|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 30, 2024 12:30:46 GMT
No . I’m calling you a moron for posting a moronic post and pointing out why you are a moron. You’re welcome . I see that the standard of your arguments is as high as ever. lol Says the moron who posted ”And you post random shit like this, informed more by ignorance than knowledge. And being laughed at by the ignorant and malicious is no bad thing. I'd be far more worried if they were taking us seriously” and seems to be triggered by being reminded what a moronic post that was . Especially when the aforesaid moronic post defended another moron who posted a link that refuted his own argument . lol |
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Sept 30, 2024 12:31:41 GMT
All I remember of you was the fact that you were posting threads on Montegriffo and Zanygame's site telling the world that you're trolling this site. If you want to go off on a tangent in an attempt to pass yourself off as intelligent then I will just assume you're trolling again. For the record, it was the Labour party that was considering the Islamist definition of Islamophobia despite opposition from free speech advocates. Obviously this was done to try and win over votes from anti-free-speech Islamists, which may have helped Labour get to the whopping 20% of the population's support, much of which is now full of regret. What is the difference between adopting a Jewish definition of antisemitism and an Islamic definition of c? Is it perhaps that you hate one and not the other?. And if you believe that an intelligent response citing such pesky things as facts as trolling just because you don't like it, that's tough shit I'm afraid. One is real, the other is an attempt to push blasphemy laws and hardline Islamism, which is why Labour, despite playing with the idea, only recently stated that they won't be pushing for it. You didn't post any "pesky facts", you simply went off on a tangent talking about yourself and your intelligence, and how what I posted was nonsense whilst not even having the courage to explain why. I merely asked a question followed by an interpretation. I didn't ask if you were Labour and I do not care if you voted for Labour or not, because it's irrelevant. I understand a lot of the Trots claim not to support Blair as they now claim not to support Starmer, but I wouldn't believe they wouldn't place Labour above the other main parties. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 30, 2024 12:38:16 GMT
The countries laws are just that what the laws state. I believed the discussion was as regards what Muslims believe and what their religion teaches. We know that in Islam for many it is believed that Mohammad followed a perfect life and therefore to live as Mohammad lived then that would be the perfect life. The final arbiter is how strict are Muslims in obeying the law when they have the power. We have numerous examples in places like Banda Aceh where child marriage is a recognised problem for the Indonesian government with many young girls being married early with all the psychological and reproductive problems that then fall on the state to deal with. Pakistan also has a significant problem with child marriages. It is a reasonable point that you are making, that ancient religions often provide very different norms of what is acceptable compared with modern legal codes. This is as true of Christianity and Christian countries as it is of Islam and Muslim ones. The bible for example would have us believe that adulterers should be stoned to death. that the daughters of priests should be burned alive in furnaces if they become prostitutes, that anyone who disrespects the sabbath should be beaten with rods, and that you should be put to death simply for dishonouring your parents, ie biblical sanction for honour killings. Of course no legal code in any Christian country today incorporates any of this into law. So what Islam actually says is irrelevant to modern laws in Muslim countries, unless those laws literally follow Koranic pronouncements. In most they rarely do except to some extent in extremist theocratic regimes and even here the adoption of the Sharia literally is less than total in most cases. And the refugees fleeing such regimes are likely to be fleeing from such extremism rather than as supporters of it. The more closely any regime adheres to ancient texts the more brutal and medieval it appears to be, the ultimate recent example being Islamic State. No Christian country today adheres so closely to ancient religious texts. Back when they did, burning witches and heretics alive was considered normal and righteous. So what matters today is not what Islamic teaching said in ancient times, but how that is interpreted for the modern era. And I think anyone would struggle to find a Muslim country's legal code with a legal age of consent at 9 years old. And if any such law today exists anywhere, it would be in some hell hole run by theocratic nutjobs and not in most mainstream Muslim countries.. If you have evidence of such a law in the legal codes of any Muslim nation today, by all means post a link to that evidence. However I referred to the Sharia which is the Islamic law as decided over the ages by the Ulema of Islam. This is why Islamic countries have problems as regards child marriage and even blasphemy as following Islamic law is often demanded in areas where 'the old ways' have preference. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Sept 30, 2024 14:01:57 GMT
The countries laws are just that what the laws state. I believed the discussion was as regards what Muslims believe and what their religion teaches. We know that in Islam for many it is believed that Mohammad followed a perfect life and therefore to live as Mohammad lived then that would be the perfect life. The final arbiter is how strict are Muslims in obeying the law when they have the power. We have numerous examples in places like Banda Aceh where child marriage is a recognised problem for the Indonesian government with many young girls being married early with all the psychological and reproductive problems that then fall on the state to deal with. Pakistan also has a significant problem with child marriages. It is a reasonable point that you are making, that ancient religions often provide very different norms of what is acceptable compared with modern legal codes. This is as true of Christianity and Christian countries as it is of Islam and Muslim ones. The bible for example would have us believe that adulterers should be stoned to death. that the daughters of priests should be burned alive in furnaces if they become prostitutes, that anyone who disrespects the sabbath should be beaten with rods, and that you should be put to death simply for dishonouring your parents, ie biblical sanction for honour killings. Of course no legal code in any Christian country today incorporates any of this into law. So what Islam actually says is irrelevant to modern laws in Muslim countries, unless those laws literally follow Koranic pronouncements. In most they rarely do except to some extent in extremist theocratic regimes and even here the adoption of the Sharia literally is less than total in most cases. And the refugees fleeing such regimes are likely to be fleeing from such extremism rather than as supporters of it. The more closely any regime adheres to ancient texts the more brutal and medieval it appears to be, the ultimate recent example being Islamic State. No Christian country today adheres so closely to ancient religious texts. Back when they did, burning witches and heretics alive was considered normal and righteous. So what matters today is not what Islamic teaching said in ancient times, but how that is interpreted for the modern era. And I think anyone would struggle to find a Muslim country's legal code with a legal age of consent at 9 years old. And if any such law today exists anywhere, it would be in some hell hole run by theocratic nutjobs and not in most mainstream Muslim countries.. If you have evidence of such a law in the legal codes of any Muslim nation today, by all means post a link to that evidence. Whilst I would LOVE to believe you, I know from second hand experience passed to me by co workers who have either worked there as expats, or fled there to here to work here as the scientists they were there, that in reality some very large land masses indeed, responsible for significant percentages of the world's energy and mineral resources, are in fact run as the exact model of islamic theocracy you belittle as barely occurring. Try opening a bank anywhere east of Bulgaria and see how you get on |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2024 14:22:32 GMT
What is the difference between adopting a Jewish definition of antisemitism and an Islamic definition of c? Is it perhaps that you hate one and not the other?. And if you believe that an intelligent response citing such pesky things as facts as trolling just because you don't like it, that's tough shit I'm afraid. One is real, the other is an attempt to push blasphemy laws and hardline Islamism, which is why Labour, despite playing with the idea, only recently stated that they won't be pushing for it. You didn't post any "pesky facts", you simply went off on a tangent talking about yourself and your intelligence, and how what I posted was nonsense whilst not even having the courage to explain why. I merely asked a question followed by an interpretation. I didn't ask if you were Labour and I do not care if you voted for Labour or not, because it's irrelevant. I understand a lot of the Trots claim not to support Blair as they now claim not to support Starmer, but I wouldn't believe they wouldn't place Labour above the other main parties.What you believe about what I and other left wingers think is irrelevent. If you want to know what we think just ask us rather than making it up for yourself. Because I am pretty certain that unless you have a mind reading machine I know what I think better than you do. Are Labour better than all the other parties? No. And it depends on the party. They cannot possibly be worse than the Tories have proven to be. Whether they will be any better, only time will tell. Would I place Labour over Reform? Yes. Over the Greens? No. But this notion that I favour Labour above all other parties is another figment of your imagination, another imaginary fact. |
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Sept 30, 2024 14:44:08 GMT
One is real, the other is an attempt to push blasphemy laws and hardline Islamism, which is why Labour, despite playing with the idea, only recently stated that they won't be pushing for it. You didn't post any "pesky facts", you simply went off on a tangent talking about yourself and your intelligence, and how what I posted was nonsense whilst not even having the courage to explain why. I merely asked a question followed by an interpretation. I didn't ask if you were Labour and I do not care if you voted for Labour or not, because it's irrelevant. I understand a lot of the Trots claim not to support Blair as they now claim not to support Starmer, but I wouldn't believe they wouldn't place Labour above the other main parties.What you believe about what I and other left wingers think is irrelevent. If you want to know what we thing just ask is rather than making it up for yourself. Because I am pretty certain that unless you have a mind reading machine I know what I think better than you do. Are Labour better than all the other parties? No. And it depends on the party. They cannot possibly be worse than the Tories have proven to be. Whether they will be any better, only time will tell. Would I place Labour over Reform? Yes. Over the Greens? No. But this notion that I favour Labour above all other parties is another figment of your imagination, another imaginary fact. I guess I'll leave you to Bentley who clearly has you sussed. The topic is "Baroness Warsi" not "random lefty troll dude". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2024 20:55:33 GMT
What you believe about what I and other left wingers think is irrelevent. If you want to know what we thing just ask is rather than making it up for yourself. Because I am pretty certain that unless you have a mind reading machine I know what I think better than you do. Are Labour better than all the other parties? No. And it depends on the party. They cannot possibly be worse than the Tories have proven to be. Whether they will be any better, only time will tell. Would I place Labour over Reform? Yes. Over the Greens? No. But this notion that I favour Labour above all other parties is another figment of your imagination, another imaginary fact. I guess I'll leave you to Bentley who clearly has you sussed. The topic is "Baroness Warsi" not "random lefty troll dude". Merely responding to shit posted by others. It wasn't me who brought up the subject of supposed ages of consent in Muslim countries without a shred of evidence. Not so much as a single quote of law. If you think intelligent people calling you out is having us sussed, then keep on dreaming, lol. If you lot want to discuss Warsi then discuss her, and not every other piece of Islamophobic crap you choose to bring up. Because if you widen the scope of the discussion into other areas you have to reasonably expect others to respond to that. It is easy to understand why I and others chose to leave this forum. There are a lot of idiots and phobes on it. Fortunately there are also intelligent posters. Otherwise this place would be fit only for ten year olds. When I want an intelligent response, you will not be the first I will come looking for. I am tempted to block all the phobes and morons and engage only with those who post intelligently. You will still be able to see my posts and post your inane or moronic responses to them. But if I do not see those responses you might as well be whistling in the dark. I think you and Bentley are going to join TSM on my ignore list. Whether they be right, centre or left I am only interested in reading and responding to intelligent people from now on. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 30, 2024 21:10:00 GMT
I guess I'll leave you to Bentley who clearly has you sussed. The topic is "Baroness Warsi" not "random lefty troll dude". Merely responding to shit posted by others. It wasn't me who brought up the subject of supposed ages of consent in Muslim countries without a shred of evidence. Not so much as a single quote of law. If you think intelligent people calling you out is having us sussed, then keep on dreaming, lol. If you lot want to discuss Warsi then discuss her, and not every other piece of Islamophobic crap you choose to bring up. Because if you widen the scope of the discussion into other areas you have to reasonably expect others to respond to that. It is easy to understand why I and others chose to leave this forum. There are a lot of idiots and phobes on it. Fortunately there are also intelligent posters. Otherwise this place would be fit only for ten year olds. When I want an intelligent response, you will not be the first I will come looking for. I am tempted to block all the phobes and morons and engage only with those who post intelligently. You will still be able to see my posts and post your inane or moronic responses to them. But if I do not see those responses you might as well be whistling in the dark. I think you and Bentley are going to join TSM on my ignore list. Whether they be right, centre or left I am only interested in reading and responding to intelligent people from now on. I repeat Says the moron who posted
”And you post random shit like this, informed more by ignorance than knowledge.
And being laughed at by the ignorant and malicious is no bad thing. I'd be far more worried if they were taking us seriously”
and seems to be triggered by being reminded what a moronic post that was .
Especially when the aforesaid moronic post defended another moron who posted a link that refuted his own argument .
I repeat it because both you and the other virtue signaller repeatedly claim to be intelligent yet post very little to support it . You especially post streams of insults then whine that other posters post insults . It takes a special kind of idiot to do that and you easily qualify. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Oct 2, 2024 12:16:06 GMT
I guess I'll leave you to Bentley who clearly has you sussed. The topic is "Baroness Warsi" not "random lefty troll dude". Merely responding to shit posted by others. It wasn't me who brought up the subject of supposed ages of consent in Muslim countries without a shred of evidence. Not so much as a single quote of law. If you think intelligent people calling you out is having us sussed, then keep on dreaming, lol. If you lot want to discuss Warsi then discuss her, and not every other piece of Islamophobic crap you choose to bring up. Because if you widen the scope of the discussion into other areas you have to reasonably expect others to respond to that. It is easy to understand why I and others chose to leave this forum. There are a lot of idiots and phobes on it. Fortunately there are also intelligent posters. Otherwise this place would be fit only for ten year olds. When I want an intelligent response, you will not be the first I will come looking for. I am tempted to block all the phobes and morons and engage only with those who post intelligently. You will still be able to see my posts and post your inane or moronic responses to them. But if I do not see those responses you might as well be whistling in the dark. I think you and Bentley are going to join TSM on my ignore list. Whether they be right, centre or left I am only interested in reading and responding to intelligent people from now on. Wow! I am on your ignore list. People: I have arrived! 🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Oct 2, 2024 12:32:24 GMT
What is the difference between adopting a Jewish definition of antisemitism and an Islamic definition of Islamophobia? The Jews don't use their definition to call for the murder of those who disagree. Is it perhaps that you hate one and not the other? Perhaps we consider which is most likely to try and blow us up. |
|
