Nothing interesting to put here

  • 0 Posts
  • 36 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
Cake day: January 12th, 2024
  • TxzK@lemmy.ziptoMildly Infuriating@lemmy.world•CNN: Rape attempt on CNN reporter by Indian crowdEnglish
    3·
    4 months ago

    I am not defending rape and pedophilia. They are wrong, there’s no denying that. I am not denying that. I am just saying not everyone that follows those religions are rapists or pedophiles. The distinction is encourage would mean people have certain obligation to do it. You you follow this religion, you must rape. While permit, is bad as well, but you do not have the obligation and can choose not to. And many not only does, but often doesn’t even know that it’s permitted in the first place as they’re moral is shaped also by the modern outlook of things, at least to certain extent. On the hindsight, yeah it does look like I am trying to defend pedophiles and rapists, but I am not. Any religion that permits them is bad. But just a little less bad than “you should rape them”. In a perfect world, no one would follow these shitty religions, but unfortunately it’s not a perfect world.

  • TxzK@lemmy.ziptoMildly Infuriating@lemmy.world•CNN: Rape attempt on CNN reporter by Indian crowdEnglish
    2·
    4 months ago

    Well you coming from Islam doesn’t make you not being able to adopt another religion later. Also I’ve seen many idiots larping as muslims online, so yeah. Anyway, whatever. I’d suggest stop trying to direct criticism to selective religions and criticise unethical actions themselves instead. There are like 5 gazillion religions in India, you can’t just blame any particular religion for some random rapes. Not all follow their religion equally either. Some dipshits more than willing to rape people if theirs allow it, some simply assume it’s not allowed in the first place. Accusing all followers of a particular religion for some of it’s followers crime is disgusting generalisation.

  • TxzK@lemmy.ziptoMildly Infuriating@lemmy.world•CNN: Rape attempt on CNN reporter by Indian crowdEnglish
    2·
    4 months ago

    I am pretty sure they’re used as brackets not quotes. Quran is quite ambiguous sometimes, so maybe it was used for clarifying, I am not sure. I don’t read Arabic. May be it did allow marital rape (honestly wouldn’t be surprised), but my point still stands that it doesn’t allow all forms of rape, like you are implying. And again, permitted != encouraged. The point also stands for Hinduism. Yes, it apparently allows wife beating and marital rape and (I stand corrected, thanks for that I guess), but still it doesn’t allow you to go out and rape anyone you see on the street. Let me be clear, I am not defending them for allowing these. I am just pissed at your implications that this two and only this two allows all kinds of rape while others doesn’t. Many things true about Islam is also true about Christianity as well. You ain’t complaining about that? I wonder why? Maybe because you’re trying to make other religions look bad while undermining the atrocities of your religion? If you were a atheist too you’d have criticised it as well surely. And that’s the thing me angry, hypocrites trying to make other religions look bad while often following an equally shitty one.

  • TxzK@lemmy.ziptoMildly Infuriating@lemmy.world•CNN: Rape attempt on CNN reporter by Indian crowdEnglish
    111·
    4 months ago

    “stfu what kind of atheist exmuslim you are”

    I am the kind of exmuslim atheist that sees all religion equally, and tolerates faith as long as it isn’t used to justify racism/sexism/homophobia or any other kinds of bigotry and hates hypocrites who cry “my religion good other religion bad”

    The first link says marital rape is allowed on the basis of Q2:223. But from https://quran.com/al-baqarah/223

    “Your wives are like farmland for you, so approach them consensually as you please. And send forth something good for yourselves. Be mindful of Allah, and know that you will meet Him. And give good news to the believers.”

    Keyword: consensually: With permission. Without resistance.

    And yes, it did allow pedophilia (which is rape yes, since children can’t consent) and raping war captives, as I said it did lot of bullshit, I am not defending it. But it didn’t allow just going out raping everyone as you implied. And also permitted != encouraged.

    And what’s your evidence for claiming Hinduism allowing rape? It doesn’t as far as I know. You didn’t even bother providing any source for it.

  • TxzK@lemmy.ziptoLinux@lemmy.ml•Modern light themes (white on white) suck. What is your favourite Plasma Theme?
    26·
    4 months ago

    So I did some digging, and it actually goes a little deeper than just a furry image. There was some anti-circumcision stuff on the developers site it seems, not in the browser itself. Apparently they weren’t even linked. They were all removed with a single commit. I took a look on the commit history, and there were some pictures of circumcised penises. Including some extremely botched ones, some belonging to babies. I didn’t take a look at all of them, but once I did are hardly labelable as CP. If anything, they’re educational content. Wikipedia contains some similar pictures as well, you can’t label Wikipedia as a CP website for those either, can you? They were running a campaign against circumcision, as one should. It’s unethical genital mutilation (speaking as someone who was circumcised). Labeling this anti-circumcision stuff as CP is really stupid imo. Fuck circumcision. And imo harassing someone for this is even worse than sneaking a furry pic in a browser.

    You can take a look into the commit here if you want too

  • TxzK@lemmy.ziptoMemes@lemmy.ml•Excitement to Disinterest in 30 Seconds
    42·
    4 months ago

    I don’t give a shit about what religion you believe in, big or small, monotheistic or polytheistic. You have the personal right to believe in whatever bullshit you want to believe in; that should be none of my business as long as you don’t force it upon others or justify bigotry with it.

    There are many definitions of cults, including some that only apply “unorthodox” religious or philosophical beliefs. And some more broad definitions, like (from Wiktionary)

    “The veneration, devotion, and religious rites given to a deity (especially in a historical polytheistic context), or (in a Christian context) to a saint.”

    and especially

    “A group of people having an obsession with or intense admiration for a particular activity, idea, person, or thing.”

    And I think these definitions fit for all religions, unorthodox or not. All religions are cults, and I am not saying that derogatorily. All religions are equally valid (or invalid) because all of them rely on beliefs without evidence, just different ones. And one set of dogma is hardly any better or worse than any other set of dogma. Just don’t force yours on others and keep to yourself, and I am fine with any set of dogma.