Australian Politics Forum - spineless apologetics

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › Member Run Boards › Islam › spineless apologetics

(Moderator: polite_gandalf)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 ... 188

spineless apologetics (Read 341016 times)

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47446
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #180 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:15pm

Quote:

Different to what? He said what he said. I told you what I think he meant.

This is not the interpretation of some 1400 year old Arabic text about Muhammed wiping his arse. It is written in plain English. I did not ask you to translate it for me. I can read it for myself. I asked you what you think about it. In particular, do you think it is spineless?

Quote:

but I never said anything remotely like "Brian wrote something, but really meant something else".

So why did you feel the need to tell me what Brian meant? Are you suggesting I am incapable of comprehending it for myself? What you claimed he really meant is nothing at all like what he actually said. Instead, you found some other marginally relevant comment and insisted that was the entirety of it.

Quote:

The only thing going on here is my interpretation of what he wrote is different to your interpretation.

How so? How do you even know what my interpretation is? So far it has always sufficed for me to simply quote what Brian actually said. I have never felt any need to tell anyone else what he "really" meant. It is clear enough and Brian has not retracted any of it.

Quote:

That is *NOT* me saying what he said was spineless, but I'm going to make up something else and pretend that he meant something else.

Yet that is exactly what you did. At every opportunity you have completely ignored the post in question and substituted some other, slightly less spineless comment.

Quote:

My justification is the context of the post in light of what he said before and after.

You mean the context that Brian refuses to answer even the most basic questions about? Do you have some special insight into Brian's psyche that tells you what he means without him needing to say it? Or is it just a matter of you picking and choosing, the same way you do with Muhammed's dirty deeds?

Quote:

Including the quote I provided yesterday saying something like: 'show me a muslim acting immorally or illegal and I'll condemn it.'

Yes, that is a good example of you deflecting to something only marginally relevant. I notice you made no attempt at all to clarify the apparent contradiction in Brian's two statements. Instead, you simply found a comment that is slightly more palatable and insisted that was what Brian "really" meant when he said the opposite. You offered it as a substitute for giving a straight answer about what Brian posted. You are afraid to offer your own opinion.

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20023 Canberra Gender:	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #181 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:41pm This is beneath me. Carry on FD, if it gives your life meaning.
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: 47446 At my desk.	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #182 - Oct 7^th, 2013 at 8:33am Can Brian's words be taken at face value? Did he mean what he actually said?
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

Datalife

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2405
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #183 - Oct 7^th, 2013 at 8:52am

freediver wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 8:33am:

Can Brian's words be taken at face value? Did he mean what he actually said?

He never does.

Quote:

Brian Ross wrote:DL, I haven't claimed to be an academic. I've never been employed as one nor claimed to hold any academic standing. That is a product it appears of your febrile imagination. I'll leave you to keep up your strawmen arguments yourself.

From the clown who also wrote

Quote:

Brian Ross wrote:I have been a published academic at several points in my life, Sappho. ?

Quote:

Brian Ross wrote:Actually, DL, I referred to several webpages before I typed that out, to make sure what I remembered from my academic days was correct.

Quote:

Brian Ross wrote:You must move in very different academic circles to myself

Quote:

Brian Ross wrote:Funny, is that why whenever I or anybody else bring up their academic qualifications or knowledge you attack them personally? ?

"If they’re out there in the high seas, what you would do is seek to turn them back through the agency of the Australian Navy".

Kevin Rudd on 2GB, July 12, 2007

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47446 At my desk.	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #184 - Oct 7^th, 2013 at 9:21am I wonder if you can get a degree in apologetics.
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #185 - Oct 7^th, 2013 at 9:53am

freediver wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 8:33am:

Can Brian's words be taken at face value? Did he mean what he actually said?

Thats neither here nor there in the context of this inane discussion of what constitutes "spinelessness". Perhaps you should have opened this discussion by clearly articulating what you mean by "spineless". Clearly Brian is not being 'spineless' in the context of this forum. To be 'spineless' here, you simply join the conga line in smearing islam and muslims - that way you will avoid all the attacks and personal abuse that is part and parcel with daring to quesstion the prevailing islamophobia here. Given the treatment Brian has received in daring to challenge the mainstream attitudes on this forum, "spineless" is a most bizarre way to describe him indeed.

Basically, it takes spine to demand a fair go for muslims in a cesspit of bigotry such as this forum.

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:	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #186 - Oct 7^th, 2013 at 4:51pm Wow! 13 pages and all to attack Brian? He's surpassed himself! What a mob of drongos!!!!
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: 47446
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #187 - Oct 7^th, 2013 at 6:21pm

Quote:

Thats neither here nor there in the context of this inane discussion of what constitutes "spinelessness".

It is the crux of the matter. Your insistance that Brian's post is not spineless appears to hinge on "interpretting" it to mean something very different from what it says "on the surface".

Quote:

Perhaps you should have opened this discussion by clearly articulating what you mean by "spineless".

I don't really think that is necessary.

Quote:

Clearly Brian is not being 'spineless' in the context of this forum. To be 'spineless' here, you simply join the conga line in smearing islam and muslims - that way you will avoid all the attacks and personal abuse that is part and parcel with daring to quesstion the prevailing islamophobia here.

Ah I see. Brian is by definition "not spineless" because he is on your side? To clarify, when I say spineless, I do not mean merely agreeing or disagreeing with the more popular opinion. In fact I would go so far as to suggest that Brian's opinions are unpopular because of their spinelessness. Even you think what he said was spineless.

Quote:

Given the treatment Brian has received in daring to challenge the mainstream attitudes on this forum

You mean attitudes like, we are capable of criticising other nations and religions? We have a right to do so? We do not consider it a foreigner's "right" to chop his neighbour's head off for thinking the wrong thoughts? We do not consider it appropriate to flip flop on such basic concepts depending on "context"?

Quote:

Basically, it takes spine to demand a fair go for muslims in a cesspit of bigotry such as this forum.

So when Brian insists it is a foreign Muslim's right to kill a man for thinking the wrong thoughts, that is all about a "fair go" for the Muslim?

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

True Colours Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2837 Gender:	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #188 - Oct 7^th, 2013 at 8:23pm How many years jail do you get in Europe for questioning whether the holocaust happened? Spineless apologetics?
Back to top	IP Logged

moses Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6353	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #189 - Oct 7^th, 2013 at 9:27pm Exactly who / what are you justifying, if you do not deny the holocaust? Wouldn't a spineless apologist, be the person questioning the validity of the holocaust?
Back to top	IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #190 - Oct 7^th, 2013 at 9:35pm

freediver wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 6:21pm:

It is the crux of the matter.

No its not. What is considered "spineless" is purely subjective, and therefore completely worthless. I consider your tacit approval to the islamophobic bigots here completely spineless - but you're obviously not going to give any worth to that subjective opinion, and nor should you.

freediver wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 6:21pm:

Your insistance that Brian's post is not spineless appears to hinge on "interpretting" it to mean something very different from what it says "on the surface".

While its pretty obvious what you consider "spineless", its going to be completely different for me. As you should expect - its just a subjective matter. Thus I am not saying anything is "spineless" in this respect, because its my subjective opinion that the term is wholly inappropriate. Even if I agreed with your interpretation of what Brian said, I would not consider it "spineless". Immorally reprehensible, yes, but not spineless. And who are you to patronisingly tell me "oh no, you really do find it spineless"? Who the hell are you to decide for me what I consider spineless? I literally can't describe how absurd this discussion is.

freediver wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 6:21pm:

Ah I see. Brian is by definition "not spineless" because he is on your side?

Why the hell not? I can decide whatever the hell I want "spineless" to mean - its. completely. subjective! - as I seem to keep saying.

Perhaps you might finally understand what pure farce this whole discussion is. You came out and absurdly demanded Brian come up with a single muslim who doesn't consider his statement "spineless". In all seriousness, can you think of anything more stupid?? Can you give me a single good reason why any muslim would consider statements that support muslims right to not be vilified for deciding their own matters to be "spineless"?

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: 47446
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #191 - Oct 7^th, 2013 at 10:14pm

Quote:

What is considered "spineless" is purely subjective, and therefore completely worthless.

Would you mind elaborating on this? It seems a strange thing to claim. Is this something Islam taught you?

Quote:

I consider your tacit approval to the islamophobic bigots here completely spineless - but you're obviously not going to give any worth to that subjective opinion, and nor should you.

I see you are capable of offering an opinion after all. Would you care to offer an opinion on Brian's post?

Quote:

While its pretty obvious what you consider "spineless", its going to be completely different for me.

I don't think it is. I think that Brian's post is universally regarded as spineless.

Quote:

Thus I am not saying anything is "spineless" in this respect, because its my subjective opinion that the term is wholly inappropriate.

Yet you happily apply it to me, but are afraid to apply it to a string of words concocted by Brian.

Quote:

Even if I agreed with your interpretation of what Brian said, I would not consider it "spineless".

Are you suggesting I do not understand Brian's post?

Quote:

Immorally reprehensible, yes, but not spineless.

Is this your opinion of Brian's post? Isn't the phrase usually "morally reprehensible"?

Quote:

And who are you to patronisingly tell me "oh no, you really do find it spineless"? Who the hell are you to decide for me what I consider spineless?

You agreed with me that it is spineless "on the surface". Thus our only disagreement appears to be on the 'real meaning' of what Brian posted, which is also hard to understand as he did not exactly mince his words.

Quote:

I literally can't describe how absurd this discussion is.

Nor can I. Perhaps it best not to. Some things are beyond words. That is why I could only bring myself to quote Brian, and not comment on it, lest I detract from the absurdity of what he posted.

In any case my understanding of this discussion is thus: we have come full circle, and now have the Muslim apologising for the spineless apologetics of the Islamic apologist.

You are correct that it is absurd, and I value your opinion on the matter.

Quote:

Why the hell not? I can decide whatever the hell I want "spineless" to mean - its. completely. subjective! - as I seem to keep saying.

So subjectivity implies not only lack of worth, but lack of meaning?

Quote:

Perhaps you might finally understand what pure farce this whole discussion is. You came out and absurdly demanded Brian come up with a single muslim who doesn't consider his statement "spineless". In all seriousness, can you think of anything more stupid?? Can you give me a single good reason why any muslim would consider statements that support muslims right to not be vilified for deciding their own matters to be "spineless"?

I see you have forgotten what we are talking about already. Here it is again for you - the post that you consider so spineless (and immorally reprehensible, apparently) that you feel compelled to alter it's very meaning at every opportunity.

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 5:39pm:

Quote:

Is this the Islam you are so keen to defend with your "fair deal" nonsense, what about those who no longer believe in that bullshit barfed up by a 7th century desert bandit do they deserve a fair deal like article 18 of the Universal declaration of human rights?
Quote:

7 nations where atheism is punishable by death.
All 7 establish Islam as the state religion.
Pakistan,Saudi Arabia,Iran,Afghanistan,Sudan,Mauritania and the Maldives
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/10/the-seven-countries-where-...

I make no excuses for those nations and their laws, BV. I merely recognise that it is their right to create and unfortunately impose those punishments. It is terrible but I also recognise I have no right or ability to criticise them. I am neither a member of their religion or a citizen of any of those nations.

Note that I need not explain the meaning for you. It speaks for itself, don't you think?

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 39572

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #192 - Oct 7^th, 2013 at 11:06pm

Yes, it does, FD. It says what it says. If you had an open mind, instead of one blinded by bigotry you'd be able to understand it.

As for me being "spineless", the mere fact, as Gandalf has pointed out, I refuse to join the "conga line" shows I am not "spineless", FD. Your effort to cow me, to make me conform to your "conga line" of hatred, bigotry and Xenophobia has failed as all these sorts of personal attack threads do. Roll Eyes

This will be my last post in this thread. You are welcome to continue it, FD. However, if you do, it merely demonstrates how desperate you to try and force people to toe your viewpoint and how intolerant you are of any form of dissent. Have fun! Tongue

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

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #193 - Oct 7^th, 2013 at 11:32pm

freediver wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 10:14pm:

Would you mind elaborating on this? It seems a strange thing to claim.

Well if you trully consider it strange to say that the term "spineless" is purely subjective, then we clearly have a problem.

freediver wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 10:14pm:

Would you care to offer an opinion on Brian's post?

Sure. Feel free to peruse my assessment of Brian's post I have requoted on this thread about a million times.

freediver wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 10:14pm:

I think that Brian's post is universally regarded as spineless.

This is incredible. You have a moral objection to a particular position, and you conclude the person is "spineless" - aka "gutless", "cowardly", "too scared". You find his statement morally objectionable - but it doesn't automatically make the statement cowardly/gutless etc. A morally objectionable statement could be a very bold or wreckless statement - as morally objectional statements often are - ie the very opposite to "spineless". Like I said, coming on this forum and saying people don't have a right to smear muslims when most people here are outright hostile to such views, is the very opposite of spineless. And thats got nothing to do with whether I agree with the statement. It would be the same as if I went on to your average muslim forum and declared that atheists should note be defamed and ridiculed - it would be simply ridiculous to claim that as 'spineless' - and even more ridiculous to claim that all atheists would consider it spineless.

freediver wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 10:14pm:

Yet you happily apply it to me, but are afraid to apply it to a string of words concocted by Brian.

So every opinion of mine must come back to a conclusion of "spinelessness"? Did you even think about that sentence before you wrote it?

freediver wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 10:14pm:

Isn't the phrase usually "morally reprehensible"?

Correct.

freediver wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 10:14pm:

I see you have forgotten what we are talking about already.

No, the farcical discussion, that you created all by yourself, is all about your little challenge to Brian to come up with a single muslim who doesn't think his statement is "spineless". Thats the only reason I ever came into this discussion. Before that, I had no problem whatsoever with you calling what he said spineless - though of course I disagree with that assessment. But as soon as you started marching around insisting that everyone agrees with you on what is "spineless", for the sake of common sense I was duty bound to intervene.

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: 47446
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #194 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 12:33pm

Brian:

Quote:

Yes, it does, FD. It says what it says. If you had an open mind, instead of one blinded by bigotry you'd be able to understand it.

But does it mean what it says? Why do both you and Gandalf keep insisting I do not understand it?

Gandalf:

Quote:

Sure. Feel free to peruse my assessment of Brian's post I have requoted on this thread about a million times.

Wrong post. You keep giving your opinion of any post except the one I am asking you about. You keep insisting it means something different to what it says.

Quote:

This is incredible. You have a moral objection to a particular position, and you conclude the person is "spineless" - aka "gutless", "cowardly", "too scared".

Yet you reached the same conclusion about what it says "on the surface".

Quote:

You find his statement morally objectionable - but it doesn't automatically make the statement cowardly/gutless etc.

Actually no, spineless was my initial response to it, and I still think the term captures the essence of Brian's post. I don't usually think of freedom of speech as a moral construct. You are the one insisting that the moral repugnance outweighs the spinelessness.

Quote:

A morally objectionable statement could be a very bold or wreckless statement - as morally objectional statements often are - ie the very opposite to "spineless".

It could be. Brian's isn't. It is spineless.

Quote:

Like I said, coming on this forum and saying people don't have a right to smear muslims when most people here are outright hostile to such views, is the very opposite of spineless.

Perhaps, but Brian would not dare insist that others don't have this right. That would go against the spirit of bending every possible way at the same time. I have attempted to get him to elaborate on the concept, but he cannot bring himself to do so.

Quote:

So every opinion of mine must come back to a conclusion of "spinelessness"? Did you even think about that sentence before you wrote it?

Gandalf I was just pointing out your hypocrisy in using the term then in the next sentence insisting you would not use it.

Quote:

Correct.

So is that what you think of Brian's post - morally reprehensible? I only ask because you qualified it so heavily and have offered so many contradictory interpretations of both the meaning of what he posted and your opinion of it.

Quote:

Before that, I had no problem whatsoever with you calling what he said spineless - though of course I disagree with that assessment.

You still haven't explained why you need to "reinterpret" Brian's post so that the meaning is different from what it says "on the surface" - which you have already agreed is spineless. Is there some kind of hidden meaning? Brian has declared that he stands by the original meaning (as well as your alternative meaning of course). Why can't it be taken at face value?

Quote:

But as soon as you started marching around insisting that everyone agrees with you on what is "spineless", for the sake of common sense I was duty bound to intervene.

Your intervention would carry more weight if you did not start by agreeing with me "on the surface" but insisting we must accept a different, less spineless, meaning to what Brian posted because you were able to dig up a slightly less spineless post of his.

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 ... 188

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Forum

‹ Board

Top of this page