Someone’s Dream in My Dream

My name is V**D. I aspire to transcendence in a world of utter depravity.

[Someone’s Dream in My Dream @Atlntct]

My first love was Arabic poetry. I’m too familiar with myself to be an object of my own reverence. Knowledge and awareness of who I am is quite ancient it is so mundane. My exceptionality was the first thing I discovered. I’ve discovered far more interesting things afterwards.

[Adéṣẹ̀tọ́ @Illusionist_126]

When I ask you about your first love, I hope to hear you whisper your own name, as if it were a secret. How breathtaking it would be, to hold within your chest a heart that, before all others, beats for itself—unwavering in its pride, and radiant in its self-admiration.

[Someone’s Dream in My Dream @Atlntct]

@DThaveanam97130 Are you an ex-Muslim too?

[Someone’s Dream in My Dream @Atlntct]

Nope. Everyone in my family knows I’m an atheist. Everyone who knows me knows I’m an atheist. I don’t hide it.

[Doesn'thaveanameyet @DThaveanam97130]

@Atlntct Are you closeted?

[Kyn_Okk☧ @Kyn_Okk]

@supercoolgal76 @Atlntct Glad that you’re consistent. Same applies for killing off potentially intersex, blind, albino, dwarf, gay, etc., fetuses if found out before birth lol.

[Mayowa @Mayoveli]

When Umar made that statement, Muhammad had already died. This was during Umar’s own caliphate, when he was preparing military campaigns that would eventually lead to the conquest of Persia in the name of Islam. These were offensive campaigns. Were the Persians persecuting Muslims at that point as well? 😂

The constant attempt to frame every early Islamic expansion as a response to persecution is just regular regurgitated apologetics. These are lies and you know it.

By the time Umar would have paraphrased that Quranic injunction, the Muslim state was already a major regional power undertaking offensive campaigns far beyond Arabia. So what exactly was the Persian persecution that supposedly justified invading and conquering the Sassanian Empire? 😂

[Someone’s Dream in My Dream @Atlntct]

An Islam that takes itself too seriously and preoccupies itself with itself—-AKA super-narcissistic Islam—-is for Northern idiots and Arab retards.

It’s not coming to Yorubaland. You’re welcome.

[Someone’s Dream in My Dream @Atlntct]

A simple question for these Muslims.

Ask them if they think apostasy and blasphemy being punished in most Muslim countries with Sharia and in the North of Nigeria is WRONG and if their own Sharia would not include this. Ask them if THE ENTIRE MUSLIM WORLD is wrong about Islam?

[Zykson @Oni_Okun]

"At the very least, we should be discussing what Sharia actually teaches, not what its loudest and most controversial examples have done."

If Sharia is truly said to be for Muslims and Muslims alone, then line is flawed and unreasonable.

It is Muslims themselves who should be discussing, teaching, and clarifying what Sharia is actually about—especially to the many Muslims they claim are misapplying it and creating the controversies in the first place. What Sharia "really" teaches is primarily a Muslim concern. For the rest of us, interest in it is mostly out of curiosity or a need to understand how it affects the society we all share.

What we inevitably judge is not the ideal theory but the reality we observe: how Muslims interpret, apply, and advocate for it. If Muslims insist that Sharia is an internal religious matter, then their first task should be convincing fellow Muslims of its proper meaning before expecting non-Muslims to focus on theological nuances.

It is unreasonable to ask people not to judge a system by the way its adherents implement it. The finer points of its doctrine may not concern us, but the social and political consequences of how it is applied certainly do.

So when non-Muslims discuss Sharia, they are usually not discussing its ideal form. They are discussing the form they encounter in society. That is where the conversation naturally begins.

[Someone’s Dream in My Dream @Atlntct]

Stop that shit. Stop that nonsense. Stop the joke.

We do not want any of that here. Relax. Practice your religious rituals. Immerse yourself in its social symbolisms. But we are not giving it a political super-structure with a special center of gravity within the state.

[Kyn_Okk☧ @Kyn_Okk]

All disabilities acquired in the womb or after birth cause long-term discomfort for parents and the child. You wouldn’t see me killing disabled fetus, toddlers, adolescents, teenagers, adults, or old people because of personal discomfort and convenience.

Abortion itself isn’t seen as wrong according to the OP’s ethics, so in a society with millennia-old son preference where women are treated badly, which will cause long-term discomfort for parents and child, with much less future contributory value, what’s the evil in preferring not to subject the child to such a future and life?

Abortion isn’t wrong and the fetus has no inherent value nor is it a person, so why the sudden pearl clutching? Where did valuing an invaluable, non-person “clump of cells” fetus just based on its sex trump the parents’ choice under choice-based ethics?

[Someone’s Dream in My Dream @Atlntct]

@Promythious The argument in that article applies to every industrialized country, starting with England. It applies even to the USSR, the difference being that the USSR never transitioned to a market economy in the same way China eventually did after Mao.

[Someone’s Dream in My Dream @Atlntct]

@Promythious Ask him why Capitalism worked in England and how the groundwork was laid for it. How every subsequent industrialization was structurally prepared for.

They sure have a Romantic and garbled view of the history of economic development. China is unique only in intensity/degree.

[Kyn_Okk☧ @Kyn_Okk]

@d4kdd @OmolewaAbraham I just find it hard to believe the for same people who have no issue with killing Down syndrome unwanted babies will attack Indians and Chinese for killing female unwanted babies. The argument they have against them isn’t that strong.

[Someone’s Dream in My Dream @Atlntct]

Are you saying abortion can be immoral and a woman should be legally prohibited from aborting a pregnancy if she’s doing it because she doesn’t want to have a female child, bodily autonomy be damned?

If no, your distinction is meaningless. If yes, why?

[Amesa @damieD1st]

I don't know but isn't a disabled person objectively defective, unlike a female child.

Rejecting a laptop because the display doesn't work and rejecting a laptop because it runs MacOS instead of windows are two different situations no?

[Someone’s Dream in My Dream @Atlntct]

It is impossible to argue against the selective abortion of female babies if you support abortion on the grounds of parental subjective discretion, bodily autonomy, and the non-personhood of the fetus.

[Kyn_Okk☧ @Kyn_Okk]

People with the same values support abortion for all babies.

Following their logic, if my society prefers to kill mainly female babies due to personal choice, them being unwanted, pragmatism, and future suffering, then we are on the same moral level with similar arguments.

The point is that almost every argument one can give for killing Down syndrome babies and for abortion can also be given for killing only female babies and preferring male babies, especially if one appeals mainly to biology, parental choice, future suffering, and pragmatism.

[Someone’s Dream in My Dream @Atlntct]

Here’s the a thread where I discussed the sheer stupidity and intellectual/moral inconsistency of opposition to selective abortion of female fetuses by allegedly “pro-choice” people.

[Someone’s Dream in My Dream @Atlntct]

Feminists support abortion but decry the disproportionate abortion of female fetuses. What’s the issue? Is abortion a human right or not? Aren’t fetuses clumps of cells? Aren’t they non-persons? So, how can this be a problem?