VOTE! The REAL Thrembo....

[SoySpotter]

oh my booru RNCA

 

[Gemerald]

prove that claim with empirical, non-anecdotal, tautological, epistemological, ontological pontification. Your negation to me saying it’s not contextually saying that it is an ethically bankrupt deception of numerological proportion categorically imperatively inept at substantiating your statements. You would need to prove that the connotation is circumstantial to the context so it would be general in entailment, as well as being capable to necessitate various interpretations that possess coherency in the narrative of the position that you have presented. This is contingent upon the proposition of an antithesis’ prominence in negation with agnosticism that is reasoned by skepticism, or an equal interpretation substantiated with inductive reasoning, both inevitable in equalizing or defeating.
After that
prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontificationso prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontificationso prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontificationso prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontificationso prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontificationso prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontificationso prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontification

Every warrior-z post sounds like this

 

[Warrior-Z]

You did not, you just posted one of your 'cord buddies

I remember putting a refutation out there but I guess I was trolling that day, either way, here's the refutation you asked for:
Answer

Scholarly opinion on drawing humans

Drawing humans is permissible according to some scholars; Maliki scholars, some of the predecessors [Salaf] and the Hanbali scholar, Ibn Hamdan, have likewise maintained this opinion. They based their opinion on the fact that the prohibition is restricted to complete statues which imitate Allah's creation. In his Musanaf, Ibn Abu Shaybah reported this opinion from the venerated tabi'i [a person who was born after the Prophet's death and who accompanied some of his Companions] Al-Qasim Ibn Mohammed, may Allah have mercy on him, who was known as the best scholar of his time. The hadith reads: Ibn 'Awn said, "I entered upon Al-Qasim in his house which was located in the upper part of Mecca and saw a hajla [a net placed over a bed as a protection against flying insects] with the images of a phoenix and a beaver." In Fath Al-Bari, Ibn Hajar declared the chain of transmission of this hadith authentic.

In his commentary on Sahih Muslim [Sharh Muslim], Al-Nawawi said: "Some of the Salaf have maintained that complete statues [figures which cast a shadow] are prohibited; otherwise, they are unrestrictedly permissible — and he went further saying that the unrestricted permissibility of non casting shadows photos is an invalid opinion. Ibn Hajar, however, said in Fath Al-Bari that the invalidity of this opinion is disputable."

Ruling

Based on this, this matter is from among the controversial issues and there is no objection to following any of the opinions stated by scholars in this regard. This is because disagreement brings ease.

Therefore, there is no objection to drawing animates such as humans, animals and the like, whether from imagination, nature or photographs. There is no objection in Islamic law to pursuing this talent provided the drawings are void of anything prohibited and do not incite sexual desires. Likewise, it is impermissible to paint or photograph nudity or a 'awrah [part of the body that must be concealed] that religion, good morals, piety and man's sound natural disposition commands us to cover.

This is a socratic dialogue

Which, can be analytically different

, this is just you being clowned on for being a faggot

Even though you got gegbulled kek, that's your dox son.

Why are you in Norway btw? Go back to your middle eastern shithole.

Wasn't there in the first place, anyways, I bring more to the table than your sorry ass. Cry on my shoulder more.

You never mentioned a specific subreddit lmao. shifting the goalposts much?

Actually, if you know how Reddit works you'd know in order to post it would need to be in a specific subreddit, so that's not shifting the goal post.

 

[Warrior-Z]

View attachment 172718

Ad hominem, no refutation, NO BITCHES? I win, zoophile.

 

[Catter]

No cp, no bmt, NO DISCORD? I win, cracker.

What?

 

[ThremboSchlog]

>jartycuck react
@Gemerald
Provide the epistemological justification for that
adequately and incontrovertibly validate the veracity of the aforementioned assertion, it is imperative to construct a layered edifice of exonerative elaborations that are not reliant on anecdotal evidence, but instead, rooted in non-anecdotal, axiomatically sound, epistemologically coherent, and logically substantiated evidence. This necessitates a thorough scrutiny and demonstration of the propositional relationships that underpin each progressive iteration of the iterative justification process.

In establishing a primacy, it becomes crucial to ensure that the axiomatic truths, epistemic foundations, and logical coherence that uphold the initial proposition also serve to justify the claims made at subsequent levels. This justification should be achieved through irrefutable deductive reasoning, while simultaneously withstanding attempts at falsification through inductive reasoning. This dialectical rigor must then be recursively applied to each subsequent defending definition, distinction, and determination, with the aim of preventing the proliferation of fallacious figurative language, questionable question-framing, emotionally valenced violations of conjunction, or any other para-logical pathologies that undermine both empirical fact and the rational legitimacy of inferential linkage.

Furthermore, it is essential to employ a reductio ad absurdum approach to thoroughly examine alternative converse conclusions. This examination should confirm that the original assertion remains uniquely consistent with the first principles of metaphysics, the axioms of causality, and the epistemological primer of perception, reason, and inquiry. Failure to undertake this process would risk constructing a logical edifice that rests upon epistemic quicksand, leaving it susceptible to the shifting sands of subjective interpretation.

 

[baqqrih]

@baqqrih Bro return the poll names to normal, some janny tranny made it weird.

Are they fixed now? They look fine to me.

 

[Warrior-Z]

Are they fixed now? They look fine to me.

No the sentences in brackets weren’t there. Such as the warrior z wife thing.

 

[meijak]

Wasn't there in the first place, anyways, I bring more to the table than your sorry ass. Cry on my shoulder more.

What is it that you bring to Norway? Your extra chromosomes? If you love allah so much fuck off back to middle east, cuh.

 

[ThremboSchlog]

Are they fixed now? They look fine to me.

Yeah I didn't add the bits that I PRESUME that @SmallAnus did that
Shit like the warrior z wife shit like wtf?

 

[Warrior-Z]

What is it that you bring to Norway? Your extra chromosomes?

Nope, from this debate it looks like I am the sharper intellectual between the two of us!

If you love allah so much fuck off back to middle east, cuh.

Actually, God is omnipresent so the location doesn’t matter. Non sequitur.

 

[Gemerald]

View attachment 172723
Wtf happened kek. I went to watch a movie

Z-cuck spergout

 

[ThremboSchlog]

View attachment 172723
Wtf happened kek. I went to watch a movie

obsessed jerdee shemmy fnf cuck

 

[meijak]

Actually, God is omnipresent so the location doesn’t matter. Non sequitur.

If god is omnipresent why are you shitskins so inbread?

 

[ThremboSchlog]

>Another jartycuck react
@Gemerald
To substantiate the claim using empirical, non-anecdotal, tautological, epistemological, and ontological analysis, one must meticulously construct an argument that is devoid of any ethically questionable numerical manipulations and is fully capable of substantiating its assertions through rigorous logical frameworks. This entails an exhaustive process of ensuring that the connotation is contextualized appropriately, such that it is neither ethically compromised nor lacking in substantiation.

To assert that my previous negation does not contextually validate the claim is to imply that the argument presented is fundamentally flawed due to a lack of ethical integrity and an incapacity to substantiate the statements through rigorous logical and empirical scrutiny. Therefore, it is necessary to demonstrate that the connotation, in this case, is indeed contingent upon the context. This means that the claim must be capable of general entailment while simultaneously allowing for various coherent interpretations within the narrative of the position being presented.Empirical Validation: The claim must be supported by empirical evidence that is non-anecdotal and statistically significant. This involves gathering data from multiple sources, ensuring that the evidence is replicable, and analyzing the data through rigorous scientific methods. Empirical validation requires the use of controlled experiments, observational studies, or meta-analyses to demonstrate the reliability and validity of the claim.

Tautological Consistency: The argument must be constructed in such a way that it is logically self-evident, meaning that its truth is inherent in its formulation. A tautological statement is one that is true by necessity, such as "all bachelors are unmarried men." This requires defining the terms clearly and ensuring that the logical structure of the argument is sound and free from contradictions.
Epistemological Coherence: The claim must be rooted in a coherent epistemological framework, meaning that it must be justified through a robust theory of knowledge. This involves examining the sources of knowledge, the methods used to acquire it, and the justification for believing that the knowledge is true. Epistemological coherence requires an analysis of how the claim fits within the broader context of what is known and understood in the relevant field of study.

Ontological Grounding: The claim must be grounded in a sound ontological framework, which involves examining the nature of the entities involved and their relationships. Ontology concerns the nature of being and existence, and a well-grounded ontological argument ensures that the claim accurately reflects the reality it purports to describe. This requires a clear understanding of the fundamental categories of existence and the principles governing them.

Ethical Integrity: The argument must be constructed with ethical integrity, avoiding any form of deception, manipulation, or misrepresentation of the data. Ethical considerations are paramount in ensuring that the argument is not only logically and empirically sound but also morally defensible. This involves adhering to principles of honesty, transparency, and fairness in presenting the evidence and making the argument.

Contextual Relevance: The connotation of the claim must be examined in its proper context, ensuring that it is relevant and applicable to the situation at hand. This involves a detailed analysis of the circumstances surrounding the claim, considering factors such as the background information, the intended audience, and the potential implications of the claim. Contextual relevance ensures that the argument is meaningful and appropriately situated within its broader context.

Antithesis and Skepticism: The claim must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny through the examination of potential antitheses and skeptical perspectives. This involves considering alternative interpretations and conducting a thorough analysis of their merits and shortcomings. The process of dialectical reasoning requires that the claim be tested against counterarguments and that it withstands these challenges through logical consistency and empirical validation.

Inductive Reasoning: Finally, the claim must be capable of being substantiated through inductive reasoning, which involves deriving general principles from specific observations. Inductive reasoning requires a careful analysis of the evidence, identifying patterns and trends that support the claim, and ensuring that the generalizations made are justified by the data.

By meticulously addressing these elements, one can construct a layered and robust argument that adequately and incontrovertibly validates the veracity of the claim. This comprehensive approach ensures that the argument is not only logically and empirically sound but also ethically defensible and contextually relevant.

 

[Warrior-Z]

If god is omnipresent why are you shitskins so inbread?

First of all, inbred*, second of all that has nothing to do with Omnipresence. Besides, it’s ‘aram.

 

[Gigafly]

"Ibn Abbas reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Every maker of graven images will be in Hellfire. Every image he made will be given a soul to punish him in Hell.” Ibn Abbas said, “If you must do so, make images of trees or whatever does not have a soul within it.”

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2110

Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Muslim"

*braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaap*

 

[meijak]

View attachment 172723
Wtf happened kek. I went to watch a movie

Don't worry about it, I'm just giving tough love to my pet shitskin.

 

[SoySpotter]

 

[Gemerald]

Besides, it’s ‘aram.

You already conceded that procreating with your cousin is only makruh in islam, not haram kek.