Mattyfisk wrote on Oct 17^th, 2020 at 3:00pm:


FD? You missed this question.

We'll ask another. Does your membership of this board encourage you to automatically assume the best of your fellow white supremacists?

That's two questions. G's makes it three.

Current global activities of muslims signal: islam, terrorism and beheading are synonymous.

freediver wrote on Nov 19^th, 2020 at 7:29pm:


whether its 1, 10 or 500 halal certifiers - it doesn't change the fact that precisely zero of them have any shred of evidence (that you have presented anyway) against them that they are sending even 1 cent of their fees to terrorists.

Furthermore, I'm more than happy to extend my analogy to declare that however many public internet forums that provides a platform for Islamophobic trolling there are out there - every one of them sends zero amount of their advertising revenues to terrorists - in line with my philosophy that in the absense of any evidence suggesting otherwise, people deserve the presumption of innocence. Of course you could for once explain how that makes your idiotic rhetorical question that brands me as an automatic sympathiser for muslim terrorist funders in anyway relevant or logical - but I know you'll just run away from it again - and then ask the same question again like a grinning idiot.

freediver wrote on Nov 19^th, 2020 at 7:29pm:


FD asks if I can prove the innocence of people that have no shred of evidence of guilt presented against them - and apparently thinks thats an ok way to debate.

But thanks for clearing one thing up FD - that you think muslims are guilty by default, and remain so unless proven otherwise.

freediver wrote on Nov 20^th, 2020 at 6:47pm:


And then I explained why its not really a difference at all. Thats it. But keep pretending it justifies your continued deflection if it makes you feel better.

freediver wrote on Nov 20^th, 2020 at 6:47pm:


Describing the time honoured practice of saying that any given person or persons are assumed to have not engaged in any quantifiable amount of a given crime - when no shred of evidence is presented to suggest otherwise - as "making things up" - is quite possibly the most stupid thing you have come up with yet FD.

freediver wrote on Nov 20^th, 2020 at 6:47pm:


Correct. And that claim I make is that halal certifiers are assumed not to engage in the crime of sending any money to terrorists when there is no shred of evidence saying otherwise. And like I said, thinking that it is somehow "reasonable" to insist on evidence for this claim is up there with the most stupid FD belief ever. Suggest you go back to primary school and learn about the burden of proof and where it lies.

Quote:


No idea what you are blathering about. I get "offended" when you think that evidence is needed to assert someone's innocence in commiting a crime. And I get "offended" when you pretend this is somehow about creating a protection racket for muslims - when I have explained ad-infinitum that I apply the exact same principle to anyone - including anti-muslim trolls like yourself

freediver wrote on Nov 20^th, 2020 at 6:47pm:


- and then ask the same question again like a grinning idiot.

freediver wrote on Nov 24^th, 2020 at 7:23pm:


Assuming innocence in committing an actual crime is not a statistic. This is the crux of your 31 pages of fail.

And I already clarified that it can be extended from a single person to include however many forums there are out there that provide a platform for islamophobic trolling. Until I see any evidence suggesting otherwise, I am quite happy to assert that not one of them is illegally sending a single cent to terrorists. Or in other words "Islam-critical online forums anywhere in the world illegally send zero of their advertising revenues to terrorists - in the absense of any evidence suggeseting otherwise" - is exactly equivalent to "halal certifiers send zero of their halal fees to terrorists - in the absense of any evidence suggeseting otherwise". Explain, if you can, why they are not equivalent.

And neither, by the way, are a statistic.

freediver wrote on Nov 24^th, 2020 at 7:23pm:


I've been explaining to you since near the beginning of this thread - ad-infinitum - how it is exactly the same as the legal concept of innocence until proven guilty. You have never once refuted me. Not once. Suggest you try that first before going back to the same tired and debunked claim over and over.

For one thing - sending money to terrorists is classified as a criminal activity under our legal system. So yes, we literally are discussing whether they are innocent or guilty of an actual crime. Thus the legal concept of the presumption of innocence could not be more central to this question. I say they are innocent (aka send zero amount of money to this illegal activity) when there is no shred of evidence presented to suggest otherwise. You, apparently, think that its far more reasonable to assume guilt until proven innocent.

freediver wrote on Nov 24^th, 2020 at 7:23pm:


This merely demonstrates you either don't understand or willfully misrepresent what my claim is.

My claim is exactly an assumption - my assumption that they send zero amount of money to terrorists when there is no evidence suggesting otherwise. And since engaging in such activity would amount to an actual crime under our laws, this is exactly equivalent to saying I assume they are innocent (of this particular crime) until proven guilty.

freediver wrote on Nov 24^th, 2020 at 7:23pm:


What "other examples"?

The only other examples I used were your ozpolitic revenues and spear fishing club fees. And in those I took the exact same position - that they all send zero amount of money to illegal activities when there is zero evidence suggesting otherwise.

As to halal

I went to a Macdonalds in Sydney a few years back, the tent behind the counter proudly proclaimed that all food was halal.

I asked for a halal bacon and egg muffin, she got all antisi

F#^ken moron, if she is gonna spout some primitive barbarian philosophy, Ill blow it out of the water every time.

The only reason they dont eat pork, is because they dont want to eat Mad Muhammad's mothers relatives.

Quote:


That has nothing to do with the legal concept of innocent until proven guilty. If you are going to stick with your current version of the story, you will have to do better than that.