Australian Politics Forum - Australians want to ban mockery of religion

Datalife Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2405 Gender:	Re: Australians want to ban mockery of religion Reply #90 - Nov 19^th, 2014 at 1:14pm [quote author=Hot_Breath link=1414494822/89#89 date=1416366043] Another echo of Brian's view on the issue. I am surprised, I know you're a fan boi of his but I never realised you were parroting his views! ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D[/quote] As usual what you realise is wrong.
Back to top	"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

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Australians want to ban mockery of religion
Reply #91 - Nov 19^th, 2014 at 3:18pm

|dev|null wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 1:00pm:

I think by any modern standard a 50 plus year old bloke marrying a six year old and smacking her when she was a ten year old would class as a paedo (even leaving aside the thighing her whilst she was still too small to bugger )... well maybe not for a modern Muslim. And it is the reasoning that modern muslims take to justify child marriage and underage sex.

Firstly, no - pedophilia by definition is (once again) characterised by primary or exclusive attraction to pre-pubescent children. Muhammad's 10 non-prepubescent wives and there being no evidence that he ever had sex with a pre-pubescent girl - and certainly no evidence that he was ever attracted to pre-pubescent girls - completely refutes the idea that he was a pedophile.

Secondly, of course if you transplanted the exact same 7th century situation to 21st century western civilisation, it would be rightly condemned. But such a scenario is completely absurd for what should be obvious reasons. The only relevant things for me in this story are 1. as far as I'm concerned Aisha was post-pubescent at the time of consummation (more than enough evidence to suggest this) and 2. his marriage to Aisha was based on mutual love and respect.

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: 98199

Re: Australians want to ban mockery of religion
Reply #92 - Nov 19^th, 2014 at 3:31pm

freediver wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 8:06am:

Karnal wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 10:15pm:

Datalife wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 9:45pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 9:21pm:

Gandalf do you think your behaviour here reflects well on Muslims? Do you think it will make it easier or harder for the next Muslim who tries to insist they share the mainstream view on freedom of speech, or that Muslims are not a threat to our freedom and human rights?

Spare a thought for the Muslims who are not among the tiny minority.

Gandalf lost me as an honest player with his rediculous bullshit defence about mo being a pedo. An honest thinker with a view to history which he how he tried to present himself would have just said, big mo as a warrior of his time would have rooted and raped chicks which by modern standards would cast him as a pedo, but no such charge or stigma existed at the time, and where young 12 and 13 year old girsl marrying was the norm..

Oh, Abu tried that one.

Alas, FD chased him.around for 50 pages until Abu became the pedo for suggesting exactly what you just did.

Sometimes a question is just a question, you know.

Abu said Muhammed was a rapist?

Is that a question?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50272
At my desk.

Re: Australians want to ban mockery of religion
Reply #93 - Nov 19^th, 2014 at 6:57pm

Quote:

Has Australia ever really had an "open marketplace of ideas"? With only an "implied right" to Freedom of Speech and one that has always been conditional to the will of Parliament, it rather makes it a hollow one, so I'm not sure what you're trying to claim about what the majority of Australians support FD!

Gandalf claims that the majority of Australians want to ban criticism or mockery of religion. I am claiming this is BS. He is making this claim so he can pretend to be on the pro-freedom side, despite being ideologically opposed to a 'free marketplace of ideas'. This has never been about the constitutional foundations of the rights we currently have.

Quote:

Its not a moral argument either, its simply stating that on the universally understood definition of pedophile, Muhammad clearly does not fit the bill.

Except for the bit about having sex with children. That is what comes to my mind when people talk about pedophiles.

Quote:

Their unwillingness to simply admit that they are applying an inaccurate definition of "pedophile" - as if this might somehow paint Muhammad in a less evil light (shock horror!) - speaks volumes about the mindset of these people. And that is why exposing this dishonesty is not mere semantics, but is a necessary part of exposing this sort of anti-islam campaigning as being rooted in prejudice and bigotry.

You mean racism?

Quote:

Mo was evidently attracted to early-teens in addition to mature aged women.

He had sex with her when she was 9. He 'dreamed' about her prior to marrying her at age 6.

Quote:

Firstly, no - pedophilia by definition is (once again) characterised by primary or exclusive attraction to pre-pubescent children.

I recall you offering an even more restrictive definition previously.

Quote:

Muhammad's 10 non-prepubescent wives and there being no evidence that he ever had sex with a pre-pubescent girl

Except that he had sex with a 9 year old.

Quote:

and certainly no evidence that he was ever attracted to pre-pubescent girls

Except for having dreams about and marrying a 6 year old, and having sex with a 9 year old.

Quote:

Secondly, of course if you transplanted the exact same 7th century situation to 21st century western civilisation, it would be rightly condemned. But such a scenario is completely absurd for what should be obvious reasons.

So it is OK in 21st century non-western civilisations?

Quote:

The only relevant things for me in this story are 1. as far as I'm concerned Aisha was post-pubescent at the time of consummation (more than enough evidence to suggest this)

There is no evidence at all to suggest this. In fact the evidence points the opposite way. If he had taken the moral high ground of waiting till she hit puberty, he would have said. The most likely explanation for not mentioning the topic, despite plenty of talk about this sort of thing in the Koran and Hadith, is that she was pre-pubescent. Given all the moral preening in Islam and attempts to paint Muhammed's immoral acts as the moral high ground, the absence of even an attempt to do this in the case of Muhammed having sex with children makes it look like clear cut pedophilia.

Quote:

his marriage to Aisha was based on mutual love and respect.

Between a 6 year old girl and the 50+ year old bloke from next door? Can you explain how exactly he went about courting and falling in love with his six year old neighbour?

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Australians want to ban mockery of religion
Reply #94 - Nov 19^th, 2014 at 7:12pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 3:18pm:

|dev|null wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 1:00pm:

I think by any modern standard a 50 plus year old bloke marrying a six year old and smacking her when she was a ten year old would class as a paedo (even leaving aside the thighing her whilst she was still too small to bugger )... well maybe not for a modern Muslim. And it is the reasoning that modern muslims take to justify child marriage and underage sex.

Firstly, no - pedophilia by definition is (once again) characterised by primary or exclusive attraction to pre-pubescent children. Muhammad's 10 non-prepubescent wives and there being no evidence that he ever had sex with a pre-pubescent girl - and certainly no evidence that he was ever attracted to pre-pubescent girls - completely refutes the idea that he was a pedophile.

Secondly, of course if you transplanted the exact same 7th century situation to 21st century western civilisation, it would be rightly condemned. But such a scenario is completely absurd for what should be obvious reasons. The only relevant things for me in this story are 1. as far as I'm concerned Aisha was post-pubescent at the time of consummation (more than enough evidence to suggest this) and 2. his marriage to Aisha was based on mutual love and respect.

"Mutual love and respect" in 7th century Araby is not the same as in 21st century Western countries.

Anachronism 101.
Anyway.

The haggling over her menses is really a rearguard effort by Muslims. It comes from the stupid corner Mohammed painted all of you into by insisting that what he heard in the case was from god, it was unalterable and that it was final (ie no later review is possible on the same authoritative grounds).

This is simply stupid, with all respect. But you are painted into the stupid corner and there is no way out of it.

The West has interiorised Cicero's O tempora o mores!

Islam is unable to develop this ability to know anachronism from timelessness and so you find yourself, poor man, arguing for the universality of 7th century tribal Arab attitudes towards women, sex and the relationship between men and women. You are well and truly painted into a stupid and anachronistic corner.

We either submit to this anachronism or we denounce and resist it. If the latter, we will have Brain, Hot Breath, PB, you, the Efnik Affairs Commisioners and all the other multi-culti rent-seekers onto us. So the relentless push for Submission to this stupid and unacceptable 7th century Arab view is on.

You can't abandon it, we can't accept it. Multiculturalism's paradox in a nutshell.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98199

Re: Australians want to ban mockery of religion
Reply #95 - Nov 19^th, 2014 at 7:16pm

Karnal wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 3:31pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 8:06am:

Karnal wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 10:15pm:

Datalife wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 9:45pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 9:21pm:

Gandalf do you think your behaviour here reflects well on Muslims? Do you think it will make it easier or harder for the next Muslim who tries to insist they share the mainstream view on freedom of speech, or that Muslims are not a threat to our freedom and human rights?

Spare a thought for the Muslims who are not among the tiny minority.

Gandalf lost me as an honest player with his rediculous bullshit defence about mo being a pedo. An honest thinker with a view to history which he how he tried to present himself would have just said, big mo as a warrior of his time would have rooted and raped chicks which by modern standards would cast him as a pedo, but no such charge or stigma existed at the time, and where young 12 and 13 year old girsl marrying was the norm..

Oh, Abu tried that one.

Alas, FD chased him.around for 50 pages until Abu became the pedo for suggesting exactly what you just did.

Sometimes a question is just a question, you know.

Abu said Muhammed was a rapist?

Is that a question?

FD evades the question. Again.

Cunning, no?

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98199

Re: Australians want to ban mockery of religion
Reply #96 - Nov 19^th, 2014 at 7:22pm

Soren wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 7:12pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 3:18pm:

|dev|null wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 1:00pm:

I think by any modern standard a 50 plus year old bloke marrying a six year old and smacking her when she was a ten year old would class as a paedo (even leaving aside the thighing her whilst she was still too small to bugger )... well maybe not for a modern Muslim. And it is the reasoning that modern muslims take to justify child marriage and underage sex.

Firstly, no - pedophilia by definition is (once again) characterised by primary or exclusive attraction to pre-pubescent children. Muhammad's 10 non-prepubescent wives and there being no evidence that he ever had sex with a pre-pubescent girl - and certainly no evidence that he was ever attracted to pre-pubescent girls - completely refutes the idea that he was a pedophile.

Secondly, of course if you transplanted the exact same 7th century situation to 21st century western civilisation, it would be rightly condemned. But such a scenario is completely absurd for what should be obvious reasons. The only relevant things for me in this story are 1. as far as I'm concerned Aisha was post-pubescent at the time of consummation (more than enough evidence to suggest this) and 2. his marriage to Aisha was based on mutual love and respect.

"Mutual love and respect" in 7th century Araby is not the same as in 21st century Western countries.

Anachronism 101.
Anyway.

The haggling over her menses is really a rearguard effort by Muslims. It comes from the stupid corner Mohammed painted all of you into by insisting that what he heard in the case was from god, it was unalterable and that it was final (ie no later review is possible on the same authoritative grounds).

This is simply stupid, with all respect. But you are painted into the stupid corner and there is no way out of it.

The West has interiorised Cicero's O tempora o mores!

Islam is unable to develop this ability to know anachronism from timelessness and so you find yourself, poor man, arguing for the universality of 7th century tribal Arab attitudes towards women, sex and the relationship between men and women. You are well and truly painted into a stupid and anachronistic corner.

We either submit to this anachronism or we denounce and resist it. If the latter, we will have Brain, Hot Breath, PB, you, the Efnik Affairs Commisioners and all the other multi-culti rent-seekers onto us. So the relentless push for Submission to this stupid and unacceptable 7th century Arab view is on.

You can't abandon it, we can't accept it. Multiculturalism's paradox in a nutshell.

Yes, old chap, and the haggling over what constitutes consent is a peculiarly 21st century stupidity. I’m sure you’re familiar with it, given all your necessary restraints.

Civilisation has its discontents.

Personally, I prefer submission. We’ll talk about it later, eh?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 19^th, 2014 at 8:47pm by Karnal »

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98199

Re: Australians want to ban mockery of religion
Reply #97 - Nov 19^th, 2014 at 7:28pm

freediver wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 6:57pm:

Quote:

Has Australia ever really had an "open marketplace of ideas"? With only an "implied right" to Freedom of Speech and one that has always been conditional to the will of Parliament, it rather makes it a hollow one, so I'm not sure what you're trying to claim about what the majority of Australians support FD!

Gandalf claims that the majority of Australians want to ban criticism or mockery of religion. I am claiming this is BS.

I say, FD, any chance you could put this in the form of a question?

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39168
Gender: male

Re: Australians want to ban mockery of religion
Reply #98 - Nov 19^th, 2014 at 8:35pm

Karnal wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 7:28pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 6:57pm:

Quote:

Has Australia ever really had an "open marketplace of ideas"? With only an "implied right" to Freedom of Speech and one that has always been conditional to the will of Parliament, it rather makes it a hollow one, so I'm not sure what you're trying to claim about what the majority of Australians support FD!

Gandalf claims that the majority of Australians want to ban criticism or mockery of religion. I am claiming this is BS.

I say, FD, any chance you could put this in the form of a question?

How's that Poll going Karnal? Does it support freediver's 'BS' claim?

(Yeas, that is a question.)

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98199

Re: Australians want to ban mockery of religion
Reply #99 - Nov 19^th, 2014 at 8:44pm

Aussie wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 8:35pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 7:28pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 6:57pm:

Quote:

Has Australia ever really had an "open marketplace of ideas"? With only an "implied right" to Freedom of Speech and one that has always been conditional to the will of Parliament, it rather makes it a hollow one, so I'm not sure what you're trying to claim about what the majority of Australians support FD!

Gandalf claims that the majority of Australians want to ban criticism or mockery of religion. I am claiming this is BS.

I say, FD, any chance you could put this in the form of a question?

How's that Poll going Karnal? Does it support freediver's 'BS' claim?

(Yeas, that is a question.)

I think so, Aussie.

If we shift a few words around, we can make it say anything FD wants.

That’s Freeedom.

Back to top

IP Logged

|dev|null

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4434
Gender: male

Re: Australians want to ban mockery of religion
Reply #100 - Nov 19^th, 2014 at 8:51pm

[quote author=Datalife link=1414494822/90#90 date=1416366852][quote author=Hot_Breath link=1414494822/89#89 date=1416366043]

Another echo of Brian's view on the issue. I am surprised, I know you're a fan boi of his but I never realised you were parroting his views! ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D[/quote]

As usual what you realise is wrong. [/quote]

Really? Why then the identical point being made DL? Or you claiming credit for something he was saying months ago? ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

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

|dev|null

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4434
Gender: male

Re: Australians want to ban mockery of religion
Reply #101 - Nov 19^th, 2014 at 8:53pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 3:18pm:

|dev|null wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 1:00pm:

I think by any modern standard a 50 plus year old bloke marrying a six year old and smacking her when she was a ten year old would class as a paedo (even leaving aside the thighing her whilst she was still too small to bugger )... well maybe not for a modern Muslim. And it is the reasoning that modern muslims take to justify child marriage and underage sex.

Firstly, no - pedophilia by definition is (once again) characterised by primary or exclusive attraction to pre-pubescent children. Muhammad's 10 non-prepubescent wives and there being no evidence that he ever had sex with a pre-pubescent girl - and certainly no evidence that he was ever attracted to pre-pubescent girls - completely refutes the idea that he was a pedophile.

Secondly, of course if you transplanted the exact same 7th century situation to 21st century western civilisation, it would be rightly condemned. But such a scenario is completely absurd for what should be obvious reasons. The only relevant things for me in this story are 1. as far as I'm concerned Aisha was post-pubescent at the time of consummation (more than enough evidence to suggest this) and 2. his marriage to Aisha was based on mutual love and respect.

I didn't say that, Gandalf. DL did. I'm sure he wouldn't want me being credited with his words! Grin

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

Datalife

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2405
Gender: male

Re: Australians want to ban mockery of religion
Reply #102 - Nov 19^th, 2014 at 9:21pm

[quote author=Hot_Breath link=1414494822/100#100 date=1416394308][quote author=Datalife link=1414494822/90#90 date=1416366852][quote author=Hot_Breath link=1414494822/89#89 date=1416366043]

Another echo of Brian's view on the issue. I am surprised, I know you're a fan boi of his but I never realised you were parroting his views! ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D[/quote]

As usual what you realise is wrong. [/quote]

Really? Why then the identical point being made DL? Or you claiming credit for something he was saying months ago? ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D
[/quote]

Months ago you say? I know being a dill is effortless for you, and even Brian would find it hard to argue that a 50 plus year old bonking a 10 year old is not peadophelia by modern standards, and here is me saying so, back in 2013. By your idiot reasoning, that means Brian is claiming credit from me.

[quote author=Datalife link=1369558442/166#166 date=1382361311][quote author=gandalf link=1369558442/165#165 date=1382360543]Thats nice data, but thats got nothing to do with whether or not I called for a ban on accusing the prophet of being a pedophile.[/quote]

I didn't even know you had. My post was to try and give you an inkling of the direction that other people are taking, and your own defence and the incompatibility between the two when a reasonable and logical explanation which could be accepted by any reasonable and logical person, that it was a different time, different standards, and big Mo by those conditions at the time did nothing wrong.

It was some good advice, but if I infer correctly from your post that you seek to ban and censor I leave you to it. I don't like censorship at the best of times, and censoring or banning people because your sensibilities are offended because your god or prophet is being insulted well I lose interest totally.

Up to here, frankly with Muslims taking offence and attempting to censor others.

As an atheist maybe I don't get it, but clowns of all faiths protecting sky fairys by censoring or declaring fatwahs, beheadings, bombings, and all the usual rubbish are nothing more than intolerant. And dangerously so. [/quote]

Back to top

"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

Datalife

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2405
Gender: male

Re: Australians want to ban mockery of religion
Reply #103 - Nov 19^th, 2014 at 9:24pm

Try again. Months ago you say? I know being a dill is effortless for you, and even Brian would find it hard to argue that a 50 plus year old bonking a 10 year old is not peadophelia by modern standards, and here is me saying so, back in 2013. By your idiot reasoning, that means Brian is claiming credit from me.

178 IQ my arse, you "debate" with slightly less intelligence than a six year old.

Datalife wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 11:15pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 11:02pm:

Thats nice data, but thats got nothing to do with whether or not I called for a ban on accusing the prophet of being a pedophile.

I didn't even know you had. My post was to try and give you an inkling of the direction that other people are taking, and your own defence and the incompatibility between the two when a reasonable and logical explanation which could be accepted by any reasonable and logical person, that it was a different time, different standards, and big Mo by those conditions at the time did nothing wrong.

It was some good advice, but if I infer correctly from your post that you seek to ban and censor I leave you to it. I don't like censorship at the best of times, and censoring or banning people because your sensibilities are offended because your god or prophet is being insulted well I lose interest totally.

Up to here, frankly with Muslims taking offence and attempting to censor others.

As an atheist maybe I don't get it, but clowns of all faiths protecting sky fairys by censoring or declaring fatwahs, beheadings, bombings, and all the usual rubbish are nothing more than intolerant. And dangerously so.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 19^th, 2014 at 9:39pm by Datalife »

"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: 50272 At my desk.	Re: Australians want to ban mockery of religion Reply #104 - Nov 19^th, 2014 at 10:01pm You keep saying 10. By all accounts, she was 9 when Muhammed had sex with her. He was over 50.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Poll
Question: Should it be illegal to criticise or mock religion in Aus?
Yes, it should be illegal. 1 (4.5%) No, it should not. 21 (95.5%) Total votes: 22 « Created by: freediver on: Oct 28^th, 2014 at 9:16pm »