Jump to content
A Note on Topic Titles – Be Clear & Descriptive!

dialamah

Senior Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,676

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    25

 Content Type 

Everything posted by dialamah

  1. dialamah
    Yes. You are trying to demonstrate that your belief is the "correct" interpretation of the Bible. I am saying your intepretation is merely your opinion and is no more or less valid than the OP's.
  2. dialamah
    Religious people pick and choose those scriptures that suit their beliefs. JWs choose scripture that supports their no-blood belief. Some Churches choose scripture that allows them.to prevent women from leading, impose dress codes on their flock, impose celibacy or to keep secret confessions of child abuse. Others choose scripture that allows them to discriminate against people who look different or to kill non-believers. And some choose scripture that emphasizes love and acceptance for all. Like I said, there is something for everyone in Scripture, along with scripture to prove that everyone else's favored scripture isn't what God meant, really.
  3. dialamah
    I suppose it boils down to being able to pick and choose what one wants to believe and prove it has God's approval. The Bible has options for everyone.
  4. dialamah
  5. dialamah
    Given that Fox news has now reported that the powder was harmless, I am convinced the whole thing was a false flag operation by Republicans/Conservatives to divert attention from Trump/Pence's agenda of turning the US into a banana republic.
  6. dialamah
    So are you suggesting that when I report a dead guy on my property, I can just say "He was here to steal something, so I shot him", the police should just nod and say "OK", even if someone else says "That's not what happened"?
  7. dialamah
    I thought the only relevant part of the Bible today was the New Testament, so why the cites from the OT? If the OT can be used to prove Christian beliefs about Jesus/God/HS, then why not about gays, women and non-believers?
  8. dialamah
    The vehicle Boushie was in had a flat tire. They tried unsuccessfully to steal a vehicle from a neighboring farm. The arrived on Stanley's farm and one of them headed toward an atm. Stanley's son, Sheldon, chased him off the ATV and smashed the windshield of the vehicle Boushie was in as they were trying to back out of the yard. They crashed into Mrs. Stanley's car. Stanley ran to the house and got his shotgun, came out and shot warning shots into the air. Two men left the vehicle and ran away. Sheldon, Stanley's son, said the bullet that killed Boushie was shot as his father walked towards the vehicle. Stanley says he was at the vehicle when it discharged accidentally. The defence claims the gun "hung", which means the bullet didn't leave the barrel till some time after the trigger was pulled. The prosecution said that the gun worked perfectly and even if it did hang, it would be under a second and not the length of time it took to walk down the driveway. The defense attempted to use reddit to prove their theory; the prosecution used actual experts. The jury was all white and it took them 15 hours to acquit. Link. My conclusion is that in the heat of the moment, Stanley didn't care if he shot one of them or not. The "gun misfire" was what he came up with afterward. One wonders about the son contradicting his father's story. While the defense claimed that the intruders escalated the situation, it seems they were intent on leaving, not escalating. If Stanley really thought his wife was trapped, then his actions make more sense. I think he is gulty of manslaughter at the very least.
  9. dialamah
    I would consider property trespass as a front or back yard, a parking garage, a front driveway or a farmer"s field. A home invasion, to me, is a situation where someone breaks into a home when people are there and violently takes control of those people. For that reason, the farm situation and a home invasion are very different.
  10. dialamah
    A couple of times, I've confronted sketchy people on our property. The young lady I escorted off turned at the edge of the property and threw a rock at me; the guy I advised to leave made threatening gestures toward me. What if, in either of those situations, they had had had guns? Or even if the girl had a knife to throw? Or if I felt that I needed a gun to back myself up? Would death have ensued for trespass? So one has to understand one's own behavior and how far they'd go in some situations. My tendency is to confront rather than back down, but I suspect that's not the safest behavior; perhaps that is why police usually advise against it. Given the evidence of my past behavior, I am pretty sure that in a situation where myself or my family was at risk, I would protect them and myself if I had the means. But I think this also means I am more at risk and potentially more dangerous even when my life is not directly at risk. I don't think there's necessarily a point of "me or him"; it's action and reaction till someone makes that lethal move.
  11. dialamah
    The story in this link seems a little different than the story in the other link, so if this more accurate than the shooter was under significantly more stress. But he still maintains that the gun went off accidentally. If someone was actively threatening my life or my kids life, and I had the means, I think I could/would kill them. But it would really have to be a me or them situation. The problem with "stand your ground" laws is that people really do try to use that to cover up deliberate murder. The problem with having guns as your protection and to "scare" people is that you can easily kill someone accidentally, whether its a property thief you wanted to scare off, or someone asking for direction at your front door, or a family member sneaking in late. Even the farmer in this story claims he wasn't intending to kill this kid, only make him do something using a show of force. He was acquitted, I see.
  12. dialamah
    According to the article, this was not.even close to a home invasion, the house was even approached, let alone broken into. The homeowner was not being threatened; he was so unthreatened, he was leaning into the dead guy's vehicle to turn it off when his gun accidentally discharged - that is his story. The commenters choose to ignore all that in favor of arguing for killing someone who is trespassing, period. Not stealing anything, not threatening anyone, just there, past a property line. They justify this with "but maybe he was gonna steal something." Maybe he was gonna ask for directions too, but "shoot first and ask queations later" as one commentator said. The commentators aren't debating real "kill or be killed" situations; they're deciding that they are willing to kill people who come onto their property without permission.
  13. dialamah
    I found life in several small towns not very comfortable. My free spiritedness did not fit well with the prevailing conservative social attitudes so I didn't qualify for neighborly support. When I moved to the city, I found a lot more support from people than I did in small town BC.
  14. dialamah
    An interesting article, but it doesn't answer the basic question of why 'green extremists' from the States want to rip up Canada's economy. What is the upside of such a campaign, or who benefits if it's successful? Without that question answered, it just sounds like fear-mongering to me. I could accept the premise that these groups are sincere, if misguided, in their campaign and that they simply don't think the economy will suffer. But the statement at the start of the article that "The Trans Mountain constitutional meltdown is the product of an aggressive radical campaign by green extremists to rip up the economy" makes no sense to me if the end game isn't explained. I know it may make people doubt my extreme progressive leanings, but I think the transition to green energy will take a long time, that the economy is worth protecting while the transition takes place, so I don't support a 'no pipelines' approach as advocated by some people.
  15. dialamah
    Access to far-right sites seems to have been a factor, but I'd guess other things as well. It seems he fit a profile; not popular with his peers, bullied in school, somewhat isolated.
  16. dialamah
    Thats what worries me too.
  17. dialamah
    This attitude is a cultural one, and has nothing to do with biological reality. Women are just as much sluts as men are; Christian-Judeo social expectations mean that women either suppress this about themselves, or hide it well enough that people continue to believe this myth. No doubt, if someone were inclined to dig a bit, there'd be sexual misbehavior on the part of female politicians just as there is on the part of male politicians.
  18. dialamah
    There is educating people about the ill effects Goddess talks about. Doing more to ensure that domestic violence is addressed in our society. But these things are slow to work and not really 100% effective. But making it illegal is even less effective, imo. It creates an atmosphere where one can martyr oneself for love of God and that's not what we want, is it? The protest in Iran is billed as a protest against veiling, but its actually a protest against "compulsory" veiling. Its the lack of choice that is the issue, not the garment itself.
  19. dialamah
    To be fair, Goddess doesn't actually advocate for laws banning face coverings. Or at least she didn't the last time I checked a few months ago. Although it can be hard to keep that in mind when she's so anti-niqab on a topic about banning it.
  20. dialamah
    When I saw the guy in the beekeeper outfit, i found it strange-looking and uncomfortable to wear; it was off-putting. I also wondered about the person inside, why he wore it and if everything is ok in his world. I think its probably not an ideal situation for him. This is exactly the reaction I have to the niqab and burqa. But I did not find the beekeeper outfit to be personally offensive, nor do I find the burqa or niqab personally offensive. When I see women dressed in long dresses and wearing bonnets, I also wonder if those women are comfortable and ok in that lifestyle - but I don't find them personally offensive, nor do I look at them as legitimizing values out of harmony with Canadian values. Do you? And you are right, the balaclava isn't a great comparison. I asked you previously if you would care to move the conversation along to how we might identify and help women who are actually wearing the burqa/niqab entirely at the will of their husband or parents.
  21. dialamah
    Ok. I will answer what I think you would, if you would. You are of the opinion that Muslim women should not cover their face, but others can. This does not mean carte blanche to face coverings in all circumstances, but that someone wearing a balaclava or a beekeeper outfit on the street would not bother* you, but a Muslim woman in a niqab would. *Bother: make uncomfortable in some way, such as disturb, worry or offend.
  22. dialamah
    Ok, I am perhaps making the mistake of thinking that by extremist you mean "out to kill". If by extremist you simply mean a more fundamental and less mainstream version, then I agree. Also, the "no right in Canada" was not specifically referring to you, but is what some people will say. Still, I was not clear, so don't blame you for taking it personally.
  23. dialamah
    I am not arguing against your claim that its harmful. I am arguing against the notion that we, as individuals or a country, have the right or even obligation to determine for these women, what they should or should not wear. If a woman says its her choice to wear it, we should respect that, imo. Calling her extremist or telling her she has no right to be in Canada because of what she is wearing is wrong, imo.
  24. dialamah
    Really? False dilemma is an either/or proposition, whereas I am asking you if you think everybody should be expected to show their face, or just Muslim women? Possible responses are: Yes, all people should be expected to show their faces at all times; No, it depends on context and circumstances; People should be allowed to cover theor faces, unless its religiously motivated; People should be able to do what they want; Other - perhaps you (or someone) have a response I haven't thought of? We could discuss how to reach women who are really being forced by family to cover up; that might be a more productive conversation and is more in line with what your concern seems to be - that women aren't covering up from a truly free choice, but due to familial pressure. So how do we identify and help those women?
  25. dialamah
    This is your disapproval and opinion but it is not necessarily fact. But as long as you think your opinion and disapproval are the same thing as facts, then you are right ... there is no discussion to be had.
×
×
  • Create New...