NationStates

Salus Maior wrote:Actually that's Norman Barbarism, bub.

Nope, it's generally accepted nowadays that the Tapestry was made by Anglo-Saxons.

Salus Maior wrote:Actually that's Norman Barbarism, bub.

The Bayeux Tapestry was made in England long after the invasion and has strong similarities to other English art of the same period.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Kowani wrote:“When you complain about Latinization while using the American names of Spanish Monarchs.”

Bruv why you gotta hurt me like dat, cuz.

Because it’s fun.

Jolthig wrote:I mean, it's true people from the dhimmis especially among the Zoroastrians progressively converted over time, but they weren't forced to join the faith.

We know this to be totally false though. You can claim it shouldn't have been done and it was un-Islamic sure, but the history of your religion is filled with conversion at swordpoint.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
>liking the Franks

Trying to recover the glories of Rome v. English barbarism

Fact: the Anglo-Saxons were the only good Englishmen to ever exist and were far superior to the Fr*nk.

Hanafuridake wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Um.......because that's literally how every state has preserved itself since the first state came into existence? If a significant part of the populace doesn't believe in the legitimacy of the state, rebellion occurs.

This seems like a common sense question, Hanafuridake.

That's not what I asked. In case you haven't noticed, the regions you want Muslim rulers to return to already have states. I'm asking why you think their current state ought to be replaced with yours.

Ooooooh.

Well for one I was just saying that it'd be cool if it happened, not that it should necessarily happen now. But if it did, I'd support it because.....idk actually, aesthetic, taking back Al-Andalus into Muslim hands I guess.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Jolthig wrote:I mean, it's true people from the dhimmis especially among the Zoroastrians progressively converted over time, but they weren't forced to join the faith.

We know this to be totally false though. You can claim it shouldn't have been done and it was un-Islamic sure, but the history of your religion is filled with conversion at swordpoint.

We've been through this before, WRA: To attribute certain Muslim states to the founder of Islam does not make your arguments against Islam valid. You can say so as much as you want, but this argument against Islam does not hold water when compared to the Holy Quran and Sunnah.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:
That's not what I asked. In case you haven't noticed, the regions you want Muslim rulers to return to already have states. I'm asking why you think their current state ought to be replaced with yours.

Ooooooh.

Well for one I was just saying that it'd be cool if it happened, not that it should necessarily happen now. But if it did, I'd support it because.....idk actually, aesthetic, taking back Al-Andalus into Muslim hands I guess.

By those standards, Andalucía is Roman again, seeing as how The Iberians were genocided and assimilated into oblivion.

If we're to discuss educational institutions, the high school I attended was... erm... very very very posh, to say the least; I was privately educated, and I must say that it was a marked improvement from elementary and middle school (which I spent in the nightmarish hellscape that is public education in the grim darkness of Northeastern Pennsylvania).

Actually, this brings up a fascinating linguistic subject. Namely, that what we Americans call "public schools" those across the pond call "state schools" since what they call "public schools" we call "private schools". Neat, huh?

Kowani wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:¿Qué significas?

Na, hablándote en Granaíno, ya’ta.

Estás usando demasiado slang para comprender a veces lol

Kowani wrote:No, not dealers. Trafficker. Substantially worse.

Oh....

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:If we're to discuss educational institutions, the high school I attended was... erm... very very very posh, to say the least; I was privately educated, and I must say that it was a marked improvement from elementary and middle school (which I spent in the nightmarish hellscape that is public education in the grim darkness of Northeastern Pennsylvania).

Actually, this brings up a fascinating linguistic subject. Namely, that what we Americans call "public schools" those across the pond call "state schools" since what they call "public schools" we call "private schools". Neat, huh?

Wow I didnt know that.

I think they're called public schools because they're funded by the public through taxes lol

Kowani wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Ooooooh.

Well for one I was just saying that it'd be cool if it happened, not that it should necessarily happen now. But if it did, I'd support it because.....idk actually, aesthetic, taking back Al-Andalus into Muslim hands I guess.

By those standards, Andalucía is Roman again, seeing as how The Iberians were genocided and assimilated into oblivion.

What about the Celts? We're they before or after the Iberians (which by the way I have never heard of them until now)?

Jolthig wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
We know this to be totally false though. You can claim it shouldn't have been done and it was un-Islamic sure, but the history of your religion is filled with conversion at swordpoint.

We've been through this before, WRA: To attribute certain Muslim states to the founder of Islam does not make your arguments against Islam valid. You can say so as much as you want, but this argument against Islam does not hold water when compared to the Holy Quran and Sunnah.

Sure, but I'm not arguing against the quran or the sunnah, they can say whatever on the topic. That doesn't change the fact that Muslim rulers throughout history have been happy to force people into the faith and one could make an, imo, very good argument the only reason it ever spread beyond Arabia in any significant form is because of that.

Do you think that the internet has ultimately been a positive or a negative for religion?

Jolthig wrote:

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:If we're to discuss educational institutions, the high school I attended was... erm... very very very posh, to say the least; I was privately educated, and I must say that it was a marked improvement from elementary and middle school (which I spent in the nightmarish hellscape that is public education in the grim darkness of Northeastern Pennsylvania).

Actually, this brings up a fascinating linguistic subject. Namely, that what we Americans call "public schools" those across the pond call "state schools" since what they call "public schools" we call "private schools". Neat, huh?

Wow I didnt know that.

I think they're called public schools because they're funded by the public through taxes lol

But seriously, the academics in my area's public schools (using the American definition of the term, of course) were too lax for my tastes and not to mention that I was bullied from the start of Kindergarten to the end of Eighth Grade, when I was accepted into the private school (again, using the American definition of the term) where I spent my high school years.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:Fact: the Anglo-Saxons were the only good Englishmen to ever exist and were far superior to the Fr*nk.

Pierre

Get the lance

Flanders uber alles though.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Kowani wrote:
Na, hablándote en Granaíno, ya’ta.

Estás usando demasiado slang para comprender a veces lol

Kowani wrote:No, not dealers. Trafficker. Substantially worse.

Oh....

I didn’t use any slang, I just transcribed my accent.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Kowani wrote:By those standards, Andalucía is Roman again, seeing as how The Iberians were genocided and assimilated into oblivion.

What about the Celts? We're they before or after the Iberians (which by the way I have never heard of them until now)?

Celts were in the North. Galicia, Basque Country, Navarre, La Rioja. They were contemporaries of The Iberians, but escaped their fate. It makes sense that you haven’t heard of them. They were just another illiterate people that ceased to exist via the Roman Empire.

Hanafuridake wrote:Do you think that the internet has ultimately been a positive or a negative for religion?

Hard to say. Religion was declining in the West before the advent of the internet.

Depends on what's happening in Africa and Asia. Christianity has been increasing and if that increase can be attributed partly to the internet, I'd say it's been a net positive for religion. The Western World isn't everything.

Hanafuridake wrote:

Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:I didn't mean that. They take ONE tweet, and talk about it for days.

Because there's the president of the United States making official declarations and threats, many times without consulting anyone else first (such as the transgender military ban). Are you seriously suggesting that the news should ignore the president making statements just because they're on social media, even though that's a serious part of his MO?

You make a point, however some of the things the media freaks out over is laughable (saying the moon is part of Mars in a tweet)

Hanafuridake wrote:Do you think that the internet has ultimately been a positive or a negative for religion?

I'd say neutral. There are as many things that can guide you to Allah SWT as there are things that lead you astray from Allah SWT.

Hanafuridake wrote:Do you think that the internet has ultimately been a positive or a negative for religion?

Both actually. It has definitely harmed and been negative for certain branches of some religions, particularly the ultra-fundamentalist Abrahamic ones, but for smaller faiths of various stripes it has made it much easier for people to seek out information and potentially join them.

Hanafuridake wrote:Do you think that the internet has ultimately been a positive or a negative for religion?

Negative. The number of religious folks is much greater than the number of irreligious folks - thus, increasing exposure to both religious and irreligious ideas is more likely to result in a net loss for religion ceteris paribus, simply because they have more people to lose, both in absolute and proportional terms.

Hanafuridake wrote:Do you think that the internet has ultimately been a positive or a negative for religion?

Imma go with negative.

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:

Jolthig wrote:Wow I didnt know that.

I think they're called public schools because they're funded by the public through taxes lol

But seriously, the academics in my area's public schools (using the American definition of the term, of course) were too lax for my tastes and not to mention that I was bullied from the start of Kindergarten to the end of Eighth Grade, when I was accepted into the private school (again, using the American definition of the term) where I spent my high school years.

I never claimed that the American public school system was great, though if I can find my study on the effectiveness of public v. private schools, I’ll send it to you.
As for the bullying, well. Sorry about that, mate.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:Do you think that the internet has ultimately been a positive or a negative for religion?

Both actually. It has definitely harmed and been negative for certain branches of some religions, particularly the ultra-fundamentalist Abrahamic ones, but for smaller faiths of various stripes it has made it much easier for people to seek out information and potentially join them.

I never would have become a Trad Catholic if it weren't for the internet.

Make of that what you will.

Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:
Because there's the president of the United States making official declarations and threats, many times without consulting anyone else first (such as the transgender military ban). Are you seriously suggesting that the news should ignore the president making statements just because they're on social media, even though that's a serious part of his MO?

You make a point, however some of the things the media freaks out over is laughable (saying the moon is part of Mars in a tweet)

Because it's completely insane and makes people worry that Trump's mental health is deteriorating worse than before. If we saw an average person make such a serious blunder, it would feature on Reddit as a stupid comment at most. This is a man who runs the most powerful country on the planet.

Kowani wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Estás usando demasiado slang para comprender a veces lol

Oh....

I didn’t use any slang, I just transcribed my accent.

¡Oooooh, ese tipo de acento! Pensé que estuviste hablando del símbolo, no tu voz.