polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 29^th, 2014 at 11:24am:



Religion is bullshit - just take the time to watch George Carlin,.
you can't fault his logic.

Soren wrote on Oct 30^th, 2014 at 10:22pm:


Ah. Thanks for clarifying the gag, OB.

What a jolly wheeze.

Mattyfisk wrote on Oct 30^th, 2014 at 10:28pm:



Good to see you back at your stupid self, PB. The seriousness has passed, I can see. No Mo cartoons, what?

Mattyfisk wrote on Oct 30^th, 2014 at 10:51pm:



I am looking forward to your next long-winded wank about socio-economics, PB.   Then it will not be just the same nonsense in every paragraph. Oh no. That's intellectual insight, innit. Socio-economic fappity fap.  You know you want to, PB.

freediver wrote on Oct 30^th, 2014 at 6:49pm:


Ah of course, its my inability to guage...

here's me thinking Australians believe people shouldn't be offended based on their religion - because they said exactly that in a survey. In FD world that is a clear case of spineless apologism.

Yet FD assures us this is incorrect, because in his words its been "reinterpreted beyond all recognition". He just hasn't got round to explaining exactly how - how people can say one thing very clearly and unambiguously, but mean the exact opposite. Coincidentally, of course, this also happens to be one of the clear examples of spineless apologism thats not from muslims or muslim apologists.

After some prodding, poor FD must resort to his comfort zone - obfuscating and derailing from this fundamental point.

But clearly its me who is unable to guage...

Notice too that FD has quietly walked away from the holocaust denial issue, hoping it will go unnoticed.

freediver wrote on Oct 31^st, 2014 at 12:29pm:


Oh I know FD, I humbly defer to your superior grasping skills. Clearly the fact that wanting laws in place to protect people from being offended on the basis of their religion doesn't really mean wanting laws in place to protect people from being offended on the basis of their religion - is beyond my inferior comprehension skills.

Clearly the issue of freedom of speech is so complicated that we must draw the most simplistic and sweeping conclusions about muslim populations with no, or irrelevant evidence, but become all nuanced when it comes to non-muslims - to the extent that we twist their own words around to mean the exact opposite of what they said. Evidently thats too complicated for me to grasp also.

But as long as I remember the key points:
1. muslims - hate freedom
2. non-muslims - love freedom

the details don't really matter. You certainly abide by this philosophy.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 30^th, 2014 at 9:30pm:



Dear Gandalf,
give up your religion.
There will be no 72 virgins for you.

Get your life back on track.

Follow instead - master Light.

freediver wrote on Oct 31^st, 2014 at 6:42pm:


Well golly gosh FD, you got me there. I guess I never really asked.

How about you? Found anyone who agrees with you that interpreting people's responses that they want to make offending people based on religion unlawful - as people wanting to make offending people based on religion unlawful - is reinterpretation "beyond recognition?" - and really means the exact opposite?