Jean-Kevin

English grammar is not so easy, for example I'm sure I make a lot of grammatical mistakes when I write (and I also use a translator so in some cases it can be the translator who makes the grammar mistake). Do I have to put as or like ? Do I have to put do or make ? Do I have to put an evidence or a piece of evidence ? Then it is necessary to look if the French-speakers don't make the errors of grammar because if they themselves make full of it the relevance of the difficulty isn't any more the same one since in a case we speak about a grammar which would be simpler about English but the English-speakers don't make almost any error.

There are many reasons but I don't think is this the reason. I think that wolves can attack humans, can be dangerous to humans and that this animal can become a symbol of fear that humans have created a myth, a scary movie story. In terms of justice, yes, or at least I assume that if someone kills someone in my family, I'll go to the trial not only to make sure he will be condemned but also to know or have an idea of the motive behind the crime. For the history for example I would like to know the motive of the crimes committed by the Jön Türkler against the Armenians. Are these political reasons related to the Islamic religion or not ? It seems to me that Erdogan has already rewritten history on this subject and so if I were Turkish I would know the story that is being sold to me in Turkey which may be the story of a political trickery exploiting history. It is easier to manipulate irrational people than rational ones and the concept of divinity goes with the concept of the divine law, of the last judgment with a place of torture, a horrible thing reserved for those who have not submitted to the right doctrine. Apart from religion, there are political (see the story of Lysenko) and economic (fake news on the net are made for reasons related to money)

(FYI : I think French or many languages are more difficult than English because English is a useful language to learn even if you don't live in an English-speaking country whereas French and other languages may have no or very little use) 1) You- formel or informel His first argument is irrelevant because if the person isn't a French-speaker, no French-speakers care about that. The important thing to do is to say "tu" (you singular) when it concerns one person and to say "vous" (you plural) when it concerns more than one person (two, three, four etc. persons). Language is a communication tool and the important thing is to be able to make yourself understood and when it is not your mother language, you must avoid that the person who listens to you is in the confusion, the doubt to know if he understands what you want to say. 2) "on" (that means we in majority of cases) This is not really a difficulty. When French-speaker says on you translate by we and then in some cases you guess that when he says on/we he means "I". It is not because there are exceptions, special cases, etc. that one should drown in them. When I watch a movie in English, they talk fast, the few times I was able to chat with an English-speaker he also talks fast. The French-speaker is same, he doesn't talk at a snail's pace. It means you don't have time to ask yourself if when he says "on" it is we, I, it, you, they or drown yourself in technical stuff. 3) Pronunciation I find it is not a difficulty, it is a question of knowledge and you have google translate who gives the pronunciation. English is really much more difficult, already how you pronounce simple words like "can", "later", "bottle" ? American or English prononciation ? It's a big joke the pronunciation in the French language compared to the English language 4) Accents I'd misunderstood... but there is no point in talking about writing and how a word is pronounced in writing because a language is first of all oral communication. If you are good at writing and bad at speaking, you are always at the beginner level of the language, while the opposite is no longer at the beginner level.

There is a linguistic confusion. science means just knowledge so History is a science because it transmits a knowledge. The problem is that when we talk about science we're talking about something that has to do with the scientific method. If I talk about paleontology it is based on something more serious than history, we need only compare the evidence for the existence of non-avian dinosaurs with the evidence for the existence of Jesus to be convined of this. For Hitler it is a near history, there are plenty of documents, videos, photos, radios, newspapers ... in short, plenty of elements to get a less subjective idea of what happened or not. Afterwards, as for the "history of now", there are also false or fake news, disinformation. For other it is a distant history where there are few elements is when we ask for the sources, the elements of proof we have the feeling that we made us a good joke when they answer us the testimony, a book... The history about Noah's ark seems to me a little too grotesque to be swallowed but in the meantime we can still say that this ark was not found on Mount Ararat or said in another way that it is not a discovery if it isn't the discovery of the existence of fake news or of the lie.

On internet there are pornographic video where we can watch mature women so even if they are less successful than the beautiful young women etc. there are men who are attracted to this type of women. They remain in danger from sexual predators and this also means that they are not "obsolete". 40 to 50 years old, I think is ok after that it depends on how the body has aged.

There are people who believe that werewolves exist, that Hitler only had one testicle, that a man born of a virgin would died and resurrected, that Noah's ark etc. and all these things must be believed perhaps because history ["this exact science"] tells so. A convincing element with science such as that related to biology is not the argument of authority but its method (observation then theory then prediction then experiment) but with history it works how the observation ? Apart from the arguments of authority, what are the proofs that werewolves exist or existed ? [ ?️ the testimony.] What are the proofs that Hitler had just one ball ? [ ?️ the rumour.] Do you have faith in history ? Do you believe that testimony, the argument of authority and rumour can be considered serious evidence ? (well, there's a bit of trolling and I'm not really asking to answer these rather grotesque questions but basically I'm trying to say that history can be a political/ideological/religious/sectarian issue, as can also be journalism, where there's also disinformation or fake news).

Many people who are in prison are bad or evil but among the many offenses or crimes they have committed some have been retained and they have been sentenced to prison. What complicates things is that there are also a lot of people who are not in prison because they are bad or evil. There are people who are there because a manipulator incited them to commit a crime, because they ran over a kid in a car, because they sold drugs, for stealing etc. From what I understand, prison is experienced as a psychological torture and there are rapes or sexual violence that lead to many suicides. I think that the concern of the people who work there isn't be able to rehabilitate prisoners but to make sure that there isn't too much crime or mess in their prison. Prison is a kind of modern torture chamber where it's hoped that it will frighten bad people, sexual predators, thieves, etc. away from committing their crimes.

I watch videos about prison or jail. I have never been to prison nor do I intend to go there but even if you aren't to go in prison you are confronted with violence, with things that you find in documentaries or reality TV about prison. I don't confuse reality with reality TV and I don't naively believe everything a documentary says but I find relevant information in it. Sometimes we get into physical fights but the reason is self-defense because we are physically attacked (so we are forced to react and fight). Otherwise we tend to have verbal clashes and avoid physical confrontation as much as possible. There is the robbery with violence as the car-jacking and there it's better to do nothing and then to complain to the police. But in prison there seems to be a clearer requirement to be prepared to do physical fighting and to make it happen because I think disrespect and harassment are far too dangerous and destructive.

He gives reasons why he finds French is hard : Of course he's right just you go in French-speaker forum and you observe there are many spelling mistakes. People who make few spelling mistakes are often people who read books but nowadays we don't really read books anymore and worse we read badly written stuff, which encourages us to write badly. There is also les dictées de Bernard Pivot (Bernard Pivot's dictations ) which show that French spelling is difficult. Then he gives a similar reason to many other languages. How are you pronounce "enough", "would", "which", "gonna", "who" ? You see even if I take simple words, if I don't know the pronunciation first, I can only do wrong. Another argument given is that there are words that sound alike but this is even worse with English and in the end it's a matter of habit, you need to have heard many times to speak in the language. No I don't think. He gives a reason related to the lack of knowledge and of course if you don't know how you pronounce route (rood) or rue (street) it is difficult. Then he gives a reason with the liaison (connection of words) but the problem is if an English speaker doesn't make "la liaison" a French speaker understands and it's not a big mistake or somthing realy problematic. Being bilingual is very hard whatever the language and there's no point in trying to be bilingual because perfectionism doesn't really help in speaking a language. Then I think he makes a mistake, there isn't pronounce "h" just there are words you do liaison like les hommes (the men) and other you don't like les haricots (the beans). And when he pronounces "h" to les haches (the axes) he makes a mistake but he's right in the fact that we mustn't make the liaison. Same for all languages.

Ok so in this video I see the problem but there are simple solutions : 1) French pronunciation is esay. In this video she tried to pronounce the word "chirurgie" (surgery) but she doesn't really know how to pronounce it and she uses the wrong method. First you have to google traduction - Recherche Google and after you click on the robotic voice and then it's easy because as the pronunciation is easy in French a robot can do it quite easily. 2) Don't hesitate and speak in doubt, go straight to the point with confidence and never mind if you are wrong. At worst, it's enough to first do a sentence in slow motion and then to do the same sentence again in fast motion, it's just a technical adjustment in fact. 3) Conjugation: it's much easier than in English if it's past tense you have to use passé composé (in most cases) and then it is present for present and Futur simple for "will" and "going to" (in most cases)

If you look at the comments there is a guy who posted : Normaly it is : Donc non tu as tort, y'a des gens comme moi qui sont français et qui se perdent sur ta vidéo ( So no, some people like me are French and they get lost on your video). Already we can point out that spelling is difficult in French. ___________ Otherwise I don't find English easy and I found it interesting to watch people doing French learning but explaining in English to know what an English speaker has problems with and at the same time it helps me understand how the English language works.

The video has been censored (it was here Fillette de 3 ans: "Les Juifs sont des singes et des porcs" - Point de Bascule Canada ) and we could hear a 3 year old girl saying that Jews were procs etc. and that it was in the Quran. Verse 2:65, verse 5:60, verse 5:78, verse 7:166, verse 5:27 are given. Now the problem as I understand it, is that it is understood in relation to a context because Muslims tend to interpret their sacred text in relation to a context. Then there are Muslim scholars, imams and Muslims tend to listen to their opinion. Their opinions are not formed by themselves with only verses from the Quran, and there are also Islamologists who make television programs etc. and if they only taught anti-Jewish racism, incitement to hatred etc. they could not even make a television program on a French public channel because of the law of the land. Then, I have no sympathy for Islam, but I sens that _"Islam is this because I throw this or that verse to go in what I think"_ does not seem to me to be a relevant approach.

Ok but all this doesn't eliminate the question about the doctrine itself because if for exmple this doctrine is criminogenic even if the behavior of the Muslims were better there will always be this sacralized doctrine which incites to commit criminal acts.

In the form of Godwin's law, if we were talking about Nazism instead of Islam, I would say that there are many reasons besides the doctrine that can be found, such as the economic crisis, the consequences of the first world war, but all of this doesn't eliminate the question of the doctrine itself because for the Nazi doctrine some nazophobes think that it incites to negative things. In normal form, if we talk about Islam, there are many reasons besides the doctrine that we can find (well, for Muhammad it's an old story but for Osama Bin Laden or Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi it will be easier to find) but all this doesn't eliminate the question about the doctrine itself because for Momo's doctrine some islamophobes think that it incites to negative things.

François De Smet said : The godwin point shows that in a society marked by the instantaneous writing, by a liberalization of the word... uh inevitably we manage to exchange more quickly radical arguments because when we are online we exchange in short format... and well there is no more binding, all this communication (a glance, a dead time etc.) and we arrive directly to that the bottom collides [...] [...] What is curious about social networks is that we are in a very strong liberalization of freedom of expression [...] I do Cherry picking just because I want to say if I don't say anything stupid, internet is a thing made by Americans and so from the beginning there is more freedom of expression because there is the 1st amendment which gives the freedom of expression on the level of the law but otherwise on internet we know that for example Chinese are watched and that they don't really have the freedom of expression in the American way. Now you should know what the law of your country says about apology to nazism or revisionism in relation to nazism because the gdowin law is perhaps first of all due to an intellectual terrorism playing on the fear of the law.

(I get help from a translator because it is not easy for me to speak English) François De Smet said : We live in an environment where the second world war and its qualifiers of evil and good are still prevalent simply because we don't really have an ideology of good in stock anymore, on the other hand we know what evil is by experimentation [...]

I'm watching a Youtube video ( François De Smet - Reductio ad Hitlerum ) and François De Smet worke a book about reductio ad Hitlerium and godwin'law.

In many discussions we find ourselves talking about Hitler or Nazism when it had little or nothing to do with the Second World War and also that it may not be comparable.

In this video you can see David Miscavige (the big boss after the death of L.Ron Hubbard) and Tom Cruise.

I think, the manipulation of the Abrahamic religions is first about the falsification of History and we talk about an old History. If I talk a guru like Muhammad the problem is we don't even have strong evidence that he existed, if I talk about Lafayette Ronald Hubbart we have evidence of his existence and many other elements. After it is a question of power, of terrorism (in the broadest sense, there is notably intellectual terrorism), of the number of followers, of propaganda, and of conditioning (which can notably be educational).

The news religions don't like to talk about god, godness, angel or demon (fantasy). They prefer to talk about alien or extraterrestrial (science fiction). Lafayette Ronald Hubbart (the guru who founded the Scientology religion) is a mythomaniac and a swindler (he was sentenced in absentia to four years in prison for swindlering in France) . He likes the science fiction and he published many science fiction stories. Tom Cruise was first manipulated but then he becomes a manipulator in his turn, which makes him dangerous.

"Mission Scientology : Tom Cruise" If you know to speak French you have "Secrets d'actualité - Tom Cruise, l'autre visage" (on Youtoube) who is a good video. I'm going to watch "Scientology: The Science of Truth or the Art of Deception? | Full Movie | Sabine Weber" and if not I know another video ("THE SECRETS OF SCIENTOLOGY FULL DOCUMENTARY") who is intersting. According to the British journalist Andrew Morton, author of Tom Cruise, an unauthorized biography, the actor would have become the number 2 of Scientology.

And there is global jihadism ( Jihadism - Wikipedia ) : " Jihadism with an international, Pan-Islamist scope is also known as global jihadism. Studies show that with the rise of ISIS, many European Muslims, from countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, the UK, France, and Switzerland, traveled to Syria to join the global Jihad. "

In the video EDL Pat Condell The American Dhimmi : " but I still think christianity is a laughable raft of insulting nonsense that any intelligence six-yeard-old child would dismiss out of hand if they were allowed to have a mind of their own " Ok I think he proved that he's not a Christianophile.

It is As-Sîra of Ismaïl Ibn Kathîr.