Slavery cant be outlawed by sharia law. — frank

Oh, you mean "can`t". Yes that is correct. So if slavery is really outlawed in Saudi, I assume the Wahabi clerics found an elegant way around it. Maybe they base it on the fact that is enslavement of muslims is illegal under shariah, and since Saudi citizens are muslim by law, that would appy for them.

:up: :100:

Nearly got to 100.

Well, you did, by turning it into a personal affair. It is not a personal affair
— alcontali

Pointing out the implications your general principles would have on you specifically is not a personal attack, it is drawing your attention to the concrete consequences of your abstract ideas.

But if you want to talk about getting things personal...

How many times do we need to repeat to the plebs that personal attacks are never the solution to a problem? The only thing that you achieve by attacking people personally, is to reveal your lower social class and trailer-park origins.
— alcontali

This kind of classist bullshit makes me reconsider my opinion on guillotines. Maybe a few stuck up asshats like you should get their heads paraded around on pikes until the rest of you get the fucking message that this kind of thing is not acceptable.

Makes me reconsider religious tolerance too. Maybe I’ll go doodle Mohammed and then wipe my ass with it just to spite you. I’d tell your God that you’re the instigator behind that too, except he doesn’t exist and I try not to talk to myself.

I previously assumed your right-libertarianism was nominally a matter of anti-authoritarian principle and you were just happy to overlook or rationalize the anti-egalitarian consequences of it, like most internet techie manchildren, but now it’s clear that you’re simply someone who thinks he’s inherently better than others and only opposes authorities that challenge your own power. — Pfhorrest

This is definitely one of the worst cases on this forum of people acting this way. I guess we need to make his sandwich quicker next time.

Just curious why religious discussion should be misplaced on a philosophy forum, seeing that religion fundamentally is just philosophy for idiots? (Just to clarify, since most of the population consists of idiots, I do not consider that a bad thing.)

Not necessarily. Though it easily can be.

We have a mind and an infinitely complex world and universe to perceive.

It's good to be grounded in something. Be it theism or atheism. If that footing is sure, what is the harm in logically debate or discovery?

Not a place for tyrannical "thumping" or virtual death threats sure but surely such fundamentally broad and incredibly longstanding concepts have their avenues of debate. If you must, think of it like debating Hansel and Gretel, you're not debating the accuracy so much as just about anything else about the premise, what it implies, or its implication on society.

We could discuss some of the philosophical ideas of Gnostic Christianity:

The father’s thought became a reality, and she who appeared in the presence of the father in shining light came forth. She is the first power who preceded everything and came forth from the father’s mind as the forethought of all. Her light shines like the father’s light; she, the perfect power, is the image of the perfect and invisible virgin spirit.

She, the first power, the glory of Barbelo, the perfect glory among the realms, the glory of revelation, she glorified and praised the virgin spirit, for because of the spirit she had come forth.

She is the first thought, the image of the spirit. She became the universal womb, for she precedes everything,

the mother-father,
the first human,
the holy spirit,
the triple male,
the triple power,
the androgynous one with three names,
the eternal realm among the invisible beings,
the first to come forth. — http://gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn-meyer.html