Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 188
Send Topic Print
spineless apologetics (Read 339439 times)
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #15 - Sep 16th, 2013 at 8:31pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 6:14pm:
Lionel, are you aware of the theory that "childhood" as a concept only really started to appear in the Georgian period in the UK?  Before then "children" were expected to earn their keep from an early age, as young as 4.  It wasn't until the introduction of the first child labour laws in the UK as early as 1802 but they merely regulated working hours, not the minimum age at which a child could work.

I often find it rather remarkable that some people assume that today's morality on these sorts of issue is equally applicable to earlier periods, even over a thousand years ago, in history.   Roll Eyes




You definitely sound like you think it was all a backward step to let children be children.

Is there any horror you would not excuse on the most spurious and flimsy relativist grounds?





Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39487
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #16 - Sep 16th, 2013 at 8:40pm
 
Soren wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 8:31pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 6:14pm:
Lionel, are you aware of the theory that "childhood" as a concept only really started to appear in the Georgian period in the UK?  Before then "children" were expected to earn their keep from an early age, as young as 4.  It wasn't until the introduction of the first child labour laws in the UK as early as 1802 but they merely regulated working hours, not the minimum age at which a child could work.

I often find it rather remarkable that some people assume that today's morality on these sorts of issue is equally applicable to earlier periods, even over a thousand years ago, in history.   Roll Eyes




You definitely sound like you think it was all a backward step to let children be children.


Really?  And how did you arrive at that conclusion from that comment of mine, Soren?   Roll Eyes

Quote:
Is there any horror you would not excuse on the most spurious and flimsy relativist grounds?


*_YAWN_*, Soren you really are clutching at straws...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #17 - Sep 16th, 2013 at 8:54pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 8:40pm:
Really?  And how did you arrive at that conclusion from that comment of mine, Soren?   Roll Eyes




From this:

Quote:
"children"



You will relativise 4 year old children as "children" because you are committed to not having an honest, straightforward, accountable stance.

Validating every last stupid relativist idiocy is more important to you than looking squarely at a matter at hand and saying how it weight in the judgement of the here and now - the place and time where any judgement is made.

You come up with the stupidest, most pathetic attempts to relativise what is staring you in the face every day.




Back to top
« Last Edit: Sep 16th, 2013 at 9:00pm by Soren »  
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39487
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #18 - Sep 16th, 2013 at 9:04pm
 
Soren wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 8:54pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 8:40pm:
Really?  And how did you arrive at that conclusion from that comment of mine, Soren?   Roll Eyes




From this:

Quote:
"children"



You will relativise 4 year old children as "children" because you are committed to not having an honest, straightforward, accountable stance.

Validating every last stupid relativist idiocy is more important to you than looking squarely at a matter at hand and saying how it weight in the judgement of the here and now - the place and time where any judgement is made.

You come up with the stupidest, most pathetic attempts to relativise what is staring you in the face every day.


Soren, I didn't know you'd become a Toxophile!   Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Baronvonrort
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17452
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #19 - Sep 16th, 2013 at 9:08pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15th, 2013 at 10:30pm:
So, personal attacks now, FD?  Tsk, tsk, tsk.    Roll Eyes



We have another person who trolls this forum because nobody goes to his forum, he also has a cat fetish.

It turns out you have one as well
The intro page-
www.debaterelate.com

Then when we click on your forum there is nobody there, you appear to be very popular.  Grin
www.debaterelate.com/forum/



Back to top
 

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #20 - Sep 16th, 2013 at 9:24pm
 
Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 9:08pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15th, 2013 at 10:30pm:
So, personal attacks now, FD?  Tsk, tsk, tsk.    Roll Eyes



We have another person who trolls this forum because nobody goes to his forum, he also has a cat fetish.

It turns out you have one as well
The intro page-
www.debaterelate.com

Then when we click on your forum there is nobody there, you appear to be very popular.  Grin
www.debaterelate.com/forum/





Left-wingers, beware! You will find Debate and Relate is right-wing dominated. Racism, bigotry and reactionary views abound. The Good News is that the right-wingers there are easily shot down, their arguments are invariably proven to be foolish and naive. Its an amusing thing to watch them running 'round like the proverbial headless chook.

Brian Ross



Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47316
At my desk.
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #21 - Sep 16th, 2013 at 9:27pm
 
The sort who would sell out the most vulnerable people to rapists, murderers and oppressors out of some demented notion of respect for the oppressor.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39487
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #22 - Sep 16th, 2013 at 10:39pm
 
Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 9:08pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15th, 2013 at 10:30pm:
So, personal attacks now, FD?  Tsk, tsk, tsk.    Roll Eyes



We have another person who trolls this forum because nobody goes to his forum, he also has a cat fetish.

It turns out you have one as well
The intro page-
www.debaterelate.com

Then when we click on your forum there is nobody there, you appear to be very popular.  Grin
www.debaterelate.com/forum/



*_YAWN_*, still with the personal attacks?  FD you disappoint me.   Roll Eyes

"cat fetish"?   Shocked
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39487
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #23 - Sep 16th, 2013 at 10:57pm
 
freediver wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 9:27pm:
The sort who would sell out the most vulnerable people to rapists, murderers and oppressors out of some demented notion of respect for the oppressor.


As against those who believe in guilt by association, FD?  Or those who have no concept of fair treatment?  Are Bigoted and Xenophobic?  Who think that it's better judge people by not what they do but which group they belong to?  Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 92202
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #24 - Sep 17th, 2013 at 2:22am
 
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 9:04pm:
Soren wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 8:54pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 8:40pm:
Really?  And how did you arrive at that conclusion from that comment of mine, Soren?   Roll Eyes




From this:

Quote:
"children"



You will relativise 4 year old children as "children" because you are committed to not having an honest, straightforward, accountable stance.

Validating every last stupid relativist idiocy is more important to you than looking squarely at a matter at hand and saying how it weight in the judgement of the here and now - the place and time where any judgement is made.

You come up with the stupidest, most pathetic attempts to relativise what is staring you in the face every day.


Soren, I didn't know you'd become a Toxophile!   Grin Grin Grin


No no, the old boy’s a faecophile - he can’t get enough of it.

FD’s coming up behind. These two love sniffing each other’s arseholes and sampling the best stool. You watch them sniffing out the oldest, hardest turds - you have to have a good nose. Some you wouldn’t even know were sh!t. They crunch like biscuits.

God knows how they chose the ones they eat and the ones they turn their noses up at. There seems no rhyme or reason to me.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20948
A cat with a view
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #25 - Sep 17th, 2013 at 2:37am
 

There is no respect of a 'golden rule', by ISLAM.




freediver wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 9:27pm:
The sort who would sell out the most vulnerable people to rapists, murderers and oppressors out of some demented notion of respect for the oppressor.



"The sort who would sell out the most vulnerable people to rapists, murderers and oppressors out of some demented notion of respect for the 'RIGHTS' OF AN oppressor."


The vicious and merciless oppression of all who could oppose the moslem will, is something [a moslem 'human right'] which ISLAM institutionalises, within every moslem community.



i.e.
ISLAM institutionalises, that moslems [being 'rightly guided' souls] have a lawful right to viciously and mercilessly oppress non-moslems [....because non-moslems ARE non-moslems].

Whereas those who oppose and criticise moslem hegemony [a vicious and cruel hegemony!], are those who are deemed [by ISLAMISTS] to be the real wrongdoers.



There is no compromise in the moslem mind...

1/ ISLAM/moslems are 'the good', and moslems have the [religious and lawful] right, to rule over all others.

2/ Others [because they ARE non-moslems], are always presumed [by every moslem] to be 'the' guilty.








Matthew 7:12
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.




A 'mankind' [today] which refuses to firstly scrutinise, and secondly, to criticise ISLAM/moslems, has lost its way.


"And what is good, Phaedrus? And what is not good? Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?"

Platoi

+++


Quote:

MURDERING INFIDELS WHO RESIST THE MOSLEMS, INFIDELS WHO DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT MOSLEMS BELIEVE, IS TOTALLY RIGHTEOUS AND IS TOTALLY JUSTIFIED.

......Allah has said so;



Koran 2.98
Koran 47:8-11
Koran 4.74-76


The content of those three Koran verse groups, together, form a 'virtuous circle'.

Each verse group firstly confirms and then reinforces the ISLAMIC 'religious' paradigm, that;
1/    unbelief [in man] is a serious 'religious' crime, and that,
2/    the 'criminals' [i.e. the 'unbelievers'] deserve every punishment they get, and the 'criminals' are outside of the protection of law, and that,
3/    good moslems have an obligation to,    ....'fight in the cause of Allah' , and all good moslems are 'rightly guided' and are justified in their 'crime fighting'.





Those arguments [above] are 'logically' demonstrated...

1/    "...Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith." [i.e. 'Unbelief' [in man] is a crime.].
Koran 2.98
[ - - The enemy of moslems is identified. All of 'unbelieving' mankind, are the declared enemy of moslems.]

2/    "...those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47:8-11
[ - - Here, it is clearly stated to every good moslem, that moslem enmity, violence, and warfare, against 'those who reject Faith', is morally justified, and 'lawful'. /sarc off]

3/    "...And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of [i.e. for] those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?...Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan:.."
Koran 4.74-76
[ - - Those who reject 'Faith' are ipso facto, 'rightly' deemed, by ISLAM and by Allah, as being innately evil. Therefore those who reject 'Faith', are described as 'oppressors', and are the rightful targets of moslem enmity, violence, and warfare.
...'those who reject Faith' are described [Koran 4.74-76], as 'oppressors' and as, 'the friends of Satan'.
]



Once again, the 'theology' which ISLAM inculcates into the psyche of all moslems, is this;...

1/    'Unbelief' [in man] is a crime.
2/    The 'criminals' have no 'lawful' protection whatsoever.
3/    The crime of 'unbelief' >> must << be punished by good moslems, and the punishment of 'unbelief' is morally justified, because, the 'unbelievers' are in league with evil forces, and they are the oppressors of the people [stated in Koran 4.74-76].

Back to top
« Last Edit: Sep 17th, 2013 at 2:45am by Yadda »  

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47316
At my desk.
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #26 - Sep 17th, 2013 at 12:37pm
 
Even the Muslims you are attempting to apologise for and defend from "unfair" criticism think it is spineless Brian.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 92202
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #27 - Sep 17th, 2013 at 12:38pm
 
The biggest connoisseur, of course, is the board’s resident gastronome, Y.

Y is the Bernard King of the faecophiles - he can turn a fossilised, two year old piece of sh!t into a 3 course meal.

Chicken Maryland, Veal Cordon bleu, Steak Dianne, you name it. All whipped up in no time at all.

Y makes it seem so easy, but the work requires effort, skill and discipline. Just finding the right text is a delicate balancing act. Going through your old recipes for just the right inscrutable Bible quote takes patience and descrimination. Choosing the right Muslim protest photo, or mug-shot image, or flag-burning photo is an art in itself.

Y has dedicated himself to this artform. This is a selfless task, and one, it needs to be said, that Y receives no payment for. Y dedicates his hours to sourcing the best ingredients, planning just the right recipes, and putting them all together in a form so palatable and delicious that we, the fortunate guest, couldn’t eat another thing.

We might not know what we’ve just eaten, but who cares?

It’s all fabulous.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20948
A cat with a view
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #28 - Sep 17th, 2013 at 11:35pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 17th, 2013 at 12:38pm:
The biggest connoisseur, of course, is the board’s resident gastronome, Y.

Y is the Bernard King of the faecophiles - he can turn a fossilised, two year old piece of sh!t into a 3 course meal.

Chicken Maryland, Veal Cordon bleu, Steak Dianne, you name it. All whipped up in no time at all.

Y makes it seem so easy, but the work requires effort, skill and discipline. Just finding the right text is a delicate balancing act. Going through your old recipes for just the right inscrutable Bible quote takes patience and descrimination. Choosing the right Muslim protest photo, or mug-shot image, or flag-burning photo is an art in itself.

Y has dedicated himself to this artform. This is a selfless task, and one, it needs to be said, that Y receives no payment for. Y dedicates his hours to sourcing the best ingredients, planning just the right recipes, and putting them all together in a form so palatable and delicious that we, the fortunate guest, couldn’t eat another thing.

We might not know what we’ve just eaten, but who cares?

It’s all fabulous.




Yes, it is.




What annoys you K, is that you know that my views [relating to ISLAM's 'place in the world'] are not irrelevant, and they are not untrue.



Life is a journey, K.

On your journey, you took a detour [....as many of us do], you chose a particular path.

And you know, that you now find yourself, standing in the midst of a bog.

Think about it, K.

What does it feel like K, to know that your own choices, brought you, to where you are ?



And people like myself, the 'Yadda', who is always reiterating the same message, again, and again ?

Well, you know!      .....that people like myself, are not standing there, in that bog, with you, K.

That is what really annoys people like yourself, K.

And every time i post here on OzPol, you are reminded of that fact, K.
.......that i am not standing there, in that bog, with you, K.        Cheesy




And there is no lifeline that someone like myself could throw to you K.

Because we both know, that a person like yourself, would only regard a lifeline, as a means to try pull me down into the bog with you.

Because i know that you understand K, that eventually, you are just going to sink into that bog.

And you are going to be a an irrelevant part of that bog, in which you are now standing.



It is the journey K.

But the journey we choose also determines the destination we will arrive at.







Quote:
Day after day alone on the hill,
The man with the foolish grin is keeping perfectly still,
But nobody wants to know him,
They can see that he's just a fool,


Beatles- Fool on the Hill (Beatles greatest hits album 67-70)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0AcHR_0PzUi

+++


Micah 3:1
And I said, Hear, I pray you, O heads of Jacob, and ye princes of the house of Israel; Is it not for you to know judgment?
2  Who hate the good, and love the evil; who pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones;
3  Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron.
4  Then shall they cry unto the LORD, but he will not hear them: he will even hide his face from them at that time, as they have behaved themselves ill in their doings.


2 Chronicles 24:19
Yet he sent prophets to them, to bring them again unto the LORD; and they testified against them: but they would not give ear.





Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 92202
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #29 - Sep 18th, 2013 at 3:25am
 
Thanks for the insight, Y. I guess I’m just angry at myself. I wish I could get out of this bog and join in the fun.

You shouldn’t rub it in like that, you know. We know God sent you as a prophet, Y, but it’s bad form to let on.

Let’s just keep that one between you and I.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 188
Send Topic Print