The battle for Kobani (Very important for both sides and many others involved)

[Chinaski]

You don't even know what a racist is pesar jaan - this is not about race it is about cultures....it is about way of life. What I am saying is that you can take a child from any race - get it any race - and raise them in a low culture and they will turn out crap. Get it?

China - you are trying to BS your way out of a fiction you wish to present as fact. Yazid was son of a Khalife - long after ISlam took over........how does a couple of poems from him prove there was great Arab literature pre ISlam? Bisavadi is one thing bishoori is another thing. Your inability to apply logic to your claims surprises me. But then again - I know in a few months you will be arguing the other side.......as usual.

BTW - you did not respond to my questions about the origin of the poets...were they born in Saudi Arabia or Egypt?

Emshab dige soor zadi Massoud...enghadr kos o sher gofti, fekr konam kopone yek saaleto tamoom kardi

All those poets i mentioned were born in Arabia (there was no Saudi Arabia back then, Mass. The term Saudi derives from Aal Saud who started ruling the arabian peninsula around 250 years ago). Just wanted to let you know another little fact about that country.

 

[Chinaski]

Nafamh toyee, since you are still badly religious and superstitious (in a sense that you think that there is one truth)

Yes, starting with the English Revolution of 1660s and starting with when the Merchant middle Class arose against kings ( who claimed to have divine rights just like Khamenei); that was when Christianity began losing its relevance. That is when people like Locke came in and began questioning divinity and began promoting religious tolerance . Then slowly by slowly, the rational modern citizens began disenchantment process (a term that is was used by Weber). Point is that modern Rational citizens do do not see the relevance of religion running all the aspects of their lives and because of that it is Christanity that had to readjust to the new of life.

That will happen to Islam too.

You are repeating the same irrelevant shit again and again so i guess i have to dumb it down even further:

Now go to iran and be a new John Locke. Start talking about religious tollerance and libearlism and see what happens. Would you? No you wouldnt and we both know why.

Akhe pessar jaan, i even brought you examples where people didnt even want to liberalize islam, Ghaddafi just wanted to cut lose quran from ahaadise payaambar and all the stories around it and he got threatened by the Saudis on the spot so he had to give it up. John Locke kojaa bood? John Locke was luckey that he didnt have to live among moslems. They would have declared him kaafar and moshrek and chopped his head while saying takbir. You are not getting the most simple things: Locke could only become Locke, Adam Smith could only become Adam Smith because they didnt have to face moslems.

It is not. I was answering to someone else. Then you came in and told me to explain and I did. If you want to find its relevance go back and read my reply to I think BT.
However, but I am open if you want to tell me about the damages of liberalism. However, you got to know that I have wrote 40000 words master thesis on it. (i am sorry to appeal to authority). Not only on liberalism but on political philosophy since 17 century as well as Confucianism.Just saying so that you do not embarrass yourself by coming with things like "to nafahmi". And use non-Iranians/persians sources because as far as I am concerned they are irrelevant and biased.

I am not concerned if those 40000 words have made you become the bisavaad you are, then i am just laughing at whatever university you went to and whoever Prof. ever taught you on those matters because he must have been a tool too.

Now what do you know about Liberalism? You are talking about John Locke, here he is your hero. I remember your discussions in another thread talking about Capitalism and there you were defending a stance completely opposing John Lockes "liberal" stance. You are so confused that you constantly mix up things, create terms and definitions which are nonexistent. The same Locke and his liberalism that you are talking about here calling it the only solution, once said: Property is a natural right and derives from Labour. The guy was basically completely ignoring the history of humankind. Infact very few people came in possesion of considerable property through labour. Humans made war to annex other peoples land, humans killled to own other humans homes and countries, humans have robbed other humans properties....this is the same guy you are praising his liberalism here while in the other thread you were praising Marx who heavily criticized Lockes theory of economic liberalism. What i am trying to make you understand is: Dont throw around with terms and words like noghl o nabaat. Liberalism a la John Locke and his likes is desirable in certain areas of human life but also not right in a lot of other. You go John Lockes way of liberalism, and you end up having the worst kind of capitalism on earth because one of his famous phrases was: You can stack so much money as you can because money doesnt addle or deprave. He was from a wealthy Bourgeois family so his arguments were all going in direction of protection of the status of his likes. He had some good point regarding liberalism concerning social and cultural matters but his economic liberalism is actually the base and foundation of the neoliberalism you yourself criticized in that other thread about capitalism. He pretty much agrees with the principals of unlimited accumulation of capital. Liberalism is this too. Liberalism is not only freedom of press and expression. Liberalism practiced acurately, would create different classes and would argue: people are free to do whatever they like, the ones who are stronger or smarter are dominant and they have a right to dominate. Thats liberalism too. John Locke with all his good ideas about political freedom, had no idea that freedom first of all has to be social and social freedom has directly something to do with financial and economic fairness.

To create a link to our discussion here, you only need to think the whole process of liberalism a bit further and you will see Liberals essentially and consequently will accept the dominance of Islam too and call it well, liberal. When you basically agree with unlimited accumulation of capital because you are a "libaral" and believe in a jungle inwhich whoever is strong enough to somehow stack as much money as he likes, then you have to be liberal enough to believe in a religion that is strong enough to succeed over other religions. This is why liberals have almost always been reactionery forces, rather adjusting to facts than to fighting to change them. These are the dark sides of "Liberalism" which you simply dont take into account. You cant not counter an strong, agressive, destructive ideology like Islam with something like "liberalism". Libearlism fits well to times where you have already found an acceptable state of stability and aaraamesh. We are far from this kind of state. Islamic societies are far away from reaching the next level to even think about luxurious ideologies like liberalism.

The only way to an acceptable civil society is to get vast majority of people to a point that they disregard and disobey islam and quran and you are not gonna achieve that through liberalism because in a fight between Liberalism and Islam, it would be liberalism making compromisses, giving in and become flexible, not Islam. For the first, you need something stronger than Islam though.

 

[Flint]

Saudi Arabia was the first and only Islamic country to reject the UN initiated articles of basic human roghts in 1948. Every other Islamic country signed and endorsed it.

You think Khomeini would have signed it? Khomeini routinely ridiculed the UN from top to bottom. He ridiculed the hypocrisy of the west and their human rights. He would have said, and probably did, that all the human rights you want is already in Islam. And when you say "Islamic" countries remember that Iran was also an "Islamic" country during the Shah without any of this craziness. It all depends who is running the country. Muslim individuals if left to their own devices will live their lives. Nobody on his own is going to wake up one day and say I am going to go do some jihad today.

 

[feyenoord]

You are repeating the same irrelevant shit again and again so i guess i have to dumb it down even further:

Now go to iran and be a new John Locke. Start talking about religious tollerance and libearlism and see what happens. Would you? No you wouldnt and we both know why.

Akhe pessar jaan, i even brought you examples where people didnt even want to liberalize islam, Ghaddafi just wanted to cut lose quran from ahaadise payaambar and all the stories around it and he got threatened by the Saudis on the spot so he had to give it up. John Locke kojaa bood? John Locke was luckey that he didnt have to live among moslems. They would have declared him kaafar and moshrek and chopped his head while saying takbir. You are not getting the most simple things: Locke could only become Locke, Adam Smith could only become Adam Smith because they didnt have to face moslems.

I am not going to repeat it again. You understood clearly what I meant. If you want to have a shallow understanding of the world that is your problem.

Now what do you know about Liberalism? You are talking about John Locke, here he is your hero. I remember your discussions in another thread talking about Capitalism and there you were defending a stance completely opposing John Lockes "liberal" stance. You are so confused that you constantly mix up things, create terms and definitions which are nonexistent. The same Locke and his liberalism that you are talking about here calling it the only solution, once said: Property is a natural right and derives from Labour. The guy was basically completely ignoring the history of humankind. Infact very few people came in possesion of considerable property through labour. Humans made war to annex other peoples land, humans killled to own other humans homes and countries, humans have robbed other humans properties....this is the same guy you are praising his liberalism here while in the other thread you were praising Marx who heavily criticized Lockes theory of economic liberalism

.

I know you are trying to drag me into discussion to point conceal the weakness of your argument. However, since you are trying to I am going to answer you. Firstly, nobody is my hero. I do not have heroes. These are just philosophers with ideas through which they tried to explain societies

Second, khob ke chi? So what if I talked about Marx in other thread and here about Lock? two different discussions. I am not praising neither; non of them serve as some sort of God for me. Also, Locke' natural right and natural law are irrelevant to this discussion, although I agree with you about the his ignorance towards history. Still, irrelevant.

What i am trying to make you understand is: Dont throw around with terms and words like noghl o nabaat. Liberalism a la John Locke and his likes is desirable in certain areas of human life but also not right in a lot of other.

LOL khob khodet dari javabe mano midi dige. One discussion may not have relevance to other discussion.

You go John Lockes way of liberalism, and you end up having the worst kind of capitalism on earth because one of his famous phrases was: You can stack so much money as you can because money doesnt addle or deprave. He was from a wealthy Bourgeois family so his arguments were all going in direction of protection of the status of his likes. He had some good point regarding liberalism concerning social and cultural matters but his economic liberalism is actually the base and foundation of the neoliberalism you yourself criticized in that other thread about capitalism. He pretty much agrees with the principals of unlimited accumulation of capital. Liberalism is this too. Liberalism is not only freedom of press and expression. Liberalism practiced acurately, would create different classes and would argue: people are free to do whatever they like, the ones who are stronger or smarter are dominant and they have a right to dominate. Thats liberalism too. John Locke with all his good ideas about political freedom, had no idea that freedom first of all has to be social and social freedom has directly something to do with financial and economic fairness.

again, these points are irrelevant, although you are right. However, remember that Lock also said as "as long as enough is left for everyone else" (Still, I believe his points of view about property rights are irrelevant and unjust)

To create a link to our discussion here, you only need to think the whole process of liberalism a bit further and you will see Liberals essentially and consequently will accept the dominance of Islam too and call it well, liberal. When you basically agree with unlimited accumulation of capital because you are a "libaral" and believe in a jungle inwhich whoever is strong enough to somehow stack as much money as he likes, then you have to be liberal enough to believe in a religion that is strong enough to succeed over other religions. This is why liberals have almost always been reactionery forces, rather adjusting to facts than to fighting to change them. These are the dark sides of "Liberalism" which you simply dont take into account. You cant not counter an strong, agressive, destructive ideology like Islam with something like "liberalism". Libearlism fits well to times where you have already found an acceptable state of stability and aaraamesh. We are far from this kind of state. Islamic societies are far away from reaching the next level to even think about luxurious ideologies like

Liberalism is a broad tradition. We have libertarians, classical liberals, progressive liberals, and many others. Not all of them believe in the jungle you mentioned.

The only way to an acceptable civil society is to get vast majority of people to a point that they disregard and disobey islam and quran and you are not gonna achieve that through liberalism because in a fight between Liberalism and Islam, it would be liberalism making compromisses, giving in and become flexible, not Islam. For the first, you need something stronger than Islam though.

A good example is Iran where a vast majority of population is already doing it. That stronger thing that you are talking about is what I was trying to point out few earlier threads. Industrialization, urbanization, urban middle class, education, and then questioning absolutism. In fact, you, yourself and thousand of other Iranians question the relevance of Islam is perfect example of this.

Also, next time just dont do a quick research and come throw around something. Locke justified liberalism philosophically but it was Smith who was one of the founders of economic liberalism.

 

[Chinaski]

I am not going to repeat it again. You understood clearly what I meant. If you want to have a shallow understanding of the world that is your problem.

Pessar jan, your whole existence on these boards have been shallow from day one. Right now you are getting slapped in a field that call your own field which i know is nothing but bullshit because i have not even started and you are already losing because you simply never had anything to do with liberalism in your life let alone writing a thesis containing 400000 words. You are talking such a shallow bullshit that you cant even follow it yourself.

.

I know you are trying to drag me into discussion to point conceal the weakness of your argument. However, since you are trying to I am going to answer you. Firstly, nobody is my hero. I do not have heroes. These are just philosophers with ideas through which they tried to explain societies

Second, khob ke chi? So what if I talked about Marx in other thread and here about Lock? two different discussions. I am not praising neither; non of them serve as some sort of God for me. Also, Locke' natural right and natural law are irrelevant to this discussion, although I agree with you about the his ignorance towards history. Still, irrelevant.

You agree with me about Lockes ignorance towards history? Hehe...i dont need a bisavaad to agree with me on anything because at the end you are not even able to see the clear connection here although i provided an explanation as for why liberalism cant be a solution to get rid of islam as a ruling ideology. Everything is there, you could go, read and understand it, or you can come on here and call everything irrelevant that you simply are not able to understand.

again, these points are irrelevant, although you are right.

I know i am right. I also know you are not into these stuff. You even lack the basic knowlege about an issue which you called "your field". Khob cheraa doroogh migi pedar jaan? Che lozoomi daare? Is it funny to get spanked and ridiculed by someone who doesnt even call this field his own field of research? I a few tell you you lack the very basics in this regard. Just going and pick up a few names in internet doesnt cut it. You need to able to analyse, you need to have the ability to see things in context and perspective. You lack all these basic abilities and even more.

Liberalism is a broad tradition. We have libertarians, classical liberals, progressive liberals, and many others. Not all of them believe in the jungle you mentioned.

Na baba? Who told you that? Wikipedia? ...shallow, just shallow

A good example is Iran where a vast majority of population is already doing it. That stronger thing that you are talking about is what I was trying to point out few earlier threads. Industrialization, urbanization, urban middle class, education, and then questioning absolutism. In fact, you, yourself and thousand of other Iranians question the relevance of Islam is perfect example of this.

senseless bullshit. We are talking about the term "liberalism" and how you carelessly made use of. I am on record explaining to you that liberalism provides some good and some real bad ideas. I am on record explaining you that liberalism need pre-work, needs a certain ground to be based on. liberalism needs evolution. You cant skip two steps in process of cultural and political evolution and ask for liberalism to come and all of a sudden face or even replace islam. Islamic societies with many people heavily believing in a tough to change religion like Islam, do not provide that ground needed to implement liberalism. Look, i am still talking very clear stuff, not even deep. I am still talking the same things i have done in my very first posts abuot this issue. This is what i call a clear line of thought which you lack completely because you first of all lack the much needed knowledge about this issue and second, you lack the even more important ability to add up 2 and 2 and recognize logics. However, as a result of what i am trying to get in your head, i think Islam first has to become weak, its relevance and power needs to be reduced dramatically until we can even start talking about liberalism because liberalism is not the right tool to weaken an already ruling islam. Islam will cruch the first rays of anything that it might consider a threat. What we need to go find out is: How can we make vast majority of people disobey and disregard Islam to give other ideologys such as Liberalism a chance to survive in the first place.

What we are doing here does not change anthing in Iran. We are talking annonymosly about Islam using the opportunities of western liberalism to express our selves. That doesnt change anything for Iran and Iranians though as such a liberal opportunity and platform is not given to them to talk about the same stuff within the country and i say you first have to FIGHT for those basic rights and when the ground is set, people and government can start discussing about liberals laws.

Also, next time just dont do a quick research and come throw around something. Locke justified liberalism philosophically but it was Smith who was one of the founders of economic liberalism.

Well i think i have seen enough to know you are just another simple mind trying to spam the site with his senseless stuff. I mean you are not talking about anything meaningful here and its actually been a trademark of yours for years. Whatever you have done has been going to wikipedia and pick up two names of locke and smith without knowing what they really stood for. Even here you are talking such a shallow nonsense its unbelievable. "Locke justified liberalism philosophically and Smith was a founder of economic liberalism"!! i mean what should someone say about so much ignorance and bisavaadi? How did Smith found economic liberalism?!! So smith waited for Locke to justify the philosophical relevance of liberalism and then went on to found the economic liberalism? aslan bisavaadi az sar taa paat mibaare , vali dahanet goshaadeh...

however, this bullshit of yours wont even be enough to impress a 6 years old child. Libearlism is nothing static. The idea of liberalism is older than Locke, smith, hume...those guys constantly complemented eachother, no one of them was the clear "founder" of anything. Locke couldnt be called liberal without having liberal ideas of how economy should be run. Smith just had a clearer idea of how to do it. Its not like Adam Smith said something about economic liberalism which was completely new to the world of liberals.

I really suggest you start -for the first time in your life- reading about the things you want to throw at people because az ghadim goftan "harke laafe mardoonegi zad ke mard nist" meaning just by calling this field your field, it doesnt really become "your field". You have to earn it pessar jaan. Baa harf nemishe. Right now you are sounding like the bisavaad i always thought you are. Now try to change the image.

 

[Chinaski]

My concern is not Islam; rather the society.

So this actually ends any kind of constructive discussion because you simply dont understand the role and rule of islam within the society. This is just adding another ridiculous statement to series of other wrong and ridiculous statements of yours in this thread alone. Haalaa nemikhaam az kos o sheraaye digat harft bezanam. Oonaa bemaanand. You dont care about the terms you use, you dont care about islam although it is the first obstacle in the way of anyone who intends to change anything substantially.

Really, from top to bottom, you are one heck of a confused and shallow mind.

 

[AFRIRAN]

is it real ?

http://rt.com/news/196864-germany-bikers-fight-isis/


..... Kawan A., the club leader of the 'Median Empire’ gang, wrote on his Facebook: “While others blabber on, our guys are at the front and fighting against ISIS,” stating that at least two of the group's members are fighting alongside Kurdish Peshmerga fighters. ...

 

[masoudA]

You think Khomeini would have signed it? Khomeini routinely ridiculed the UN from top to bottom. He ridiculed the hypocrisy of the west and their human rights. He would have said, and probably did, that all the human rights you want is already in Islam. And when you say "Islamic" countries remember that Iran was also an "Islamic" country during the Shah without any of this craziness. It all depends who is running the country. Muslim individuals if left to their own devices will live their lives. Nobody on his own is going to wake up one day and say I am going to go do some jihad today.

You are correct Khomeini would not have signed it either - he was more of an Arab than Iranian. Again - everything in the human rights articles rhymes with the way of life (culture) in Iran and is in full contrast with Arab culture. They just use their backward religion as an excuse to fend off changes in their miserable ways.

 

[Chinaski]

Kos o sher tamoomi nadaare

 

[masoudA]

Emshab dige soor zadi Massoud...enghadr kos o sher gofti, fekr konam kopone yek saaleto tamoom kardi

All those poets i mentioned were born in Arabia (there was no Saudi Arabia back then, Mass. The term Saudi derives from Aal Saud who started ruling the arabian peninsula around 250 years ago). Just wanted to let you know another little fact about that country.

ببین کارت به کجا رسیده توی این ترد..........از یزید حافظ ساختی و داری از فرهنگ باشکوه عرب ۱۵۰۰ سال پیش دم میزنی. من نمیدونم این اشغالها که پست میکنی در مورد ادبیات عرب رو خودت جدا خوندی و به عنوان شعر و ادبیات قبول داری؟ ولی من همینجا همه آیاسپی و بخصوص بچه تهرون رو که یک طبع شعری هم داره چالش میکنم که یک بیت از این اراجیف که پست کردی رو ترجمه و تشریح کنه که ما هم لذت ببریم.

ضمنا یک بار دیگه سوال میکنم ۲ نفر از این اشخاصی که به عنوان شاعر عرب قبل از اسلام معرفی میکنی با محل تولد نام ببر اگر لینکی هم داری که من بیوگرافی آنها را ببینم خیلی ممنون میشم.

 

[Chinaski]

ضمنا یک بار دیگه سوال میکنم ۲ نفر از این اشخاصی که به عنوان شاعر عرب قبل از اسلام معرفی میکنی با محل تولد نام ببر اگر لینکی هم داری که من بیوگرافی آنها را ببینم خیلی ممنون میشم.

بابا تو خیلی شوت تر از اونی هستی که من فکر میکردم. انقدر کس و شر نگو پدر جان, احترام خودت رو نگاه دار. همون سؤال قورتکی و مسخره تو رو هم جواب دادم ولی انقدر درگیر جفنگیات بی در و پیکر خودت هستی که اصلا توجه به هیچ چیزی نداری. واقعیت این است که تو قبل از این هم رغم خاصی نبودی ولی لا اقل نژاد پرست اون هم از نوع بیسوادش هم نبودی که چشمون روشن اون هم الان هستی. خوب وقتی بیسوادی, تاریخ نخوندی اطلاع نداری, خوب لا اقل بی چشم و رو نشو, طوری حرف نزن که انگار طلب کاری. تو هیچ طلبی نداری پدر جان, اینجا بهت درس تاریخ داده شده, اگر هم چیزی میخوای, چیزی رو نفهمیدی, میای با زبون خوش خواهش میکنی که دوباره واست توضیح بدن.
حالا بریم سر اصل مطلب
محمد و سپاه اسلام بساری از اشعار عرب قبل از اسلام رو از بین بردند چون مانند اشعار ایرونی درش خوشی, زن, شراب و غیره پیش میومده. ولی خود محمد هم نتونست تمامی اینها رو از بین ببره. هنوز اشعار حدود ١٠ تا شاعر عرب قبل از اسلام باقی موندن و یک سری از این اشعار رو حتی در کعبه هم هنوز میشه خوند. میون این شاعران کسانی هستند مانند عنتره بن شداد, امرالقیس, زهیر بن ابی سلمی, اعشیی قیس, حارث بن حلزه یشکری, عمرو بن کلثوم, عبید بن الأبرص,زیاد ابن معاویه ( نابغه ذبیانی)...که شاعران زبردست و ماهری بودند و اینها همه از دو منطقه نجد و حجاز میومدند. برو اسم اینها رو کپی کن بزن تو گوگل حتما در موردشون چیزی پیدا میکنی یا میخوای اینکار رو هم من واست بکنم؟

در هر صورت من امیدی به این ندارم که تو بیای و شروع کنی تاریخ و منطق رو چاشنی حرفات کنی و تا موقعی که این کار رو نکنی امیدی هم به این ندارم که روزی برسه که بشه رو حرفات حساب کرد.

 

[masoudA]

برو اسم اینها رو کپی کن بزن تو گوگل حتما در موردشون چیزی پیدا میکنی یا میخوای اینکار رو هم من واست بکنم؟

Yes I want you to do it - but do it for yourself.
Meanwhile, stop taking leads from ISP babies - don't let their BS get to you. This is about culture not race.

 

[feyenoord]

Pessar jan, your whole existence on these boards have been shallow from day one. Right now you are getting slapped in a field that call your own field which i know is nothing but bullshit because i have not even started and you are already losing because you simply never had anything to do with liberalism in your life let alone writing a thesis containing 400000 words. You are talking such a shallow bullshit that you cant even follow it yourself.

"Those with narcissistic personality disorder tend to over-exaggerate their achievements". In your case there wasnt any at all. more like khod gooee khod khani wa ajab marde honaramndi.

[video=youtube;FFgoGtt7wu4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFgoGtt7wu4[/video]
.

You agree with me about Lockes ignorance towards history? Hehe...i dont need a bisavaad to agree with me on anything because at the end you are not even able to see the clear connection here although i provided an explanation as for why liberalism cant be a solution to get rid of islam as a ruling ideology. Everything is there, you could go, read and understand it, or you can come on here and call everything irrelevant that you simply are not able to understand.




I know i am right. I also know you are not into these stuff. You even lack the basic knowlege about an issue which you called "your field". Khob cheraa doroogh migi pedar jaan? Che lozoomi daare? Is it funny to get spanked and ridiculed by someone who doesnt even call this field his own field of research? I a few tell you you lack the very basics in this regard. Just going and pick up a few names in internet doesnt cut it. You need to able to analyse, you need to have the ability to see things in context and perspective. You lack all these basic abilities and even more.


Na baba? Who told you that? Wikipedia? ...shallow, just shallow




senseless bullshit. We are talking about the term "liberalism" and how you carelessly made use of. I am on record explaining to you that liberalism provides some good and some real bad ideas. I am on record explaining you that liberalism need pre-work, needs a certain ground to be based on. liberalism needs evolution. You cant skip two steps in process of cultural and political evolution and ask for liberalism to come and all of a sudden face or even replace islam. Islamic societies with many people heavily believing in a tough to change religion like Islam, do not provide that ground needed to implement liberalism. Look, i am still talking very clear stuff, not even deep. I am still talking the same things i have done in my very first posts abuot this issue. This is what i call a clear line of thought which you lack completely because you first of all lack the much needed knowledge about this issue and second, you lack the even more important ability to add up 2 and 2 and recognize logics. However, as a result of what i am trying to get in your head, i think Islam first has to become weak, its relevance and power needs to be reduced dramatically until we can even start talking about liberalism because liberalism is not the right tool to weaken an already ruling islam. Islam will cruch the first rays of anything that it might consider a threat. What we need to go find out is: How can we make vast majority of people disobey and disregard Islam to give other ideologys such as Liberalism a chance to survive in the first place.

What we are doing here does not change anthing in Iran. We are talking annonymosly about Islam using the opportunities of western liberalism to express our selves. That doesnt change anything for Iran and Iranians though as such a liberal opportunity and platform is not given to them to talk about the same stuff within the country and i say you first have to FIGHT for those basic rights and when the ground is set, people and government can start discussing about liberals laws.






Well i think i have seen enough to know you are just another simple mind trying to spam the site with his senseless stuff. I mean you are not talking about anything meaningful here and its actually been a trademark of yours for years. Whatever you have done has been going to wikipedia and pick up two names of locke and smith without knowing what they really stood for. Even here you are talking such a shallow nonsense its unbelievable. "Locke justified liberalism philosophically and Smith was a founder of economic liberalism"!! i mean what should someone say about so much ignorance and bisavaadi? How did Smith found economic liberalism?!! So smith waited for Locke to justify the philosophical relevance of liberalism and then went on to found the economic liberalism? aslan bisavaadi az sar taa paat mibaare , vali dahanet goshaadeh...

however, this bullshit of yours wont even be enough to impress a 6 years old child. Libearlism is nothing static. The idea of liberalism is older than Locke, smith, hume...those guys constantly complemented eachother, no one of them was the clear "founder" of anything. Locke couldnt be called liberal without having liberal ideas of how economy should be run. Smith just had a clearer idea of how to do it. Its not like Adam Smith said something about economic liberalism which was completely new to the world of liberals.

Basically you are going around and making skirmish from the points you make since your knowledge is limited to one or two books or dodgy Iranian sources. You said that Marx critisized Locke's economic liberalism. Or did you MEAN private property? In order to conceal the blunder of yours, you are going around and around. What is more is, that the discussion around liberalism is irrelevant. Basically, I explained to you the theory about tribalism and when you understood you tried to drag the argument somewhere else. And I can give you a few CREDIBLE sources on points that I made about tribalism.

Interestingly enough you always do it in other discussions when you make blunders. The only thing is you are good at is - as the video above discussed- to overexaggerate your so called 'achievements'. But as the video says: individuals with this disorder tend to have a very fragile self-esteem.

 

[Chinaski]

Yes I want you to do it - but do it for yourself.
Meanwhile, stop taking leads from ISP babies - don't let their BS get to you. This is about culture not race.

مسعود دیگه واقعا شورشو در آوردی. مردک یعنی چی از ای اس پی خط نگیر؟ من اگه مثل یه سری از کون نشور های دیگه بودم ٤٠ دفعه بن نمیشدم. همین رفیقم اینجا تا حالا چند دفعه من رو بن کرده, دو دفعه اش هم بیخود و بی جهت بوده ولی به این مطلب هیچ ارتباطی نداره. اگه من حاضر بودم فقط اندازه سر سوزن با یه مشت لجن و کثافت سازش کنم, ٤٠ دفعه بن نمیشدم. اینجا اصلا و ابدا حرف ای اس پی و هیچ کس دیگری نیست. حرف میونه من و توست و تو اینجا روز هاست که داری حرف های بیربط میزنی , میگم باشه, وقت میزارم, جوابت رو با دلیل و تعریف و اسناد تاریخی میدم, میبینم بازم همون جفنگیات خودتو تکرار میکنی. این دیگه به هیچکس ربطی نداره غیر از به خود تو. به همین سادگی.

 

[feyenoord]

So this actually ends any kind of constructive discussion because you simply dont understand the role and rule of islam within the society. This is just adding another ridiculous statement to series of other wrong and ridiculous statements of yours in this thread alone. Haalaa nemikhaam az kos o sheraaye digat harft bezanam. Oonaa bemaanand. You dont care about the terms you use, you dont care about islam although it is the first obstacle in the way of anyone who intends to change anything substantially.

Really, from top to bottom, you are one heck of a confused and shallow mind.

No, it is you who does not understand the role that Christianity played in the lives of many people, till a point when they tried break away from the Church and secularization began, beginning with English revolution. secularization began from then. and overtime religion loses irrelevance in dominating all aspects pf lives. Here, Max Weber on it: http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=...a=X&ei=T7hCVKXzEKLVmgWD64CQDg&ved=0CCEQ6wEwAQ

He called it disenchantment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disenchantment.

Now, since you are looking for mostamsek with which you try to win the argument (since you are full of nothing), I give you a hint so you can hold onto. Max Weber said something about Islam being incompatible with democracy and he came with reason. Hala boro search kon halesho bebar lol

 

[Bache Tehroon]

Dear Feynoord,

Thanks to life, you could say I'm an expert in recognizing NPD. I don't see Chinaski as one. I find your posts contain more narcissist traits than his to be frank. Just saying.

It would be absolutely stupid and comical to try to diagnose people with personality disorders based on some forum posts though, don't you agree?

 

[feyenoord]

Dear Feynoord,

Thanks to life, you could say I'm an expert in recognizing NPD. I don't see Chinaski as one. I find your posts contain more narcissist traits than his to be frank. Just saying.

It would be absolutely stupid and comical to try to diagnose people with personality disorders based on some forum posts though, don't you agree?

I knew you would come in at some point in discussion. You seem not to be seeingmany things! Nevermind. We went through all of these before.

 

[Chinaski]

تو دیگه نخودی شدی تو این ترد. بیسوادی هستی که در زمینه ای که جار میزدی که ای ملت این رشته تخصصی منه, ریده شده بهت. برو پسر جان, برو موقعی برگرد پی این داستان رو بگیر که دو تا کتاب در موردش خونده باشی.

 

[feyenoord]

I just loved it the way your friend came and tried to save you after so many blunders. Khob dige partiet ghaviye. Typical Iranian style. Exactly the same reason why our country is screwed.

Anyhow, go read again and try to correct your blunders.

 

[Chinaski]

نه دیگه همون که گفتم. میری, کتاب میخونی, خودتو میسازی دوباره بر میگردی در مورد این جریانات صحبت میکنیم چون در حال حاضر یه بیسواد محضی و تو جواب دو دو تا چهار تاش هم میمونی.