What is hardline?

[Tahir]

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]

[QUOTE]

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]

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.


[quote[
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.
[/quote] the wrong idea is another way of saying contradiction. Your "beliefs" are illogical and inconsistant, there's really no way around that.

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]

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]

Still kids, might be best to read the long posts to find out why you shouldn't bother using the email.

[xsecx]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[QUOTE]

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]

[QUOTE=Tahir][QUOTE]

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]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=xvunderx][QUOTE=Tahir]

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/hist...tory/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]

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/bir...de-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]

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]

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?