Australian Politics Forum - spineless apologetics

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #2400 - Apr 16^th, 2018 at 12:39pm Karnal wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 12:30pm: freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 12:02pm: Tough titties. Off with their heads! The mindless collective of treacherous Orthodox Jews have to cover their hair too, FD. Do you think they should be banned as well? Perhaps he thinks they should be raped with a cactus.
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

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98940

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2401 - Apr 16^th, 2018 at 12:43pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 12:39pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 12:30pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 12:02pm:

Tough titties. Off with their heads!

The mindless collective of treacherous Orthodox Jews have to cover their hair too, FD. Do you think they should be banned as well?

Perhaps he thinks they should be raped with a cactus.

Good point. That's exactly what FD said in the other thread.

FD, should the treacherous Jews be raped with a cactus too? Why or why not?

We'll wait for his reply, G. As FD always says, you have to listen to what Muslims themselves say.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51285
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2402 - Apr 16^th, 2018 at 7:34pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 11:18am:

The giveaway is that SS helmets and KKK hoods are worn exclusively by murderers and people who actively call for murder.

What if they are the type of Nazi who only supports the slaughter of Jews in the past, back when the Jews were literally a mindless collective undermining the nascent German state?

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98940

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2403 - Apr 16^th, 2018 at 7:39pm

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 7:34pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 11:18am:

The giveaway is that SS helmets and KKK hoods are worn exclusively by murderers and people who actively call for murder.

What if they are the type of Nazi who only supports the slaughter of Jews in the past, back when the Jews were literally a mindless collective undermining the nascent German state?

Do you mean like the type of Muselman who only supports the slaughter of a treacherous mindless collective for breaching a treaty with Moh? Off with their heads?

Please explain, FD.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 52834
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2404 - Apr 16^th, 2018 at 9:29pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 11:18am:

Frank wrote on Apr 15^th, 2018 at 9:43pm:

The KKK hood is a head dress. An SS helmet. You wouldn't waive them through because you know their motivation and purpose.

The giveaway is that SS helmets and KKK hoods are worn exclusively by murderers and people who actively call for murder. Furthermore, they are worn specifically for the purpose of murdering and advocating murder.

Sure, go ahead and make the case that little Fatima or Khadeja who have never even considered hurting anyone in their entire lives, are murder advocates, exactly equivalent to an SS soldier or clansman on a jolly 'terrorise the black person' outing. I'm sure you will give a go. You could even attempt an FDesque argument that someone walking around in a KKK hood is just a fun-loving person who has no intention in the world of hurting or intimidating anyone - the thought couldn't be further from their mind. And there is no difference whatsoever between them and a woman in a hijab. But if you manage to do it with a straight face, you'll obviously have to avoid asking yourself this simple question: what would you find more confronting and/or threatening - a little woman walking down the street in a hijab, or someone walking down the street in a KKK hood or SS helmet? Which one would you consider more of a threat to the "fundamental freedoms of the west"?

Bollocks.

What does the niqab signify? What is resisted about it? What Western sensibilities and values does it offend, and yet is insisted on by Muslims?

Don't pretend to be a Bwian.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2405 - Apr 17^th, 2018 at 10:48am

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 7:34pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 11:18am:

The giveaway is that SS helmets and KKK hoods are worn exclusively by murderers and people who actively call for murder.

What if they are the type of Nazi who only supports the slaughter of Jews in the past, back when the Jews were literally a mindless collective undermining the nascent German state?

Don't forget their genitalia FD. Just isn't funny if we ommit genitalia humour.

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

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2406 - Apr 17^th, 2018 at 11:06am

Frank wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 9:29pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 11:18am:

Frank wrote on Apr 15^th, 2018 at 9:43pm:

The KKK hood is a head dress. An SS helmet. You wouldn't waive them through because you know their motivation and purpose.

The giveaway is that SS helmets and KKK hoods are worn exclusively by murderers and people who actively call for murder. Furthermore, they are worn specifically for the purpose of murdering and advocating murder.

Sure, go ahead and make the case that little Fatima or Khadeja who have never even considered hurting anyone in their entire lives, are murder advocates, exactly equivalent to an SS soldier or clansman on a jolly 'terrorise the black person' outing. I'm sure you will give a go. You could even attempt an FDesque argument that someone walking around in a KKK hood is just a fun-loving person who has no intention in the world of hurting or intimidating anyone - the thought couldn't be further from their mind. And there is no difference whatsoever between them and a woman in a hijab. But if you manage to do it with a straight face, you'll obviously have to avoid asking yourself this simple question: what would you find more confronting and/or threatening - a little woman walking down the street in a hijab, or someone walking down the street in a KKK hood or SS helmet? Which one would you consider more of a threat to the "fundamental freedoms of the west"?

Bollocks.

What does the niqab signify? What is resisted about it? What Western sensibilities and values does it offend, and yet is insisted on by Muslims?

Don't pretend to be a Bwian.

By crikey Frank, you accuse everyone you debate with with sliminess, but you really are the slimiest of them all. Problem is you are not very good at it.

Firstly, 'niqab' is not a synonym for 'hijab'. You know very well the difference between the two, and its like day and night. One is a completely innocuous and not the least bit confronting piece of head dress, the other is a complete head and body and face covering.

So why use the word interchangeably?? Don't try and be slimey Frank, I was talking about the hijab and you know it. Not once did I mention the niqab.

So try and be honest here Frank - don't compare the KKK hood or SS helmet with the most confronting item of Islamic dress you can think of when it is not even brought up - you have to stick to the topic. And the topic is to explain how an innocuous scarf that is worn on women's heads, is as confronting, as offensive and as intimidating as a KKK hood or SS helmet - clothing that are never worn outside the specific context of wanting to kill, hurt or intimidate people.

I believe your argument was going to go something like 'a piece of cloth on someone's head is the most offensive and threatening choice of clothing, and exactly equivalent of racist thugs marching around in KKK cloaks and SS helmets - because clearly women in hijabs wear that clothing for the sole reason of wanting to intimidate and undermine our freedoms'. That was the gist of it right? But please, allow yourself to expand on it properly. Please don't let your own strawmen and irrelevant rants distract you from saying something actually on point here.

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: 51285
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2407 - Apr 17^th, 2018 at 11:52am

If you want people to know what you're talking about, say letterbox outfit.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 17^th, 2018 at 10:48am:

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 7:34pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 11:18am:

The giveaway is that SS helmets and KKK hoods are worn exclusively by murderers and people who actively call for murder.

What if they are the type of Nazi who only supports the slaughter of Jews in the past, back when the Jews were literally a mindless collective undermining the nascent German state?

Don't forget their genitalia FD. Just isn't funny if we ommit genitalia humour.

Thanks gandalf. You can't tell who is guilty without a genital inspection, right?

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98940

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2408 - Apr 17^th, 2018 at 1:22pm

Frank wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 9:29pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 11:18am:

Frank wrote on Apr 15^th, 2018 at 9:43pm:

The KKK hood is a head dress. An SS helmet. You wouldn't waive them through because you know their motivation and purpose.

The giveaway is that SS helmets and KKK hoods are worn exclusively by murderers and people who actively call for murder. Furthermore, they are worn specifically for the purpose of murdering and advocating murder.

Sure, go ahead and make the case that little Fatima or Khadeja who have never even considered hurting anyone in their entire lives, are murder advocates, exactly equivalent to an SS soldier or clansman on a jolly 'terrorise the black person' outing. I'm sure you will give a go. You could even attempt an FDesque argument that someone walking around in a KKK hood is just a fun-loving person who has no intention in the world of hurting or intimidating anyone - the thought couldn't be further from their mind. And there is no difference whatsoever between them and a woman in a hijab. But if you manage to do it with a straight face, you'll obviously have to avoid asking yourself this simple question: what would you find more confronting and/or threatening - a little woman walking down the street in a hijab, or someone walking down the street in a KKK hood or SS helmet? Which one would you consider more of a threat to the "fundamental freedoms of the west"?

Bollocks.

What does the niqab signify? What is resisted about it? What Western sensibilities and values does it offend, and yet is insisted on by Muslims?

No one has the right to not be offended, dear boy.

Doesn't it signify the removal of the lady's flaps?

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98940

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2409 - Apr 17^th, 2018 at 1:34pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 17^th, 2018 at 11:06am:

Frank wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 9:29pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 11:18am:

Frank wrote on Apr 15^th, 2018 at 9:43pm:

The KKK hood is a head dress. An SS helmet. You wouldn't waive them through because you know their motivation and purpose.

The giveaway is that SS helmets and KKK hoods are worn exclusively by murderers and people who actively call for murder. Furthermore, they are worn specifically for the purpose of murdering and advocating murder.

Sure, go ahead and make the case that little Fatima or Khadeja who have never even considered hurting anyone in their entire lives, are murder advocates, exactly equivalent to an SS soldier or clansman on a jolly 'terrorise the black person' outing. I'm sure you will give a go. You could even attempt an FDesque argument that someone walking around in a KKK hood is just a fun-loving person who has no intention in the world of hurting or intimidating anyone - the thought couldn't be further from their mind. And there is no difference whatsoever between them and a woman in a hijab. But if you manage to do it with a straight face, you'll obviously have to avoid asking yourself this simple question: what would you find more confronting and/or threatening - a little woman walking down the street in a hijab, or someone walking down the street in a KKK hood or SS helmet? Which one would you consider more of a threat to the "fundamental freedoms of the west"?

Bollocks.

What does the niqab signify? What is resisted about it? What Western sensibilities and values does it offend, and yet is insisted on by Muslims?

Don't pretend to be a Bwian.

By crikey Frank, you accuse everyone you debate with with sliminess, but you really are the slimiest of them all. Problem is you are not very good at it.

Firstly, 'niqab' is not a synonym for 'hijab'. You know very well the difference between the two, and its like day and night. One is a completely innocuous and not the least bit confronting piece of head dress, the other is a complete head and body and face covering.

So why use the word interchangeably?? Don't try and be slimey Frank, I was talking about the hijab and you know it. Not once did I mention the niqab.

So try and be honest here Frank - don't compare the KKK hood or SS helmet with the most confronting item of Islamic dress you can think of when it is not even brought up - you have to stick to the topic. And the topic is to explain how an innocuous scarf that is worn on women's heads, is as confronting, as offensive and as intimidating as a KKK hood or SS helmet - clothing that are never worn outside the specific context of wanting to kill, hurt or intimidate people.

I believe your argument was going to go something like 'a piece of cloth on someone's head is the most offensive and threatening choice of clothing, and exactly equivalent of racist thugs marching around in KKK cloaks and SS helmets - because clearly women in hijabs wear that clothing for the sole reason of wanting to intimidate and undermine our freedoms'. That was the gist of it right? But please, allow yourself to expand on it properly. Please don't let your own strawmen and irrelevant rants distract you from saying something actually on point here.

Yes, G, but there's no reason FD and the old boy may not be offended at the sight of a little old lady displaying her genital status on her head, as it were.

Besides, the hijab is meant to indicate the woman's inclination towards destroying the freedoms of decent white people everywhere. It says, and I quote, "I'm a dastardly Muselman. I want to kill Whitey. I'm compelled to do this by my paedophile prophet, so watch yourself."

Now that's far worse than KKK hoods or Nazi helmets. They're there to disguise and, respectively, protect the killer. The hijab announces one's intent to kill. After all, Moslem == a follower of Islam.

Most offensive, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 51285 At my desk.	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #2410 - Apr 17^th, 2018 at 2:25pm Gandalf are you saying there is no such thing as a Nazi who does not murder or actively call for murder?
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:	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #2411 - Apr 17^th, 2018 at 4:10pm freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2018 at 2:25pm: Gandalf are you saying there is no such thing as a Nazi who does not murder or actively call for murder? or try to intimidate people - if they are wearing their SS helmet. Ditto for the klansman strutting around in their hood outfit.
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

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98940

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2412 - Apr 17^th, 2018 at 4:17pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 17^th, 2018 at 4:10pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2018 at 2:25pm:

Gandalf are you saying there is no such thing as a Nazi who does not murder or actively call for murder?

or try to intimidate people - if they are wearing their SS helmet. Ditto for the klansman strutting around in their hood outfit.

Yes, but not as much as your Muselman, shurely.

Besides, the KKK and the Nazis might want to take away the freedoms of decent white people everywhere, but at least they mind their manners.

Your Muselman just wants to offend.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 52834
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2413 - Apr 17^th, 2018 at 6:53pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 17^th, 2018 at 11:06am:

Frank wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 9:29pm:

Bollocks.

What does the niqab signify? What is resisted about it? What Western sensibilities and values does it offend, and yet is insisted on by Muslims?

Don't pretend to be a Bwian.

By crikey Frank, you accuse everyone you debate with with sliminess, but you really are the slimiest of them all. Problem is you are not very good at it.

Firstly, 'niqab' is not a synonym for 'hijab'. You know very well the difference between the two, and its like day and night. One is a completely innocuous and not the least bit confronting piece of head dress, the other is a complete head and body and face covering.

So why use the word interchangeably?? Don't try and be slimey Frank, I was talking about the hijab and you know it. Not once did I mention the niqab.

So try and be honest here Frank - don't compare the KKK hood or SS helmet with the most confronting item of Islamic dress you can think of when it is not even brought up - you have to stick to the topic. And the topic is to explain how an innocuous scarf that is worn on women's heads, is as confronting, as offensive and as intimidating as a KKK hood or SS helmet - clothing that are never worn outside the specific context of wanting to kill, hurt or intimidate people.

I believe your argument was going to go something like 'a piece of cloth on someone's head is the most offensive and threatening choice of clothing, and exactly equivalent of racist thugs marching around in KKK cloaks and SS helmets - because clearly women in hijabs wear that clothing for the sole reason of wanting to intimidate and undermine our freedoms'. That was the gist of it right? But please, allow yourself to expand on it properly. Please don't let your own strawmen and irrelevant rants distract you from saying something actually on point here.

Good Muslim boy, selling counterfeit carpet in the suk.

WHY have a niqab and a hijab in the West? You ignore the heart of the question - purpose and motivation. You can be a perfectly good, progressive Muslim, according to Dr Bwian, without treating women as chattel. But you disagree and try to feed us the 'completely innocuous piece of cloth' nonsense.

Why do they insist on it if it is 'completely innocuous' - even though it is evidently not. It is worn in the West for no other reason BUT to signal apartness, contempt and disdain. In that purpose it is nothing BUT entirely nocuous/noxious contempt towards Western society. That is the ONLY reason for wearing it in the West. At best it is a fearful signal of obedience to the fascist, jihadi males you have in such large numbers among you, 'progressive Muslims'. You, the Che of Muslims are no different to theem in Muslim doctrine. You believe precisely the same Koran, the same 'life and times of Mohammed' bilge as they do.

Insisting on a mini skirt in an observant Muslim place would be the precise equivalent but you would not refer to that as an 'innocuous piece of cloth'. Wet t-shirt competition in Mecca nothing but comparing innocuous pieces of cloth?

You want special treatment on account to being Muslims. Well, you have that in Muslim countries where you treat non-Muslims as kuffar. Do not bring that attitude and special bleating here.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2414 - Apr 17^th, 2018 at 7:18pm

Frank wrote on Apr 17^th, 2018 at 6:53pm:

WHY have a niqab and a hijab in the West? You ignore the heart of the question - purpose and motivation. You can be a perfectly good, progressive Muslim, according to Dr Bwian, without treating women as chattel. But you disagree and try to feed us the 'completely innocuous piece of cloth' nonsense. Why do they insist on it if it is 'completely innocuous' - even though it is evidently not. It is worn in the West for no other reason BUT to signal apartness, contempt and disdain. In that purpose it is nothing BUT entirely nocuous/noxious contempt towards Western society. That is the ONLY reason for wearing it in the West. At best it is a fearful signal of obedience to the fascist, jihadi males you have in such large numbers among you, 'progressive Muslims'. You, the Che of Muslims are no different to theem in Muslim doctrine. You believe precisely the same Koran, the same 'life and times of Mohammed' bilge as they do.Insisting on a mini skirt in an observant Muslim place would be the precise equivalent but you would not refer to that as an 'innocuous piece of cloth'. Wet t-shirt competition in Mecca nothing but comparing innocuous pieces of cloth? You want special treatment on account to being Muslims. Well, you have that in Muslim countries where you treat non-Muslims as kuffar. Do not bring that attitude and special bleating here.

Frank your arguments here are not entirely unreasonable, or irrational - that is until we remind ourselves it comes with a "therefore we must ban it" non-sequitur. Perhaps that is why you talk so much on this topic - while seeming to studiously avoid the crux of your argument. I admit I'm partly to blame - getting hung up on focusing on the KKK and Nazi comparisons, and the whole moral equivalency tangent. I'm probably guilty of losing focus here too.

So lets be real here - lets say you are right, hijabs are nocuous, they are designed specifically to show hostility/contempt towards society, they are not even required by the religion. Lets go with all that. The problem still remains - how does that justify a ban? And even more problematic, how does a ban on an item of clothing that is so broad and non-specific as a head covering - supposed to succeed in only targeting such a specific group of people? Or are you happy to simply issue a blanket ban on all head coverings - bandanas, hoodies, scarves...etc?

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