Originally posted by bilan: hijab is to protect women rather than men, It is actually to protect women from men. The question is why? tell me JB why should we wear revealing clothes? It's not about what you should wear but whether you should be allotted like men the right to dress as you like. A right allotted to men but evidently not to women. Let's be real here. I live in the West where the majority of the women don't wear the hijab. Each day I must see at least couple hundred women of all ages, races, religions etc. But I have yet to see, not even once, the majority of the women I see as either half naked or scantily dressed. Each dresses to her own liking. Your attire often reflects your personality. Are there peer/societal pressure to dress certain way. You bet there are but that is true in every community. Including the muslim community. I'm dead certain not every girl who wears the Hijab wears out of religious conviction. A girl who doesn't wear the Hijab or dress modestly is viewed by large sections of somalis as less then somali/muslim, loose, prurient etc. This is the incontrovertible fact of the social etiquette in our community. Frankly speaking if men can't exercise control at the sight of bare female skin, then they should seek therapy. If that doesn't help, institutions are available.

^^^You've won SOL's first majaajiliiste award! Hey! Sheh, give yourself a pat on the back. Go ahead the mic is yours, just keep your acceptance speach to 5 sentences (to save the site some bandwith ).

^^^You're abusing your MOD privileges. Some1 oughta put an end to this...now you resort to posting the Kop insignia. Shows how little good things you got to say about them. What is there to say but they suk biiiiiiiiiig tiiiiiiiiiime! SB's prediction: Chelsea 5 - Liverpool 0

Originally posted by Castro: ^ How did this change from the venting room to the boxing room? boxing is another way of venting. I don't know about others but anytime I have a chic threatening to beat me sensless, my hackle instantly get raised. All my boyhood fantasies about being wrestled to the ground by a chic conjure up. She made the threat, I'm only holding her accountable for her comments. This should say something about my moral rectitude. I think. Shehrezade, fine! You didn't say you'll beat me sensless, I remember it now. You promised to beat to impotence. Whatever, it don't matter so long as you fulfill your promise. Promise is promise is promise, no?

Originally posted by sheherazade: I never promised to render u senseless, kid. ....Now that I know u want it that bad, I shall be withholding the battle u desire so fiercely. In other words, little girl, you're just an empty shirt? Can't deliver your promises when the heat is on?

Originally posted by Wordette: I am going to give a Fair warning here...the story you are about to read is not for the faint of heart, nor is it for the weak stomached man who truly has no clue what it takes to be a woman... Why warn us, I need no warning. In fact you made my day, thank you. Hair is good. Hair is natural. Hair is beautiful. Hair is desirable. Not long ago it was so in Itali, it was common to see woman with moustaches :eek: There is Italian saying: 'Hairy woman are virtuous' In some places in Romania, hair women are highly adored. Where men insist that their future wives have moustaches! Here is a link: http://funreports.com/2004/09/28/56319.html ...and you have women going through tortures routines to get rid of hair that hardly any1 sees.

Originally posted by Raganimo: If nature's aim is to 'cause superior species to evolve' through natural selection where the weak are inevitably eliminated, where do you stand? That is not nature's aim at all. Superiority or inferiority has nothing to do with evolution.

Originally posted by haruun: Leslie urged to give up modelling career Islamic leaders say it would be offensive to other Muslims if convicted drug user Michelle Leslie resumed underwear modelling when she returns to Australia. I see nothing wrong with modelling but respect those who do. However, I find these self-proclaimed 'muslim leaders' repugnant. For they insult our intelligence by telling us this model, Leslie, is somehow 'offensive' to us muslims. When what is trully offensive to us muslims is being forced to migrate to the West -- the supposed land of filth, moral decadence, scantily dressed women strolling the sidewalks, of pornography, liquor, pork eating, abortions... because the muslim world is that bad...failed by these 'muslim leaders.' THAT is offensive to us muslims muslim leaders!

A number of things. But being here at SOL, only one thing leaps to mind: Shehrezade's incessant threats to obliterate and render me senseless that never materialize. I log on to SOL to get the whipping of a lifetime only to run into more mealy-mouthed promises. That's a bummer!

^^^ baq baq? Is that all you got to say?

Originally posted by sheherazade: I'll beat you, I promise. Don't be afraid. Just like I predicted...more empty posturing and boasting.

Originally posted by Wordette: Despot, your planned major is in what field again? are you calling me a despot :confused:

Originally posted by SeeKer: Darwin's theory in a nutshell was in nature there is a pitiless fight for survival, an eternal conflict. The strong always overcome the weak, and this makes development possible. That is actually not true. Evolution is not about survival but about adaptility. Sometimes the 'strong' die out and the 'weak' survive.

Originally posted by Rahima: Know that yawmul-qiyaamah is a surety. That alone should make you shiver in your boots and want to repent from that comment. Thanks for the reminder viragos! Islam is not to be jested upon. Only the hypocrites and the kuffaar jest at the religion of Allah. I edited my original post. I had a momentary lapse of reason but I aint no hypocrite or kufar :mad: We take our religion seriously .If you do not, then at least show respect. Me too, I take my religion seriously. You need to chill.

Originally posted by Yeniceri: So, can a scientist (you know, with his "facts" and "evidence") tell me EXACTLY the date and time that I'll die? Yes. How'd you like to die? Choose your preferred method of death and I'll provide you with 'facts' and 'evidence.' Better yet, can a scientist (again, with his "facts" and "evidence") prolong my life beyond the pre-set time of death for me? Not a question at all my friend but a statement cloacked as question. You assume that we know WHEN we'll naturally die but we don't. Since both us humans and science don't possess precience about our natural date of death, we have to work on the assumption that whatever we do CAN prolong our life...and forget about our 'pre-set' date of natural death. And what happens to a person after he/she dies? They face their creator. Shouldn't you know that? We all know that person can no longer breathe. But other than that, what else can scientists with their magical "facts" and "evidence" tell us? There's no soul, there's no God? There is no such thing as 'magical' facts and evidence. Facts are facts. Science doesn't tell us that there is no soul or that there is no God. The same scientists who can cure illnesses, huh. But HIV/AIDS? No cure. Cancer? No cure. Alzeimer's Disease? Science invented the cures for: TB Malaria Polio smallpox Tonsilitis Iritis just to name a few...I'm sure you never got sick and needed treatment, right?

Originally posted by sheherazade: If it's a right of passage and u feel so strongly about it maybe u should find another like-minded man and keep one other busy; that way u won't feel so rejected by women in general and those expecting money in particular and u won't be accused of rape when u take it when u want it, wherever u want it, however u want it from a woman. haha that is exactly right! We men always get what we want. That applies to sex as well. It is, as I already said, a travesty that men are reduced to paying for what is rightfully theirs. You women are our possession, we OWN you, your sole existance is to satify us men and of course to rear children. But that's it. You're good for nothing else (my female relatives and of course my beloved mom is exempted ) Look at history, who's invariably been the shackers and movers in EVERY field? Men of course. We were all the important kings, scientists, inventers, generals, doctors, engineers, artists, leaders...you name it. You women depend on us, without us you wouldn't survive a day. Hell you wouldn't even know how to make a fire or if you did probably set yourselves on fire. You'd live with your animals and drink from the same source. Who are we kidding here! We, MEN, protect you, feed you, emotionally reassure you...and this is how you thank us. By denying us what is rightfully OURS. :mad: I think you women need to be told your roles, place and responsibility. And they are between the kitchen and the bedroom. Yes we men rule, we WILL eventually get what we want. One way or another. This is man's world, the sooner you accept it, the better off you'll be... ...and that is the way the cookie crumbles! Cause I'm coming to getchya. Bwahahahaha. Mwahahahahaha! Fine! But be warned: I take no prisoners! The gauntlet has been thrown down. Let the battle commence.

Originally posted by Castro: As for the topic, I was hoping to focus more on the Social Darwinism aspect and how some conservatives, while utterly rejecting the biological Darwinism, would spew the gibberish about wealth and intelligence. My apology for digressing from the topic's objective...I know exactly what you were trying to get at with this post. I don't believe in Social Darwinism for 2 reason. From it's name it deceives the layperson not well versed in Evolution theory into thinking that the theory provides support for it. It doesn't. There is nothing in Darwin's Theory of Evolution that gives any legitimacy to Social Darwinism. Right off the bat we have a movement based on a false premise. A keystone pillar of Social Darwinism is the concept of 'survival of the fittest'. It is said to supposedly be another way of saying Darwin's Natural selection concept. Natural Selection, according to Darwin, means individuals with favourable genetic dispositions and best adoptable to local milieu have the upper hand in the ultimate struggle for survival. Therefore, it is not applicable to societies -- wealth, status, power, influence are NOT heritable traits. They're not biological... they don't guarantee survival! So Social Darwinism by rephrasing and misintrepeting genuine scientific concept to pass itself as an ideology supported by science -- hence bolstered by evidence and facts -- has failed both humanity and science (by misrepresenting it). It is just another one of those failed, illegitimate, impractical ideologies. Having said that, I agree with one aspect of social darwinism. Not all men are created equal. Some are better at things that others are poor at. Naturally this means some will be rich, others poor. Some will lead while others will follow. This inevitably leads to disparity in wealth and status. Then the question becomes what you do about? This is where the rule of LAW and establishment of TRUE equality comes in. As long EVERY1 is treated as equal and is protected by law that applies to every1, I think you'll have more just (sorry Mr. Treadue ) and fairer society. You will always have the rich and the poor however as human history has shown enlightened conscience coupled with respect for the human rights of every human being has given us a better world in every sense then our forbears have experienced. You gotta reward the ones that apply themselves -- it is only fair after all and give others a chance to get slice of the pie. Lastly, Social Darwinists are doing good job of discrediting themselves by using the name of Darwin and at the same time challenging his theory of biological evolution.

Well taking out your opponent's media and communication outlets is nothing new to modern warfare. If I remember correctly Nato bombed Serbian TV during Kosovo conflict. So there is at least precedent for such actions. Given Al-Jazeera's history of being a mouthpiece of US's opponents, I'm not all too surprised the US wanted to bomb them.

Originally posted by sheherazade: The number of men paying women for sex has nearly doubled in a decade, UK research suggests. And I blame you. Yeah all you woman. Sex is rite of passage for us men, a right given to us by Allah. We're entitled to it when we want it, where ever want it, however we want it. Why should men pay for sex at all :mad: It's a travesty and indication of Mankind's impending doom. I gotta get back to work building my Doom's day bunker.

Originally posted by Curling Waterfall: ^ Boys, this is in bad taste. More then that...I find this entire topic intellectually HARAM!!!

Originally posted by Alle-ubaahne: ^the newest surrogate to register in the liberal wing is proving nearly so effective, but soon we are going to hunt you down, as well. So make sure you conceal yourself for an undetectable cave somewhere in the mountains depths of SOL. Looool! Ok, Don Quixote!

Originally posted by Yeniceri: Because "scientists" told us so? No wonder the conservative movement is gaining momentum. Not because scientists said so. But scientists with evidence/facts, results from tests and proper scientific theory tell us. The same scientists that make medicine that treats YOU and billions of ppl each year, the same scientist who enabled us to live longer and dramitically slash infant mortality rate, the same scientists that invented electricity that not only lights up the world but powers just about every modern appliance, the same scientists who invented the telephone, radio, TV and the internet the made possible geographical distant parts of the world to communicate and live as if one big family... No one questioned the motive and partiality of scientists and the scientific method until the Creation vs Evolution debate came to forth. I blame this on creationists. What reasons do we have of doubting what scientists say? If we disagree with a scientific finding, we can study the evidence ourselves. If we still disagree with what the facts say (which is what scientists almost always say), we're entitled to our disbelieve. But what we're not entitled to is malign science because it doesn't agree with our deeply held views. We can disagree with science, that is our prerogative, but we shouldn'raise gratuitous doubts about the only discipline that excelled its self time and again in impartially, objectively and impassionately ascertaining truth and knowledge. There are many topics one can pick a bone against science. The inability by science to this very day to come up with a thoery that reconciles Special relativity and Quantum theory is one. Questioning and doubting science on this very real failure is understandable. But there is only silence. All the critics of evolution theory who base their objections on lack of 'scientific evidence' don't say a word. This should show to all that most (certainly not all) critics of Evolution theory are motivated not by lack of evidence or poor explanation offered by Evolution theory but ignorance. Ignorance is trully a bliss! All the other crap humans say or write, scholarly or not, is just noise to me. This is funny. Like what Dr. Salk wrote and invented that led to the polio vaccine that saves literally 10s of millions across the globe?

Originally posted by Alle-ubaahne: The castro's surrogates wish to finish me with their weak jabs, but I am afraid Alle-ubaahne is more formidable than they assume. The fleeing Castro and retreat predicts the demise of liberal domination era. Our ferocious heat will keep blowing to that direction until we confirm no returning fires. the battle continues........ I think, as you'll harshly discover yourself, you'll be fighting your own apparition.

a welcomeless welcome from a close primate

Originally posted by Ducaqabe: You’re playing with fire dude. Oooh! Spooky talk! I'm quivering in my boots