tuchodi 1 point ago +1 / -0

I thought the post was about the effectiveness of the vaccines.

tuchodi 1 point ago +1 / -0

It does jack shit, hospitalization rate is under 1% for anyone under 60 vaccinated or not.

What's that supposed to mean? Covid costs are negligible? Or what?

tuchodi 0 points ago +1 / -1

that how vaccines work?

If you want to know how vaccines work - and from your question i kinda doubt you do - the information is out there. Go teach yourself.

tuchodi -5 points ago +2 / -7

That's not news. The best figure I remember hearing was 50% effective by 14 days after the first jab, so presumably 4,896 got it instead of 10,000 or so. It increases your chance of staying out of the ICU and off a ventilator. It's not some silver bullet that guarantees you won't be infected. It lowers the severity of the infection.

tuchodi 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from. From the video clip & transcript:

There have been 42 deaths in England, people confirmed with the delta variant who died within 28 days of a positive test. of those, 23 were unvaccinated.

That seems pretty straight forward. Forty two people who tested positive for the delta variant died within 28 days. Twenty three of them had not been vaccinated. So, (23/42)*100 = 55% of those 42 dead victims were unvaccinated.

So far so good, but then we have a comment:

Looking closely at the wording - people who had been vaccinated but not 21 or 14 days before and had died might be included in that 55% as well.

I'm not following that. It says the 23 dead - the 55% - were not vaccinated. How is it possible to include "people who had been vaccinated" in the group that had not been vaccinated?

tuchodi 1 point ago +1 / -0

Did BBC just say that 50% of the people that died were vaccinated? But, but!???? ‘95% efficacy’, right!?

They didn't give a figure for the vaccinated people who recovered, so there is no connection between the "50% of the people who died" scenario and the efficacy of the vaccines. Below are some figures from a few months ago.


tuchodi 0 points ago +1 / -1

I said Christians are no better in that respect and gave examples.


So you say. Anyone who can read has only to study history to see that Christians have brought their share of misery to people around the world, and have no high ground to stand on while looking down on others.

I think it's pretty illustrative of your values that you feel the slaughter of women and children during the Crusaders' capture of Jerusalem is somehow morally superior to the bloodless Muslim capture of the city.

tuchodi 0 points ago +1 / -1

every culture cited which forces women to disappear under Niqab and Burka are Islamic.

Oh well, that's easy then. If the hijab, niqab and burka are part of the religion rather than the culture you won't have any trouble finding those decrees in the Quran and quoting them to me.

I'll wait.

tuchodi 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hmmm. All those prohibitions for women and so few for men.

No reasonable person needs to claim or argue whether or not Islam suppresses women. There is enough proof for that not to be in contention.

For anyone following this discussion here's an article to read about the rights of women in Islam. It notes that "Many of these oppressive practices, however, do not come from Islam itself, but are part of local cultural traditions. (To think about the difference between religion and culture, ask yourself if the high rate of domestic violence in the United States is related to Christianity, the predominant religion.)" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/questions/women/)

Jack's character is explaining exactly what I told you; women are wired differently (than men) and they can't be faulted for it.

That's a pretty sweeping statement (women don't have reason and accountability) considering the number of women heads of state, CEOs, Nobel Prize winners, doctors, surgeons, lawyers. engineers, etc.

If you are suggesting that women's brains/minds/thinking patterns are different than that of men, then you're arguing that men who believe they are women are just crazy. A dangerous position during Pride Month.

Imagine; a Muslim or Islamic sympathist (you're one of the two) in Canada coming out and saying that the Transgender movement is a farce and is unfounded and is "wrong". HAHAHAHA

Steady there big fella. Try to keep your fantasies at arms length. The voices in your head may not be your friends.

tuchodi 0 points ago +1 / -1

I'd like to keep this discussion focused: it started when you said "Muslims have a 1400 year reputation of barbary..." and I said Christians are no better in that respect and gave examples. We've gone a couple of rounds and it seems your latest point is this:

Christians never went to Muslim countries and killed Muslims for being Muslim.

At the same time you're also saying that when they did, as in the first Crusade, it was because the Muslims had invaded that territory at some earlier point. You said:

This was territory Muslims took from Jews by force

and that is historically incorrect in a couple of ways. The Jews were kicked out of Jerusalem and forbidden to return by the Romans in the year 136 or so. This was almost 500 years before Islam appeared. In that time there were only two short periods ( 361-363 and 614-617) when Jews were allowed into Jerusalem.

In those 500 years Jerusalem was ruled by a series of empires (the Byzantine empire, then the Sasanian Empire, and then the Byzantine empire again). The Byzantines eventually surrendered the city to a Muslim army after a siege in 637. It was a bloodless surrender, and the Muslims actually allowed Jews to return to Jerusalem for pretty much the first time in almost 500 years. (http://www.bu.edu/mzank/Jerusalem/p/period3-2.htm)

Muslims most definitely did not take Jerusalem from the Jews. They ruled it for over 400 years before the Christians showed up with their Crusade - and slaughter - in 1095.

One way and another you keep saying that when Christians slaughter women and children it's not as bad as when Muslims do it, and I am going on record as disagreeing with that. Let's keep that point front and centre, and remember that Christians have spread their faith in unpleasant ways all over the world. Ask the indigenous people subjected to Christian European rule all over the world in the last 6 or 7 centuries.

tuchodi 0 points ago +1 / -1

"That which is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" In other words, just saying something doesn't make it a fact.

50-90% of people in muslim majority countries believe terrorism is acceptable to spread islam.

What is your source for that information?

More people have been murdered by muslims this year then the entire history of the KKK for example

What is your source for that information?

Breivik didn't do what he did because of religion

"On the day of the attacks, Breivik e-mailed a compendium of texts entitled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, describing his militant ideology. In them, he stated his opposition to Islam and blamed feminism for a European "cultural suicide." The text called for the deportation of all Muslims from Europe" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik#cite_ref-Jones20110727_23-0)

Westboro hasn't killed anyone, neither had the order.

True. They're just haters, like the Muslim Imams who make firey speeches but don't do anything.

Drone strikes by a government aren't religious either

I agree that the US is not a Christian nation, but I was discussing this with someone who does think that.

tuchodi 1 point ago +1 / -0

for women who profess to worship God.... and all the rest

You said an awful lot there but I don't see any of it in Timothy. Where are you getting that argument from?


That's a strange clip to use to support your claim that Islam oppresses women. Jack Nicholson seems pretty disrespectful in it.

tuchodi 0 points ago +1 / -1

The discussion is about one religion murdering another religion, specifically Muslims conquering Christians on their own lands,

Your post said only that "Muslims have a 1400 year reputation of barbary..." and I said Christians are no better in that respect and gave examples. My examples happened to be Christians murdering Christians, and you said they weren't as bad. I think any organized religion engaging in the slaughter innocents over differences of beliefs is wrong to the same degree..

which Christians never did to Muslims.

During the first Crusade when the Christians entered Muslim-held Jerusalem they killed everyone they could find: "Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared"

Then there was the whole "Be Christian or die" movement (https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/interview-converting-by-the-sword)

The first pogroms was in Odessa Russia 200 years ago, The word is Russian.

Russia was Christian at the time "pogrom" came to be used, and for a century afterwards.

And these were NOT Christians doing this in Odessa. These were atheists...the same that produced Marx, socialism and communism.

They certainly were Christians. The Odessa pogrom was conducted by Greeks, and their church accepted Christ as the son of God and had done so for over a thousand years. The Marxists didn't take over until the early 1900s, over a hundred years later.

Correct. And then they were forbidden to practice. Crosses and depictions of Christ were replaced by photos of Hitler.

Not sure what your point is there. The card-carrying Nazi party members were overwhelmingly Christian and on Kristallnacht in 1938 there were thousands of Christians out on the streets helping the soldiers destroy Jewish homes, businesses, and houses of worship.

Jews were persecuted for their financial destruction.

So you say, but there is more to it than that. Initially they were mostly persecuted for their refusal to give up their religion, and after Christ died they were scapegoated for that. As you yourself pointed out charging interest on loans was forbidden for a long time in the Christian and Islamic faith, so who else was around to lend money? There's no denying some Jews were moneylenders and disliked for charging interest, and it's true that some of their families have played a role in establishing big banks. But like I said earlier: they're smart enough to do well because they value education. I repeat: 20% of the Nobel prizes won by only 0.2% of the world's population. Of course they'll generally do well at whatever they choose.

Now show me a bank anywhere that is owned and controlled by Christians.

That's a tall order, given that there are about 25,000 banks in the world. Off the top of my head I would guess that The Vatican Bank is pretty Christian. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Works_of_Religion). Then there's The Kingdom Bank (https://www.kingdom.bank/)

How about Credit Unions? Catholic Family Credit Union (https://www.catholicfamilycu.com/) Holy Rosary Credit Union (https://www.hrcu.org/) Christian Community Credit Union (https://www.mycccu.com/)

and now China owns in the range of 55% of every bank in Canada and USA

I know China has invested in North America, but I suspect you either got that number from Facebook or you just made it up. Prove me wrong.

tuchodi 1 point ago +1 / -0

What version are you reading. I don't see that.

1 Timothy 2

1 I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone--

2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior,

4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men--the testimony given in its proper time.

7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle--I am telling the truth, I am not lying--and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.

8 I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.

9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,

10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

15 But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

tuchodi 1 point ago +1 / -0

Canada had a death penalty for civilian crimes

I see what you did there. I said "murdering people for their beliefs" when I should have specified "religious beliefs", and you tried to turn it to civilian crimes. The discussion was about Christians murdering other Christians during the various Inquisitions and how you seem to think that was better than Muslims murdering Christians. I disagree.

"Christians" didn't do that. NAZI soldiers did that...

First, Christians have been putting Jews in ghettos and murdering them for hundreds of years. Look up "pogrom". Second, Germany in 1939 was overwhelmingly Christian, and so were the Nazi soldiers. Kristallnacht soldiers were joined by thousands of civilians. The Times of London, 11 November 1938: "No foreign propagandist bent upon blackening Germany before the world could outdo the tale of burnings and beatings, of blackguardly assaults on defenceless and innocent people, which disgraced that country yesterday." It wasn't just Nazis. Most of the 3 million Nazi Party members "still paid the Church taxes" and considered themselves Christians. (John S. Conway; The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933-1945; Regent College Publishing; p. 233)

Even in the face of evidence of Nazi atrocities against Catholic priests and lay people in Poland, which were broadcast on Vatican Radio, German Catholic religious leaders continued to express their support for the Nazi war effort. They urged their Catholic followers to "fulfill their duty to the Fuhrer" (John S. Conway; The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933-1945; Regent College Publishing; p. 234)


The expulsion of minorities is as old as war. The Jews are just one group of many who have been kicked around. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer) The thing that is different about them is that they got blamed for the death of Jesus even though it was the Romans who killed him, and everywhere they go there are Christians who hate them for that despite the fact that Jesus had to "die for our sins" and return from the dead in order for the Christian story to work.

The one thing OLDE Christians and Muslims agree on is that LOANS AT INTEREST are wrong, evil and destructive.

As you say: Christians do it too. Are you just as mad at them?

tuchodi 1 point ago +1 / -0

A little bit of reading comprehension here.

You probably just missed the part where I said "Probably not"

as White influence subsided these places reverted

What places? I don't want to search a whole bunch of African history if you can point me to the parts you mean.

The African slaves Whites owned were already slaves and they and their descendants would have likely remained such

Some perhaps. Of the ones that went to the US and Caribbean most were captured only because the whites created a market for them. They wouldn't have been taken in the first place without that market.

Christianity replaced a lot of this

As far as I know when Christians gained power they largely failed to accept the people who were already there into their churches or businesses. I'm not aware of any original peoples in the upper levels of the churches, or the boards of the Hudson's Bay Company or the Dutch East India Company. Perhaps you know of some?

You can try to educate Brown people about rights but that doesn't mean they'll give a *uck

Hmm. This shoe seems to fit. "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group"

But you're a Christian, right? So you can't be one of those, can you?

tuchodi 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's nice to run into a Christian who is content to let other people live their lives their own way, one who follows the New Testament teachings:

Luke 6:37

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven

Matthew 7

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

tuchodi 1 point ago +1 / -0

only White Christians have a real history of freeing people

Are you saying that White Christians never subjugated anyone? Probably not, so tell me a bit about the people that they freed, please.

tuchodi 1 point ago +1 / -0

No written language or the wheel says a lot.

Hard to say. They lasted tens of thousands of years without them. Time will tell how well we do with them.

view more: Next ›