|
Brian Ross
|
freediver wrote on Dec 28 th, 2017 at 3:20pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 28 th, 2017 at 2:57pm: freediver wrote on Dec 28 th, 2017 at 8:49am: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 23 rd, 2017 at 12:42pm: Setanta wrote on Dec 23 rd, 2017 at 12:45am: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 23 rd, 2017 at 12:24am: Setanta wrote on Dec 22 nd, 2017 at 11:24pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 22 nd, 2017 at 11:19pm: Setanta wrote on Dec 22 nd, 2017 at 11:02pm: Are Nazis bad Brian?
Many are, Setanta. Sort of like other groups with nasty ideologies? Like any group. Some are nice, some are nasty, some are indifferent. The Nazis stood for nasty ideals and supported a nasty man and a nasty regime. Islam is a nasty ideology from a nasty man, as is Nazism, yet you use Nazi as an insult, even though you acknowledge all were not bad people and get offended when others do the same with Islam. Why don't you support the moderate Nazis rather than label them as all the same? As an "insult", really? Where do you get that idea from? The millions who died in WWII in Europe and North Africa and the Middle-East simply dropped dead because they chose to? I am willing to acknowledge that some Nazis were honourable however, I rather suspect anyone who gave their allegiance to the crooked cross were interested in the same sort of things our own PHONies are - national aggrandisement, demeaning and even perhaps deporting or killing immigrants, taking their property, destroying their families, and so on. In my experience, the over-whelming majority of Australian Muslims I have met have been honourable, well meaning, decent people who just want to be left alone to live their own lives and to raise their children in peace. They have no intent on harming others, no intent on stealing from others. Yes, I don't doubt there are some nasty Muslims but they are very much in the minority. Very much so. Should we condemn all Muslims in the same way we condemn (nearly) all Nazis? Nope. They are simply Australians who worship a different religion to the main. Just like Jews/Hintus/Buddhists/Shinto/etc. They have a right to believe what they believe. Nazis don't. They lost a massive war, which was waged to show the world's repugnance at what they were doing.  What about people who give their allegiance to a genocidal pedophile? The Royalty and Aristocracy of Europe weren't that bad, surely, FD? How about the Royality of China? No, I don't think so, despite their willingness to marry young women. How about the Royality of Africa? Americas? Oceania? No, I don't think so, despite their willingness to marry young women. So why single out one man, 1400 years ago, FD? Could it be, because of your Islamophobia? Surely not? 1.6 billion Muslims single him out as the best example for all mankind to follow Brian. Would you like to have another go at giving a straight answer? What about people who give their allegiance to a genocidal pedophile? Do you lack the right or ability to criticise them? Or are you just scared? And as I have pointed out, 1400 years (or later), most societies, married young for dynastic, inheritance and so on, reasons, FD. Mohammed is the ideal but most Muslims don't choose to emulate his marriages, any more than most British people choose to emulate the marriage of: Quote:Margaret Beaufort, (age approximately 7) was married to John de la Pole (age 7) in 1450 by the arrangement John's father.[5] The marriage was annulled in 1453.[6]
Joan of France, Duchess of Berry, betrothed in a wedding contract at age 8 days old, she was officially married at age 12 in 1476.[7]
Anne de Mowbray, 8th Countess of Norfolk (age 6) was married to Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York (age 4) in 1477. She died at age 10 and he, as one of the Princes in the Tower is believed to have been murdered at age 10.[8]
Rukhmabai was married in India to her husband when she was 11 and he was 19.[9] After a lengthy court battle, the marriage was dissolved by an order from Queen Victoria and the publicity helped influence the passage of the Age of Consent Act, 1891, which increased age of consent for girls in India, married or unmarried, from 10 to 12.[10]
Janakiammal Iyengar was married at the age of 10 years to the Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan.[11]
SourceIn the US, where life was originally much shorter and women much rarer, the age of consent was once as low as 10 in some Territories and States. You like to harp on about Mohammed as if his marriage was unique. It wasn't. It was once common to marry young and have children young, FD. Tsk, tsk, something I have pointed out to you many times. It appears you just don't want to learn, do you? You prefer to wallow in your Islamophobia, don't you?
|
Forum
Pages: 
