a fool for what exactly? you're not very good at explaining yourself are you.Originally Posted by straightXed
i mean you've only re-worded the orignal statement which i clearly asked you to explain.
what exactly am i supposed to prove?
-Tahir.
a fool for what exactly? you're not very good at explaining yourself are you.
i mean you've only re-worded the orignal statement which i clearly asked you to explain.
what exactly am i supposed to prove?
-Tahir.
ok, lets take this slowly for you. I feel hardline is an idiotic group of beliefs, i think thats pretty easy to derive that from my original statement.
"A fool for what exactly?" I believe you are a fool for living in accordance with those beliefs (those contained within the manifesto). If you are unable to derive that from the statement "But if you live in accordance with hardline then i think you are a fool" then i don't think its down to me being poor at explaining myself but rather down to you not being able to pick up on the contents of a simple statement.
You want me to tell you what i hope you understand? Ok i hope you understand how ridiculous and inept the drive behind the beliefs contained in the manifesto are, how they are flawed and illegal and show contempt for other humans. If you understand thats what you stand for then you will also understand why i think you should not exist.
Although you are already steadily proving it you asked me what you were supposed to prove even though it was contained withing the sentence. Lets look at that shall we - "But if you live in accordance with hardline then i think you are a fool, but nows your chance to prove it." Can you see it yet? Thats right, its your chance to prove you are a fool, good luck with that not that you will need it.
Others walk the bow, I walk the string
so the animals are only innocent and worthy of protection only some of the time?
and that's nice, but it's still against the manifesto. it's still killing "innocent" life. Even if hardline were ever to be successful there would still be places on earth where growing food sn't possible.Indigenous cultures living in order with nature, eat meat because it's not always possible to grow food. nor is it possible for them to go the the grocery store and buy a fucking tofu burger. and every indigenous culture when killing an animal for their existance, give thanks to that animal and it's Creator (swt) and aknowledge what that animal has given. and will utilize every piece of said animal.
so you're ok with rasta's getting high? if it's "spiritual" then it falls into hardline is ok with it camp? So what about all the times through history where spirituality had nothing to do with it? the biggest issue I've ever had with hardline is that you're not actually looking at history, it's like americans with the 50s. You have this incorrect romantized version of "natural order" that there is just no evidence that it ever existed and then make claims that it's been there since the beginning of time.getting drunk or high in indigenous cultures were more often than not, spiritual practices that were used in an attempt to get closer to the Creator (swt). i'm not saying i agree with it, it's just how they practiced spirituality. much like Sweat Lodges and peyote within Native American spirtuality. and Rastafarians.
hl is against sex for any reason other than procreation specifically. so how is sex when not trying to have a kid a deviant sexual desire?Sex is in accordance with the natural order also. i'm sure you know this. HL was not against sex. HL took the stance that deviant sexual desires were against nature. it's pretty simple to understand.
so it's just a name and wasn't an organization? That's what you need to make your mind up agout.make up my mind about what? i'm simply saying that HL was only a name and was written that the name will eventually dissolve, and the goals remain. if a woman getts married and changes her last name is she no longer a part of her maiden family name?
no, for something to be a movement it requires labels and 'specific names' other wise it's just a bunch of disconnected people with no cohesion and no commonality. And no, what made hardline an organization was the fact that there was a defined and recognized leader.this is a recurring problem with alot of "straightedge" people. you need labels and specific "names" to shape your identity and existance. where would you be without the name "straightedge?" ...."....oh then that's just drug free..." what's with all the labels? does straightedge not exist because there is no Central Comittee?
the only thing that made HardLine an Organization was the HCC which didn't form until years later. before that chapters were springing up all over the place, which eventually led to the need for the HCC.
members of the BPP started the BLA, but sitll affiliated themselves with the BPP years after the party had ceased to exist as an organization. were they wrong in doing so? even when they still held conferences and used "all power to the people" a widely known BPP slogan, wore Black Berets, and made references to the BPP and even called people as fellow BPP members. and even reffering to themselves as "Black Panthers".
I think you've mistaken my mocking of your lack of debating skills as you "hurting my feelings". As is usually the case people will shift "attacks" onto something that doesn't have a bearing on the conversation, in this instance my appearance, when they don't actually have anything useful to say. The fact that you have to rely on calling someone ugly as an insult and believe that you're somehow hurting my feelings is really funny. Now I guess I hurt your feelings since you felt the need to respond to your personal beliefs being questioned with the same insult a 5 year old would use. Do you need a hug? I mean, I know you're not very secure and it's really clear you're a follower and not a thinker, but it'll be ok I'm sure all the other hardline guys can reassure you. If I said that you really hurt me by calling me fat and ugly would it help you feel better about yourself and your incorrect beliefs?i normally would never attack somebody personally on their appearance, but since you seem to believe that you can attack people's personal beliefs than you obviously shouldn't care when people attack you personally..
if you would debate without attacking peoples personal beliefes, then chances are nobody would lash back with personal insults. but since i'm obviously hurting your feel-bads i will stop. because the last thing i want is to hurt your feelings.
I understand your statement, i'm asking you to explain WHY you feel the beliefs are "idiotic" and foolish to follow.straightXed]ok, lets take this slowly for you. I feel hardline is an idiotic group of beliefs, i think thats pretty easy to derive that from my original statement.
again, WHY is it so foolish? explain to me why it's foolish to be active against racism,sexism,speciesism, and to live on an ital diet, abstain from harmful ingredients and toxins in my foods and to elevate spirituality above hardcore shows and "X"s on my hands. . i think YOU are foolish not to."A fool for what exactly?" I believe you are a fool for living in accordance with those beliefs (those contained within the manifesto). If you are unable to derive that from the statement "But if you live in accordance with hardline then i think you are a fool" then i don't think its down to me being poor at explaining myself but rather down to you not being able to pick up on the contents of a simple statement.
but since you seem to be XsecX's personal cheerleader and are unable to formulate your own ideas and comments, since everything you seem to say on this entire website are basically regurgitated bullshit that he has said, just reworded, then it's no wonder you have avoided explaining, by trying to claim that I am the one that doesn't understand your statement.
again, no explaination. just regurgitated bullshit that people have been saying for years about HL. to make this easier for you let me lay it out in numbered questions, like they do in grade school....You want me to tell you what i hope you understand? Ok i hope you understand how ridiculous and inept the drive behind the beliefs contained in the manifesto are, how they are flawed and illegal and show contempt for other humans. If you understand thats what you stand for then you will also understand why i think you should not exist.
1.what is ridiculous about it?
2.how are they flawed?
3. how are they illegal?
4.and how do they show contempt for other humans?
it's pretty simple really, just back up your claims and comments with explainations.
so i'm the fool, because i understand your comment, yet you can't even back it up. or are you waiting for XsecX to say something so you can basically say ..." yeah what he said..." since that seems to be your way of communicating. in other words, WHY WHY WHY (i'm assuming you understand the word why) is it so foolish? you have avoided the question. and i don't want to read, "because it's homophobic, illegal, idiotic, shows contempt for other humans, flawed, and ridiculous." because that is not an explanaition, those are opinions. and not even well thought out opinions at that. so explain smartguy.Although you are already steadily proving it you asked me what you were supposed to prove even though it was contained withing the sentence. Lets look at that shall we - "But if you live in accordance with hardline then i think you are a fool, but nows your chance to prove it." Can you see it yet? Thats right, its your chance to prove you are a fool, good luck with that not that you will need it.
also considering the entire sentence and not just the end of it, it could read either proving that i live in accordance with HL or that i'm a "fool".... but whatever.
well if you want to keep turning this round then i guess its my go, why do you feel it isn't foolish.
Its not foolish to be against those things but i manage to do all these without the need to incur violence on others, i also find hardline to have a skewed perception on some of these things. I abhor violence and believe it should only be resorted when all other paths have been exhausted. Forcing others to live in accordance with these beliefs of hardline seems a lot more foolish than living in adherence to beliefs without the insecurity of needing to make everyone else follow them. I feel your beliefs are flawed if you need to use violence to get the point across and i feel hardline fails before it begins based on this.
Well you didn't understand it did you even though it was clear.
thanks thats helps loads!
1. The drive behind the manifesto
2. because they assume that the manifesto should be adhered to by everyone and that it is just to stop people living in accordance of different beliefs, directly opposing certain things by using a judgement based on ideas and when faced with opposing views what is resorted to?
3. because the law is set out in such a way that it makes dishing out your own justice for things you feel are wrong as illegal acts.
4. by ignoring human rights if they don't live in accordance with your beliefs, as if that somehopw makes them sub human.
but this is an opinion, i said i think its foolish, its all about my opinion you prat! If you don't want to read my opinion of why i think its foiolish why do you keep asking for it. Homophobia is idiotic, breaking the law is idiotic, disregarding other humans rights is idiotic and all of your beliefs are geard towards conflict which is idiotic. Why do i think its foolish, perhaps because it was made by a fool, are at least someone who was very confused. And its obvious you didn't understand my comment and that it is my opinion, you really are smart!
well either way i think you are a fool, and you just love to latch onto that don't you, must be the insecurity again.
Last edited by straightXed; 10-22-2006 at 02:49 PM.
Others walk the bow, I walk the string
animals need to be protected, but at the same time humans need to survive. i don't understand why this is so hard for you to get. yes the manifesto may not be the best written piece of literature, but it was only meant as an introduction. all of the topics in the manifesto were later expanded on and looked into deeper than what was written in what would be the "jist" of the ideology.so the animals are only innocent and worthy of protection only some of the time?
you're right, there will always be places where growing food isn't possible. but does that mean that in places where there are alternatives, we should allow animals to remain prisoners/slaves just to satisfy our own greed? no, that is oppressive and wrong.and that's nice, but it's still against the manifesto. it's still killing "innocent" life. Even if hardline were ever to be successful there would still be places on earth where growing food sn't possible.
indigenous cultures are not factory farming billions of animals, and mis-treating them the way so-called "civilized" societies are treating them. to think that the manifesto, is calling for justice to these cultures where hunting and trapping is essential for their existance is plain ridiculous and is not what HL stood for as that would be oppressive to said cultures. like i said the manifesto was just meant to be an introduction to the ideology.
yes i am okay with rastas getting high, just as i am okay with anybody getting high, as long as it is consentual and not forced since i am not at liberty to tell somebody what they can and can not do as long as what they are doing does not interfere with anybody else's safety..so you're ok with rasta's getting high? if it's "spiritual" then it falls into hardline is ok with it camp? So what about all the times through history where spirituality had nothing to do with it?
what i am not okay with is the fact that people get high and commit crimes against innocent people. i am not okay with drunk driving or driving while under the influece of other drugs. and i am not okay with the production and sells of drugs.
HL never attempted to oppress peoples spiritual paths (rastafarians etc.), in fact if you read more of the HL publications you would see that adherants to the HL ideology could and should learn alot from the Rasta farians, and native american cultures.
and if i remeber correctly i said something along the lines of "this is their spirtiual path, even though i don't agree with it, it is still their path to get closer to their Creator (swt)."
it is in line with HL to reject the practice of indigenous cultures who have equally fallen from their primordial state, by worshiping idols, and being sbjugated by the powers of nature. not all indigenous traditions are in line with the natural order. i think you are confusing my statement to imply i am saying "all indiginous cultures are right" while "all of western society is wrong", which is absolutely NOT what i'm saying at all.
let me get this straight. by your logic, there has never existed a "natural order."the biggest issue I've ever had with hardline is that you're not actually looking at history, it's like americans with the 50s. You have this incorrect romantized version of "natural order" that there is just no evidence that it ever existed and then make claims that it's been there since the beginning of time.
so you're telling me that, since the beginning of time there has always been sky-scrapers?
radiation plants? abortion "clinics"? crack houses? fast food joints? processed food plants? tofu burgers? additives and toxins in food? etc etc. the list could continue to go on for days...
why don't you show me YOUR evidence, mr. make a comment without thinking about it first guy that there has never existed a Natural Order?.
HL is NOT against sex. to say that is to say that HL is against eating. sex is probably the only natural instinct humans have left other than eating, and to attempt to suppress that would be an attempt to suppress nature. but people don't pay money to wheel a table full of food out and watch it, like they do with pornography for instance.hl is against sex for any reason other than procreation specifically. so how is sex when not trying to have a kid a deviant sexual desire?
HL understands that the main reason for sex is procreation. and HL understands that the need for sex to be pleasurable is to ensure the existance of the species.
i'm assuming you are talking about the homosexual aspect of the HL stance?
you understand the jist of "the birds and the bees" right, it's not the "birds and the birds" nor is it "the bees and the bees". meaning both Yin and Yin can not possibly create life, just as Yang and Yang can not create life. i'm sure you're old enough to know that it takes a mixture of Yin and Yang essence to create life.... this is not "homophobia, this is fact.
about sex without conception between Yin and Yang essence, you can't choose when you will conceive a child. even if you "calculated" menstrual cycles and "fertility" or Ovulation, it is still hit or miss. so to say that you can only have sex to procreate is not only false, but it is a complete facade of reality.
although it was just a name, it was an official organization under the same name. the HCC (Hardline Central Commitee) only officially lasted for roughly a year and a half. while the ideology is still existing. so was it just a name or was it an organization? both. it is possible you know.so it's just a name and wasn't an organization? That's what you need to make your mind up agout.
what do specific names and labels have to do with having a common goal? which is ultimately what a "movement" is. a group of people working toward a common goalno, for something to be a movement it requires labels and 'specific names' other wise it's just a bunch of disconnected people with no cohesion and no commonality.
but Shahid left HL LONG before HL dissolved. after he had stopped working within HL, there were still chapters, publications etc. being produced with no defined and recognized "leader". not to mention, Shahid never wanted to be anybodies "leader".And no, what made hardline an organization was the fact that there was a defined and recognized leader.
actually i was being sarcastic about the hurting your feel-bads comment, i'm sure it was obvious... but since you keep bringing it up despite the apparent obvious sarcasm, i'm only left to assume i struck a nerve.... so sorry again, little buddy.I think you've mistaken my mocking of your lack of debating skills as you "hurting my feelings". As is usually the case people will shift "attacks" onto something that doesn't have a bearing on the conversation, in this instance my appearance, when they don't actually have anything useful to say.
although this is very touching and heartwarming, it's not true. i absolutely do not need to rely on name calling. and i've already apologized for calling you fat and ugly. what more do you want from me? buck up little camper, i'm sure it will be okay.The fact that you have to rely on calling someone ugly as an insult and believe that you're somehow hurting my feelings is really funny.
you really didn't hurt my feelings since you haven't attacked my beliefs in an insulting way as you did my Christian brothers and sisters faith.Now I guess I hurt your feelings since you felt the need to respond to your personal beliefs being questioned with the same insult a 5 year old would use. Do you need a hug? I mean, I know you're not very secure and it's really clear you're a follower and not a thinker, but it'll be ok I'm sure all the other hardline guys can reassure you.
but my reasoning behind it is still the same. just as i said you felt the need to attack PEOPLEs personal beliefs and not MY personal beliefs since i don't believe Jesus (as) is God (swt) how did you attack my beliefs?
and trust me i'm secure enough, i don't need you deviants giving me any hugs. and how exactly am i a "follower"? mr. first guy to ever be straightedge. and mr. first guy to ever talk shit on HL without really understanding what the manifesto means.
again with the bringing up old shit. i said i'm sorry, and i'm sorry. i can't take back what i said, but i can tell you that you can finally give it a rest. i don't think you look fat in those jeans, and you're haircut is not ugly. okay? is that better? will you finally shut up about the fat and ugly comment?....If I said that you really hurt me by calling me fat and ugly would it help you feel better about yourself and your incorrect beliefs?
and what "incorrect beliefs" are you talking about exactly? because i don't think my beliefs are incorrect, i think your perception of reality is incorrect. and your supposed facts are slightly... well bullshit.
Last edited by Tahir; 10-23-2006 at 04:33 AM.
And it's still a contradiction in beliefs. Either all life is innocent and should be protection or some life is innocent and should be protected. Unless you want to explain to me how some means all?
this is the problem with extreme views on subjects though and use of terms like ALL. Now, if the manifesto is wrong, why wasn't it recended?you're right, there will always be places where growing food isn't possible. but does that mean that in places where there are alternatives, we should allow animals to remain prisoners/slaves just to satisfy our own greed? no, that is oppressive and wrong.
indigenous cultures are not factory farming billions of animals, and mis-treating them the way so-called "civilized" societies are treating them. to think that the manifesto, is calling for justice to these cultures where hunting and trapping is essential for their existance is plain ridiculous and is not what HL stood for as that would be oppressive to said cultures. like i said the manifesto was just meant to be an introduction to the ideology.
so how do rastas get high without the production and sale of drugs?yes i am okay with rastas getting high, just as i am okay with anybody getting high, as long as it is consentual and not forced since i am not at liberty to tell somebody what they can and can not do as long as what they are doing does not interfere with anybody else's safety..
what i am not okay with is the fact that people get high and commit crimes against innocent people. i am not okay with drunk driving or driving while under the influece of other drugs. and i am not okay with the production and sells of drugs.
so drugs are ok if they're used for spiritual paths? I must have missed that part of the manifesto.HL never attempted to oppress peoples spiritual paths (rastafarians etc.), in fact if you read more of the HL publications you would see that adherants to the HL ideology could and should learn alot from the Rasta farians, and native american cultures.
So if that's the case, then why don't you take drugs to get closer to your creator?and if i remeber correctly i said something along the lines of "this is their spirtiual path, even though i don't agree with it, it is still their path to get closer to their Creator (swt)."
ok, then what are you saying then? what constitutes getting closer to their creator and what equals worshipping idols?it is in line with HL to reject the practice of indigenous cultures who have equally fallen from their primordial state, by worshiping idols, and being sbjugated by the powers of nature. not all indigenous traditions are in line with the natural order. i think you are confusing my statement to imply i am saying "all indiginous cultures are right" while "all of western society is wrong", which is absolutely NOT what i'm saying at all.
I'm saying your version of it never existed. There has never been any society to ever live within your version of a "natural" order. That there has always been people getting drunk and high and fucking in every single group in history. Do you need evidence of this?let me get this straight. by your logic, there has never existed a "natural order."
so you're telling me that, since the beginning of time there has always been sky-scrapers?
radiation plants? abortion "clinics"? crack houses? fast food joints? processed food plants? tofu burgers? additives and toxins in food? etc etc. the list could continue to go on for days...
why don't you show me YOUR evidence, mr. make a comment without thinking about it first guy that there has never existed a Natural Order?.
so sex without the explict reason for procreation and instead for pleasure is ok?HL is NOT against sex. to say that is to say that HL is against eating. sex is probably the only natural instinct humans have left other than eating, and to attempt to suppress that would be an attempt to suppress nature. but people don't pay money to wheel a table full of food out and watch it, like they do with pornography for instance.
HL understands that the main reason for sex is procreation. and HL understands that the need for sex to be pleasurable is to ensure the existance of the species.
You do understand that homosexuality exists in nature, so how does that work within the realm of "natural order"? As for the other stuff, that's all fine and well but there are things that can be done to decrease the chance of pregnancy from sex. You can decide to only have sex while trying to have a child and then stop when you're not. Or is that not the case?i'm assuming you are talking about the homosexual aspect of the HL stance?
you understand the jist of "the birds and the bees" right, it's not the "birds and the birds" nor is it "the bees and the bees". meaning both Yin and Yin can not possibly create life, just as Yang and Yang can not create life. i'm sure you're old enough to know that it takes a mixture of Yin and Yang essence to create life.... this is not "homophobia, this is fact.
about sex without conception between Yin and Yang essence, you can't choose when you will conceive a child. even if you "calculated" menstrual cycles and "fertility" or Ovulation, it is still hit or miss. so to say that you can only have sex to procreate is not only false, but it is a complete facade of reality.
sure it's possible, but I'm not the one saying it was only a name.although it was just a name, it was an official organization under the same name. the HCC (Hardline Central Commitee) only officially lasted for roughly a year and a half. while the ideology is still existing. so was it just a name or was it an organization? both. it is possible you know.
because that's how people identify that they are actually working toward the common goal? If you don't then you have a bunch of individuals with no ability to locate each other.what do specific names and labels have to do with having a common goal? which is ultimately what a "movement" is. a group of people working toward a common goal
whether he wanted to be or not is irrelevant, because he was. I'm also not quite sure why it's relevant that things continued after he left? Does that somehow not make it an organization?but Shahid left HL LONG before HL dissolved. after he had stopped working within HL, there were still chapters, publications etc. being produced with no defined and recognized "leader". not to mention, Shahid never wanted to be anybodies "leader".
Wait, you being an idiot is obvious sarcasm?actually i was being sarcastic about the hurting your feel-bads comment, i'm sure it was obvious... but since you keep bringing it up despite the apparent obvious sarcasm, i'm only left to assume i struck a nerve.... so sorry again, little buddy.
it's not true but you were motivated to do it twice in 2 seperate discussions? Dude, it's ok to admit that you've got the debating skills of a 5 year old.although this is very touching and heartwarming, it's not true. i absolutely do not need to rely on name calling. and i've already apologized for calling you fat and ugly. what more do you want from me? buck up little camper, i'm sure it will be okay.
so what beliefs aren't personal? And what insulting way did I attack christians? You keep making shit up to justify your retarded outbursts. But if it'll make you feel better we can talk about how stupid islam is.you really didn't hurt my feelings since you haven't attacked my beliefs in an insulting way as you did my Christian brothers and sisters faith.
but my reasoning behind it is still the same. just as i said you felt the need to attack PEOPLEs personal beliefs and not MY personal beliefs since i don't believe Jesus (as) is God (swt) how did you attack my beliefs?
sure you are big guy. Where did you come into islam? What came first islam or hl for you?and trust me i'm secure enough, i don't need you deviants giving me any hugs. and how exactly am i a "follower"? mr. first guy to ever be straightedge. and mr. first guy to ever talk shit on HL without really understanding what the manifesto means.
and how do I not really understand what the manifesto means? Is it code?
old shit? a couple of days ago counts as old shit in your brain? I'm just saying, if you want to try and actually debate with people and win hearts and minds, you need to do a better job than resorting to "you're fat and ugly" when you get frustrated and definitely don't try and hide behind some made up bullshit about how you were trying to teach me a lesson about talking about peoples personal beliefs. call a spade a spade you deviant.again with the bringing up old shit. i said i'm sorry, and i'm sorry. i can't take back what i said, but i can tell you that you can finally give it a rest. i don't think you look fat in those jeans, and you're haircut is not ugly. okay? is that better? will you finally shut up about the fat and ugly comment?....
your views on human sexuality, veganism, spirituality, islam. pretty much everything you've talked about up until this point is incorrect. And I'm sure you don't think they are, if you did, then you'd be an even bigger idiot. Now what supposed facts of mine are bullshit?and what "incorrect beliefs" are you talking about exactly? because i don't think my beliefs are incorrect, i think your perception of reality is incorrect. and your supposed facts are slightly... well bullshit.
1) Had I heard Tahir's explanation of Hardline I would have been much more open to the concept.
2) The way you guys are bickering back and forth is very immature. If you feel it necessary, attack each other's ideas, but stop attacking each other. That way other people on the forum can actually learn something.
Ok you like tahirs explanantion but his explanation and the manifesto seem quite different. And why on earth would you be open to a movement that utilises violence to enforce its beliefs and convert others. A movement that takes away control of ones own body, someone who eats an egg has no rights, someone who has a normal sex life is a deviant, someone who drinks a beer in not innocent and it is down to hardliners to deal out the justice. If you are open to that you are nuts, just because tahir is dressing it up it doesn't change the drive of the whole thing. In short the movement says "if you aren't innocent by our standards we can ignore all the standards we live by for what we consider innocent and assalt you". Now i have my own considerations for innocent and hardliners to me are not innocent so why are they in a position to deal out justice as if they are. They aren't appointed, they are pretty much terrorists which a crazy agenda that harms innocent people. Hope you learnt something.
Others walk the bow, I walk the string
I must have missed the part where anyone but tahir did anything immature, but please feel free to point it out. I wasn't aware that we weren't discussing ideas and that it was just insults, but thanks for the unneccessary attempt to moderate something that didn't need moderation.
the manifesto never elevated animal rights over human rights. if a society needs to consume animals to survive, then they must survive. you are a fucking idiot if you can't understand this. i don't know how else i can spell it out for you.And it's still a contradiction in beliefs. Either all life is innocent and should be protection or some life is innocent and should be protected. Unless you want to explain to me how some means all?
all life is sacred, and all life should be protected and not transgressed. but at the same time a culture consuming animals out of necessity for their survivial is not transgression it is mere survival. there is a big difference between this and factory farming ya wing-nut.
you mean extreme views as opposed to those of "straightedge" and "anti religion" views?this is the problem with extreme views on subjects though and use of terms like ALL. Now, if the manifesto is wrong, why wasn't it recended?
let's look at the "extreme views" you are so against:
'you're right, there will always be places where growing food isn't possible. but does that mean that in places where there are alternatives, we should allow animals to remain prisoners/slaves just to satisfy our own greed? no, that is oppressive and wrong.
indigenous cultures are not factory farming billions of animals, and mis-treating them the way so-called "civilized" societies are treating them. to think that the manifesto, is calling for justice to these cultures where hunting and trapping is essential for their existance is plain ridiculous and is not what HL stood for as that would be oppressive to said cultures. like i said the manifesto was just meant to be an introduction to the ideology."
what exactly is so "extreme" about these views? because to me they are based off of common courtesy and respect for cultures other than our own. and based off of respect for lives human and non-human alike. and i find your questioning these views and the way you are quick to call them "extreme" is just ignorant and prejudice against other cultures.
otherwise you would not have a problem with my statement in the first place.
i'm sure i typed it out in plain english for you to read that the manifesto was only meant to be an introduction to the views and stance of the HL ideology. and that the views were later expanded on in other publications. now either you are stupid, or you can't read. and since you can obviously read that only leaves us with one answer.
you do know that marijuana is a plant right? and you do understand that plants can be grown at home right? this is not to say that ALL rastas smoke home grown weed, but none the less it's possible that alot of them do.....so how do rastas get high without the production and sale of drugs?
what people do and use for their spiritual path is none of my business. that is between them and the Creator (swt).so drugs are ok if they're used for spiritual paths? I must have missed that part of the manifesto.
again, i was under the assumption that you could read. i specifically said:So if that's the case, then why don't you take drugs to get closer to your creator?
and if i remeber correctly i said something along the lines of "this is their spirtiual path, even though i don't agree with it, it is still their path to get closer to their Creator (swt)."
now that's the THIRD time, i've had to lay that out in plain english.....
again, people get closer to their Creator (swt) however they feel they need to get closer. it is none of my business.ok, then what are you saying then? what constitutes getting closer to their creator and what equals worshipping idols?
the second part of you question is pretty self-explanitory.
worshiping idols equals worshiping idols.
why do you constantly pick the most irrelevent part of my rebuttals to comment on, while missing the majority of the more relevent topics?
well, never say never. there are people living within this society NOW that aren't getting drunk and high and fucking around. i'm surprised you didn't know this.. i mean aren't you the official straightedge know it all?I'm saying your version of it never existed. There has never been any society to ever live within your version of a "natural" order. That there has always been people getting drunk and high and fucking in every single group in history. Do you need evidence of this?
and just because there has been societies with all of the above things happening, doesn't mean EVERYBODY in these societies did them. so where is this proof of it never existing anyway. i would like to see it actually.
yes. couples have sex all the time for the pleasure. taking responsibility for the possible result is a different story.so sex without the explict reason for procreation and instead for pleasure is ok?
but i have to ask: where do you get this information from? nowhere in the manifesto does it say anything like this.
homosexuality may exist in nature, i'm assuming you are referring to non-human animals correct?You do understand that homosexuality exists in nature, so how does that work within the realm of "natural order"? As for the other stuff, that's all fine and well but there are things that can be done to decrease the chance of pregnancy from sex. You can decide to only have sex while trying to have a child and then stop when you're not. Or is that not the case?
if so, you must also agree that eating your own feces, eating your young and leaving your offspring alone to "fend for themselves" also exists in nature. so do you propose we start eating our babies if they are born with downs syndrome? or if they are born missing a leg?
at least be bright enough to not use non-human animals as a basis for your argument..
so obviously we are not supposed to live like non-human beings, and follow their example.
you're correct, there are things you can do to decrease the chance of pregnancy. you can in fact decide to only have sex while trying to conceive and then stop when not trying. i don't understand your point in saying this. this is something that is purely up to the "couple" to decide. and in no way does this counter my statement. you can decide to have sex according to ovulation but it doesn't mean you will conceive. and most likely you are going to enjoy the pleasure of trying. so obviously sex without conception but with pleasure is natural....
unless you seek pleasure from sex in an un-natural way. or unconsentual sex.
you're right, you're the one saying it was only an organization. but i specifically recall saying it was only a name, then the HCC formed and it was an official organization.sure it's possible, but I'm not the one saying it was only a name.
well, the movement of working toward the common goal to end racism, doesn't really have a name or a "leader" but i'm sure that if i see someone wearing an end racism t shirt then it's somebody i can agree with on the topic, and can potentially work together with them on ending racism.because that's how people identify that they are actually working toward the common goal? If you don't then you have a bunch of individuals with no ability to locate each other.
just to be clear, they don't even have to be wearing a t shirt, it can be somebody who is obviously against racism, for example an inter-racial couple, or somebody arguing with some racist pig etc.
it's relevant that things continued after he left because you claim it was only an organization, because he was the "leader" but if that's the only way it was an organization how did it continue after he left?whether he wanted to be or not is irrelevant, because he was. I'm also not quite sure why it's relevant that things continued after he left? Does that somehow not make it an organization?
besides this is not even important. this is one of the single most pathetic arguments against HL: whether it was or wasn't an organization or a word. and i refuse to talk about this aspect of it anymore.
yes. but i'm starting to learn that you have the sense of humor of a brick wall.Wait, you being an idiot is obvious sarcasm?
if i had the debating skills of a 5 year old i would admit it... but since i am making more valid points than you seem to keep up with, since you only attack the more irrelevant aspects of my posts. but it's cool, keep telling yourself that "you're the winner..."( complete sarcasm... since you seem to lack the ability to differentiate between sarcasm and realism.)it's not true but you were motivated to do it twice in 2 seperate discussions? Dude, it's ok to admit that you've got the debating skills of a 5 year old.
what are you even talking about?so what beliefs aren't personal?
to somebody that believes in the Christian faith and is straightedge, you are insulting their beliefs by claiming they can not be Christian and straightedge, that is insulting their beliefs.And what insulting way did I attack christians? You keep making shit up to justify your retarded outbursts. But if it'll make you feel better we can talk about how stupid islam is.
you can talk about Islaam all you want, i'm sure it's nothing more than i've heard from the rest of the Islaamaphobic world.
i like how people like you can call HL "homophobic" all day (even though it isn't) and attack HL for being wrong and blah blah blah, yet you are obviously prejudice against Christians and Mu'min. explain that you hypocrite.
sure you are big guy. Where did you come into islam? What came first islam or hl for you?
it's true that i learned about Islaam after i learned about HL. i was 16 when i learned about HL and didn't get heavily into spirituality until my late 20's. this does not make me a follower, it makes me on a path of progression... MOST of my friends are atheist or agnostic. alot of them are Christian and Budhist, and some are Muslim. if i were so much of a follower i would have stayed on the EASY path of "agnosticism". since that is the norm with "straightedge" and "hardcore".
instead, i go into a Masjid covered from head to toe in tattoos, this is not something a follower of Islaam would normally do. i do not hide my tattoos and i do not hide the fact that i am into punk and hardcore. i go there as myself, and hang out with my friends at the masjid and i leave.
i go to HC shows, sometimes wearing a kufi, wearing HL shirts and talking to people about Islaam. this is not something somebody does in SLC and is "liked" for. SLC is a very anti-HL scene and HC in general is a very anti-religion sub-culture. it's sounding less and less as if i am the follower, and more and more as if YOU are the actual follower.... BAAAH!
because you don't understand what the actual meaning behind the statements in the manifesto mean. it is not code, it is just not the best written piece of literature. why must you make me constantly repeat myself.and how do I not really understand what the manifesto means? Is it code?
another obvious joke. yet another piece of evidence that your sense of humor is equal of a brick wall.old shit? a couple of days ago counts as old shit in your brain?
again with the fat and ugly.... drop it fabio. is that what you wanted me to say?I'm just saying, if you want to try and actually debate with people and win hearts and minds, you need to do a better job than resorting to "you're fat and ugly" when you get frustrated and definitely don't try and hide behind some made up bullshit about how you were trying to teach me a lesson about talking about peoples personal beliefs. call a spade a spade you deviant.
people will make their own decisions. i'm sure my making sarcastic and joking remarks once in a while are not going to have much of a bearing in their decisions either way.
but if you want to convince anybody of anything you might want to address the more relevant aspects of the "debate" and quit crying over spilt milk....(the fat and ugly thing...)
i wasn't hiding behind anything. i simply pointed out my reasoning behind attacking your physical features. which in reality i really have no way of knowing your physical features, i don't even know if that mug is you or not.
and i definately was not trying to teach you any lessons.
[QUOTE]your views on human sexuality, veganism, spirituality, islam. pretty much everything you've talked about up until this point is incorrect. And I'm sure you don't think they are, if you did, then you'd be an even bigger idiot.QUOTE]
my views on human sexuality are correct, you're the one who still thinks that what's natural can be gauged based off of non-human animals and their sexual habits.
my views on veganism are correct, what's your proof that i am somehow incorrect in my diet?
my spirituality is correct. since these are personal belifs who are you to call them incorrect?
how do you know that my views on Islaam are incorrect??
of course i don't think they are incorrect, they are my beliefs. if for some reason i felt they were incorrect, chances are... i wouldn't believe them.... dummy.
but if you are claiming they are incorrect, isn't it up to you to point out there flaws? which so far you have failed miserably.
the problem with this question is that you really haven't produced any facts. but your opinions are what's bullshit. i mean, you've claimed to have alot of facts and proof about stuff, but when i've asked for the proof you ignored it to point out irrelevant arguments.Now what supposed facts of mine are bullshit?
but for arguments sake, i'll point out a few flawed opinions...
you claim:
1. HL is against sex.
*it isn't.
2.Natural order never existed.
*it did.
3. human sexuality can be compared to non-human animal sexuality.
*it can't.
4.HL started in memphis
*it didn't. it only got big there. there were more HL bands in Memphis/midwest than there were in Ca where HL actually started. and Shahid only passed the responsibilities to people in Memphis.
5. "movements" require specific names and labels.
*they don't.
6.you claim i MUST rely on personal insults.
* i don't.
7. you claim i'm a follower, just because i got into Islaam.
* i'm not.
8. you believe that i only got into Islaam because of HL...
* I didn't. i actually got into Budhism before.
9. you claim that all rastas produce and sell drugs.
*they don't and this is a pretty racist claim.
10. you claim that HL was not a lifestyle.
*it was, and was refferred to as a lifestyle in MANY HL publications.
10. you claim that HL was never a violent free way of living.
* i can see where you get this thought, but it is wrong. I know alot of ex-HL dudes that are really non-violent hippy types, and were during HL. HL is very peaceful, and strives for peace, and to be anti HL is to support and side with the violent oppressors.
11.you claim that Shahid, disbanded HL when he got into Islaam.
* Shahid was actually into Islaam during the inception of HL. which is why there are quotes from Al Qur'aan on Vanguard #1. and on the Vegan Reich "The Wrath Of God" record why is there a crescent moon and star above the name? and the quote:
"By the power of the most high we shall carry on their jihad for truth and justice."
obviously Islaamic.
anyway, this is getting lame we will just have to agree to disagree.
besides i'm tired of repeating myself.
-Tahir.
my explanations are more consistant with how HL really was. like i said, all of the topics in the manifesto were expanded on. it would be impossible to get into the complexion of the "natural order" on a single piece of paper that was sent out with records.
i was unaware that other people were actually looking at this. and you're right it was very immature, and i must admit i'm a pretty immature person sometimes.... it's fun to me, i'm a very sarcastic and joking person. i understand it's hard to sense these things over a computer screen.2) The way you guys are bickering back and forth is very immature. If you feel it necessary, attack each other's ideas, but stop attacking each other. That way other people on the forum can actually learn something.
and apologize to anybody who may have been reading this to learn something about HL. or anything else we were discussing.
take care and stay safe.
peace.
-Tahir.
Last edited by Tahir; 10-25-2006 at 03:17 AM.
you can't be serious! that's because i am EXPLAINING the manifesto.
this is another assumption. probably by somebody who has never even been around anybody that REALLY knew what HL was.And why on earth would you be open to a movement that utilises violence to enforce its beliefs and convert others.
how is direct action "violent?" if you support the oppressors and exploiters of animals you are oppressive and violent. if you mock somebody for fighting for the rights of others to live out their natural existence, you are oppressive and violent.
since HL is anti oppression, and you are anti HL, that makes YOU anti peace. and a supporter of oppression and therefore "violent action" against you is justified.
if somebody was raping/attacking somebody, i would hope and i would expect you would step in and stop that threat to life, by any means necessary.
how does HL take away the control of ones body?A movement that takes away control of ones own body, someone who eats an egg has no rights
someone who eats eggs, is not at fault. factory farming eggs is the target.
the key word here is NORMAL...the word Deviant means to "deviate from normal."someone who has a normal sex life is a deviant,
so your statement is incorrect and an oxymoron.
someone who drinks beer made their own personal decisions... and unless someone drinks a beer and attacks an innocent person, they should not be dealt out justice... even then it is not because of the beer, but their actions. get your facts straight....someone who drinks a beer in not innocent and it is down to hardliners to deal out the justice.
giving accurate descriptions and explanaitions is not "dressing it up" it is simply giving accurate descriptions and explanations.If you are open to that you are nuts, just because tahir is dressing it up it doesn't change the drive of the whole thing.
why do you insist on trying to get people to believe you on a lifestyle and a movement that you were never even a part of? and why must you try and make someone who was actually around, believe your bullshit views about it?
you're arguments are literally laughable. even my wife is laughing at your statements. you should quit trying to argue about this and stick to what you do best, and be xsecx's personal cheerleader.... it's funny when you try and come up with your own arguments.In short the movement says "if you aren't innocent by our standards we can ignore all the standards we live by for what we consider innocent and assalt you".
the standards that HL lives by is to protect the innocent. if you are guilty by those standards, then you must be dealt justice. it's pretty simple really. it is not to say that people should be dealt justice simply for disagreeing with the HL lifestyle. for example, drugs, homosexuality, ovo-lacto diets etc. it is not the people doing these things that are at fault, it is the ones making these choices possible that are at fault. factory farms, drug dealers, even gay-bashers are infringing on the rights of homosexuals to exist and therefore should be dealt justice.
apparantly your "considerations for innocent" are for those that are oppressing and exploiting innocent life. so why do you think i really give a shit about your thoughts on HL?Now i have my own considerations for innocent and hardliners to me are not innocent so why are they in a position to deal out justice as if they are.
you're definition for "innocent" must read:"pity for the oppressor and for the torturer, and a desire to see they continue on in peace". HL is filled with compassion. compassion is the driving force behind ending the economic exploitation of the poor. it is the reasoning behind the struggle to end factory farming, vivisection etc.
don't blame HL for what the oppressors have done, don't blame HL because you have love in your heart for the wicked ones that don't know the meaning of that word. and until you live a life that is free from oppression, exploitation and strive for the end of pain and suffering of the innocent, don't even think for a second that you can judge HL.
aren't appointed what exactly? you are wrong about the terrorists comment. a terrorist, sides with the oppressor. a terrorist sides with the ones enslaving innocent life. a terrorist, supports the multi-million death industries of factory farming. a terrorist, allows sexism, racism and speciesism to go unchallenged. a terrorist, attacks somebody for their religious beliefs. the ANTI-terror advocate is justified in attacking all of these things.They aren't appointed, they are pretty much terrorists which a crazy agenda that harms innocent people. Hope you learnt something.
you are so ass-backwards it's hilarious. HL PROTECTS innocent people. and challenges their attackers. the key words here are INNOCENT and ATTACKERS. if you were innocent HL would have no reason to challenge you, if you were guilty of infringing on another innocent beings life, you are a target. and rightfully so.
if i'm walking down the street, and i see somebody kick a dog in the head, i will challenge that person.
if i'm hanging out at a show and i see somebody attack someone for standing there minding their own business i will protect that person.
if i see somebody beating up a person for simply being gay, i will jump in and help the gay person. it's simple to understand really... i don't know why you are having such a hard time understanding it.
Last edited by Tahir; 10-25-2006 at 03:15 AM.
and you're a fucking idiot if you think you can say that all life is equal and then have some situations where human life is elevated over animal rights. i.e. this part "This single ethic ensures that all life, from a foetus, or a grown human (black, white, male or female), to an animal, or it's habitat, is guaranteed equal rights, with liberty for all, regardless of someone's personal bias against them."
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.you mean extreme views as opposed to those of "straightedge" and "anti religion" views?
let's look at the "extreme views" you are so against:
'you're right, there will always be places where growing food isn't possible. but does that mean that in places where there are alternatives, we should allow animals to remain prisoners/slaves just to satisfy our own greed? no, that is oppressive and wrong.
indigenous cultures are not factory farming billions of animals, and mis-treating them the way so-called "civilized" societies are treating them. to think that the manifesto, is calling for justice to these cultures where hunting and trapping is essential for their existance is plain ridiculous and is not what HL stood for as that would be oppressive to said cultures. like i said the manifesto was just meant to be an introduction to the ideology."
what exactly is so "extreme" about these views? because to me they are based off of common courtesy and respect for cultures other than our own. and based off of respect for lives human and non-human alike. and i find your questioning these views and the way you are quick to call them "extreme" is just ignorant and prejudice against other cultures.
otherwise you would not have a problem with my statement in the first place.
the fact that you contradict what is written in the manifesto leads me to believe that you can't read or understand the written word.i'm sure i typed it out in plain english for you to read that the manifesto was only meant to be an introduction to the views and stance of the HL ideology. and that the views were later expanded on in other publications. now either you are stupid, or you can't read. and since you can obviously read that only leaves us with one answer.
you do know that growing marijuana is producing a drug and that most people who grow their own also sell it. If you're against the production of drugs, then why does where it's grown matter? So you don't have any conflict with people growing their own drugs? Can you be hardline and rasta?you do know that marijuana is a plant right? and you do understand that plants can be grown at home right? this is not to say that ALL rastas smoke home grown weed, but none the less it's possible that alot of them do.....
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)."what people do and use for their spiritual path is none of my business. that is between them and the Creator (swt).
and thanks for that but it doesn't actually answer the question I asked. I specifically asked "why don't you take drugs to get closer to your creator?" There's nothing your statement that addresses the question other than state that you don't agree with it.again, i was under the assumption that you could read. i specifically said:
and if i remeber correctly i said something along the lines of "this is their spirtiual path, even though i don't agree with it, it is still their path to get closer to their Creator (swt)."
If it's none of your business, then how do you get to decide what's innocent and what isn't?again, people get closer to their Creator (swt) however they feel they need to get closer. it is none of my business.
the second part of you question is pretty self-explanitory.
worshiping idols equals worshiping idols.
why do you constantly pick the most irrelevent part of my rebuttals to comment on, while missing the majority of the more relevent topics?
and what makes an idol versus a creator? And how have I missed anything you've commented on since it's broken down point by point? Why can't you answer simple questions that are asked?
And the people living within this society now that aren't getting drunk high and fucking are the vast minority. You do realize that for things to be the "natural order" it would be the default state of things. Since you don't seem to argue that this has happened throughout history it contradicts your concept that the natural order of humans is to not eat meat, drink, have "deviant sex", do drugs etc. If you do want to argue this, then please, get started.well, never say never. there are people living within this society NOW that aren't getting drunk and high and fucking around. i'm surprised you didn't know this.. i mean aren't you the official straightedge know it all?
and just because there has been societies with all of the above things happening, doesn't mean EVERYBODY in these societies did them. so where is this proof of it never existing anyway. i would like to see it actually.
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)."yes. couples have sex all the time for the pleasure. taking responsibility for the possible result is a different story.
but i have to ask: where do you get this information from? nowhere in the manifesto does it say anything like this.
So the laws of nature isn't that sex should be used for procreation? I mean, that's your issue with homosexuality right? That it can't result in child birth, so then why would sex that didn't result in childbirth not be deviant?
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?homosexuality may exist in nature, i'm assuming you are referring to non-human animals correct?
if so, you must also agree that eating your own feces, eating your young and leaving your offspring alone to "fend for themselves" also exists in nature. so do you propose we start eating our babies if they are born with downs syndrome? or if they are born missing a leg?
at least be bright enough to not use non-human animals as a basis for your argument..
so obviously we are not supposed to live like non-human beings, and follow their example.
so what is sex in an un-natural way then?you're correct, there are things you can do to decrease the chance of pregnancy. you can in fact decide to only have sex while trying to conceive and then stop when not trying. i don't understand your point in saying this. this is something that is purely up to the "couple" to decide. and in no way does this counter my statement. you can decide to have sex according to ovulation but it doesn't mean you will conceive. and most likely you are going to enjoy the pleasure of trying. so obviously sex without conception but with pleasure is natural....
unless you seek pleasure from sex in an un-natural way. or unconsentual sex.
ok. that's great, you've finally come to terms with the fact that it wasn't just a name.you're right, you're the one saying it was only an organization. but i specifically recall saying it was only a name, then the HCC formed and it was an official organization.
that's not a movement though, that's just a common belief.well, the movement of working toward the common goal to end racism, doesn't really have a name or a "leader" but i'm sure that if i see someone wearing an end racism t shirt then it's somebody i can agree with on the topic, and can potentially work together with them on ending racism.
just to be clear, they don't even have to be wearing a t shirt, it can be somebody who is obviously against racism, for example an inter-racial couple, or somebody arguing with some racist pig etc.
Main Entry: move·ment
Pronunciation: 'müv-m&nt
Function: noun
b : a series of organized activities working toward an objective; also : an organized effort to promote or attain an end <the civil rights movement>
it's ok to admit that you're wrong you know. It was an organization, it wasn't just a name. thanks for playing!it's relevant that things continued after he left because you claim it was only an organization, because he was the "leader" but if that's the only way it was an organization how did it continue after he left?
besides this is not even important. this is one of the single most pathetic arguments against HL: whether it was or wasn't an organization or a word. and i refuse to talk about this aspect of it anymore.
I have a great sense of humor, you just haven't said anything funny.yes. but i'm starting to learn that you have the sense of humor of a brick wall.
What valid points have you made that I have ignored?if i had the debating skills of a 5 year old i would admit it... but since i am making more valid points than you seem to keep up with, since you only attack the more irrelevant aspects of my posts. but it's cool, keep telling yourself that "you're the winner..."( complete sarcasm... since you seem to lack the ability to differentiate between sarcasm and realism.)
your apparent issue with me talking about people personal beliefs, so I'm asking what beliefs aren't personal?what are you even talking about?
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?to somebody that believes in the Christian faith and is straightedge, you are insulting their beliefs by claiming they can not be Christian and straightedge, that is insulting their beliefs.
you can talk about Islaam all you want, i'm sure it's nothing more than i've heard from the rest of the Islaamaphobic world.
It is homophobic, which is why rat distanced himself from it. So how does someone having issue with the contradictions of the individuals of a faith equate to prejudice? I think you're wrong about your faith, but how does that relate to anything? Are you a hypocrite for thinking people who aren't muslim are wrong?i like how people like you can call HL "homophobic" all day (even though it isn't) and attack HL for being wrong and blah blah blah, yet you are obviously prejudice against Christians and Mu'min. explain that you hypocrite.
So your involvement with islam isn't directly linked to your involvement with HL?it's true that i learned about Islaam after i learned about HL. i was 16 when i learned about HL and didn't get heavily into spirituality until my late 20's. this does not make me a follower, it makes me on a path of progression... MOST of my friends are atheist or agnostic. alot of them are Christian and Budhist, and some are Muslim. if i were so much of a follower i would have stayed on the EASY path of "agnosticism". since that is the norm with "straightedge" and "hardcore".
instead, i go into a Masjid covered from head to toe in tattoos, this is not something a follower of Islaam would normally do. i do not hide my tattoos and i do not hide the fact that i am into punk and hardcore. i go there as myself, and hang out with my friends at the masjid and i leave.
i go to HC shows, sometimes wearing a kufi, wearing HL shirts and talking to people about Islaam. this is not something somebody does in SLC and is "liked" for. SLC is a very anti-HL scene and HC in general is a very anti-religion sub-culture. it's sounding less and less as if i am the follower, and more and more as if YOU are the actual follower.... BAAAH!
Because just repeating yourself doesn't actually address the questions being asked. SO rather than looking at the question, you just spit out the same shit over and over again without actually reading the question. If it's not the best piece of literature, what parts am I not understanding, since you seem to contradict it?because you don't understand what the actual meaning behind the statements in the manifesto mean. it is not code, it is just not the best written piece of literature. why must you make me constantly repeat myself.
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"another obvious joke. yet another piece of evidence that your sense of humor is equal of a brick wall.
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.again with the fat and ugly.... drop it fabio. is that what you wanted me to say?
people will make their own decisions. i'm sure my making sarcastic and joking remarks once in a while are not going to have much of a bearing in their decisions either way.
but if you want to convince anybody of anything you might want to address the more relevant aspects of the "debate" and quit crying over spilt milk....(the fat and ugly thing...)
i wasn't hiding behind anything. i simply pointed out my reasoning behind attacking your physical features. which in reality i really have no way of knowing your physical features, i don't even know if that mug is you or not.
and i definately was not trying to teach you any lessons.
ok. so if you can't gauge what's natural based off nature, then what can you base it off of?my views on human sexuality are correct, you're the one who still thinks that what's natural can be gauged based off of non-human animals and their sexual habits.
because you illustrated examples where people can't live and be vegan or that it's the natural order, which it isn't.my views on veganism are correct, what's your proof that i am somehow incorrect in my diet?
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"?my spirituality is correct. since these are personal belifs who are you to call them incorrect?
how do you know that my views on Islaam are incorrect??
or more to the point, you'd lie to yourself and convince yourself that they're right while ignoring evidence to the contrary.of course i don't think they are incorrect, they are my beliefs. if for some reason i felt they were incorrect, chances are... i wouldn't believe them.... dummy.
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.but if you are claiming they are incorrect, isn't it up to you to point out there flaws? which so far you have failed miserably.
ok. like what, specifically?the problem with this question is that you really haven't produced any facts. but your opinions are what's bullshit. i mean, you've claimed to have alot of facts and proof about stuff, but when i've asked for the proof you ignored it to point out irrelevant arguments.
sure it is.but for arguments sake, i'll point out a few flawed opinions...
you claim:
1. HL is against sex.
*it isn't.
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.2.Natural order never existed.
*it did.
ok. why can't it? You want to talk about natural order, but not include nature?3. human sexuality can be compared to non-human animal sexuality.
*it can't.
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?4.HL started in memphis
*it didn't. it only got big there. there were more HL bands in Memphis/midwest than there were in Ca where HL actually started. and Shahid only passed the responsibilities to people in Memphis.
the dictionary disagrees with you.5. "movements" require specific names and labels.
*they don't.
yet, you did.6.you claim i MUST rely on personal insults.
* i don't.
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?7. you claim i'm a follower, just because i got into Islaam.
* i'm not.
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?8. you believe that i only got into Islaam because of HL...
* I didn't. i actually got into Budhism before.
and here's a nice deflection. You now bring racism into it where no racism exists. It's pretty simple logic, which i know it's not your strong point, but try. If rasta's have to use drugs for their religion, then drugs have to be obtained. Now, if a rasta grows drugs, he's producing them, which you're against and if a rasta buy's drugs, you're against that too. Now if rasta's don't produce or buy or sell drugs, then how do they get them? And where did I say all rasta's produce and sell drugs? And most of all, how is saying that rasta's and involved in the drug trade racist?9. you claim that all rastas produce and sell drugs.
*they don't and this is a pretty racist claim.
where did I claim that?10. you claim that HL was not a lifestyle.
*it was, and was refferred to as a lifestyle in MANY HL publications.
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.10. you claim that HL was never a violent free way of living.
* i can see where you get this thought, but it is wrong. I know alot of ex-HL dudes that are really non-violent hippy types, and were during HL. HL is very peaceful, and strives for peace, and to be anti HL is to support and side with the violent oppressors.
No I didn't. I claimed that after it disbanded it morphed into this weird pseudo islamic group that it is today.11.you claim that Shahid, disbanded HL when he got into Islaam.
* Shahid was actually into Islaam during the inception of HL. which is why there are quotes from Al Qur'aan on Vanguard #1. and on the Vegan Reich "The Wrath Of God" record why is there a crescent moon and star above the name? and the quote:
"By the power of the most high we shall carry on their jihad for truth and justice."
obviously Islaamic.
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.anyway, this is getting lame we will just have to agree to disagree.
besides i'm tired of repeating myself.
-Tahir.
If i eat meat is it not down to hardline people to deal out justice for that action?
If you say so.
How does this equate to the dealing out of justice? And if i support eating meat, why are my beliefs ignored and yours are somehow more important, what makes you so sure animals are innocent? they eat other animals, the beliefs are blinkered and refuse any movement and according to you i'm not innocent so why don't you punnish me big boy?
I mock people who are so deluded they think they have the right to take the law into their own hands and ignore the rights and beliefs of others by oppressing them with their personal brand of justice. The whole integrity of the movement has been lost at that point.
Its far from justified, thats hilarious that you think it is. I am anti you dealing out justice, that doesn't make me anti peace. You see it as oppression as if its somehow out of human nature to do this yet your movement turns round and uses oppressive violence to enforce itself. You just proove the point of humanity using force to get its way yet ignore that nature withing the animal kingdom.
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.
But my eating eggs gives them a demographic to market towards, come on punish me, i ate an egg. I had a mcdonalds too because i like the taste of beef, i would actually like to farm my own cow and eat it and unfortunately your movement is in no position to dictate that to be right or wrong mainly because of the route it takes in dealing with opposing views. And if i wanted to make my own pumpkin wine for halloween i am not allowed! Thats how i loose control of my own body and effecting it how i so wish too.
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 following the manifesto though, thats what it says. Are you now suggesting beer is irrelevent to being hardline and i can eat dairy and drink wine and still be innocent? even though the manifesto says:
They shall live at one with the laws of nature, and not forsake them for the desire of pleasure -- from deviant sexual acts and/or abortion, to drug use of any kind (and all other cases where ones harms all life around them under the pretext that they are just harming themselves). And, in following with the belief that one shall not infringe on an innocent's life - no animal product shall be consumed (be it flesh, milk or egg).
How can one get their facts straight when the manifesto doesn't give the facts you have self egineered? And even if i did attack someone when drunk, how do you determin the innocence of the victim? See you can attack me thinking i am just a drunk but i could be fighting a noble cause of some sort in adherence to other hardline beliefs. What is your method of trial to decide guilty or inocent?
Its certainly dressed up enough to no longer resemble the words of the manifesto, that is indeed dressing up.
You assume a lot, but anyway if my views are bullshit ignore them, leave, this is the view point of a person at this site, i'm sure you find it hard to deal with different views because that immediately makes me guilty right!? I mean the question should be why do you insist on entertaining my views, asking me to explain them and then whine about me putting them forward. If you didn't want my opinion you shouldn't respond to my posts or post at a forum that allows me to express them. I mean we are all here listening to your bullshit views, the least you could to is the same in return.
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.
ok so its simple i live by standards that make me non innocent, suppose i'm a junkie homesexual rent boy by choice who loves a nice steak, are you saying hardline has no beef (haha) with me for that? What if i work at a factory farm in order to keep my kids in clothes, am i excused from punishment? See the manifesto paints a very different picture and doesn't suggest this, which of course makes me an idiot i suppose?
The fact you keep responding to them makes me think you give a shit. And how are you going to recruit people like me if you don't give a shit about what i think, how are you going to change my mind? By beating me up? How are you striving to liberate me from my chains?
I know i am innocent, i don't see how you are showing me compassion.
I have lived such a life and i am free to make any judgement i wish regardless,just as you with your movement. You have made you judgement of me, and you have pretty much said that you don't care what i think, this doesn't entice me to change my ways, you need to learn better approaches because what i see hardline as directly effects how successful it is on me. I mean you now tell me i can make no judgement on this matter, if thats the case how would i get on to the path of hardline? I mean you say until i live hardline i can make no judgement but i would need to make a judgement in order to live hardline, would i not? I don't blame hardline for what oppresors have done, i blame them for using terrible tactics and for having a manifesto that preaches some shitty ideas. Ideas which you suggest aren't so which is fine but i can't make judgement on that and you wouldn't care what i thought if i did. Which puts me in a postion of seeing you setting yourself up as an enemy against me which naturally causes me to not change my ways.
No a terrorist is: An individual who uses violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve a result.
I believe you are guily also, guilty of using a lot of charm when writing your posts.
well i would to do all those things, but does that make me hardline? NO, so making that statement and then saying you can't see why i have a hard time understanding it is pretty straightforward. The acts you describe aren't the sum of hardline at all are they, if it was there would be a shit load of hardliners right here. I have a hardtime with the other aspects i raised and how you got to your version from the manifesto, but you don't care what i think and shouldn't entertain my judgement on those things. Anyway captain charm, it was a pleasure.
Last edited by straightXed; 10-25-2006 at 12:47 PM.
Others walk the bow, I walk the string
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks