Australian Politics Forum - spineless apologetics

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98933

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2430 - Apr 18^th, 2018 at 3:00pm

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 1:12pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 12:52pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 12:46pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 12:44pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 7:59am:

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.

Trying to intimidate people eh? If the hood is white of course.

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. Furthermore, they are worn specifically for the purpose of murdering and advocating murder.

You forgot to mention the "or try to intimidate people" bit. It can be difficult to get your story straight when trying to make a distinction between Muslims and Nazis eh?

What if a KKK member is just down at the shops trying to buy some cornflakes for breakfast, like any other normal person? Or Muslim, at least.

That's true, FD. KKK members who wear their hoods to go shopping can't possibly be guilty of offending decent white people everywhere.

But your Muslim -

GUILTY.

Ever seen a klux member walking down the street with a hood on babe?

No, Homo, I haven't. But that's only because they're too scared to get about in public because of the tinted races and their apologists.

If these people weren't so racist, we'd see a lot more people donning the hood.

Yet another example of our freedom being curtailed by the Muselman, I'm afraid.

Sarcasm aside, I don't understand the whole deal about being a ninja. Ninja women are up on centre stage when in public. It goes against not wanting to be noticed. They'd be better off going el naturale. Very strange indeed.

Ninja women wear their hoods to cover their identities. The Ninja were a resistance movement in old Japan. They fought and sabotaged the feudal warlords, who were backed by the Samurai. They operated in the dark of night.

If they went au naturale, they'd be arrested and executed. They are, in essence, the equivalent of modern-day terrorists.

The Nazis and the KKK are Freeeeedom-loving whites. They just want to take back what's theirs.

No comparison whatsoever.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 52833
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2431 - Apr 18^th, 2018 at 6:30pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 9:34am:

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 7:59am:

What if a KKK member is just down at the shops trying to buy some cornflakes for breakfast, like any other normal person?

And what if we do FD? Did you ever notice that only one person here thinks that one of these outfits should be banned - and its not me? And yet here you are nitpicking and trolling me, and not, you know, the guy who actually wants to rip away people's freedom.

As for your "comparison", get back to me when we actually start seeing people in KKK outfits simply doing "normal person" things - in the same way that women in hijabs do "normal person" things. Living in a major cosmopolitan city, I quite literally see women in hijabs everywhere I go. Just being normal people, and not raising any eyebrows. But curiously I think I can safely say I have never once in my life seen anyone on the street with a KKK outfit just doing "normal person" things. Have you?

Its just simply not possible to see any difference between a clansman in the street in his hood and a woman walking the street in a hijab is it FD?

BEING in a hijab or niqab in a Western country like Australia is doing a "not normal person" thing.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98933

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2432 - Apr 18^th, 2018 at 7:06pm

Frank wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 6:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 9:34am:

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 7:59am:

What if a KKK member is just down at the shops trying to buy some cornflakes for breakfast, like any other normal person?

And what if we do FD? Did you ever notice that only one person here thinks that one of these outfits should be banned - and its not me? And yet here you are nitpicking and trolling me, and not, you know, the guy who actually wants to rip away people's freedom.

As for your "comparison", get back to me when we actually start seeing people in KKK outfits simply doing "normal person" things - in the same way that women in hijabs do "normal person" things. Living in a major cosmopolitan city, I quite literally see women in hijabs everywhere I go. Just being normal people, and not raising any eyebrows. But curiously I think I can safely say I have never once in my life seen anyone on the street with a KKK outfit just doing "normal person" things. Have you?

Its just simply not possible to see any difference between a clansman in the street in his hood and a woman walking the street in a hijab is it FD?

BEING in a hijab or niqab in a Western country like Australia is doing a "not normal person" thing.

Neither is liking Danish, old boy, but we all love you wogs.

What have you given us again? I've forgotten.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51285
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2433 - Apr 18^th, 2018 at 8:19pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 9:34am:

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 7:59am:

What if a KKK member is just down at the shops trying to buy some cornflakes for breakfast, like any other normal person?

And what if we do FD? Did you ever notice that only one person here thinks that one of these outfits should be banned - and its not me? And yet here you are nitpicking and trolling me, and not, you know, the guy who actually wants to rip away people's freedom.

As for your "comparison", get back to me when we actually start seeing people in KKK outfits simply doing "normal person" things - in the same way that women in hijabs do "normal person" things. Living in a major cosmopolitan city, I quite literally see women in hijabs everywhere I go. Just being normal people, and not raising any eyebrows. But curiously I think I can safely say I have never once in my life seen anyone on the street with a KKK outfit just doing "normal person" things. Have you?

Its just simply not possible to see any difference between a clansman in the street in his hood and a woman walking the street in a hijab is it FD?

The "the guy who actually wants to rip away people's freedom" is not misrepresenting himself or his views.

If we made Muslim women too scared to get about in the letterbox outfit while doing anything other than intimidating non-Muslims, could we use that as a justification for not letting them wear the letterbox outfit?

I can see plenty of differences. Like the colour for example. But the distinction you are making does not exist.

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: 98933	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #2434 - Apr 19^th, 2018 at 8:00am freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 8:19pm: I can see plenty of differences. Like the colour for example. . Indeed. They're tinted.
Back to top	IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2435 - Apr 19^th, 2018 at 2:35pm

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 8:19pm:

The "the guy who actually wants to rip away people's freedom" is not misrepresenting himself or his views.

I beg to differ. He starts out talking about the need to ban the hijab, then pretends its really about the full-faced niqab.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 8:19pm:

I can see plenty of differences. Like the colour for example. But the distinction you are making does not exist.

Probably because you joined in on Frank's little "misrepresent the topic" game - and started pretending its really about the "letterbox outfit", when in reality I never mentioned it, and Frank's original claim was specifically about the hijab.

Is it common in your parts to see people in KKK outfits as they do their shopping? How about hijabs? You might want to ponder over that as you reflect on your "distinctions I am making does not exist" assertion.

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 #2436 - Apr 19^th, 2018 at 2:37pm

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 8:19pm:

If we made Muslim women too scared to get about in the letterbox outfit while doing anything other than intimidating non-Muslims, could we use that as a justification for not letting them wear the letterbox outfit?

I don't understand this question. Can you please rephrase it please?

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 #2437 - Apr 19^th, 2018 at 8:16pm

Quote:

I beg to differ. He starts out talking about the need to ban the hijab, then pretends its really about the full-faced niqab.

If you want people to know what you are talking about, I suggest using the term letterbox outfit.

Quote:

Probably because you joined in on Frank's little "misrepresent the topic" game - and started pretending its really about the "letterbox outfit", when in reality I never mentioned it, and Frank's original claim was specifically about the hijab.

Is that the head scarf?

Quote:

Is it common in your parts to see people in KKK outfits as they do their shopping? How about hijabs? You might want to ponder over that as you reflect on your "distinctions I am making does not exist" assertion.

Neither is common. But that is beside the point. The distinction you are making does not exist.

Quote:

I don't understand this question. Can you please rephrase it please?

You appear to be arguing that how often KKK members wear their hoods is relevant to whether they should be allowed to wear it. If we treated Muslim women who wear the letterbox outfit the same way we treat KKK members in their garb, fewer of them would wear it, so we could make the same argument about them that you do about the KKK.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 52833
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2438 - Apr 19^th, 2018 at 8:19pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 19^th, 2018 at 2:35pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 8:19pm:

The "the guy who actually wants to rip away people's freedom" is not misrepresenting himself or his views.

I beg to differ. He starts out talking about the need to ban the hijab, then pretends its really about the full-faced niqab.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 8:19pm:

I can see plenty of differences. Like the colour for example. But the distinction you are making does not exist.

Probably because you joined in on Frank's little "misrepresent the topic" game - and started pretending its really about the "letterbox outfit", when in reality I never mentioned it, and Frank's original claim was specifically about the hijab.

Is it common in your parts to see people in KKK outfits as they do their shopping? How about hijabs? You might want to ponder over that as you reflect on your "distinctions I am making does not exist" assertion.

Any Islamic outfit - hijab, niqab, burqa, men's pajamas and beards, all the paraphernalia - are signals of cultural and religious allegiance and, specifically, sharia compliant Islamic allegiance. Sharia and Western cultural and legal norms are completely incompatible and irreconcilable.

Wearing uniforms of sharia compliance signal their purposeful opposition and resistance to Western norms and laws and customs and values. It's the Muslim version of the ultra orthodox Jewish costumes and serves precisely the same purpose - not of this world, not of this community, not happy, Jan.

They all look silly, Muslims, Hashids, Sikhs, Hare Krishnas and the rest. But only the Muslims are murderous and demand submission by all.

That is the aspect of signalling Muslim allegiance that is hugely disturbing and objectionable - the Muslims outfit signals that they side with, identify with the violently belligerent enemies of the West.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98933

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2439 - Apr 20^th, 2018 at 1:35am

Frank wrote on Apr 19^th, 2018 at 8:19pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 19^th, 2018 at 2:35pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 8:19pm:

The "the guy who actually wants to rip away people's freedom" is not misrepresenting himself or his views.

I beg to differ. He starts out talking about the need to ban the hijab, then pretends its really about the full-faced niqab.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 8:19pm:

I can see plenty of differences. Like the colour for example. But the distinction you are making does not exist.

Probably because you joined in on Frank's little "misrepresent the topic" game - and started pretending its really about the "letterbox outfit", when in reality I never mentioned it, and Frank's original claim was specifically about the hijab.

Is it common in your parts to see people in KKK outfits as they do their shopping? How about hijabs? You might want to ponder over that as you reflect on your "distinctions I am making does not exist" assertion.

Any Islamic outfit - hijab, niqab, burqa, men's pajamas and beards, all the paraphernalia - are signals of cultural and religious allegiance and, specifically, sharia compliant Islamic allegiance. Sharia and Western cultural and legal norms are completely incompatible and irreconcilable.

Wearing uniforms of sharia compliance signal their purposeful opposition and resistance to Western norms and laws and customs and values. It's the Muslim version of the ultra orthodox Jewish costumes and serves precisely the same purpose - not of this world, not of this community, not happy, Jan.

They all look silly, Muslims, Hashids, Sikhs, Hare Krishnas and the rest. But only the Muslims are murderous and demand submission by all.

That is the aspect of signalling Muslim allegiance that is hugely disturbing and objectionable - the Muslims outfit signals that they side with, identify with the violently belligerent enemies of the West.

There you go, G. Not just the headscarves, the pyjamas and the beards, but the Jews and Hare Krishnas too.

Good to see you finally acknowledge that one, old boy. It's taken you a while, but don't worry.

After we ban the beards and pyjamas, we'll get to work on your Hindoo and your Joo.

Aussie Aussie Aussie, no?

Schnell schnell schnell.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 52833
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2440 - Apr 20^th, 2018 at 7:13pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 20^th, 2018 at 1:35am:

Frank wrote on Apr 19^th, 2018 at 8:19pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 19^th, 2018 at 2:35pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 8:19pm:

The "the guy who actually wants to rip away people's freedom" is not misrepresenting himself or his views.

I beg to differ. He starts out talking about the need to ban the hijab, then pretends its really about the full-faced niqab.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 8:19pm:

I can see plenty of differences. Like the colour for example. But the distinction you are making does not exist.

Probably because you joined in on Frank's little "misrepresent the topic" game - and started pretending its really about the "letterbox outfit", when in reality I never mentioned it, and Frank's original claim was specifically about the hijab.

Is it common in your parts to see people in KKK outfits as they do their shopping? How about hijabs? You might want to ponder over that as you reflect on your "distinctions I am making does not exist" assertion.

Any Islamic outfit - hijab, niqab, burqa, men's pajamas and beards, all the paraphernalia - are signals of cultural and religious allegiance and, specifically, sharia compliant Islamic allegiance. Sharia and Western cultural and legal norms are completely incompatible and irreconcilable.

Wearing uniforms of sharia compliance signal their purposeful opposition and resistance to Western norms and laws and customs and values. It's the Muslim version of the ultra orthodox Jewish costumes and serves precisely the same purpose - not of this world, not of this community, not happy, Jan.

They all look silly, Muslims, Hashids, Sikhs, Hare Krishnas and the rest. But only the Muslims are murderous and demand submission by all.

That is the aspect of signalling Muslim allegiance that is hugely disturbing and objectionable - the Muslims outfit signals that they side with, identify with the violently belligerent enemies of the West.

There you go, G. Not just the headscarves, the pyjamas and the beards, but the Jews and Hare Krishnas too.

Good to see you finally acknowledge that one, old boy. It's taken you a while, but don't worry.

After we ban the beards and pyjamas, we'll get to work on your Hindoo and your Joo.

Aussie Aussie Aussie, no?

Schnell schnell schnell.

You sly Paki dissembler.

You can look silly as a joo, sikh, eemo, pink haired lezzo or whatever - But only the Muslims are murderous and demand submission by all.

I did highlighted it but all your self-abuse has made you blind. Or your sly, lying reflexes are operating as always. Or both.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98933

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2441 - Apr 20^th, 2018 at 7:27pm

Frank wrote on Apr 20^th, 2018 at 7:13pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 20^th, 2018 at 1:35am:

Frank wrote on Apr 19^th, 2018 at 8:19pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 19^th, 2018 at 2:35pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 8:19pm:

The "the guy who actually wants to rip away people's freedom" is not misrepresenting himself or his views.

I beg to differ. He starts out talking about the need to ban the hijab, then pretends its really about the full-faced niqab.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 8:19pm:

I can see plenty of differences. Like the colour for example. But the distinction you are making does not exist.

Probably because you joined in on Frank's little "misrepresent the topic" game - and started pretending its really about the "letterbox outfit", when in reality I never mentioned it, and Frank's original claim was specifically about the hijab.

Is it common in your parts to see people in KKK outfits as they do their shopping? How about hijabs? You might want to ponder over that as you reflect on your "distinctions I am making does not exist" assertion.

Any Islamic outfit - hijab, niqab, burqa, men's pajamas and beards, all the paraphernalia - are signals of cultural and religious allegiance and, specifically, sharia compliant Islamic allegiance. Sharia and Western cultural and legal norms are completely incompatible and irreconcilable.

Wearing uniforms of sharia compliance signal their purposeful opposition and resistance to Western norms and laws and customs and values. It's the Muslim version of the ultra orthodox Jewish costumes and serves precisely the same purpose - not of this world, not of this community, not happy, Jan.

They all look silly, Muslims, Hashids, Sikhs, Hare Krishnas and the rest. But only the Muslims are murderous and demand submission by all.

That is the aspect of signalling Muslim allegiance that is hugely disturbing and objectionable - the Muslims outfit signals that they side with, identify with the violently belligerent enemies of the West.

There you go, G. Not just the headscarves, the pyjamas and the beards, but the Jews and Hare Krishnas too.

Good to see you finally acknowledge that one, old boy. It's taken you a while, but don't worry.

After we ban the beards and pyjamas, we'll get to work on your Hindoo and your Joo.

Aussie Aussie Aussie, no?

Schnell schnell schnell.

You sly Paki dissembler.

You can look silly as a joo, sikh, eemo, pink haired lezzo or whatever - But only the Muslims are murderous and demand submission by all.

I did highlighted it but all your self-abuse has made you blind. Or your sly, lying reflexes are operating as always. Or both.

That's right. They're a terrible example for the tinted races, dear boy. They must be taught a few manners.

Your policy for the tinted races is still to to re-colonize them, ja? Your Muselman's a frightful rabble-rouser, nein?

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2442 - Apr 24^th, 2018 at 12:12pm

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2018 at 8:16pm:

If you want people to know what you are talking about, I suggest using the term letterbox outfit.

Good idea FD. Far better to be deliberately insulting rather than actually make an effort to understand the correct terms. And yes, the hijab is the regular scarf that covers only the hair. Thats what Frank wants to ban, despite his failed attempted games to obfuscate the issue. But yeah, totally not misrepresenting his views eh... Tongue

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2018 at 8:16pm:

Neither is common. But that is beside the point. The distinction you are making does not exist.

Rubbish, rubbish and triple rubbish.

1. head scarves (aka the hijab) are as common as anything in anything remotely resembling a major metropolitan centre in Australia. Niqabs are less common, but are a gazillion times more common in Australia than KKK outfits. What a joke to pretend they aren't.

2 & 3. It is not beside Frank's point that attempts to draw a moral comparison between hijabs and/or niqabs and KKK outfits. They are like night and day. And its the height of ignorance and bigotry to absurdly claim that the clear distinctions I pointed out do not exist. If you are still skeptical, ask yourself the simple question - do you ever see people dressed up in KKK hoods doing the shopping? And do you see the same for women in hijabs, or even niqabs?

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2018 at 8:16pm:

You appear to be arguing that how often KKK members wear their hoods is relevant to whether they should be allowed to wear it. If we treated Muslim women who wear the letterbox outfit the same way we treat KKK members in their garb, fewer of them would wear it, so we could make the same argument about them that you do about the KKK.

That still makes no sense.

Either way I am not making any argument about what criteria we should apply to ban KKK outfits. There is only one person in this discussion arguing for any sort of ban. And yet, here are you, the great freedom defender, spinelessly apologising for him. Yes you are.

I will make the point though about motivation. And emphasise again that I believe people in KKK outfits wear KKK outfits for no other purpose than to intimidate or worse other people. Women in Niqabs or hijabs do not. And to attempt to draw some moral equivalence between the two is, as I say, the height of bigotry.

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 #2443 - Apr 24^th, 2018 at 1:01pm

Quote:

Good idea FD. Far better to be deliberately insulting rather than actually make an effort to understand the correct terms.

Are you being deliberately insulting to KKK members when you refuse to use their preferred term for their outfit?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 24^th, 2018 at 12:12pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2018 at 8:16pm:

You appear to be arguing that how often KKK members wear their hoods is relevant to whether they should be allowed to wear it. If we treated Muslim women who wear the letterbox outfit the same way we treat KKK members in their garb, fewer of them would wear it, so we could make the same argument about them that you do about the KKK.

That still makes no sense.

Here is an example:

Quote:

1. head scarves (aka the hijab) are as common as anything in anything remotely resembling a major metropolitan centre in Australia. Niqabs are less common, but are a gazillion times more common in Australia than KKK outfits. What a joke to pretend they aren't.

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 #2444 - Apr 24^th, 2018 at 2:18pm

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2018 at 1:01pm:

Are you being deliberately insulting to KKK members when you refuse to use their preferred term for their outfit?

"KKK outfit/hood" is not deliberately insulting. "Letterbox outfit" is. Obviously.

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2018 at 1:01pm:

Here is an example:

Its an example of me stating the bleeding obvious. I have no idea what non-point you are attempting to make. Do you dispute anything in that quote? How on earth could you? Also it has nothing whatsoever to do with justifying bans.

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