

do you even read what you write to yourself? You go on about "there is no room for "consumerism" within the HL ideology. there is no "convenience" or "instant gratification" according to the "majority"." so the consumer, the reason why the factory farm exists, isn't the oppressor? You take away the demand your need to supply disappears.



the point was you claimed that Shahid dissolved HL "when" he got into Islaam, and i was pointing out that he was actually into it from the inception of HL. all the rest of this crap is irrelevent.


oh ok, that clears up everything. You argue semantics that are irreverent to somehow attempt to disprove a general statement that history actually supports.



oh, shut up you big lug...


this shit has gone on too long. i've got a family to hang out with. so i'm over this. you can think whatever you want, and if anybody else is reading this and wants to hear more about my opinions on HL or anything else, without getting into page long posts. my email is Prepareforbattle@hotmail.com

no hard feelings.
peace.
-Tahir.
Thanks for a really weak and inconsistent argument!

Tahir
11-03-2006, 11:37 AM
thanks for proving my point that the majority of "straightedge" kids are single issued, narrow minded fools. you just want to debate, and you don't take what anybody is saying in ever. you twist words around in your feeble little brain to make an argument.
you're not as smart as you think you are, you keep on claiming that i'm not getting the "questions" when i am, you just aren't understanding and accepting the simply layed out answers. you don't answer most questions. and all these cookie cutter little kids that look up to you on here are setting themselves up if they think that you are some kind of "straightedge" icon.

about the rasta thing, and me answering I DON'T AGREE WITH IT BECAUSE THERE ARE HEALTHIER, CLEANER, AND SAFER WAYS OF GETTING CLOSER TO GOD (SWT) INCLUDING PRAYER AND MEDITATION." is an answer, and you're too fucking stupid to figure it out. now if you were asking WHY i don't agree with marijuana period, then i would say there are a number of reasons: i believe that it can lead to memory loss, respiratory problems, smoking marijuana increases your heart rate, and is debatable on whether or not marijuana smoke has led to some cases of lung cancer....
why i need to explain all of this?

about the natural order, yes there are "natural laws" that apply to ALL species, such as death as you so intelligently pointed out. but also a lizard loses its tail and it grows back, a dog has four legs, a bird can fly, a cockroach can live for up to a month with out it's head, there are obviously "natural laws" that aren't applicable to ALL species, so what the hell is so hard to understand about that?

about the homosexuality. i'm not saying your lifestyle is "wrong" i just don't agree with it. i've said it at the very beginning that we can get into WHY the anus isn't meant for penetration, and WHY the vagina is. but you just ignore these by saying "homosexuality happens in nature." that is not 100% true. you assume that non-human animals are unable to go against "natural law". when homosexuality appears in monkeys can they miraculously conceive baby monkey's? no, does the anus miraculously self-lubricate to accept a penis? no. these are all against the laws of nature and you're too fucking stupid to realize it.

about Islaam, yes i followed people, it is a 1500+ year old tradition, do you think i claim that i suddenly thought it up? yes HL claimed to be the "middle path" of spirituality. and i stopped calling myself HL when vanguard 8 came out, and it was obviousl that alot of people "converted" to Islaam. it wasn't later until i took time away, researched it and learned alot about Islaam and how comparable to HL it is that i embraced Islaam. as i accepted the word of the Prophets (as) and Islaam, claims to accept ALL Prophets (as).
Islaam, is "the middle path" and takes tradition from ALL "major religions". so yes it is very influential, and yes you may call me a follower if you must. i'm okay with that.
but don't deny that you are a follower as well, for the same exact reasons that you call me a follower.

about abortion. "pro-choice" advocates DO NOT teach potential "Mothers" contemplating murdering their babies about the dangers linked to abortion. "pro-life" advocates do. so you are wrong in saying that i don't care about the "mothers" life and only the "fetus'". i care about both.
abortions are 93% out of CONVENIENCE this means that only 7% are out of health risk, complications, rape and incest. this does not even constitue a viable arguement. as it is the MAJORITY that you love so much that are doing it out of convenience, and at risk themselves.

but my stance is that Abortion is not "birth control".
having an abortion doesen't make you "un-pregnant" it makes you the mother of a dead baby.



So you want to live unnaturally but pretend it's natural? Pick a stance, seriously. You want to talk shit about other people living in convenience and you want to also live in that convenience. Whatever lies you have to tell yourself....

it is NATURAL to progress in knowledge. i already said this. it is un-natural to suppress that knowledge. the problem is that technology surpasses morality. and the "convenience" is in relation to fast food joints, meat/dairy consumption. so NO i do not partake in that. i do live in a house, i do drive a car, and i do have a computer. i have a television w/ a remote and i listen to records. this is not relying completely on "convenience" . am i supposed to move to the mountains? this is not the natural order, this is a "future primitive" which would not be "Progression". which is against HL. HL is against unnecessary and excessive damage to the Earth's environment.

and why is the "natural order" to you consisting of the majority, yet the majority of human population are not "homosexual" yet homosexuality is "natural?"
make up your mind about what is and isnt natural and how YOU determine it.

xsecx
11-03-2006, 11:58 AM
thanks for proving my point that the majority of "straightedge" kids are single issued, narrow minded fools. you just want to debate, and you don't take what anybody is saying in ever. you twist words around in your feeble little brain to make an argument.
you're not as smart as you think you are, you keep on claiming that i'm not getting the "questions" when i am, you just aren't understanding and accepting the simply layed out answers. you don't answer most questions. and all these cookie cutter little kids that look up to you on here are setting themselves up if they think that you are some kind of "straightedge" icon.


If you say something that actually makes sense and doesn't contradict something else you say then I'll take it, since you don't, I won't. Your "simply layed out answers" don't actually address the questions as will continued to be demonstrated below. Also thanks for contradicting yourself again by calling us all single issued and narrow minded.



about the rasta thing, and me answering I DON'T AGREE WITH IT BECAUSE THERE ARE HEALTHIER, CLEANER, AND SAFER WAYS OF GETTING CLOSER TO GOD (SWT) INCLUDING PRAYER AND MEDITATION." is an answer, and you're too fucking stupid to figure it out. now if you were asking WHY i don't agree with marijuana period, then i would say there are a number of reasons: i believe that it can lead to memory loss, respiratory problems, smoking marijuana increases your heart rate, and is debatable on whether or not marijuana smoke has led to some cases of lung cancer....
why i need to explain all of this?


great, so you think rasta's are wrong for consuming marijuana. Was that hard?



about the natural order, yes there are "natural laws" that apply to ALL species, such as death as you so intelligently pointed out. but also a lizard loses its tail and it grows back, a dog has four legs, a bird can fly, a cockroach can live for up to a month with out it's head, there are obviously "natural laws" that aren't applicable to ALL species, so what the hell is so hard to understand about that?


Ok, so for probably the 10th time, what is the natural order for humans and what are you using for evidence of this?



about the homosexuality. i'm not saying your lifestyle is "wrong" i just don't agree with it. i've said it at the very beginning that we can get into WHY the anus isn't meant for penetration, and WHY the vagina is. but you just ignore these by saying "homosexuality happens in nature." that is not 100% true. you assume that non-human animals are unable to go against "natural law". when homosexuality appears in monkeys can they miraculously conceive baby monkey's? no, does the anus miraculously self-lubricate to accept a penis? no. these are all against the laws of nature and you're too fucking stupid to realize it.


thanks for assuming that I'm gay. You're good at incorrect assumptions. I can ignore your shit because you say it's unnatural but I can point to things in nature. Also, awesome way to exclude lesbians or that assume that homosexual sex == anus and heterosexual sex == vagina. Your issue is apparently only with gay men, interesting.



about Islaam, yes i followed people, it is a 1500+ year old tradition, do you think i claim that i suddenly thought it up? yes HL claimed to be the "middle path" of spirituality. and i stopped calling myself HL when vanguard 8 came out, and it was obviousl that alot of people "converted" to Islaam. it wasn't later until i took time away, researched it and learned alot about Islaam and how comparable to HL it is that i embraced Islaam. as i accepted the word of the Prophets (as) and Islaam, claims to accept ALL Prophets (as).
Islaam, is "the middle path" and takes tradition from ALL "major religions". so yes it is very influential, and yes you may call me a follower if you must. i'm okay with that.
but don't deny that you are a follower as well, for the same exact reasons that you call me a follower.

yeah, I'm a follower for 10% of my world beliefs. you on the other hand are what 95-100%? Of course I held my beliefs on drugs and alcohol way before I became straight edge, so I don't see your point there.



about abortion. "pro-choice" advocates DO NOT teach potential "Mothers" contemplating murdering their babies about the dangers linked to abortion. "pro-life" advocates do. so you are wrong in saying that i don't care about the "mothers" life and only the "fetus'". i care about both.
abortions are 93% out of CONVENIENCE this means that only 7% are out of health risk, complications, rape and incest. this does not even constitue a viable arguement. as it is the MAJORITY that you love so much that are doing it out of convenience, and at risk themselves.

but my stance is that Abortion is not "birth control".
having an abortion doesen't make you "un-pregnant" it makes you the mother of a dead baby.


you can lie yourself some more and believe that people getting abortions, like all other medical procedures aren't informed of the risks. I'm glad that you get to decide what's convenience and what isn't for the world though, so far you've been an excellent judge of character.




it is NATURAL to progress in knowledge. i already said this. it is un-natural to suppress that knowledge. the problem is that technology surpasses morality. and the "convenience" is in relation to fast food joints, meat/dairy consumption. so NO i do not partake in that. i do live in a house, i do drive a car, and i do have a computer. i have a television w/ a remote and i listen to records. this is not relying completely on "convenience" . am i supposed to move to the mountains? this is not the natural order, this is a "future primitive" which would not be "Progression". which is against HL. HL is against unnecessary and excessive damage to the Earth's environment.


This is a complete cop out. You want to raise the natural banner for the things you don't like but ignore it for the things you do. So enjoy your job that involves going against the natural order. How much farming do you do? Do you raise your own food? Or do you rely on large farms?



and why is the "natural order" to you consisting of the majority, yet the majority of human population are not "homosexual" yet homosexuality is "natural?"
make up your mind about what is and isnt natural and how YOU determine it.
because natural order and nature aren't the same thing. If you disagree then define natural order, which I've asked you a shitload of times now.

xvunderx
11-03-2006, 12:26 PM
about abortion. "pro-choice" advocates DO NOT teach potential "Mothers" contemplating murdering their babies about the dangers linked to abortion. "pro-life" advocates do. so you are wrong in saying that i don't care about the "mothers" life and only the "fetus'". i care about both.
abortions are 93% out of CONVENIENCE this means that only 7% are out of health risk, complications, rape and incest. this does not even constitue a viable arguement. as it is the MAJORITY that you love so much that are doing it out of convenience, and at risk themselves.

but my stance is that Abortion is not "birth control".
having an abortion doesn't make you "un-pregnant" it makes you the mother of a dead baby.

Actually the anti choice advocates out there do what you just said. They will teach extensively about the risks and pain of abortion, but always seem to miss out the risks and pain of child birth. They also offer only a small selection of the options the woman might face, and obviously not the possibility of abortion as an option. Pro choice workers do not do the same, the risks both ways are laid out, and information on new mothers groups, and adoption are also mentioned. No one is out there to sell abortion, only to help a woman in need.

You say you care about the mothers life, but you would force her to carry a baby and endure a nine month "rape", you also seem to forget the fact that illegal abortion doesn't lead to zero or less abortions performed, it just leads to back ally abortions and many more dead women.

Plus, a zipper fly over a button fly is a convenience, the choice to not have your life and mental health ruined and to not endure the physical torment of an unwanted child isn't a "convenience" it's leveling the playing field between the sexes. You can't anti choice and pro women.

You'll be the first to attack a man for forcing his cock in a womans body, but also the first to force a baby in there.

Tahir
11-04-2006, 01:28 AM
[QUOTE=xvunderx]Actually the anti choice advocates out there do what you just said. They will teach extensively about the risks and pain of abortion, but always seem to miss out the risks and pain of child birth. They also offer only a small selection of the options the woman might face, and obviously not the possibility of abortion as an option. Pro choice workers do not do the same, the risks both ways are laid out, and information on new mothers groups, and adoption are also mentioned.

well i don't believe you. i know people that have had abortions, and alot of them will tell you, that if they were warned of the complications and after effects, they would have chosen a different alternative, such as adoption.
and i don't agree that "anti-choice" advocates ignore possible risks for allowing the pregnancy to go full-term.
when my wife and i were going to our Mid-wife for checkups she constantly told us of the possible complications. i think your comment isn't very well thought out.

and when we were learning about our unborn child we made frequent stops to various bookstores. NEVER once did i see a book on "possible risks of abortion" and every single book i looked at explains possible risks of going full term, and birth.

from abortioninfo.net
"Many people don't realize that abortion is actually a dangerous procedure. While techniques are improving, there is still a high probability of negative physical side-effects, and almost certain negative psychological side-effects. Abortion is an unnatural process that interrupts one of the primary functions of the human body. A woman's body naturally resists the abortion, causing physical and emotional problems.

One of the most disturbing things about this is that many women aren't informed about the side-effects of abortion. The Supreme Court, in 1986, ruled that women don't have to be informed about these risks before the abortion. As a result, 80% of women who have had abortions said their counselors gave "...little or no information about the potential health risks which might follow the surgery." and 68% felt "...the procedure was not described with any degree of depth of clarity." (Aborted Women:Silent No More by David Reardon, Crossway Books, 1987)"


No one is out there to sell abortion, only to help a woman in need.

"a women in need" of what? the CONVENIENCE of being "unpregnant?" that's not a "need" that's a want. if you NEED to be unpregnant, then don't have sex.

nobody is making money off of being "pro-life". the majority are volunteers, others are barely making enough to put back into "the cause" and barely breaking even. EVERY SINGLE person who performs abortions is getting paid ALOT. this is the meaning of "selling".


You say you care about the mothers life, but you would force her to carry a baby and endure a nine month "rape",

the mothers life is important as well, i never said i don't care about the would be mothers life. not only are there risks and complications during the "procedure" of killing an unborn child, but long lasting "after effects" that potentially ruin lives.


why should the child be forced to suffer the consequences of somebodies bad choice? the child is not guilty of rape, so why kill the innocent? why not kill the rapist?
this is assuming the would be "mother" is actually pregnant as a result of rape.

it is estimated between 1%-4.7% (4.7% is counting possibilities of women who do not admit rape, for whatever reasons) of rapes result in a pregnancy. in most situations, the woman is suffering from depression and stress which causes an "unviable pregnancy".
what are the chances a women is raped during ovulation? which lessens the chances of pregnancy even more.. your argument is not based on fact, rather it is based on opinion.
which is cool, have your opinion you're entitled to it. but don't try and pass it off as fact, unless you've actually researched it.

http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

"Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)."


you also seem to forget the fact that illegal abortion doesn't lead to zero or less abortions performed, it just leads to back ally abortions and many more dead women.

you are right. i didn't seem to forget this it is a POSSIBILITY.. but walking down the street may result in many more pedestrians being ran over by cars, so are we supposed to stop walking?
and if somebody is willing to put themselves even more at risk by getting "back alley abortions" than that is "their choice" right?


the answer is not killing off a bunch of innocent babies, rather the answer is education.
and for the rape argument, rapists should suffer heavier consequences. i don't feel that the "law" is strict enough when it comes to rapists, child molesters etc.


Plus, a zipper fly over a button fly is a convenience, the choice to not have your life and mental health ruined and to not endure the physical torment of an unwanted child isn't a "convenience"

what does the word convenient mean? i'm sure xsecx can copy and paste a definition for you... if you don't know it already.(he loves doing that)
if it is INCONVENIENT for a woman to have a baby whether it be by rape, money, social situations or health, they will abort the baby therefore doing so out of CONVENIENCE.

what about the mental health problems women suffer after murdering their child?
"Psychological Side Effects
*A survey was conducted of 1900 women who had had abortions. The survey asked "Were there any negative psychological effects... [caused] by your abortion?" 94% answered "Yes." 2% answered "No."

*Another study was conducted by Dr. Anne Speckhard at the University of Minnesota. She concluded, "After 5-10 years 54% of mothers choosing abortion had nightmares, 81% had preoccupation with their aborted child, 35% had perceived visitations with their child, and 96% felt they had taken a human life."

*39000 women who have had an abortion are members of NARAL.
*245000 women who have had abortions are members of National Right to Life."


it's leveling the playing field between the sexes. You can't anti choice and pro women.

how do you figure this? did you know that the original feminists were anti abortion?


You'll be the first to attack a man for forcing his cock in a womans body, but also the first to force a baby in there.

this is such a ridiculous statement i don't even know how to answer it.. how do i "force a baby" in somebodies body? is this straightxed on another sxe.com account?

your are only using rape scenario. why?

xvunderx
11-04-2006, 11:20 AM
[QUOTE][QUOTE=xvunderx]Actually the anti choice advocates out there do what you just said. They will teach extensively about the risks and pain of abortion, but always seem to miss out the risks and pain of child birth. They also offer only a small selection of the options the woman might face, and obviously not the possibility of abortion as an option. Pro choice workers do not do the same, the risks both ways are laid out, and information on new mothers groups, and adoption are also mentioned. QUOTE]

well i don't believe you. i know people that have had abortions, and alot of them will tell you, that if they were warned of the complications and after effects, they would have chosen a different alternative, such as adoption.
and i don't agree that "anti-choice" advocates ignore possible risks for allowing the pregnancy to go full-term.
when my wife and i were going to our Mid-wife for checkups she constantly told us of the possible complications. i think your comment isn't very well thought out.

Was your Midwife an anti choice group? No she was a medical professional and I would hope an unbiased one. Just because a persons career is centered around the birthing oif children, doesn't mean that they are anti choice, you might want to look in to the parctices of an anti choice group such as His Nesting Place, if you would like to view how they run things you can check out episode 5 of 30 Days.

Next when ever any one goes through a medical procedure, they outline the risks, it's the law, you have to sign that you read and understood, this is true even on something as small as getting your wisdom teeth out. An abortion isn't like getting a hair cut, it's a medical procedure and must follow the guidelines set out for any medical procedure.


and when we were learning about our unborn child we made frequent stops to various bookstores. NEVER once did i see a book on "possible risks of abortion" and every single book i looked at explains possible risks of going full term, and birth.

Again, these books are simply facts about child birth, not counseling. If you are reading a book on childbirth you are looking at a medical article on what you have chose to go though and not a piece of anti choice literature.

You seem to miss the fact that a pro choice person isn't about anti child birth, it's about the all options, both bringing the pregnancy to term, and not. A medical professional helping a woman to bring a pregnancy to term isn't by default anti choice.


from abortioninfo.net
"Many people don't realize that abortion is actually a dangerous procedure. While techniques are improving, there is still a high probability of negative physical side-effects, and almost certain negative psychological side-effects. Abortion is an unnatural process that interrupts one of the primary functions of the human body. A woman's body naturally resists the abortion, causing physical and emotional problems.

One of the most disturbing things about this is that many women aren't informed about the side-effects of abortion. The Supreme Court, in 1986, ruled that women don't have to be informed about these risks before the abortion. As a result, 80% of women who have had abortions said their counselors gave "...little or no information about the potential health risks which might follow the surgery." and 68% felt "...the procedure was not described with any degree of depth of clarity." (Aborted Women:Silent No More by David Reardon, Crossway Books, 1987)"

Not exactly an unbiased source, also, appeals against the "womens right to know laws" have been in effect because much of the "information" given out was seen as both faulty (for example the "fetal pain" part) and use to intimidate women out of choosing an abortion. The "facts" listed as missing on this site fall under those categories, and your source mentions spiritual problems a fair bit I notice and is also "He is a frequent guest on Christian radio and Christian television talk shows and has been a key note speaker at many state and national conventions for crisis pregnancy centers and pro-life organizations." I'm thinking not an unbiased view point.

Now it is true that an abortion does and will have psychological after effects, it's not a fun thing, it's not something a person should do or take lightly, but, at the same time one must consider the psychological effects of being forced into pregnancy, something he doesn't seem to wish to document. There is a reason women would rather risk death and injury in self and back ally abortions.


"a women in need" of what? the CONVENIENCE of being "unpregnant?" that's not a "need" that's a want. if you NEED to be unpregnant, then don't have sex.

To not be pregnant is a right not a "convenience" One of the biggest breakthroughs in the struggle for equality was the pill and womens ability to gain greater control over their lives.

How is a woman supposed to be competitive and able to strive for and reach her dreams if every roll in the hay results in squeezing out a baby? You've already said it is un-natural and unhealthy to supress sexual urges, an urge you say is as important as the urge to eat and to sleep. Is that only true for men?

Women have come a long way since being held down bare foot and pregnant, something you'd like to see us go back to.


nobody is making money off of being "pro-life". the majority are volunteers, others are barely making enough to put back into "the cause" and barely breaking even. EVERY SINGLE person who performs abortions is getting paid ALOT. this is the meaning of "selling".

I never said anti choice were raking in the big bucks, Also being an abortion physision isn't a fast train to riches either. If you break a leg your doctor is making big bucks putting it back together again, is he selling a leg cast to you? No he's offering a medical procedure you need, as well I suppose and the convenience of getting your leg fixed.

There are also many pro choice people volunteering for the cause for free, people who give up their time to protect the women in need of abortion clinics from the protesters and criminals trying to take away their basic rights.


the mothers life is important as well, i never said i don't care about the would be mothers life. not only complications, but long lasting "after effects" that potentially ruin lives.

Do you really think forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term would be easier on the mental health of the woman than an abortion? If you do you are seriously misguided. Many women would rather die than carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, we can see this in the number of desperate women seeking illegal abortions, or trying to injur themselves seriously enough to force a miscarriage. Also as i have pointed out, making abortion illegal doesn't reduce the number of abortions carried out, it simply increases the number of illegal and unsafe abortions and brings about one dead woman approximately every 6 minutes some where in the world.

You can't "care' for these women and condemn them to death.


why should the child be forced to suffer the consequences of somebodies bad choice? the child is not guilty of rape, so why kill the innocent? why not kill the rapist?
this is assuming the would be "mother" is actually pregnant as a result of rape.

I never mentioned people pregnant as a result of rape, I mentioned the fact that to force a cock in her body is rape, and to force a fetus and a baby into it for nine months is nine months of rape. If she does not want this "body" inside her, then it is no different than the cock of a rapeist. It is still her body, and she has the right to decide what goes into it.

Also "Children" aren't being aborted, zygotes embryos and fetuses are. These are the possibility of life, not life, they can not exist without the womans body, it needs her heart, her blood, her lungs her everything. by the time we are talking about a child we are talking about illegal abortions, and abortions from a medical complications factor not an "oh shit' factor.

You throw around "innocent" and "guilty" what is the woman guilty of? Pursuing an healthy relationship? of taking into account an urge you say yourself is as important as the urge to eat and to sleep?

Do you realize that the very early abortions such as those from the morning after pill are at a stage in gestation which is often lost any way, one that might simply of not stuck and come out in the next menstrual cycle, do you cry every time your wife has a period as every one could be a "miscarriage"?


it is estimated between 1%-4.7% (4.7% is counting possibilities of women who do not admit rape, for whatever reasons) of rapes result in a pregnancy. in most situations, the woman is suffering from depression and stress which causes an "unviable pregnancy".
what are the chances a women is raped during ovulation? which lessens the chances of pregnancy even more.. your argument is not based on fact, rather it is based on opinion.
which is cool, have your opinion you're entitled to it. but don't try and pass it off as fact, unless you've actually researched it.

Again I'm not talking about women who were raped, I'm taking about the rape of forced pregnancy.


http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

"Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)."

Again I'm not talking about these circumstances, to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is torture, if a child is unwanted that's a sad thing, it isn't any less sad if that child is brought to term. In fact it is often sadder. The world does not need to be over populated with miserable "couples" and miserable children. there are women alive now walking thinking feeling and dreaming, they should not be scrificed for some cells that make up the possibility of life.


you are right. i didn't seem to forget this.. but walking down the street results in many more pedestrians being ran over by cars, so are we supposed to stop walking?

Exactly. You walk down the street, you know the risks, should you then live crippled if the worst happens as you go through your daily life?


the answer is not killing off a bunch of innocent babies, rather the answer is education.
and for the rape argument, rapists should suffer heavier consequences. i don't feel that the "law" is strict enough when it comes to rapists, child molesters etc.

Again even most anti choice people agree on the subject of rape (although not all) I am not talking about the cases of rape.

And you talk of education, what education? I think grater education on contraception is a good idea, I feel the current system of "just say no" is backwards, unhelpful and unhealthy. Unfortunately nothing is 100% effective and unwanted pregnancies happen no matter how careful the individual is, but their life should not be ruined because they were unlucky.


what does the word convenient mean? i'm sure xsecx can copy and paste a definition for you... if you don't know it already.(he loves doing that)
if it is INCONVENIENT for a woman to have a baby whether it be by rape, money, social situations or health, they will abort the baby therefore doing so out of CONVENIENCE.

But again it's a health issue also, she might not be physically or mentally capable of bringing a child into the world.


what about the mental health problems women suffer after murdering their child?
"Psychological Side Effects
*A survey was conducted of 1900 women who had had abortions. The survey asked "Were there any negative psychological effects... [caused] by your abortion?" 94% answered "Yes." 2% answered "No."

*Another study was conducted by Dr. Anne Speckhard at the University of Minnesota. She concluded, "After 5-10 years 54% of mothers choosing abortion had nightmares, 81% had preoccupation with their aborted child, 35% had perceived visitations with their child, and 96% felt they had taken a human life."

*39000 women who have had an abortion are members of NARAL.
*245000 women who have had abortions are members of National Right to Life."

Again with your anti choice sources, do you think if you interviewed 1900 women forced to carry a pregnancy to term against their will that they would all say "if rocked!" I doubt it.


this is such a ridiculous statement i don't even know how to answer it.. how do i "force a baby" in somebodies body? is this straightxed on another sxe.com account?

Basically you do this, you take away a womans control of her body, and dissalow her the right to say "No" to carrying a pregnancy to term. You then force her to give her body over to a pile of cells that will one day become a baby. that's how you force one in there, you take away her right to choce what goes on with and in her won body.


your are only using rape scenario. why?

Again I;m not, I;m talking about a nine month long rape of having an unwated entity forced inside inside your body by a would be law.

Tahir
11-06-2006, 01:57 AM
[QUOTE=xvunderx][QUOTE=Tahir][QUOTE]

Was your Midwife an anti choice group? No she was a medical professional and I would hope an unbiased one. Just because a persons career is centered around the birthing oif children, doesn't mean that they are anti choice, you might want to look in to the parctices of an anti choice group such as His Nesting Place, if you would like to view how they run things you can check out episode 5 of 30 Days.


i never said she was an "anti choice" group, she is "pro-life" i simply pointed out that she told us constantly of the possible risks, which you claimed people who do allow their pregnancy to go full term are not told about by pro-life "workers", which she is.


Next when ever any one goes through a medical procedure, they outline the risks, it's the law, you have to sign that you read and understood, this is true even on something as small as getting your wisdom teeth out. An abortion isn't like getting a hair cut, it's a medical procedure and must follow the guidelines set out for any medical procedure.

so i guess you completely ignored this part of my post, and relied on giving me your OPINION without backing it up? in case you forgot i'll re-post what i'm talking about:

"One of the most disturbing things about this is that many women aren't informed about the side-effects of abortion. The Supreme Court, in 1986, ruled that women don't have to be informed about these risks before the abortion. As a result, 80% of women who have had abortions said their counselors gave "...little or no information about the potential health risks which might follow the surgery." and 68% felt "...the procedure was not described with any degree of depth of clarity." (Aborted Women:Silent No More by David Reardon, Crossway Books, 1987)"

and if you think your argument that "he's a Christian" is really going to prove that a fetus is worthy of mutilation, then you are wrong.

not to mention, when most women are considering abortion, they are under alot of stress and emotional baggage which may impair their judgement and decision making. so why is it okay to support a "procedure" that is "outlined" under the "law" of the supreme court, that women do NOT have to be informed about these possible risks?



Again, these books are simply facts about child birth, not counseling. If you are reading a book on childbirth you are looking at a medical article on what you have chose to go though and not a piece of anti choice literature.

"NEVER once did i see a book on "possible risks of abortion" and every single book i looked at explains possible risks of going full term, and birth."

you're right, that's because they were the books that my wife and i CHOSE to look at. which wasn't my point at all. obviously i'm not going to be buying books on abortion.
what i was saying was, although the books on the many shelves concerning childbirth (and related topics) not one was on abortion and it's risks. why? i mean if the "choice" advocates are so into telling both sides why aren't they making it possible to read about BEFORE a woman is an emotional wreck, confused, stressed, oblivious to the health risks, dangers, pyschological risks and after effects of abortion?

maybe it's because it's easier to talk them into abortion, considering the emotional instabilty and judgment or lack there of, when a woman in these conditions walks into a "clinic"... why not when it is in the clinics best interest NOT to explain the possible risks, and is under protection of the law not to.



You seem to miss the fact that a pro choice person isn't about anti child birth, it's about the all options, both bringing the pregnancy to term, and not. A medical professional helping a woman to bring a pregnancy to term isn't by default anti choice.

i'm not talking about people that know their options. i'm talking about abortions.




Not exactly an unbiased source, also, appeals against the "womens right to know laws" have been in effect because much of the "information" given out was seen as both faulty (for example the "fetal pain" part) and use to intimidate women out of choosing an abortion.

about a fetus feeling pain: i couldn't tell you for sure... I understand that the "spino-thalamic" system is fully developed at about 12 to 14 weeks. but pain receptors are fully developed by 7 weeks. the argument is whether or not the cerebral cortex must ultimately be completely "fused" together to actually feel pain. the fact is, nobody on either side of the argument can say for sure. this is pure ignorance and careless to just write it off as "unable to feel pain." and if there is no "solid" evidence from either side, why would you support the side that may in fact cause pain to the unborn Fetus?



and use to intimidate women out of choosing an abortion.

what about the ones who are intimidated into having an abortion? by parents, friends, husbands, boyfriends, doctors, school counselors, teachers etc.? is it their choice?
are they less intimidated?
what about people that are told, they have to have an abortion, because the baby will not be healthy when not given solid evidence by the "doctors"? or, women that are intimidated into abortions, because they are told they will not be able to aford a child, when there are many outlets of financial aid, etc.?

and if you believe telling a women about the procedure of tearing a child apart limb from limb is "intimidating" then i don't know what to tell you.




The "facts" listed as missing on this site fall under those categories, and your source mentions spiritual problems a fair bit I notice and is also "He is a frequent guest on Christian radio and Christian television talk shows and has been a key note speaker at many state and national conventions for crisis pregnancy centers and pro-life organizations." I'm thinking not an unbiased view point.

i don't understand WHY this is so relevent? if a "choice" advocate was an atheist would he/she have any more credibilty over a spiritual "choice" advocate? no.
and YOU seem very biased also, it's because you are "pro-choice" and not "anti- abortion" right?
and how many times have you been a "key note speaker at ANY state and national conventions for crisis pregnancy centers?" I'm thinking you're not as well studied in the subject as David C. Reardon, Ph.D., are you?


Now it is true that an abortion does and will have psychological after effects, it's not a fun thing, it's not something a person should do or take lightly,

so you admit that abortion is "not something a person should do?" yet you support it?


but, at the same time one must consider the psychological effects of being forced into pregnancy, something he doesn't seem to wish to document. There is a reason women would rather risk death and injury in self and back ally abortions.

okay, if you're not talking about "rape scenarios" then you're talking about VOLUNTARY SEXUAL RELATIONS which is NOT being "forced" into being pregnant. it's common "birds and the bees" if you don't want to be pregnant, then either don't have sex, or take necessary precautions. abortion is NOT a justifiable means of "birth control" it's murder.

and i'm sorry, but if a women is willing to take the risks of abortion, whether in a "clinic" or a supposed "back alley" as a means of birth control? then fuck her. period.
her rights END where another BEGINS. if she VOLUNTARILY put herself in a position to get pregnant, and considering most women don't realize they are pregnant until AFTER the heart starts beating which is PROVEN fact by BOTH sides of the debate, then she's a piece of shit. and there's nothing anybody can do or say to change my mind about that.

just like somebody that murders a 6 month old baby because it is "inconvenient" to have a baby at the particular time in their "so important life". fuck them, and fuck anybody who supports it.



To not be pregnant is a right not a "convenience" One of the biggest breakthroughs in the struggle for equality was the pill and womens ability to gain greater control over their lives.

that is such a crock of shit. the "pill" and "abortion" just made it easier to treat women as objects, WITHOUT consequences. this is not "gaining greater control over their lives" unless you count sex as the "greater" aspect of a womans life. which i hope i don't have to remind you again, is BULLSHIT


this doesn't constitue as a "right" it is somebodies "right" to "choose" sex or no sex. not "life" or "death".


How is a woman supposed to be competitive and able to strive for and reach her dreams if every roll in the hay results in squeezing out a baby?

are you implying that a woman may only be competitive and is only able to strive for and reach her dreams by having sex?
because apparantly, she can't have/ strive for dreams without the risk of being pregnant?
and i never said everytime you have sex you must have a baby.


You've already said it is un-natural and unhealthy to supress sexual urges, an urge you say is as important as the urge to eat and to sleep. Is that only true for men?

this is in reaction to nit-witts claiming without knowledge that HL is anti sex. it is not to say that you MUST have sex. it is to say that the urge is as natural as being hungry or sleepy.
however, if you want to go that route, the urge to have sex is natural, abortion is not.
and where does the "is that only true for men" comment come in? because obviously in my opinion it takes both a Man and a Woman to make sex natural. so obviously it isn't only true for men.
is sex 100% guaranteed to result in child birth? no, so why all the stupid questions?


Women have come a long way since being held down bare foot and pregnant, something you'd like to see us go back to.

where do you come up with this shit? why do you think i would like to see women be "barefoot and pregnant?" how is women being submissive to men going to change the way the world is being ran today? how is it going to teach our children and future generations that women are not inferior? i have never made this claim, and have never said anything to back up your assumption.
if you are trying to play the "feminist" card then keep digging for that "ace in the hole" because i can show proof that early day feminists were pro-life.
just one example:
http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/herstory/index.htm



I never said anti choice were raking in the big bucks, Also being an abortion physision isn't a fast train to riches either.

have you ever known anybody that was raised the child of a baby killer? well i worked with one for 5 years. he was raised VERY VERY financially taken care of. enough to where he could move state to state, go to school, have cars and be very well taken care of all on the dime of his father. not to mention the fathers home in Jamaica, DC., Richmond, and a house in NY. so you're right, people who murder children don't get paid. of course you don't have to take my word for it.


If you break a leg your doctor is making big bucks putting it back together again, is he selling a leg cast to you? No he's offering a medical procedure you need, as well I suppose and the convenience of getting your leg fixed.

well the key word here is NEED. not everybody who gets an abortion "needs" one. in fact 93% are done out of CONVENIENCE. which means there are less then 7% which could claim the "need" to.

if you break your leg, you pretty much NEED that leg to be in working order. unless you want to be wheel chair bound for the rest of your life, but other than that you're going to pretty much NEED your legs.

nobody NEEDS to kill, unless it is in protection of their life or others.


There are also many pro choice people volunteering for the cause for free, people who give up their time to protect the women in need of abortion clinics from the protesters and criminals trying to take away their basic rights.

you mean the pesky criminals that give the true story of risks, tell the truth about the fetus being alive, and challenge the child murdering scum that are making a living off of womens vulnerability?
you're right, everyone should just rely on an industry that doesn't HAVE to tell you all of the risks involved, you nit-witt.




Do you really think forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term would be easier on the mental health of the woman than an abortion?

short answer:
i'm not talking about "forcing" anybody into anything. i'm talking about a woman taking responsibility for her actions.

i also understand that i could make it to work alot faster if i drove 100mph, but since it is unsafe, unpredictable and a LIFE THREATENING not only to myself but OTHERS there are laws that keep me from doing that. and i don't see you complaining about other types of "laws" and regulations.


If you do you are seriously misguided.

if you believe that owning up to your responsibilities is harder on the mental health then killing your own child, not only are YOU misguided, but morbid as well.



Many women would rather die than carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, we can see this in the number of desperate women seeking illegal abortions, or trying to injur themselves seriously enough to force a miscarriage.

so what. many respectable people would rather die then lose their children, what's your point? am i supposed to feel sorry for someone that would rather murder their own child then be uncomfortable?



Also as i have pointed out, making abortion illegal doesn't reduce the number of abortions carried out, it simply increases the number of illegal and unsafe abortions and brings about one dead woman approximately every 6 minutes some where in the world.

again, boo fucking hoo. if it were illegal, maybe people would start taking responsibilties for their actions so they don't HAVE to turn towards "back alley" abortions... since they care more about themselves then their children.


You can't "care' for these women and condemn them to death.

when i said i cared for the women, it was under circumstances of rape, incest, death and health risks.. when i assumed you meant "forced" when you said "forced".
all these whores that are doing it out of convenience, i don't give a fuck about any of them.
"choice" advocates want to talk about "population control" start by haning these pieces of shits that are killing babies.




I never mentioned people pregnant as a result of rape, I mentioned the fact that to force a cock in her body is rape, and to force a fetus and a baby into it for nine months is nine months of rape.

if consentual sex is not forced, how can conception due to consentual sex be "forced"?
and carrying a child due to consentual sex is not "forced" it is responsibility.


If she does not want this "body" inside her, then it is no different than the cock of a rapeist. It is still her body, and she has the right to decide what goes into it.

bullshit. if she does not want this "body" inside of her, then she should have taken the necessary precautions, and/or abstained from sex. otherwise, take responsibility.
if you break the law and rob a house, under the assumption you will not get caught and just want the "pleasure" of obtaining new things, you do not get to "choose" to not face responsibility if you get caught, so why would you justify choosing responsibility for other CONSENTUAL actions?

and i seriously can not see how you are comparing the VIOLENT act of rape to, consentual conception of a child (concentual sex). and the responsibilites with CONSENTING to the actions that could land a person in this situation in the first place.

if a woman has a baby, and the "father" does not want anything to do with the child, is he okay to "choose" not to take responsibility and support that child? no, there are laws to make sure he man's up and supports that child, or else face consequences.
so if a woman doesn't "want" the child after consented conception, does the father have a say in it? no. so why? isn't this a double standard? what about the emotions and after effects the father may suffer? it isn't only the would be "mothers" life, body and health at risk, now is it?


Also "Children" aren't being aborted, zygotes embryos and fetuses are. These are the possibility of life, not life, they can not exist without the womans body, it needs her heart, her blood, her lungs her everything. by the time we are talking about a child we are talking about illegal abortions, and abortions from a medical complications factor not an "oh shit' factor.


a life of a fetus is the beginning stages of an adult. is an infant less of a human because it is not an adult? and lays there? and requires the care of a mother/father to sustain it's existence? no. is a child born with downs syndrome not worthy of living if he/she requires constant care to survive? no.

also, a fetus has it's own heart, and therefore constitues a life.


You throw around "innocent" and "guilty" what is the woman guilty of? Pursuing an healthy relationship? of taking into account an urge you say yourself is as important as the urge to eat and to sleep?

no the woman would be guilty of murdering her unborn child.
pursuing a healthy sexual relationship does not require conception. maybe you should learn about sex a little more before you get into these debates.


Do you realize that the very early abortions such as those from the morning after pill are at a stage in gestation which is often lost any way, one that might simply of not stuck and come out in the next menstrual cycle, do you cry every time your wife has a period as every one could be a "miscarriage"?

i'm not talking about "the morning after pill" i'm talking about physical abortion. i'm not talking about unviable pregnancies that are NATURAL i'm talking about taking unnecessary actions to stop the progressiveness of a life.

why would i cry every time my wife has a period? do you realize that it "takes two to tango?" before "fertilization" there are two seperate beings which do not constitue the development of a child, but once the sperm penetrates the ovum the two cease to exist and what's left is the beginning stages of a new life.

does water = mud without dirt? no, it requires dirt+water to = mud right? so why would the sperm or the ovum by themselves = conception? you are arguing like a grade-schooler.




Again I'm not talking about women who were raped, I'm taking about the rape of forced pregnancy.

this is not rape. this is "inconvenience" which you can not admit.




Again I'm not talking about these circumstances, to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is torture, if a child is unwanted that's a sad thing, it isn't any less sad if that child is brought to term. In fact it is often sadder.

ripping a baby apart limb from limb is torture. stopping a babies beating heart is torture. taking responsibility for your actions is not torture, it is responsibility.
i understand that there are unwanted children in the world, there are also couples who are unable to conceive.



The world does not need to be over populated with miserable "couples" and miserable children.

infanticide is not the answer to "over population". and over half of couples that have an abortion end up up being miserable anyway, and the relationship is unlikely to survive as a result of abortion.


there are women alive now walking thinking feeling and dreaming, they should not be scrificed for some cells that make up the possibility of life.

yeah? well there are women alive now walking, thinking, feeling and dreaming that were allowed to be born too.
and there are women alive now walking, thinking, feeling, dreaming and wishing that they never had an abortion. what is your point?








Exactly. You walk down the street, you know the risks, should you then live crippled if the worst happens as you go through your daily life?

if you get hit by a car and end up crippled, then yes.
thanks for proving my point.




Again even most anti choice people agree on the subject of rape (although not all) I am not talking about the cases of rape.

even then my original answer stays as: the answer is not killing off a bunch of innocent babies, rather the answer is education.





And you talk of education, what education? I think grater education on contraception is a good idea, I feel the current system of "just say no" is backwards, unhelpful and unhealthy. Unfortunately nothing is 100% effective and unwanted pregnancies happen no matter how careful the individual is, but their life should not be ruined because they were unlucky.

9 months is hardly "ruining a life" but stopping a heart, tearing it's arms,legs and head from its torso is in fact RUINING A LIFE. adoption is an option in EVERY city. there is no excuse not to use adoption as an alternative to killing babies.
you're right, education is a good idea but not 100% effective. but neither is abortion.
although abortion will make you the mother of a dead baby, it doesn't liberate you from guilt, emotions, thoughts, wishing, and other after effects does it?
not to mention other risks such as:
*sterility
*minor infections
*bleeding
*fevers
*chronic abdominal pain
*gastro-intestinal disturbances
*vomiting
*cercical damage
*Rh sensitization
*major infection
*excessive bleeding
*embolism
*ripping or perforation of the uterus
*anesthesia complications
*convulsions
*hemorrhage
*cervical injury
*endotoxic shock
*woman who have abortions are more likely to have "eptopic pregnanies"
*an "incompetent cervix" which, unable to carry the weight of a later "wanted" pregnancy, opens prematurely, resulting in miscarriage or premature birth.

to name a few.




But again it's a health issue also, she might not be physically or mentally capable of bringing a child into the world.

again, then don't have sex. or take the necessary precautions.


Again with your anti choice sources,
where else should i get my sources? from myspace?


do you think if you interviewed 1900 women forced to carry a pregnancy to term against their will that they would all say "if rocked!" I doubt it.

you assume that all who have aborted their babies, would all say " it rocked!"....




Basically you do this, you take away a womans control of her body, and dissalow her the right to say "No" to carrying a pregnancy to term.

wront. i would only be guilty of "taking away a womans control of her body" if i were physically taking way her control of her body. nobody forced her into having sex, you said so yourself you are not talking about rape. you are talking about consentual sex, which is a choice. not forced.

and by aborting, you take a way a fetus' control of growing into an adult. and dissalow it's right to life.
everybody who supports abortion was born. think about that.


You then force her to give her body over to a pile of cells that will one day become a baby.

I didn't force her into anything. these are the consequences of HER actions.


that's how you force one in there, you take away her right to choce what goes on with and in her won body.

i still didn't force anything. and neither did anybody else. the only ones who "forced" the ovum to be "fertilized" are the ones who made a conscious decision to have sex.
so how does "killing" these cells that you admit will one day become a baby constitute justice? if it's out of convenience?
and again, her rights end where anothers begin.


Again I;m not, I;m talking about a nine month long rape of having an unwated entity forced inside inside your body by a would be law.

well i guess i'll say it again... the only ones who forced this "entity" inside the body are the two consentual partners. they are the guilty ones, not the child. so why punish the unborn child?

xsecx
11-06-2006, 08:40 AM
so i guess you completely ignored this part of my post, and relied on giving me your OPINION without backing it up? in case you forgot i'll re-post what i'm talking about:

"One of the most disturbing things about this is that many women aren't informed about the side-effects of abortion. The Supreme Court, in 1986, ruled that women don't have to be informed about these risks before the abortion. As a result, 80% of women who have had abortions said their counselors gave "...little or no information about the potential health risks which might follow the surgery." and 68% felt "...the procedure was not described with any degree of depth of clarity." (Aborted Women:Silent No More by David Reardon, Crossway Books, 1987)"

and if you think your argument that "he's a Christian" is really going to prove that a fetus is worthy of mutilation, then you are wrong.

not to mention, when most women are considering abortion, they are under alot of stress and emotional baggage which may impair their judgement and decision making. so why is it okay to support a "procedure" that is "outlined" under the "law" of the supreme court, that women do NOT have to be informed about these possible risks?


because you're completely and totally wrong? http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/abortion/risks-and-side-effects.htm



not to mention, when most women are considering abortion, they are under alot of stress and emotional baggage which may impair their judgement and decision making. so why is it okay to support a "procedure" that is "outlined" under the "law" of the supreme court, that women do NOT have to be informed about these possible risks?

maybe it's because it's easier to talk them into abortion, considering the emotional instabilty and judgment or lack there of, when a woman in these conditions walks into a "clinic"... why not when it is in the clinics best interest NOT to explain the possible risks, and is under protection of the law not to.

what about the ones who are intimidated into having an abortion? by parents, friends, husbands, boyfriends, doctors, school counselors, teachers etc.? is it their choice?
are they less intimidated?
what about people that are told, they have to have an abortion, because the baby will not be healthy when not given solid evidence by the "doctors"? or, women that are intimidated into abortions, because they are told they will not be able to aford a child, when there are many outlets of financial aid, etc.?


that is such a crock of shit. the "pill" and "abortion" just made it easier to treat women as objects, WITHOUT consequences. this is not "gaining greater control over their lives" unless you count sex as the "greater" aspect of a womans life. which i hope i don't have to remind you again, is BULLSHIT

again, boo fucking hoo. if it were illegal, maybe people would start taking responsibilties for their actions so they don't HAVE to turn towards "back alley" abortions... since they care more about themselves then their children.


when i said i cared for the women, it was under circumstances of rape, incest, death and health risks.. when i assumed you meant "forced" when you said "forced".
all these whores that are doing it out of convenience, i don't give a fuck about any of them.
"choice" advocates want to talk about "population control" start by haning these pieces of shits that are killing babies.


so to sum up, women aren't capable of making decisions for themselves, irresponsible and whores.



well the key word here is NEED. not everybody who gets an abortion "needs" one. in fact 93% are done out of CONVENIENCE. which means there are less then 7% which could claim the "need" to.

if you break your leg, you pretty much NEED that leg to be in working order. unless you want to be wheel chair bound for the rest of your life, but other than that you're going to pretty much NEED your legs.

nobody NEEDS to kill, unless it is in protection of their life or others.

if you get hit by a car and end up crippled, then yes.
thanks for proving my point.


you like contradicting yourself. Say you're out skateboarding and have on lots of protective gear and still end up breaking your leg, in your world you knew the risk and even thought it was an UNINTENDED consequence of the action you should be forced to live with it, so you shouldn't be able to get medical treatment for it. Or does your world view only apply to sex and misogyny?

mouseman004
11-06-2006, 09:47 AM
you like contradicting yourself. Say you're out skateboarding and have on lots of protective gear and still end up breaking your leg, in your world you knew the risk and even thought it was an UNINTENDED consequence of the action you should be forced to live with it, so you shouldn't be able to get medical treatment for it. Or does your world view only apply to sex and misogyny?


I'm not getting into this debate because I already had it, but I just want to say that this is a little bit of a stretch comparison. Getting a cast cannot really be compared to getting an abortion. And I realise you are making the comparison because of the argument of "you knew the risks you have to live with them" but a broken leg is a different situation then an abortion.

xsecx
11-06-2006, 10:30 AM
I'm not getting into this debate because I already had it, but I just want to say that this is a little bit of a stretch comparison. Getting a cast cannot really be compared to getting an abortion. And I realise you are making the comparison because of the argument of "you knew the risks you have to live with them" but a broken leg is a different situation then an abortion.

right, a broken leg effects your life an awful lot less than being forced to have a child you don't want. So then how is it a stretch, it's still a consequence that wasn't intended? If you should be forced to live with the consequences of one action then why shouldn't you be forced to live with the consequences of all actions? What makes sex different than skateboarding?

mouseman004
11-06-2006, 08:34 PM
right, a broken leg effects your life an awful lot less than being forced to have a child you don't want. So then how is it a stretch, it's still a consequence that wasn't intended? If you should be forced to live with the consequences of one action then why shouldn't you be forced to live with the consequences of all actions? What makes sex different than skateboarding?


I get the comparison, but that would be like saying that stealing a bag of chips is the same as murder. In both situations you are breaking the law, so do you deserve the same punishment? The comparison does make sense, but its an issue of the extremity of each situation.

xsecx
11-06-2006, 10:07 PM
I get the comparison, but that would be like saying that stealing a bag of chips is the same as murder. In both situations you are breaking the law, so do you deserve the same punishment? The comparison does make sense, but its an issue of the extremity of each situation.

how is it an extremity? Why should someone be able to seek medical treatment for a broken leg that happened as an unintended and unwanted consequence due to risky behavior but you shouldn't be able to seek medical treatment for an unintended and unwanted pregnancy? You're trying to say that one is murder and one is a bag of chips, when in reality they're both bags of chips. If you have sex you know the consequences before hand, so then how is any risky behavior different? Why should you be able to get treatment and not have to deal with the repercussions of one, but you do for another? Why is sex treated differently than any other risk behavior? Why are you kids so into the idea of punishing people for having sex?

Tahir
11-06-2006, 11:21 PM
[QUOTE=xsecx]because you're completely and totally wrong? http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/abortion/risks-and-side-effects.htm

okay... so planned parenthood sells abortions. their supposed "facts" are set up to make people feel comfortable with murdering their children. why do they not post any references for their claims? not a single reference for "recent studies" polls or anything.
why do you just believe them? you required me to cite references in order for you to take my "explanaition" about HL into consideration, but you believe every word these baby killers have to say, because "they say so"?

since you people love scenarios so much check thisout.

mcdonalds claims to have the best "burger" on the market, they put comercials on tv to sell their product, does mcdonalds make the best burger because THEY say they do?

if you believe that a woman has more "guilt" for having a baby, then a would be mother would have for killing her child, then you are out of your mind.




so to sum up, women aren't capable of making decisions for themselves, irresponsible and whores.

i never generalized women, you did. women are perfectly capable of making decisions for themselves. just like men, women can be responsible just as easily as they can be irresponsible. and yes some women are whores. but i never once said ALL women, remember your big deal about the word ALL and how it can't mean SOME you fucking idiot.

i said i don't care about these whores that are doing this strictly because they have the "convenience" of abortion. and if you think there aren't whores like that out there then you are kidding yourself.



you like contradicting yourself.

all this from the person that just contradicted himself?


Say you're out skateboarding and have on lots of protective gear and still end up breaking your leg, in your world you knew the risk and even thought it was an UNINTENDED consequence of the action you should be forced to live with it, so you shouldn't be able to get medical treatment for it. Or does your world view only apply to sex and misogyny?

first of all the "broken leg" scenario wasn't mine to begin with maybe you should read all of the posts about the topic.
and yes, if you break your leg you MUST live with it, are you supposed to fade into some magical realm where your leg isn't broken anymore?
and getting medical attention for an UNINTENDED accidental consequence such as a broken lef isn't the same as killing your unborn child.
yes everyone knows that skateboarding can end up with a broken leg, but getting a broken leg doesn't REQUIRE skateboarding.
conceiving a child REQUIRES sex.

of all the topics about abortion, you chose the scenario to debate????
you're a real class act.

Tahir
11-06-2006, 11:48 PM
[QUOTE=xsecx]how is it an extremity?

i believe your comment about HL and why it's "extreme" was:

"The fact that you get to judge innocent and punishment, when you're in no position to do either is what makes it extreme view."

so why is some woman in the position to judge the innocent and punishment for a fetus that didn't "choose" to be there. but the "mother" and "father" chose to take the necessary actions to put it there?
how ISN'T it extreme?



Why should someone be able to seek medical treatment for a broken leg that happened as an unintended and unwanted consequence due to risky behavior but you shouldn't be able to seek medical treatment for an unintended and unwanted pregnancy?

because treating a broken leg, doesn't consist of taking a life.


You're trying to say that one is murder and one is a bag of chips, when in reality they're both bags of chips.

actually one is murder.


If you have sex you know the consequences before hand, so then how is any risky behavior different?

because you can't get pregnant by skateboarding. and skateboarding doesn't have the risk of creating a life.



Why should you be able to get treatment and not have to deal with the repercussions of one, but you do for another?

because one is fixing a boo boo, and the other is taking a life.



Why is sex treated differently than any other risk behavior? Why are you kids so into the idea of punishing people for having sex?

because sex has the possibility of creating a life, and therefore YOU are not the only one involved, there is an innocent 3rd party that didn't ask to be there, but because of YOU and YOUR actions, the 3rd party exists and must be given it's opportunity of life without interference.

nobody is into "punishing people for having sex" but if you do the crime you do the time right? same goes with acting irresponsibly with your private parts.

by your arguments, you must believe that a "father" who doesn't want to take responsibilities for his actions is "okay" with being a "deadbeat" father... it is his "right" right? i mean what if HE doesn't want the child, and it happens on "accident" is he obligated to care for/support this child??? or is he free to go without a care in the world while the mother cares for/supports this child alone?

mouseman004
11-06-2006, 11:58 PM
how is it an extremity? Why should someone be able to seek medical treatment for a broken leg that happened as an unintended and unwanted consequence due to risky behavior but you shouldn't be able to seek medical treatment for an unintended and unwanted pregnancy? You're trying to say that one is murder and one is a bag of chips, when in reality they're both bags of chips. If you have sex you know the consequences before hand, so then how is any risky behavior different? Why should you be able to get treatment and not have to deal with the repercussions of one, but you do for another? Why is sex treated differently than any other risk behavior? Why are you kids so into the idea of punishing people for having sex?


The difference is, skateboarding cannot lead to pregnancy or the creation of life. Everything is not as black and white as you make it. An abortion is not simply medical treatment. it is an invasive operation that ends life (or the potential for life). To compare a broken leg to abortion is a ridiculous comparison.

so to you abortion is just a form of birth control? It is simply a medical procedure that you can have if you accidently become pregnant from sex? Oops look I'm pregnant, thats no big deal, I can just go to the hospital and have an abortion! thats it? Would you compare it to taking tylenol for a headache?

I'm not trying to punish people from having sex, if that were the case I would be against treatment from AIDS or any STI. I'm just saying that an abortion is not something that should be taken lightly. Thats all.

xsecx
11-07-2006, 08:36 AM
okay... so planned parenthood sells abortions. their supposed "facts" are set up to make people feel comfortable with murdering their children. why do they not post any references for their claims? not a single reference for "recent studies" polls or anything.
why do you just believe them? you required me to cite references in order for you to take my "explanaition" about HL into consideration, but you believe every word these baby killers have to say, because "they say so"?


Oh you mean like this? http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/abortion-access/induced-abortion-6137.htm
You live in a dream world that isn't based on the reality around you and make unsubstantiated claims because you haven't actually looked at both sides of the issue. I mean, if you actually looked at it, you'd see the following: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control-and-pregnancy.htm
wow, every CHOICE is actually listed and it discusses each.



since you people love scenarios so much check thisout.

mcdonalds claims to have the best "burger" on the market, they put comercials on tv to sell their product, does mcdonalds make the best burger because THEY say they do?

if you believe that a woman has more "guilt" for having a baby, then a would be mother would have for killing her child, then you are out of your mind.


Sure if they back it up market share and consumer ratings. You know, unbiased studies that lead someone to having a conclusion. If you believe that most women are crippled by guilt after having an abortion than the ones that are raising children they didn't want, then you're out of your mind.






i never generalized women, you did. women are perfectly capable of making decisions for themselves. just like men, women can be responsible just as easily as they can be irresponsible. and yes some women are whores. but i never once said ALL women, remember your big deal about the word ALL and how it can't mean SOME you fucking idiot.

i said i don't care about these whores that are doing this strictly because they have the "convenience" of abortion. and if you think there aren't whores like that out there then you are kidding yourself.


How did I generalize women? If women are perfectly capable of making decisions for themselves then why bring up all the bullshit you just did about how they're incapable? What other situations should people not be able to make their own choices about? So you're saying that 93% of all women who have had abortions are whores? so 93% of 1.0-1.5 million women each year in america are whores?





all this from the person that just contradicted himself?

is this where you start using words to mean completely different things? Where did I contradict myself?




first of all the "broken leg" scenario wasn't mine to begin with maybe you should read all of the posts about the topic.
and yes, if you break your leg you MUST live with it, are you supposed to fade into some magical realm where your leg isn't broken anymore?
and getting medical attention for an UNINTENDED accidental consequence such as a broken lef isn't the same as killing your unborn child.
yes everyone knows that skateboarding can end up with a broken leg, but getting a broken leg doesn't REQUIRE skateboarding.
conceiving a child REQUIRES sex.

So you shouldn't seek medical treatment for it and let it heal naturally? Getting medical attention for an UNINTENDED ACCIDENTAL CONSEQUENCE is exactly the same in all scenarios. So conceiving a child requires sex, how does that make it not an unintended accidental consequence?





of all the topics about abortion, you chose the scenario to debate????
you're a real class act.
yeah, because I'm the one living in a magical realm where pro choice means giving people all the options and letting them choose which is best for them based on science and not wacky religious definitions and pseudo science bullshit.

xsecx
11-07-2006, 08:46 AM
i believe your comment about HL and why it's "extreme" was:

"The fact that you get to judge innocent and punishment, when you're in no position to do either is what makes it extreme view."

so why is some woman in the position to judge the innocent and punishment for a fetus that didn't "choose" to be there. but the "mother" and "father" chose to take the necessary actions to put it there?
how ISN'T it extreme?

How is it extreme to let a woman decide if she wants to be a mother or not? How is an embryo innocent or being punished when it's not a child, or a life?



because treating a broken leg, doesn't consist of taking a life.

neither does early term abortion, fetus and embryo's aren't life, they are the potential for life. However both have long standing negative effects, so just because something might be born women should be forced to carry it against their will?



actually one is murder.

not quite, but keep it up and one day you'll have your own dictionary.



because you can't get pregnant by skateboarding. and skateboarding doesn't have the risk of creating a life.

so people should only have sex when trying to pro create? Or should they just have deviant sex, shit they can't do that either. Shouldn't repress sexual urges either. Can't use contraception because that's unnatural. Well fuck. I guess a couple that doesn't want to have a child just shouldn't have sex because it might lead to pregnancy.





because one is fixing a boo boo, and the other is taking a life.

it's not a life, and that boo boo would effect your life a lot less if untreated, so why force someone to have a child against their will?





because sex has the possibility of creating a life, and therefore YOU are not the only one involved, there is an innocent 3rd party that didn't ask to be there, but because of YOU and YOUR actions, the 3rd party exists and must be given it's opportunity of life without interference.


except that for that 3rd party to exist and life it has to interfere of the life of the mother, and since an embryo and fetus can't gestate outside of the mothers womb kind of hard to do that without someone being oppressed.



nobody is into "punishing people for having sex" but if you do the crime you do the time right? same goes with acting irresponsibly with your private parts.


you do realize that you just said here that you wanted to punish people right? If people act what you deal as irresponsible they should be forced to live with the consequences. That's punishment.



by your arguments, you must believe that a "father" who doesn't want to take responsibilities for his actions is "okay" with being a "deadbeat" father... it is his "right" right? i mean what if HE doesn't want the child, and it happens on "accident" is he obligated to care for/support this child??? or is he free to go without a care in the world while the mother cares for/supports this child alone?

actually yes, I think a man at the time of conception should be able to say "I don't want to be a father, if you want to have the kid then go ahead but it's not mine". This is equal rights, and unlike you I don't view women as frail and incapable of making their own decisions or that they need a man around to get things done.

mouseman004
11-07-2006, 08:54 AM
actually yes, I think a man at the time of conception should be able to say "I don't want to be a father, if you want to have the kid then go ahead but it's not mine". This is equal rights, and unlike you I don't view women as frail and incapable of making their own decisions or that they need a man around to get things done.


I actually completely agree with that. In this world if a woman wants to get an abortion it is her decision, and the man has no say at all. So if a woman has the right to say "i dont want this child, so im not having it" why shouldnt a man be able to say "i don't want anything to do with this child"

xsecx
11-07-2006, 08:55 AM
The difference is, skateboarding cannot lead to pregnancy or the creation of life. Everything is not as black and white as you make it. An abortion is not simply medical treatment. it is an invasive operation that ends life (or the potential for life). To compare a broken leg to abortion is a ridiculous comparison.


Actually an abortion is simply a medical treatment. It also doesn't have to be invasive at all in the forms of chemical abortions. Nothing you've said here backs up that it's a ridiculous comparison. Both have risks associated with them, both have the potential of seriously effecting the person involved. How can you force someone to not seek medical treatment for something that they view as negatively impacting their life?



so to you abortion is just a form of birth control? It is simply a medical procedure that you can have if you accidently become pregnant from sex? Oops look I'm pregnant, thats no big deal, I can just go to the hospital and have an abortion! thats it? Would you compare it to taking tylenol for a headache?


Abortion is a form of birth control and is simply a medical procedure that you can have if you accidentally become pregnant. If it's not, then what is it? Taking all of your emotions out of it, why wouldn't it be like taking tylenol for a headache? If someone is pregnant and doesn't want to be, why should they be forced to endure 9 months of torture for a child they didn't plan for or want?



I'm not trying to punish people from having sex, if that were the case I would be against treatment from AIDS or any STI. I'm just saying that an abortion is not something that should be taken lightly. Thats all.
But you are, you're saying that it shouldn't be taken lightly so that people have to take responsbility for their actions.

Main Entry: pun·ish·ment
2 a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution

You both are calling for people to receive retribution for having sex and becoming pregnant.

mouseman004
11-07-2006, 09:03 AM
Actually an abortion is simply a medical treatment. It also doesn't have to be invasive at all in the forms of chemical abortions. Nothing you've said here backs up that it's a ridiculous comparison. Both have risks associated with them, both have the potential of seriously effecting the person involved. How can you force someone to not seek medical treatment for something that they view as negatively impacting their life?



Abortion is a form of birth control and is simply a medical procedure that you can have if you accidentally become pregnant. If it's not, then what is it? Taking all of your emotions out of it, why wouldn't it be like taking tylenol for a headache? If someone is pregnant and doesn't want to be, why should they be forced to endure 9 months of torture for a child they didn't plan for or want?


But you are, you're saying that it shouldn't be taken lightly so that people have to take responsbility for their actions.

Main Entry: pun·ish·ment
2 a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution

You both are calling for people to receive retribution for having sex and becoming pregnant.

I guess it is just a matter of perspective. To me there is life at conception, thats my view and i realise its debateable so I'm not saying I expect you to agree with me. I still beleive that abortion is wrong, however I am pro-choice because Viv very heartedly made me realise where I was wrong on the issue of "pro life". Despite the fact I disagree, I respect your opinion, but this debate isn't going to get anywhere, and I have already pissed people off too badly the last time I had this debate.

urgonnasellout
12-01-2006, 05:05 PM
It’s funny how all of you on here attack and scrutinize Tahir for trying to have a positive effect on this world. Tahir is living life in pursuit of peace and equality for all the inhabitants of this raped planet, and struggling to end oppression. It’s funny that any of you would attack him for that; at least he’s trying to make a difference for some person, some animal, or any being on the planet. What do you people do? Wooopdee fuckin doo you’re straight edge, what has being straight edge ever done for anyone besides yourself. Or maybe you’re vegan but you sit here and support Abortion. I would like to see the fuckin logic there. Of course I really don’t know any of you and how you live your lives but from what I’ve gathered from your idiotic pursuits to disprove and attack Tahir’s way of life I’m probably not far off. Why don’t you wake up, take a step back and look how fucked this world is and try to do something…. Anything to make a difference.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“don’t kill what you don’t need to eat”

sxcwhitegrl
12-01-2006, 05:08 PM
i dont think anyone on here has really "attacked" tahir....it is more of a difference of opinion just like right now i dont agree with what u said about "attacking" tahir

xsecx
12-01-2006, 05:41 PM
It’s funny how all of you on here attack and scrutinize Tahir for trying to have a positive effect on this world. Tahir is living life in pursuit of peace and equality for all the inhabitants of this raped planet, and struggling to end oppression. It’s funny that any of you would attack him for that; at least he’s trying to make a difference for some person, some animal, or any being on the planet. What do you people do? Wooopdee fuckin doo you’re straight edge, what has being straight edge ever done for anyone besides yourself. Or maybe you’re vegan but you sit here and support Abortion. I would like to see the fuckin logic there. Of course I really don’t know any of you and how you live your lives but from what I’ve gathered from your idiotic pursuits to disprove and attack Tahir’s way of life I’m probably not far off. Why don’t you wake up, take a step back and look how fucked this world is and try to do something…. Anything to make a difference.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“don’t kill what you don’t need to eat”

Of course some of us actually believe that Tahir's beliefs and actions are actually having a NEGATIVE effect on the world. The entire idea and concept of hardline is completely illogical and not positive at all, which is what is actually being discussed here. now how do you get from us talking about how hardline isn't positive to no one here does anything positive to make a difference? I always love these rants that come from people "attacking" what was said with general statements but never actually address what they have issue with. I also like to know how you can think that being a vegan and being anti abortion are somehow logical requirements for each other. The second you talk about wanting to help the planet and also how abortion shouldn't be practiced you start to contradict yourself. You want to know how you immedidately make the world a better place? You have EVERY child born on this planet born to parent(s) who wanted and planned for their birth. Once you achieve that goal real change can and will happen.

mouseman004
12-02-2006, 12:18 AM
It’s funny how all of you on here attack and scrutinize Tahir for trying to have a positive effect on this world. Tahir is living life in pursuit of peace and equality for all the inhabitants of this raped planet, and struggling to end oppression. It’s funny that any of you would attack him for that; at least he’s trying to make a difference for some person, some animal, or any being on the planet. What do you people do? Wooopdee fuckin doo you’re straight edge, what has being straight edge ever done for anyone besides yourself. Or maybe you’re vegan but you sit here and support Abortion. I would like to see the fuckin logic there. Of course I really don’t know any of you and how you live your lives but from what I’ve gathered from your idiotic pursuits to disprove and attack Tahir’s way of life I’m probably not far off. Why don’t you wake up, take a step back and look how fucked this world is and try to do something…. Anything to make a difference.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“don’t kill what you don’t need to eat”


So you are pretty much a huge hypocrit. You come on to this site explaining how its wrong for everybody to be "attacking" Tahir (despite the fact nobody is attacking anybody) but you come on here and start calling everybody here idiotic? Don't you see the hypocrisy? You say that its not okay to attack somebody's way of life but you will go ahead and say something like "maybe you're a vegan but you sit here and support abortion. I would like to know the fucking logic there". the point of this post is to prove that you are in no position to judge anybody because YOUR post has no logic because it is full of contradictions and hypocritical bullshit. and also, you have posted twice on a website that has been around since 2003, you clearly dont know shit about this site nor do you know anything about anybody on this site so your point of view means absolutely squat. Thanks for coming out and proving you're the idiot.

urgonnasellout
12-04-2006, 12:41 PM
I also like to know how you can think that being a vegan and being anti abortion are somehow logical requirements for each other.

Being Vegan means you abhor the killing of innocent beings.. right?

how does an un-born fetus not qualify as an innocent being?

xsecx
12-04-2006, 12:46 PM
Being Vegan means you abhor the killing of innocent beings.. right?

how does an un-born fetus not qualify as an innocent being?


No, being vegan means that you don't consume animal products, it doesn't have any inherit moral beliefs with it that discusses guilt or innocence. Abortions don't happen, for the most part to fetus's either and their guilt or innocence isn't really relevant to whether or not someone drinks milk or eats a hamburger.

urgonnasellout
12-04-2006, 12:48 PM
So you are pretty much a huge hypocrit. You come on to this site explaining how its wrong for everybody to be "attacking" Tahir (despite the fact nobody is attacking anybody) but you come on here and start calling everybody here idiotic? Don't you see the hypocrisy?

i never said attacking people was bad. i was just relaying to the kind idiotic people of this board how comical i thought it was that you people would attack someone who is just trying to make a difference in this world.


You say that its not okay to attack somebody's way of life but you will go ahead and say something like "maybe you're a vegan but you sit here and support abortion. I would like to know the fucking logic there".

its perfectly fine to attack someone because i was clearly attacking pro-choice vegans, because supporting abortion and being vegan dont go hand in hand


the point of this post is to prove that you are in no position to judge anybody because YOUR post has no logic because it is full of contradictions and hypocritical bullshit.
meh not really


and also, you have posted twice on a website that has been around since 2003, you clearly dont know shit about this site nor do you know anything about anybody on this site so your point of view means absolutely squat. Thanks for coming out and proving you're the idiot.
i was around back then too dumb dumb, just a different name

straightXed
12-04-2006, 01:01 PM
Being Vegan means you abhor the killing of innocent beings.. right?

how does an un-born fetus not qualify as an innocent being?

It (fetus) doesn't qualify as life. If veganism is about not killing innocent beings by who's standards is this innocence measured? Theres no steadfast rule of innocence throughout life that we can adhere to that hasn't been created by man or slightly evolved paranoid monkeys. Theres not exactly any solid or cohesive facts here and we are still subject to our own nature so it seems odd to declare guilt at human nature and claim all animal life is innocent and omitting the nature of its nature.

xriteousxjamsx
12-04-2006, 09:00 PM
i ask why do these people (tahir, yourgonnasellout etc) come on to this site and foward comments purely to antagonise everyone, im not saying you shouldnt stand by your own personal opinion, that would be hipocrytical of me (being straight edge and all) to say the least. But they know people are going to react in a negative way and there is only 2 of them and by doing this their just wasting everyone elses time! i think you 2 deserve some timeout in the cool corner for being naughty.

xriteousxjamsx
12-04-2006, 09:02 PM
And yes tahir if you find it neccesary you can add me to that long line of guys you are bagging out in the intro thread.

urgonnasellout
12-05-2006, 12:27 PM
It (fetus) doesn't qualify as life. If veganism is about not killing innocent beings by who's standards is this innocence measured? Theres no steadfast rule of innocence throughout life that we can adhere to that hasn't been created by man or slightly evolved paranoid monkeys. Theres not exactly any solid or cohesive facts here and we are still subject to our own nature so it seems odd to declare guilt at human nature and claim all animal life is innocent and omitting the nature of its nature.

well lets forget about innocence for second and just focus on Life in general. If you're a vegan you dont support taking the life of any being. right? excluding the possibilty that an animal or a human is trying to take your life and you have to kill that being to preserve your own..blah blah blah..
But you say a fetus doesnt qualify as life. OK, but a fetus has a heart beat at 3 weeks. Most Women dont know they're pregnant til about 6 or 7 weeks. Now you may say that even heart beat doesnt qualify you as a lving thing, but lets take a look at the opposite end of the spectrum. Death. When are you considered dead? When your heart stops beating. If you're life ends when your heart stops that means your life starts when your heart starts beating.

urgonnasellout
12-05-2006, 12:31 PM
i ask why do these people (tahir, yourgonnasellout etc) come on to this site and foward comments purely to antagonise everyone, im not saying you shouldnt stand by your own personal opinion, that would be hipocrytical of me (being straight edge and all) to say the least. But they know people are going to react in a negative way and there is only 2 of them and by doing this their just wasting everyone elses time! i think you 2 deserve some timeout in the cool corner for being naughty.

ohh and now you dont have to worry about hearing from Tahir anymore. King straight edge himself, xSecx, couldnt handle a little opposition on his all holy straight edge forum and band him from the site... so now you only have to deal with me being an asshole, well at least til xSecx boots me off

xsecx
12-05-2006, 12:41 PM
ohh and now you dont have to worry about hearing from Tahir anymore. King straight edge himself, xSecx, couldnt handle a little opposition on his all holy straight edge forum and band him from the site... so now you only have to deal with me being an asshole, well at least til xSecx boots me off

if by opposition you mean someone acting like a 4 year old and resorting to doing nothing but name calling, sure. There are plenty of people who come here with opposing views and very few get banned, and the only ones that do are when they stop arguing and just resort to insulting people. Of course Tahir didn't get banned until he did that, but hey, he's convinced you a lot of bullshit so it doesn't surprise me that you swallowed his bullshit about this as well. If you want to debate, that's fine, but if you're going to act like a 4 year old you're going to get put into time out like a 4 year old.

xsecx
12-05-2006, 12:42 PM
well lets forget about innocence for second and just focus on Life in general. If you're a vegan you dont support taking the life of any being. right? excluding the possibilty that an animal or a human is trying to take your life and you have to kill that being to preserve your own..blah blah blah..
But you say a fetus doesnt qualify as life. OK, but a fetus has a heart beat at 3 weeks. Most Women dont know they're pregnant til about 6 or 7 weeks. Now you may say that even heart beat doesnt qualify you as a lving thing, but lets take a look at the opposite end of the spectrum. Death. When are you considered dead? When your heart stops beating. If you're life ends when your heart stops that means your life starts when your heart starts beating.
please look up the word vegan and use it correctly.

straightXed
12-05-2006, 01:53 PM
well lets forget about innocence for second and just focus on Life in general. If you're a vegan you dont support taking the life of any being. right?

Tell that to the ALF then! These people are ready to see people die and as we are chosing to forget innocence it seems that there approach to life is inconsistant. For a consistancy to be found you have to take their personal view and judgement of what is and isn't innocent. And the innocence part seems to play a huge part in the approach of hardline also so for arguments sake i'll ignore it but would like to stress its importance in the validity of the discussion focus.


excluding the possibilty that an animal or a human is trying to take your life and you have to kill that being to preserve your own..blah blah blah..

not being funny but you are forgeting innocence and particular scenarios now so we aren't going to have a conclusive outcome here, if its to make a particular point then fine but i feel by removing these things it steps closer to being simply hypothetical.



But you say a fetus doesnt qualify as life. OK, but a fetus has a heart beat at 3 weeks. Most Women dont know they're pregnant til about 6 or 7 weeks. Now you may say that even heart beat doesnt qualify you as a lving thing, but lets take a look at the opposite end of the spectrum. Death. When are you considered dead? When your heart stops beating. If you're life ends when your heart stops that means your life starts when your heart starts beating.


Your heart can involuntarily beat after death, i wouldn't say that it makes the corpse alive. And the fetus's heart beat is dependant on the mother, it can't really live independantly. So perhaps your theory would be better applied by saying you are dead when your heart stops beating effectively to support what is medically considered life and you are alive from the point your heart is independantly capable of supporting your own life. Of course its all very vauge - a fetus isn't dead, a paitient of life support isn't dead, they are both at a point that can vaugely resemble life but arguably not enough to deter certain actions of termination. I see you are trying to draw a line between life and death in a different place, understandable from one point of view. But a line has already been drawn, if a line you agree with is in place for everyone someone else will want it shifted elsewhere. Some people believe contraception is just as bad as abortion, some want the ability to have a say what goes on in their body and rightly so. Regarding the law of course a fetus is not considered life although there is much debate to suggest it is, none of this really tallies into veganism at all though. Interesting as it is, its a huge issue on a practice born from human nature but regardless of weather a fetus is considered life or not how does it equate veganism? I mean would you say if a vegan has an abortion or is pro-choice then they are not vegan?

straightXed
12-05-2006, 01:56 PM
ohh and now you dont have to worry about hearing from Tahir anymore. King straight edge himself, xSecx, couldnt handle a little opposition on his all holy straight edge forum and band him from the site... so now you only have to deal with me being an asshole, well at least til xSecx boots me off


So are you just here to be an asshole? If you owned a site and someone purposely came along to be an asshole and insult you would you really want them around?

urgonnasellout
12-06-2006, 05:11 PM
please look up the word vegan and use it correctly.

ok ass hole here we go:
veg·an /[vej-uhn;. vee-guhn]
–noun a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet.

but what drives people to go vegan... thats what we're really looking at here. sure some people are vegan because of personal health issues, but most vegans, especially in the hardcore scene, are vegan because they beleive animal life is sacred and does not deserve to be killed for the use of humans..... Am i wrong? So if someone thinks that animal life is sacred is it really too far fetched to think that this type of vegan would think that human life is sacred also. SOOOOOO dont you think that destroying human life would be contradictory to that thought process.


So now we're back to where life begins. Does it begin when the baby crawls out? or does it began earlier? So straightED I still think that the hearbeat argument holds up. So what! if the fetus is dependent on the mother for life. The baby is STILL dependent on the mother after it is born, with out the mother or someone else to take care of it the baby would die shortly after birth. So would you say that the baby is not really alive until it can fend for itself? Because that is just slightly absurd.

So if Life starts with a heartbeat then life start 3 weeks after conception. So if a Vegan is a supporter of animal life and human life than then you can see how being vegan and supporting abortion do not go hand in hand.

urgonnasellout
12-06-2006, 05:13 PM
So are you just here to be an asshole? If you owned a site and someone purposely came along to be an asshole and insult you would you really want them around?

nah im not JUST here to be an asshole, im also here to kill time. and yeah i would keep the ass holes around... keep things interesting

xsecx
12-06-2006, 08:29 PM
ok ass hole here we go:
veg·an /[vej-uhn;. vee-guhn]
–noun a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet.

but what drives people to go vegan... thats what we're really looking at here. sure some people are vegan because of personal health issues, but most vegans, especially in the hardcore scene, are vegan because they beleive animal life is sacred and does not deserve to be killed for the use of humans..... Am i wrong? So if someone thinks that animal life is sacred is it really too far fetched to think that this type of vegan would think that human life is sacred also. SOOOOOO dont you think that destroying human life would be contradictory to that thought process.

So you just admit that people's reasons for being vegan differ from your theory and that you are projecting morality on something that doesn't have morality attached to it. And even if you wanted to project morality onto it, it only mentions animals, not humans. And even if you want to project morality of human life being sacred that doesn't equate forcing people to have kids they don't want and ruining the existing human life.




So now we're back to where life begins. Does it begin when the baby crawls out? or does it began earlier? So straightED I still think that the hearbeat argument holds up. So what! if the fetus is dependent on the mother for life. The baby is STILL dependent on the mother after it is born, with out the mother or someone else to take care of it the baby would die shortly after birth. So would you say that the baby is not really alive until it can fend for itself? Because that is just slightly absurd.

"life" doesn't begin until birth. the baby isn't dependent on the mother after birth. It's dependent on someone for care, but it doesn't need the mother to live and is able to exist on it's own. Now if it's just a heartbeat, no brain activity and completely dependent on the mother for EVERYTHING, how is it life and not the potential for life?



So if Life starts with a heartbeat then life start 3 weeks after conception. So if a Vegan is a supporter of animal life and human life than then you can see how being vegan and supporting abortion do not go hand in hand.
Do you understand that supporting human life and animal life doesn't automatically equate to being against abortion? Especially since you can support human life by being pro choice and realizing that abortion is necessary in this world.

xsecx
12-06-2006, 08:30 PM
nah im not JUST here to be an asshole, im also here to kill time. and yeah i would keep the ass holes around... keep things interesting

and if you decide to just be an asshole then you'll get bounced like tahir.

straightXed
12-07-2006, 09:39 AM
So now we're back to where life begins. Does it begin when the baby crawls out? or does it began earlier? So straightED I still think that the hearbeat argument holds up. So what! if the fetus is dependent on the mother for life. The baby is STILL dependent on the mother after it is born, with out the mother or someone else to take care of it the baby would die shortly after birth. So would you say that the baby is not really alive until it can fend for itself? Because that is just slightly absurd.

you are taking the word dependance out of context, the idea of a fetus being able to exist outside of the womb isn't one that stands up, it can't rely upon its own heart as its still forming. Of course you chose to misinterpret what i said to qualify a response but i never suggested it a baby isn't alive rather i suggested; a mass that has begun growing inside a woman that is displaying a beating quality but not relying on that beating to sustain its existance isn't alive simply because it beats.


So if Life starts with a heartbeat then life start 3 weeks after conception. So if a Vegan is a supporter of animal life and human life than then you can see how being vegan and supporting abortion do not go hand in hand.


Well only you are saying life begins with a heartbeat, thats still up for debate with others, why is the definition of life drawn there? why not earlier, why not later? What quality at that point encapsulates what life is, what makes it a steadfast rule? You seem to have chosen to omit the points i raised about the ALF etc and ignored the questions about how veganism means caring for human life? Are you saying animal rights activists aren't vegan? A vegan isn't by definition a supporter of human life and quite often they hold human kind in contempt for their behaviour towards animals, many place animals above human life. You have to realise the type of beliefs you are speaking of are based in veganism but they are in fact an evolved set of beliefs that may have started at veganism but has moved on to clutch other seperate beliefs and the collection of these beliefs is not described by simply using the word vegan. Its a stretch to simply say a vegan beliefs human life is sacred.

straightXed
12-07-2006, 09:53 AM
nah im not JUST here to be an asshole, im also here to kill time. and yeah i would keep the ass holes around... keep things interesting

So you are saying you are here to be an asshole? Why? If someone came round your house to cause shit and be an asshole would you let them stay or would you boot them out? Things don't stay interesting for long when people are assholes, it generally gets tired and things suffer due to the ill behaviour, it also shows disrespect for the resources and why should a person put up with disrespect for the sole purpose that someone can deliberately be an asshole? It really doesn't make sense, respect is shown in order to allow someone to use the resources but when its not given back theres no reason to continue showing the disrespectful pearson any respect. I mean no ones saying you have to think like anyone else here and everyone is entitled to their own opinion but when discussing differences in opinions whats wrong with keeping it respectful? I know it can get heated but going out of your way to insult people not even in the heat of an argument, well that is just going to have a negative effect. Perhaps if you stick around you will see a better way to keep things interesting, i mean surely thats a better way to kill time?

agmitt06
12-07-2006, 10:28 AM
Hardline is not militant straight edge

Well, then what exactly is militant straight edge?

xsecx
12-07-2006, 10:37 AM
Well, then what exactly is militant straight edge?

not greatly organized kids who feel the need to deal with drugs and alcohol use in a violent way.

xriteousxjamsx
12-10-2006, 10:35 PM
must be hard going to such an effort to make a bullshit free forum for people that try to get away from all of the same shit they go through in the surrounding drug scene, and have kids constantly dishing out cold disrespect. not opposing oppinions in a friendly and logical manner but just losing there wittle tempers and resorting to hard ass verbal attacks. much respect,

jack

urgonnasellout
12-13-2006, 06:52 PM
Well only you are saying life begins with a heartbeat, thats still up for debate with others, why is the definition of life drawn there? why not earlier, why not later? What quality at that point encapsulates what life is, what makes it a steadfast rule?. well personally i think life does start earlier, i just chose the heartbeat because it seemed like a logical starting point for my argument that people might be able to relate to


You seem to have chosen to omit the points i raised about the ALF etc and ignored the questions about how veganism means caring for human life? Are you saying animal rights activists aren't vegan? A vegan isn't by definition a supporter of human life and quite often they hold human kind in contempt for their behaviour towards animals, many place animals above human life. .
i realize that just because you're vegan doesn't mean that you support all living life it simply means you obstain from the use of animal products, and i believe ive already said that once in an earlier post...And i do realize that there are some crazy ass holes out there that hold animal kind above human kind . what im attacking here is the thought process these vegans have that leads them to think that they are a supporters of life, i.e. a vegan who is vegan because that person does not support the killing of innocent animals. If you put animal kind above human kind and your own self preservation you're crazy. So why would you support the killing of an innocent unborn child? Thats what doesnt make any sense to me.....

But we clearly wont come to a conclusion because the hole when life starts thing comes into play, because i guess a heart beat and brain activity doesnt qualify life, and since people dont think that it does qualify thats makes it ok for people to murder their babies because its not convenient for them..... Hands down abortion is fucked up, and how anyone rationalizes it is beyond me, because that "thing" inside her stomach is living, it has a beating heart, it moves, it had brain activity...... and somehow people are ok with throwing it in the trash.

straightXed
12-14-2006, 10:58 AM
well personally i think life does start earlier, i just chose the heartbeat because it seemed like a logical starting point for my argument that people might be able to relate to

Well what you personally think isn't really going to cut it unfortunately, i mean theres a lot of medical studies and laws in place to suggest you are wrong. I mean i can have a personal opinion on the word banana thinking it better suits an apple but its not really grounds for change is it.



i realize that just because you're vegan doesn't mean that you support all living life it simply means you obstain from the use of animal products, and i believe ive already said that once in an earlier post...And i do realize that there are some crazy ass holes out there that hold animal kind above human kind .

So

"If you're a vegan you dont support taking the life of any being. right?"

versus

"i realize that just because you're vegan doesn't mean that you support all living life".

conclusion...




what im attacking here is the thought process these vegans have that leads them to think that they are a supporters of life, i.e. a vegan who is vegan because that person does not support the killing of innocent animals.

This is the point you need to remain absoloutely clear that veganism refers only to being supporters of animal life. (unless its a health choice in which case the compassion for animal life may not even come into play)


If you put animal kind above human kind and your own self preservation you're crazy. So why would you support the killing of an innocent unborn child? Thats what doesnt make any sense to me.....

Ok, so now vegans that do this are crazy, thats fine, i think its daft too but the belief is often one of animals innocence versus mankinds behaviour that voids them from innocence. But unfortunately you asked for the innocence issue to be ommited right off the bat. But seeing as you are using it to describe the child well perhaps they a) feel to many humans exist and support culling of human life b) realise the effect an unwanted child would have on the mother and the child c) don't believe the fetus to be either a child or innocent or life and therefore doesn't qualify as killing an innocent child.



But we clearly wont come to a conclusion because the hole when life starts thing comes into play, because i guess a heart beat and brain activity doesnt qualify life, and since people dont think that it does qualify thats makes it ok for people to murder their babies because its not convenient for them.....

They aren't murdering and its not babies, if it was murder they would be tried for murder if they were babies there would be no distinct definition of the fetus that goes on to become a baby. You seem to be putting forward a slant that abortions are quick easy convenience choices rather than a choice no one really ever wants to have to make.


Hands down abortion is fucked up, and how anyone rationalizes it is beyond me, because that "thing" inside her stomach is living, it has a beating heart, it moves, it had brain activity...... and somehow people are ok with throwing it in the trash.

then you really should be vegan. The main point here is it is her stomach or womb and you are trying to suggest what should and shouldn't happen in there.

Slober
09-08-2007, 02:09 PM
I guess being edge does something slowly, if you try to convince others that this is how they should live....

By being vegan you no longer kill, rape, or imprison animals. You are directly living in peace with animals. Being vegan doesn't just mean a vegan diet... you stop buying products that are tested on animals, stop supporting circuses and other things with animal exploitation, you stop wearing dead animals as leather,fur,suede,nubuck......
Do you think a vegetarism also does nothing? It is anyway pretty big amount of money spent on meat per one people's life on average daily basis.

alex147
05-12-2009, 09:44 PM
Working in a supermarket you see firsthand the amount people spend on meat, upwards of $100AUD per large shopping trolley. I hate the way vegans seem to resent vegetarians. In my view both have a positive effect on the world and both are doing their part to help combat animal curelty and causes like that.
These hardliners sound more like hardcore catholics than anything else...

Cubey
06-08-2011, 04:42 PM
Well what you personally think isn't really going to cut it unfortunately, i mean theres a lot of medical studies and laws in place to suggest you are wrong.

The problem with that is laws don't make things morally right. Slavery and child labor was legal in the US but it didn't make it right just because it was legal, did it?

They call it "PRACTICING" medicine for a reason. They really don't know crap about how the body works for the most part. And whatever "medical studies" you're referring to are just a way of justifying and rationalizing genocide of unborn babies. I don't care what some shithead doctor says.. he's a human butcher. Anything that happens to him, he frankly has coming to him. I don't condone murder of the doctors or wish them dead.. but if it happens, I don't feel sorry for them. Considering how many lives they take under protection of the law, it really doesn't seem right they get to walk free while a 7-11robber shoots the clerk gets locked up for years.

Just because the law allows something doesn't make it right!


They aren't murdering and its not babies, if it was murder they would be tried for murder if they were babies there would be no distinct definition of the fetus that goes on to become a baby. You seem to be putting forward a slant that abortions are quick easy convenience choices rather than a choice no one really ever wants to have to make.

You are VERY wrong on this and I will explain why.

If someone goes out and murders a pregnant woman and the fetus (which gets referred to as a BABY) dies, the person can get tried and convicted of double murder.

The only difference seems to be if it's HUMAN or a BABY depends on if the woman was a slut who didn't use protection and now wants to kill their fetus or a woman who wants to carry the fetus full term.

Under the law, it's not a baby if the mother wants to kill it. But under the law it's a baby if the mother wants to carry it full term but gets murdered and the fetus dies too.

The biggest double standard I've ever heard of.

xVeganAnarchistx
06-14-2011, 07:26 PM
The problem with that is laws don't make things morally right. Slavery and child labor was legal in the US but it didn't make it right just because it was legal, did it?

They call it "PRACTICING" medicine for a reason. They really don't know crap about how the body works for the most part. And whatever "medical studies" you're referring to are just a way of justifying and rationalizing genocide of unborn babies. I don't care what some shithead doctor says.. he's a human butcher. Anything that happens to him, he frankly has coming to him. I don't condone murder of the doctors or wish them dead.. but if it happens, I don't feel sorry for them. Considering how many lives they take under protection of the law, it really doesn't seem right they get to walk free while a 7-11robber shoots the clerk gets locked up for years.

Just because the law allows something doesn't make it right!


I agree here. Your problem is not defending why a fetus counts though. Is it because it has human DNA? Because it is sentient? Because the pope says so? Their is an obvious difference between you and a fetus. And between a toddler and a fetus. What is it about fetuses that make them morally considerable? What makes their interests trump the obviously important interests of a pregnant women?




You are VERY wrong on this and I will explain why.

If someone goes out and murders a pregnant woman and the fetus (which gets referred to as a BABY) dies, the person can get tried and convicted of double murder.

The only difference seems to be if it's HUMAN or a BABY depends on if the woman was a slut who didn't use protection and now wants to kill their fetus or a woman who wants to carry the fetus full term.

Under the law, it's not a baby if the mother wants to kill it. But under the law it's a baby if the mother wants to carry it full term but gets murdered and the fetus dies too.

The biggest double standard I've ever heard of.

a women is not a "slut" because she wants an abortion. you are assuming a lot in saying that. And it suggests you are beyond rational debate to blindly assert that any women who gets an abortion is a doing it out of selfish convenience.

In the end, i hope you demand a really extensive welfare state to care for unwanted or those who are unable to be cared for. Because forcing women to bring a life into this world does not mean that life will not suffer anymore.

Kid Edge
01-17-2012, 10:32 AM
I hate how hardline,and edge are easily confused.I mean i looked up a list of straight edge bands,and it had Vegan Reich in it.And on the artwork for them,it plainly said "hardline".It also had Anti-Flag on there,but that's another story