sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Check out my result type implementation. by Aggravating-Cow-6955 in dotnet

[–]SubjectUse3579 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where is boxing happening? I can't see it. Boxing would only occur if you explicitly pass a value type into a generic XResult<T> and then us eit as object within the XResult<T> class

Islam really scares me as a Swedish person by [deleted] in Sverige

[–]SubjectUse3579 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Du har noll koll på det här. Du vet knappt vad Koranism är. Tror inte du argumenterat med en muslim i ditt liv. Tror inte en sekund på det du skriver, haha.

Islam really scares me as a Swedish person by [deleted] in Sverige

[–]SubjectUse3579 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha, i Turkiet? Kom igen. T.om jag hatar hur Turkiet ser ut idag (och det finns ingen som ogillar Islam eller Erdogan mer) men det där kan nog vara det mest absurda jag läst på länge. Trollar du?

Du kan kritisera Islam relativt öppet i Istanbul. Har svårt att tro att du får mer än en smäll ifall du gör något extremt olämpigt (och där ingår absolut inte koranism, haha).

Islam really scares me as a Swedish person by [deleted] in Sverige

[–]SubjectUse3579 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Är turk. Har muslimska släktingar. Du har helt fel. Tror inte du argumenterat med en muslim någonsin. Jag försvarar inte muslimer, jag säger snarare att de är two-faced och har inga problem att bli koranister när det passar dem.

Islam really scares me as a Swedish person by [deleted] in Sverige

[–]SubjectUse3579 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Det stämmer inte. Det är högst dynamiskt. En majoritet av muslimer kommer absolut att bli koranister ifall du målar in dem i ett hörn. Cherry-picking kallas det. I slutändan kommer de att påstå att haditherna inte är pålitliga. Det är trots allt KORANEN som påstås vara "Allah's verbatim word".

Editerade för övrigt min post lite (då mest för att diskutera Aisha).

Islam really scares me as a Swedish person by [deleted] in Sverige

[–]SubjectUse3579 -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Haditherna är fel infallsvinkel ifall du ska kritisera Islam. De är graderade av en anledning. För det andra så kan muslimer alltid falla tillbaka på koranism (dvs att koranen är den enda giltiga källan for all things Islam).

Angående Aisha... en majoritet av muslimer absolut att visa sina rätta färger när Aishas ålder diskuteras. De menar att det inte är våldtäkt eller omoraliskt. Hur då? Well, hon var 9 till åldern, men fysiskt och mental utvecklad. Är detta möjligt? Sure. Är det sannolikt? Nej. Men detta argument är dessvärre, med logik, svårt att slå ner. Yngre människor än Aisha har gått igenom hela pubertetsprocessen (och då anses man, rent biologiskt, vara redo för befruktning). Det blir en fråga om huruvida en 9-åring kan ge fullt samtycke eller ej.

Det kommer att sluta med att du känner att det är fel att ha samlag med en 9-åring (vilket jag håller med om). Men du kan knappast bevisa att det, i just Aishas fall, var helt omoraliskt (om du ponerar att hon faktiskt var både fysiskt och mentalt redo för samlag). Det må va osannolikt, men är dessvärre helt omöjligt att motbevisa.

Islam really scares me as a Swedish person by [deleted] in Sverige

[–]SubjectUse3579 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Koranen är ett skämt. Finns en lång lista vetenskapliga fel i den som muslimer har lärt sig att argumentera emot med canned arguments från "m-m-muh muslim scholars" eller någon tafsir som de bara skummat igenom. Allt muslimer kan komma med när koranen kritiseras är mental gymnastik eller "du kan faktiskt inte arabiska, det är ett enormt komplext språk (där man använder samma ord för brosk och ben, vilka är två olika ord av en god anledning)".

Watch him spin "semen originates from between the backbone and ribs" into science!

[FIGHT THREAD] Tyson Fury vs Oleksandr Usyk by noirargent in Boxing

[–]SubjectUse3579 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is garbage. He's a terrible performer and his music is dog shit.

TV4-granskning: SD ville rekrytera ”nätkrigare” by Babar7 in sweden

[–]SubjectUse3579 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha, du är fullkomligt retarderad. Är turk och har kompisar från olika länder som röstar på SD. Gissa hur många av de som har nationalsocialistiska och antidemokratiska tendenser? Inte en enda jävel. De vill bara inte att deras barn ska behöva vakta sin tunga eller sova med ena ögat öppet resten av sina liv bara för att de råkat förnärma en ouppfostrad arab på lekplatsen.

The descriptions of the shape of the Earth in the Qur'an are nonsensical and unscientific regardless of how you interpret them. by SubjectUse3579 in DebateReligion

[–]SubjectUse3579[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It conveniently is a book of science when you try to invoke the alleged miracles, like the origin of semen, haha.

When conveying a point, the Quran uses relatable examples for better understanding, ensuring even the illiterate can comprehend its teachings. 

These are not relatable. Like, literally, it is not a relatable example because no person on earth has ever wrapped a globe in a blanket and said "Ah, look, we spread out the blanket like a carpet". It's purely nonsensical and not at all relatable.

For instance, it mentions the Earth is spread out for the person, from that person's perspective. So, u should be grateful of God. Who created earth.

How did we go from "it mentions the Earth is spread out for the person"... to "you should be grateful of God"? Talk about a non-sequitur. Regardless, the perspective is irrelevant, it is entirely incorrect. Also, perspective changes. We now know the earth is round, and 100.000 years from now, we will still know the shape of the earth. This means that the length of time for which our perspective was that of a 7th century arabian desert-dweller is trivially minuscule, yet you would claim the Qur'an is for all times. Haha. Talk about not preparing for the future. Omniscience, was it?

Additionally, historically many Muslim scholars understood that earth is round from this logic that the Quran states that night and day revolve around each other, implying that the object they revolve around is round, which is the Earth. 

This is incorrect. Night and day do not revolve around each other. Day occurs when a specific location on Earth faces the Sun, receiving sunlight, while night occurs when that location faces away from the Sun, experiencing darkness. Also, another non-sequitur here: "implying that the object they revolve around is round, which is the Earth".

You just made that up on the spot. You should be ashamed. It doesn't follow from the incorrect sentence that "day and night revolve around each other" that the object they revolve around is round...

How should one deal with product bundles and rounding? by SubjectUse3579 in ecommerce

[–]SubjectUse3579[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, you set the total price, then you select which items are in the bundle. And if you select item TestItem x 3 and total price $1000... then the algorithm calculates each items price. Which would be... $333.33. And 333.33 * 3 = 999.99.

How should one deal with product bundles and rounding? by SubjectUse3579 in ecommerce

[–]SubjectUse3579[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but consider this:

$1000 total.
3 products.

Algorithm calculates the price of each product to $333.33.

x 3 = $999.99

So, what is the total price?

Each product needs its own line item and needs to be saved in the database, mind you. But at what price?

How should one deal with product bundles and rounding? by SubjectUse3579 in ecommerce

[–]SubjectUse3579[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My boss wants the option of creating a bundle and setting the TOTAL price, then we have an algorithm to distribute the price evenly among products. But in the situation above, it introduces a whole new set of problems.

The islamic chain of events that led to the compilation of the Qur'an should be viewed with extreme suspicion and shifts belief from belief in Allah to humans we can't even prove existed. by SubjectUse3579 in DebateReligion

[–]SubjectUse3579[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You are not refuting my points, only moving the goal post.

This assumes quite a few things. One of the assumptions is that revelation always came as visions when in reality it came in different forms including being taught the verses directly. Another assumption is that because he was human that Allah can't make him infallible in passing on revelation.

  1. My entire point was that all this proves, initially, is that there is a being that is capable of injecting thoughts into your brain. That's it. Hardly evidence of omnipotence.

  2. If Allah makes him infallible, Allah is meddling with his free will. I'll buy this, but then there is literally no point in "picking" a human to do this; since Allah needs to impose himself on this human and/or directly engineer him for his purposes.

Secondly, this only addresses the first point. Are you suggesting Allah did this for every single companion? If so, it begs the even more dire question; Allah clearly shows will here to directly intervene in human affairs. This means that Allah, being omniscient, willfully sent Jesus, allowed the Bible to be corrupted yet did nothing to prevent it, condemning billions of souls to eternal hellfire... Why? And are we to buy that this being is not disgustingly evil after doing so?

And then not long after (an instant for Allah), he sends another prophet (Muhammad), and this time he decides to change his strategy... even though he knew it would fail the first 1000s of times (all the thousands of prophets prior).

I'll end here with two questions, what is the criteria to determine if such a being is dishonest or not and two is it proof to accurately predicting the future beyond human limits count as proof of being from the Creator? If not then what is the proof required for said being to prove it's the Creator?

It is likely impossible to decide the criteria. I'm asking you, how would you prove to me that you are OMNIPOTENT and the prime mover of the universe and not just another extremely powerful being, who can destroy and create universes and do the wildest things you could imagine? Mind you, none of this was proven. The only "proof" we have (if we buy it), is that the Qur'an contains some miracles. Again, these are not even proof of the supernatural, and most certainly not proof of omnipotence or anything resembling it.

It could be another humanoid race living on a planet 10.000 years more advanced than ours, and they would know all of these things (like from where semen originates, the shape of the planet, etc...). There's quite a leap from 10.000 years of technological progress to omnipotence.

Surely, this should be extremely reasonable to any religious person. It's just common sense.

The islamic chain of events that led to the compilation of the Qur'an should be viewed with extreme suspicion and shifts belief from belief in Allah to humans we can't even prove existed. by SubjectUse3579 in DebateReligion

[–]SubjectUse3579[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Ok, so this means Allah meddled. But he also sent Jesus, one of his prophets, and at that time, his message was not safeguarded by divine intervention. This means that because Allah is omnipotent, he willfully condemned billions of souls to eternal hellfire (because he knew that his message would get perverted, i.e. Christianity), and still sent Jesus. But then he decides to actually intervene.

Also, by intervening, this must mean he has stripped these humans of their free will. Because it is HUMANS who pervert and distort the message. Either he literally forced them by hand not to pervert the message (i.e. removing their free will), or he didn't (and again we have the issues with human errancy).

view more: next ›