Originally Posted by Hyde
What reason is there to wear dark, heavy clothes that cover most of your body in the desert? I very much doubt humility is the reason. I just don't see this discussion going anywhere, he's brainwashed to the point where he's denying logic.
Originally Posted by Protecting yourself from UV's 101
Assembling Your Wardrobe: Clothing to Protect Against the Sun
Here are some general rules for selecting clothes to keep out UV radiation:
Tight weaves are better than loose weaves (if you can see through it, UV can get through it).
Polyester is better than cotton.
Dark colors are better than light colors.
Dry clothing is better than wet clothing.
Choose outfits with long sleeves and long pant legs and collars to get as much protection as possible. Loose clothing can help you stay more cool, even when you are covered up.
Always wear a hat, because your face and head get so much sun exposure.
A hat made with a light colored material on the outside to reflect UV radiation and keep you cooler, and a darker lining on the brim to prevent UV radiation from reflecting on your face
A wide brim of at least three inches
No hats or clothing made of netting, mesh, or other loose weaves because they offer little or no UV protection
Obviously, dark, tightly woven polyester is not something you are likely to wear out in the hot sun. And if your clothing is so uncomfortable that you take it off, it doesn't matter how much protection it would have given you. There is clothing that may be more comfortable and that has been designed especially to protect you from the sun. Such clothing is made from fabrics that have been treated with chemical UV absorbers, known as colorless dyes, which prevent some penetration of both UVB and UVA rays. The clothes are also designed to cover as much of the skin as possible.
.
=
I cited evidence but you still haven't linked me to the trollsite you go to. Ta ta!
Parkour like you've never seen before:
http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=423045
http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=423045
Hyde, I see you are just here to insult xlr84life. He clearly is willing to discuss the point as he is citing sources, gives some reasonable explanations and tries his best to bring his point across. You are just calling him dumb and are not willing to outline your reasoning with proper points or sources.
That is not productive, eloquent, or useful in any way.
Change your attitude or I will have to do things which would bother me and I don't like being bothered so I would probably bother someone else to do the bothering for me which would probably bother you more than the bothering I could do.
edit: I also like how you handled Velair's post. That is sarcasm.
Start being productive or get the fuck out.
That is not productive, eloquent, or useful in any way.
Change your attitude or I will have to do things which would bother me and I don't like being bothered so I would probably bother someone else to do the bothering for me which would probably bother you more than the bothering I could do.
edit: I also like how you handled Velair's post. That is sarcasm.
Start being productive or get the fuck out.
Last edited by Redundant; Jan 10, 2015 at 09:51 PM.
Originally Posted by protonitron
Can we not resort to racism. The last 100 years do not naturally make people born in that region more hardcore, growing up in that region does.
Bro, you need to take a look at history. All historians recognise that some peoples are 'tougher' than others, and that there are reasons for this. In vogue right now is this thinking that geography has a huge effect. Germanic and (Steppe) tribes bred fearsome warriors since the environment they grew up in was so harsh. They were engaged in constant warfare with each other to try to hold onto lands. They, because of their environment, were naturally tougher, more hardcore people. Giant, sinewy muscles, and a culture that proudly accepted drinking wine from the skull of your enemy. Of course, the whole world back then was tougher. Nowadays, far less people are born into that kind of harsh environment.
The Assyrians are another perfect example of how geography affects biology. They were unfortunate enough to be in an area of Nth Mesopotamia (think north of Baghdad), that had no natural frontiers. What's more, their land was the land everyone else walked on through to get to other lands, so their defense to that was that they would be the most brutal and strong people in the whole area.
It's not racist to say that Middle Easterners are harder people than us. Especially when you consider how complacent and how not-at-all warrior-like your average Westerner has become.
Originally Posted by Hyde
I agree. The religion of Islam itself is basically a rough guideline to living in the desert. So, that comes back to my initial point of why let these people into a society that they are not fit to be in? Let time take its course. You cannot introduce people of little culture to a society like France and expect it to go well.
OK, but containing them would hardly help the modernisation(/westernisation) process, would it? It would retard it, if anything.
Last edited by Ele; Jan 11, 2015 at 02:52 AM.
Originally Posted by Hyde
He has yet to respond to my post, and is ignoring it because he has no response. He skirted the issue and while belittling my argument by calling me a troll, knocks down a strawman named mary to "prove" his point.
I already replied to you via PM AND http://forum.toribash.com/showpost.p...7&postcount=24
And protonitron put it into words I could've have here http://forum.toribash.com/showpost.p...0&postcount=17]
You haven't replied to either PM or here.
I proved that you were making stuff up with the Mary thing, you still don't want to accept anything. Please please please link me to your trollsite.
"Do I need to cite the purpose of dark, heavy clothes in the desert? Common sense is enough to know that."
I already answered you in the view of Islam with evidence, if you're not happy with that, Velair answered you scientificaly. Still can't accept it? Why are you here then?
Originally Posted by Hyde
Islam offers equality to women and children in that they are both considered unfit to be first class citizens and that both can be married. Only a fool would consider Sharia law equality. It is not intended to be equal.
Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion [committing a religious sin], admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
—Qur'an , [Quran 4: 34]
You kinda didn't want to quote the earlier verse where the Quran talks about the rights of women?
In that verse, is says men are maintainers/protectors/guardians of women. Men are obliged to go out and work to pay for his wife and kids, because men are physically stronger to do so. While women are to look after what he has earned while he goes to work. However women can work too, and whatever they earn is their property, they don't have to spend it on the house. Men however, it's his responsibility to spend for the house. He does not have any right to take his wife's wealth. Though she may do it out of the kindness, he can't forcefully take from her. Women even get to keep their names instead of changing the last name.
The first women who were given right to own property were in 1882 under the "married women's property act" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married...perty_Act_1882
However, 1300 years ago, Islam has already introduced this.
In the verse before the one you quoted which you didn't want to expose.
"And covet not the thing in which Allah hath made some of you excel others. Unto men a fortune from that which they have earned, and unto women a fortune from that which they have earned. (Envy not one another) but ask Allah of His bounty. Lo! Allah is ever Knower of all things. (32) And unto each We have appointed heirs of that which parents and near kindred leave; and as for those with whom your right hands have made a covenant, give them their due. Lo! Allah is ever Witness over all things. (33)"
Islam cared about women rights before anyone else.
At that time, equal rights between men and women were unthinkable, but the quran constantly emphasized equality.
“[3:195] Their Lord responded to them: “I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you male or female — you are equal to one another.”
[4:124] As for those who lead a righteous life, male or female, while believing, they enter Paradise; without the slightest injustice.”
“[49:13] O people, we created you from the same male and female, and rendered you distinct peoples and tribes, that you may recognize one another.”
During that time, newborn girls were buried alive, because people were embarassed to have girls, thinking that they are a disadvantage to the family.
Islam came and stopped this.
Quran 81 7-9
And when souls are reunited, (7) And when the girl-child that was buried alive is asked (8 ) For what sin she was slain, (9)
When "beat" is used, it is a symbolic meaning, from the views and early Islamic scholars. The Prophet was asked about this particular verse, he replied by taking out a miswak( small wooden stick used to brush teeth, about 4-5inches long), and to tap the women on the area which hurts the less(buttocks), this is to make her think and to show that he is not joking, nothing more.
Why would the Quran want men to beat their wives to a pulp when it says "men are protectors of women"?
If you want to know about beating, read stories about drunk men in the west, actually all around the world.
I may have some errors here and there with my debating skills, but I tried, any questions feel free to ask.
Parkour like you've never seen before:
http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=423045
http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=423045
