Movies as Catalysts for Positive Change

[ShogunRua]

It's a shame this forum has been overrun by pathetic, hateful people.

It's a shame that France, Germany, Sweden, and much of the EU has been overrun by pathetic, self-hating leaders committing war crimes. The world saw the result of that on Saturday night.

As for passages in the Bible versus the Koran, I have read both, and there is no comparison between the two. There is nothing in the Bible calling upon its believers to conquer the entire world by force and sanctifying murder of all non-believers and the rape of their women to do so. Remember, the literal definition of Islam is "submission", not "peace".

But even assuming there was, as Ben Shapiro noted (and which the suicidal, Death Cult-condoning members like Suture and Dardan obviously didn't watch) in that video, it's about what the adherents of the religion believe. And 70+% are in favor of strict Sharia Law everywhere.

Also, here is a fine piece by Bosch Fawstin, a former Muslim that left the faith;

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/2012/04/who ... islam.html

"My name is Bosch and I'm a recovered Muslim. That is, if Muslims don’t kill me for leaving Islam, which it requires them to do. That’s just one of the reasons I’ve been writing and drawing against Islam and its Jihad for a number of years now. But fortunately for us, Islam hasn’t been able to make every Muslim its slave, just as Nazism wasn’t able to turn every German into a Nazi. So there is Islam and there are Muslims. Muslims who take Islam seriously are at war with us and Muslims who don’t aren’t.

But that doesn’t mean we should consider these reluctant Muslims allies against Jihad. I’ve been around Muslims my entire life and most of them truly don’t care about Islam. The problem I have with many of these essentially non-Muslim Muslims, especially in the middle of this war being waged on us by their more consistent co-religionists, is that they give the enemy cover. They force us to play a game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he does. And their indifference about the evil being committed in the name of their religion is a big reason why their reputation is where it is.

So while I understand that most Muslims are not at war with us, they’ve proven in their silence and inaction against jihad that they’re not on our side either, and there’s nothing we can say or do to change that. We just have to finally accept it and stop expecting them to come around, while doing our best to kill those who are trying to kill us."

Go read the whole piece.

[dardan]

Literally the first time I've seen anyone claim that Jesus fucked children.

Was referring to priests around the world.

And 70+% are in favor of strict Sharia Law everywhere.

That is, if Muslims don’t kill me for leaving Islam, which it requires them to do.

Rofl, if you think this evil is historically noteworthy or unique, then you don't know history. People are way shittier than you think and have been for a looong time.

There is nothing in the Bible calling upon its believers to conquer the entire world by force and sanctifying murder of all non-believers and the rape of their women to do so.

If the Koran is so uniquely evil and such a large source of evil (which, crucially, are two very different things), then why hasn't it always been ever since its widespread popularity? How do you explain evils committed by those who had never even heard of the Koran, but were evils far, far worse than anything Muslims have committed in recent history? If the Koran or Islam is such a unique variable that makes humans so much worse, then how do you explain these far bigger atrocities? Limiting myself to recent history: what about Pol Pot, Japanese War crimes (e.g. Nanking Massacre), the shit going on right now in North-Korea, the Holocaust, Stalin, the CIA installing the most brutal fascists etc..

Since I referenced it earlier, how do you explain this?

Shockingly, Columbus supervised the selling of native girls into sexual slavery. Young girls of the ages 9 to 10 were the most desired by his men. In 1500, Columbus casually wrote about it in his log. He said: "A hundred castellanoes are as easily obtained for a woman as for a farm, and it is very general and there are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten are now in demand."

He forced these peaceful natives work in his gold mines until they died of exhaustion. If an "Indian" worker did not deliver his full quota of gold dust by Columbus' deadline, soldiers would cut off the man's hands and tie them around his neck to send a message. Slavery was so intolerable for these sweet, gentle island people that at one point, 100 of them committed mass suicide. Catholic law forbade the enslavement of Christians, but Columbus solved this problem. He simply refused to baptize the native people of Hispaniola.

On his second trip to the New World, Columbus brought cannons and attack dogs. If a native resisted slavery, he would cut off a nose or an ear. If slaves tried to escape, Columbus had them burned alive. Other times, he sent attack dogs to hunt them down, and the dogs would tear off the arms and legs of the screaming natives while they were still alive. If the Spaniards ran short of meat to feed the dogs, Arawak babies were killed for dog food.

Columbus' acts of cruelty were so unspeakable and so legendary - even in his own day - that Governor Francisco De Bobadilla arrested Columbus and his two brothers, slapped them into chains, and shipped them off to Spain to answer for their crimes against the Arawaks. But the King and Queen of Spain, their treasury filling up with gold, pardoned Columbus and let him go free.

..under Columbus' command cut off the legs of children who ran from them, to test the sharpness of their blades. According to De Las Casas, the men made bets as to who, with one sweep of his sword, could cut a person in half. He says that Columbus' men poured people full of boiling soap. In a single day, De Las Casas was an eye witness as the Spanish soldiers dismembered, beheaded, or raped 3000 native people.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-kasu ... 42708.html

Again, I agree that the amount or percentage of Muslims advocating horrible shit is worrying, we disagree on why that is and on the permanence of it.

You argue Islam a death-cult, so I assume you argue it must be eradicated?

[Suture Self]

Great article about reality: http://www.nature.com/news/looking-for- ... sm-1.16732

[Pickpocket]

Was referring to priests around the world.

We were talking about the origins of each religion. Islam's roots are steeped in pedophilia. I know you had to get in that zinger on some gays in the catholic church but it's really not comparable at all.

Rofl, if you think this evil is historically noteworthy or unique, then you don't know history. People are way shittier than you think and have been for a looong time.

The only person talking about history is you. We are talking about today. Today is the most peaceful time on earth and yet we have one group who is disproportionately committing more heinous crimes than the other groups. It's ok with you what they did in Paris? inb4 christians are just as bad

If the Koran is so uniquely evil and such a large source of evil (which, crucially, are two very different things), then why hasn't it always been ever since it's widespread popularity? How do you explain evils committed by those who had never even heard of the Koran, but were evils far, far worse than anything Muslims have committed in recent history? If the Koran or Islam is such a unique variable that makes humans so much worse, then how do you explain these far bigger atrocities? Limiting myself to recent history: what about Pol Pot, Japanese War crimes (e.g. Nanking Massacre), the shit going on right now in North-Korea, the Holocaust, Stalin, the CIA installing the most brutal fascists etc..

For someone who talks so much about history your knowledge of it is quite poor. You realize that conservative estimates have the population of the Indian subcontinent decreasing by 80 million between 1000 and 1525 due to the Islamic conquest of India right?

Here's another nice piece of history for you: a minumum of 28 Million African were enslaved in the Muslim Middle East. Since, at least, 80 percent of those captured by Muslim slave traders were calculated to have died before reaching the slave market, it is believed that the death toll from 1400 years of Arab and Muslim slave raids into Africa could have been as high as 112 million. When added to the number of those sold in the slave markets, the total number of African victims of the trans-Saharan and East African slave trade could be significantly higher than 140 Million people.

Islam's death total is not even calculable. It's so fucking high that people will debate how many people they have killed until the end of time. They mutilate their own women regularly dude. Not even the Nazis did that. But please, keep defending it.

Here are some Hitler quotes about Islam (Hitler loved Islam):

You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?

I can imagine people being enthusiastic about the paradise of Mohammed, but as for the insipid paradise of the Christians! In your lifetime, you used to hear the music of Richard Wagner. After your death, it will be nothing but hallelujahs, the waving of palms, children of an age for the feeding bottle, and hoary old men. The man of the isles pays homage to the forces of nature. But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A n***** with his taboos is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in transubstantiation.

Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers -already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity! -then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism [Islam], that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science... The instructions of a hygienic nature that most religions gave, contributed to the foundation of organized communities. The precepts ordering people to wash, to avoid certain drinks, to fast at appointed dates, to take exercise, to rise with the sun, to climb to the top of the minaret — all these were obligations invented by intelligent people. The exhortation to fight courageously is also self-explanatory. Observe, by the way, that, as a corollary, the Moslem was promised a paradise peopled with sensual girls, where wine flowed in streams — a real earthly paradise. The Christians, on the other hand, declare themselves satisfied if after their death they are allowed to sing hallelujahs! ...Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that's why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.

Dardan after realizing he shares many of the same views as Hitler: http://i.imgur.com/lPF3O.gif

[ShogunRua]

I love how Dardan and Suture Self, both non-Muslims, are now actively arguing against what a former Muslim said about the faith. Anything that contradicts their Narrative is wrong, no matter how ill-informed they are, or how unimpeachable the source!

Or how Dardan brushes aside the realities of what Muslims did today because of something Christians did over 500 years ago. Suicidal cucks.

Rofl, if you think this evil is historically noteworthy or unique, then you don't know history. People are way shittier than you think and have been for a looong time.

How ironic you claim I'm the one who doesn't know history. No other "religion" (which Islam really isn't; it's more a political philosophy) punishes apostasy with death. In that sense, it's still stuck in the 7th century.

If the Koran is so uniquely evil and such a large source of evil (which, crucially, are two very different things), then why hasn't it always been ever since its widespread popularity?

You really don't know any history, do you? Islam has, according to some estimates, been responsible for 550+ million murders throughout its history. In addition to slaughtering its co-religionists that don't show the proper submission, they have killed tens of millions of Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Yazidis, Jews, etc. (it probably pains them that they have actually killed fewer of the last group than all the others)

Islam has always been this way. And they have come very close to conquering Europe before; the most recent instance was the Ottoman Empire in the 17th century.

How do you explain evils committed by those who had never even heard of the Koran, but were evils far, far worse than anything Muslims have committed in recent history?

Oh, I don't know. This one seems rather difficult to top.

http://conservativetribune.com/muslims- ... manualpost

"According to Iraqi parliament member Vian Dakhil, who last week spoke with Politico, after Islamic State group militants captured the mother and her two sons — aged 3 and 5 — they starved her for two days.

Then on the third day, they handed the poor woman a bowl of rice with meat. As she began to eat, the militants revealed to her that the meat was in fact from her dead 3-year-old son.

“She tells me, ‘Please, I can’t, I don’t know what can I do — I’m eating my son,'” Dakhil somberly explained. “This is what happened with those woman under ISIS control, and nobody cares. This is, I say that to Mr. Obama, ‘Do you agree with … a woman — she ate her son.'”

Sadly, according to what British fighter Yasir Abdulla told the U.K. Daily Mail last March, the exact same thing happened to another mother as well.

“They brought her cups of tea and fed her a meal of cooked meat, rice and soup,” Abdulla said of the mother, who had shown up at the militants’ headquarters to ask about her kidnapped son.

“She thought they were kind. But they had killed him and chopped him up, and after she finished the meal and asked to see her son, they laughed and said, ‘You’ve just eaten him.'”"

[lisa-]

just though i'd leave this here.

http://goo.gl/MCWwzZ

[MacSwell]

Even though this has apparently now become a political thread rather than a cinema thread, I thought I'd interject with a couple of thoughts about the original topic.

I see that nobody's talked much about Philadelphia. It's my understanding that it (along with several other gay-themed films of the time such a Longtime Companion and Jeffrey) led to an increased air of acceptance for those suffering with HIV and AIDS, and helped dispel certain fears and correct certain misinformation about sufferers. I saw Stewball mention that it was an "after-the-fact" movie, but it could still surely be argued that one of the film's goals (and outcomes) was positive change, right?

[Stewball]

just though i'd leave this here.

http://goo.gl/MCWwzZ

And here I didn't think physicists dabbled in psychobabble. Maybe that's why there's no name attached to it, or date, or lead in, or summation, or references....

Now here's a good dose of reality: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808v2.pdf

[Stewball]

Even though this has apparently now become a political thread rather than a cinema thread, I thought I'd interject with a couple of thoughts about the original topic.

I see that nobody's talked much about Philadelphia. It's my understanding that it (along with several other gay-themed films of the time such a Longtime Companion and Jeffrey) led to an increased air of acceptance for those suffering with HIV and AIDS, and helped dispel certain fears and correct certain misinformation about sufferers. I saw Stewball mention that it was an "after-the-fact" movie, but it could still surely be argued that one of the film's goals (and outcomes) was positive change, right?

Philadelphia wasn't released until 1994. By then it was little more than a footnote in the AIDS story.

[Pickpocket]

Even though this has apparently now become a political thread rather than a cinema thread, I thought I'd interject with a couple of thoughts about the original topic.

I see that nobody's talked much about Philadelphia. It's my understanding that it (along with several other gay-themed films of the time such a Longtime Companion and Jeffrey) led to an increased air of acceptance for those suffering with HIV and AIDS, and helped dispel certain fears and correct certain misinformation about sufferers. I saw Stewball mention that it was an "after-the-fact" movie, but it could still surely be argued that one of the film's goals (and outcomes) was positive change, right?

Charlie Sheen will bring the final acceptance