Australian Politics Forum - spineless apologetics

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #210 - Oct 10^th, 2013 at 10:32am

|dev|null wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 10:09am:

You proclaim you believe in personal freedoms but are unwilling to extend them to Muslims.

FD defends the right of muslim women to wear the burqa.

But what FD and his ilk will never accept is that personal freedoms must extend to having the freedom not to be vilified and intimidated on the basis of religion. The "freedom" to wear the burqa is rather meaningless if the people who choose to wear the burqa cannot do it without fear of being harassed and intimidated for making that choice.

Freedom to criticise must be protected, but protecting people's right to not be vilified is just as important. Especially when it is based on outright lies. A good example here is the common smear on muslims that they love pedophilia - based on the claim that the Prophet was a pedophile. This has been thoroughly debunked in another thread - but don't expect the pedophile smear to stop any time soon. In a rather more spectacular example, we had Soren declaring that the recent Swedish riots were caused by a muslim being shot by police after he threatened to "honour kill" his family with the kitchen knife. The victim was not even muslim.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50566
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #211 - Oct 10^th, 2013 at 12:54pm

Quote:

You say something is spineless then insist that everyone agrees with you.

I am not forcing or demanding them to. I believe my exact words were that Brian would be unable to find a Muslim who does not consider his post spineless.

Quote:

I don't care what sort of dictating you want to call it, but it is dictating.

Except that it is not dictating anything. It was a challenge to Brian. I made a very similar challenge to you, while specifically acknowledging that it is not impossible for you to achieve.

Quote:

Ideology/philosophy about personal freedom is entirely an issue of morality. Its as simple as that.

No it isn't. At least not for me. For you it might be, but I see an inherent conflict between freedom and morality, so I can hardly build a concept of morality around freedom.

Quote:

You seem to think that the issue of personal freedom is some sort of universal value.

Like the Universal declaration of human rights? I think everyone should experience the freedoms we have.

Quote:

No, really its not. I think the issue is reciprocity: its like a pact - they will agree they have no right to criticise other cultures, as long as they in turn accept their right to run their culture the way they do.

Can you find anyone who goes to the extremes that Brian does?

Quote:

I'm not interested in that discussion.

You brought it up. You said that Brian's post is spineless "on the surface" but that we have different interpretations of the real meaning. It appears to be the crux of this whole debate, and Brian made similar claims, yet you are both unable to explain this simple point.

Quote:

I have one interpretation, you have another (and yes its pretty obvious what the differences are without having to spell it out).

It is not obvious to me. That is why I keep asking. I have no idea what you are on about. I think Brian's words speak for themselves and I cannot see how there could be any confusion about their meaning.

Quote:

But what FD and his ilk will never accept is that personal freedoms must extend to having the freedom not to be vilified and intimidated on the basis of religion.

That is pretty much the definition of freedom. Religion is a choice, and if you cannot criticise someone for the choices they make then you do not have freedom of speech.

Quote:

The "freedom" to wear the burqa is rather meaningless if the people who choose to wear the burqa cannot do it without fear of being harassed and intimidated for making that choice.

There comes a point where actual harassment or intimidation undermines that freedom. Obviously posting comments on an internet forum will not get you there, but if a person is afraid to walk down the street, then they are not free.

Quote:

Freedom to criticise must be protected, but protecting people's right to not be vilified is just as important. Especially when it is based on outright lies.

Whether it is true or not is largely irrelevant in this context, and you example merely demonstrates why.

Quote:

Freedom to criticise must be protected, but protecting people's right to not be vilified is just as important. Especially when it is based on outright lies. A good example here is the common smear on muslims that they love pedophilia - based on the claim that the Prophet was a pedophile. This has been thoroughly debunked in another thread - but don't expect the pedophile smear to stop any time soon.

If you build your faith around a man who married a six year old girl and hold him to be an eternal example for all to follow, the mud is going to stick. You are free to defend yourself and insist you leave the nasty bits out, but if you take it to the point of insisting that people are forbidden from making the criticism in the first place, then you are really no different to the Muslims who want to chop people's heads off for blasphemy. I am sure they also consider it thoroughly debunked, outright lies etc, and if we had shariah law your head would probably be one of the first to hit the chopping block.

No-one has the right not to be offended.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #212 - Oct 10^th, 2013 at 1:33pm

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 12:54pm:

I am not forcing or demanding them to. I believe my exact words were that Brian would be unable to find a Muslim who does not consider his post spineless.

Hence you are insisting that everyone agrees with you. Sure you aren't demanding them to, you just arrogantly insist they do. That is dictating my friend.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 12:54pm:

You brought it up. You said that Brian's post is spineless "on the surface" but that we have different interpretations of the real meaning. It appears to be the crux of this whole debate, and Brian made similar claims, yet you are both unable to explain this simple point.

Lol I gave you perfectly clear explanation of how I interpreted it, and how it differs from yours. I'm not going to dig it up yet again just because you can't read a post.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 12:54pm:

It is not obvious to me. That is why I keep asking. I have no idea what you are on about. I think Brian's words speak for themselves and I cannot see how there could be any confusion about their meaning.

For one thing he referred only to "nations" and not criticising "them". Who is "them"? Is it the small clique of elites that make up the regime, or the poor schmucks who form that nation but don't have any say in what laws are enacted by the elites? These are not democracies you know, there is little collective responsibility for how the country is shaped. My point, and I believe Brian's point, is that the unrepresented masses shouldn't be criticised for the actions of their autocratic government. But of course you should know this already - as I've covered all this before.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 12:54pm:

That is pretty much the definition of freedom. Religion is a choice, and if you cannot criticise someone for the choices they make then you do not have freedom of speech.

Thats the extreme, libertarian-American position. It is a fringe view IMO. Most freedom-loving people understand the importance of curbing freedom of speech to some extent to protect against intimidation and discrimination.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 12:54pm:

There comes a point where actual harassment or intimidation undermines that freedom.

Well thank goodness for that. I'm not sure how this concession gels with your previous dogmatism that intimidation and hate speech should under no circumstances ever be curbed though.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 12:54pm:

If you build your faith around a man who married a six year old girl and hold him to be an eternal example for all to follow, the mud is going to stick. You are free to defend yourself and insist you leave the nasty bits out, but if you take it to the point of insisting that people are forbidden from making the criticism in the first place, then you are really no different to the Muslims who want to chop people's heads off for blasphemy. I am sure they also consider it thoroughly debunked, outright lies etc, and if we had shariah law your head would probably be one of the first to hit the chopping block.

I'm not getting bogged down in yet another discussion about this, suffice to say the issue was never about the numeric age, but whether or not Muhammad had sex with a prepubescent girl. That is the definition of pedophilia. Since the claim that he did is completely baseless, the smear that he was a pedophile (and by extension all muslims approve of pedophilia) is obviously an out and out lie.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

|dev|null

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4434
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #213 - Oct 10^th, 2013 at 1:40pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 10:32am:

|dev|null wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 10:09am:

You proclaim you believe in personal freedoms but are unwilling to extend them to Muslims.

FD defends the right of muslim women to wear the burqa.

But what FD and his ilk will never accept is that personal freedoms must extend to having the freedom not to be vilified and intimidated on the basis of religion. The "freedom" to wear the burqa is rather meaningless if the people who choose to wear the burqa cannot do it without fear of being harassed and intimidated for making that choice.

Freedom to criticise must be protected, but protecting people's right to not be vilified is just as important. Especially when it is based on outright lies. A good example here is the common smear on muslims that they love pedophilia - based on the claim that the Prophet was a pedophile. This has been thoroughly debunked in another thread - but don't expect the pedophile smear to stop any time soon. In a rather more spectacular example, we had Soren declaring that the recent Swedish riots were caused by a muslim being shot by police after he threatened to "honour kill" his family with the kitchen knife. The victim was not even muslim.

Yet more contradictions then from FD. I wonder why he ignores that post? Is he afraid to explain the contradictions in his views? Are they unsustainable? Cheesy

Back to top

"Pens and books are the weapons that defeat terrorism." - Malala Yousefzai, 2013.

"we will never ever solve violence while we grasp for overly simplistic solutions."
Freediver, 2007.

IP Logged

moses

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6353

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #214 - Oct 10^th, 2013 at 3:09pm

gandalf wrote:
Quote:

I'm not getting bogged down in yet another discussion about this, suffice to say the issue was never about the numeric age, but whether or not Muhammad had sex with a prepubescent girl. That is the definition of pedophilia. Since the claim that he did is completely baseless, the smear that he was a pedophile (and by extension all muslims approve of pedophilia) is obviously an out and out lie.

This is a crude and disgusting example of muslims and their spineless apologetics, excusing and condoning sexual depravity in islam.

islam a degenerate cult that exists in the 21st century, with a 7th century mentality.

muslims in their haste to defend sex with children, rely on the puberty excuse / technicality.

A nine year old child who has reached puberty, has a long physical and mental journey ahead of her.

The child has to go through a transitional stage of physical and psychological human development, which occurs during the period of puberty, adolescence, then to adulthood.

There is no way on this earth that a 9 year old child who reached puberty has completed the transformation to a woman.

muhammad was a pedophile, he played out his sexual perversions by having sex with a little nine year old girl

Arguing that she had reached puberty therefore it was not pedophilia, is sick.

She was a nine year old child

By rejecting criticism, and continually trying to promote child sex as the norm, because the little 9 year old girl had reached puberty, muslims and their spineless apologists are actually retarding islamic criteria, they refuse modern 21st century medical, psychological, moral, educational, pyhsical and social standards, instead choosing the retrograde step of withdrawing deeper into their 7th century cult.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 10^th, 2013 at 3:30pm by moses »

IP Logged

\|dev\|null Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4434 Gender:	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #215 - Oct 10^th, 2013 at 3:20pm Who are you railing against? I haven't seen any posts here, apart from the Islamophobes like yourself which attempt to, "continually trying to promote child sex as the norm".
Back to top	"Pens and books are the weapons that defeat terrorism." - Malala Yousefzai, 2013. "we will never ever solve violence while we grasp for overly simplistic solutions." Freediver, 2007. IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #216 - Oct 10^th, 2013 at 3:29pm

moses wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 3:09pm:

A nine year old child who has reached puberty, has a long physical and mental journey ahead of her.

Ayesha turned out just fine - becoming a matriarch to the fledgling islamic community, and a great and learned leader in her own right.

moses wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 3:09pm:

muhammad was a pedophile, he played out his sexual perversions by having sex with a little nine year old girl

no, a pedophile by definition is someone who lusts after and performs sexual activities with prepubescent children. Muhammad did neither.

- Muhammad had 11 wives, only one of them was (allegedly) prepubescent at the time of betrothal.
-Muhammad waited 2-3 years before having any physical relations with her. Strange, and remarkably controlled behaviour for a sexual pervert lusting after prepubescent kids.
-No one would have batted an eyelid if he did "take" Ayesha straight away, there was nothing stopping him, and it was his prerogative as undisputed leader of his community. Yet he waited - an entire 2-3 years. Why? Its obvious he waited until she had completed puberty.

That is *NOT* the behaviour of a sexual pervert who lusts after small children, and it is most definitely *NOT* the behaviour of a pedophile.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

moses

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6353

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #217 - Oct 10^th, 2013 at 4:08pm

Excuses, technicalities, don't cut the cake.

Defending and advancing child sex as an acceptable pattern,is perverted.
muslims and their spineless apologists are relinquishing all modern 21st century medical, psychological, moral, educational, physical and social standards and knowledge.

Instead choosing to follow the path of putrefaction, because muhammad had sex with a nine year old child

You stick with your islamic degeneracy, I'm happy to apply my beliefs muhammad was a pedophile

Back to top

IP Logged

True Colours Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2837 Gender:	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #218 - Oct 10^th, 2013 at 6:32pm Black people and Middle Easterners are known to reach adulthood early. Chris Brown: I was eight-years-old when I lost my virginity
Back to top	IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #219 - Oct 10^th, 2013 at 6:37pm

moses wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 4:08pm:

Defending and advancing child sex as an acceptable pattern,is perverted.

Get back to me when you've come up with an adequate definition of "child".

moses wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 4:08pm:

I'm happy to apply my beliefs muhammad was a pedophile

Good for you. Just know that it has no basis whatsoever in fact.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Lionel Edriess Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1932 Gender:	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #220 - Oct 10^th, 2013 at 9:08pm True Colours wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 6:32pm: Black people and Middle Easterners are known to reach adulthood early. Chris Brown: I was eight-years-old when I lost my virginity Did he thank Dad afterwards? T'would appear that's not the only thing he learned.
Back to top	Toughen up, Australia! IP Logged

\|dev\|null Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4434 Gender:	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #221 - Oct 11^th, 2013 at 10:13am moses wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 4:08pm: Excuses, technicalities, don't cut the cake. They point out how stupid your criticism is though, don't they?
Back to top	"Pens and books are the weapons that defeat terrorism." - Malala Yousefzai, 2013. "we will never ever solve violence while we grasp for overly simplistic solutions." Freediver, 2007. IP Logged

moses

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6353

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #222 - Oct 11^th, 2013 at 10:26am

The depths of depravity have reached a new low:

We have sick muslims and their spineless apologists, excusing and condoning pedophila / child sex as acceptable behaviour.

These sickos are arguing that a few days constitutes the validity of sexual child abuse / pedophilia being the right term.

A little girl, may in the beginning of any given month of her ninth year, show no signs of approaching puberty.

Within a matter of two or three weeks, the little girl may then show the early stages of the approaching puberty / adolescence / maturity, transitional cycle of her life.

muslims and their spineless apologists are saying that a mature muslim man can have sex with this small girl, because in those few days, the nine year child has become physically and psychologically prepared for a mature sexual relationship.

A few days does not make any difference to the fact:muhammad was a pedophile

Back to top

IP Logged

|dev|null

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4434
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #223 - Oct 11^th, 2013 at 10:52am

Again I ask, where have these posts been which excuse paedophilia? You must be reading a completely different forum to me. The only people who seem to think that paedophilia is the norm are you and your fellow Islamophobes! Cheesy

Moses, you were shown to be a religious zealot on Debate and Relate. You're still a religious zealot here. Go and imbibe your particular opiate in peace and stop trying to make us your fellow addicts! Cheesy

Back to top

"Pens and books are the weapons that defeat terrorism." - Malala Yousefzai, 2013.

"we will never ever solve violence while we grasp for overly simplistic solutions."
Freediver, 2007.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50566
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #224 - Oct 11^th, 2013 at 12:51pm

Quote:

Hence you are insisting that everyone agrees with you. Sure you aren't demanding them to, you just arrogantly insist they do. That is dictating my friend.

It is not dictating the meaning of the word. I have not even suggested a definition, despite you requesting that I do.

Quote:

Lol I gave you perfectly clear explanation of how I interpreted it, and how it differs from yours.

You have said nothing at all about how it differs from my interpretation. You have not suggested what my interpretation is. Brian hasn't. Nor have I. What we have is 14 pages of you and Brian insisting you know what I think but refusing to say what it is.

Quote:

For one thing he referred only to "nations" and not criticising "them". Who is "them"? Is it the small clique of elites that make up the regime, or the poor schmucks who form that nation but don't have any say in what laws are enacted by the elites?

You should be asking Brian these questions. I have attempted to, but no luck getting a straight answer.

Quote:

My point, and I believe Brian's point, is that the unrepresented masses shouldn't be criticised for the actions of their autocratic government. But of course you should know this already - as I've covered all this before.

Sure, Brian makes the same point over and over again, regardless of context. You can hardly miss it if you are here for more than 5 minutes. It is pretty much the only thing he ever posts here. He just picked a particularly spineless way of putting it this time. Don't you agree?

Quote:

Thats the extreme, libertarian-American position. It is a fringe view IMO. Most freedom-loving people understand the importance of curbing freedom of speech to some extent to protect against intimidation and discrimination.

So what are you saying? That the mainstream view of freedom of speech involves forbidding people from making criticisms of Islam that you disapprove of?

Quote:

I'm not getting bogged down in yet another discussion about this, suffice to say the issue was never about the numeric age

Of course not. You need to do your best to ignore the fact that Muhammed married a 6 year old girl and instead insist it is a thoroughly debunked outright lie and that people should be forbidden from even suggesting it.

Roll Eyes

Quote:

but whether or not Muhammad had sex with a prepubescent girl. That is the definition of pedophilia. Since the claim that he did is completely baseless

Except of course for the bit about him having sex with a 9 year old girl.

Quote:

the smear that he was a pedophile (and by extension all muslims approve of pedophilia) is obviously an out and out lie

It doesn't seem that obvious to me. You are really just guessing that she had reached the earliest stages of puberty and insisting this proves Muhammed was not a pedophile, then taking it to the absurd length of suggesting people should be forbidden from discussing it.

Quote:

Who are you railing against? I haven't seen any posts here, apart from the Islamophobes like yourself which attempt to, "continually trying to promote child sex as the norm".

So Muhammed's example should be rejected as not normal?

Quote:

no, a pedophile by definition is someone who lusts after and performs sexual activities with prepubescent children. Muhammad did neither.

So Muhammed married a child he did not lust after?

Quote:

No one would have batted an eyelid if he did "take" Ayesha straight away, there was nothing stopping him, and it was his prerogative as undisputed leader of his community. Yet he waited - an entire 2-3 years. Why? Its obvious he waited until she had completed puberty.

In other words you are guessing as to the reason. It could just as easily have been part of the original agreement for the purchase of the child bride from her father. Or maybe he feared getting his throat cut. People get all funny about the neighbour having sex with their 6 year old daughter.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged