Why do muslims think that our culture is not good enough for them and they want it changed to suit their beliefs??

What would our society become if it were changed to that of Afghanistan or Egypt etc??

Would we become a basket case with stone age beliefs and a society that fell into decay and disrepair??

Why would an 8 year old girl call for muslims to rise up against the enemies of Islam??

Why would an 8 year olf girl want to live under sharia law??

Why do xtians think they are superior? Why do jews think they are superior?

SOB

item 1. change 'muslim' to 'westerner'
item 2. change 'our' to 'them' & 'Afghanistan or Egypt etc' to 'USA, Greece, Italy' etc'.
item 3. equate 'stone age beliefs' with 'christian beliefs'
item 4. substitute 'muslims to rise up against the enemies of Islam' for 'holding up a sign because her mother told her to'.
item 5. substitue 'would' for 'wouldn't'.

the point being, the muslims (the persecuted) see you (the persecutor) with same failings. bit of blood sport here, eh?




woof woof wrote on Sep 19^th, 2012 at 7:15pm:

Why do muslims think that our culture is not good enough for them and they want it changed to suit their beliefs?? What would our society become if it were changed to that of Afghanistan or Egypt etc?? Would we become a basket case with stone age beliefs and a society that fell into decay and disrepair?? Why would an 8 year old girl call for muslims to rise up against the enemies of Islam?? Why would an 8 year olf girl want to live under sharia law??

The problem with your logic sanofi is that Muslims actually want to stone people to death for apostasy etc. Swapping the words around won't change that.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 4:51am:

Why do xtians think they are superior? Why do jews think they are superior? SOB

So which country would you prefer to live in, one ruled or dominated by Christians, Jews, or Muslims?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 9:20am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 4:51am: Why do xtians think they are superior? Why do jews think they are superior? SOB So which country would you prefer to live in, one ruled or dominated by Christians, Jews, or Muslims?

None of the above

SOB

Okay, so where or who would you rather be living under?

Faith. 

It's the ability to believe something in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 

It's the same reason atheists think they're uber-smart. 
The same reason that egalitarians think they're supporting a 'free' society. 
The same reason that Christians think theres a bearded man watching over them from the sky.

sanofi is making a valid point. it is about a subtle but simple shift in perspective. the war museum in vietnam displays american atrocities. by logical extension then, all americans commit attrocities. read neirdorfs deductive logic or google deductive logic.
freediver wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 8:20am:

The problem with your logic sanofi is that Muslims actually want to stone people to death for apostasy etc. Swapping the words around won't change that.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 9:33am:

Okay, so where or who would you rather be living under?

Rational people.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 10:48am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 9:33am: Okay, so where or who would you rather be living under? Rational people. SOB

Sounds dreamy doesn't it?

But if they're really rational, it wouldn't take them long to realise you are surplus to the requirements of a functional society.  Rational people are stone cold, calculating assholes.  They need to be tempered by emotion. 

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 10:48am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 9:33am: Okay, so where or who would you rather be living under? Rational people. SOB

;D


You like sticking out like a sore thumb, don't you?

how would you know what is or is not rational? what you have said is not rational. by inference, you are denegrating rationality and like the nurse in'one flew over the cookoos nest' trying to reduce people/ the level of debate to a level that you can comprehend..
... wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 11:00am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 10:48am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 9:33am: Okay, so where or who would you rather be living under? Rational people. SOB Sounds dreamy doesn't it? But if they're really rational, it wouldn't take them long to realise you are surplus to the requirements of a functional society.  Rational people are stone cold, calculating assholes.  They need to be tempered by emotion.

woof woof wrote on Sep 19^th, 2012 at 7:15pm:

Why do muslims think that our culture is not good enough for them and they want it changed to suit their beliefs?? What would our society become if it were changed to that of Afghanistan or Egypt etc?? Would we become a basket case with stone age beliefs and a society that fell into decay and disrepair?? Why would an 8 year old girl call for muslims to rise up against the enemies of Islam?? Why would an 8 year olf girl want to live under sharia law??

Matty was so concerned about this, he moved to New Zealand, Woof Woof. What would our society become if more good people emigrated?

Soren wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 11:06am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 10:48am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 9:33am: Okay, so where or who would you rather be living under? Rational people. SOB ;D You like sticking out like a sore thumb, don't you?

Not sure what that means - was it an insult? If so could you repeat it to FD please?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 11:20am:

Soren wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 11:06am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 10:48am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 9:33am: Okay, so where or who would you rather be living under? Rational people. SOB You like sticking out like a sore thumb, don't you? Not sure what that means - was it an insult? If so could you repeat it to FD please? SOB

;D  ;D ;D ;D ;D

magpie wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 11:12am:

how would you know what is or is not rational? what you have said is not rational. by inference, you are denegrating rationality and like the nurse in'one flew over the cookoos nest' trying to reduce people/ the level of debate to a level that you can comprehend.

Ummm reading the dictionary is a good start... :-?

I'll share my knowledge with you.  I'm here to help.

ra·tion·al/ˈraSHənl/Adjective: Based on or in accordance with reason or logic: "a rational explanation".

There are 2 components of human thought - logic and emotion.  Everyone uses a mix of two, but the balance between the 2 differs between individuals.  Highly rational people think in cold, calculating terms, and tend to be attracted to maths and science.  Highly emotional people think in fluffy, airy fairy terms and tend to be attracted to people-oriented professions.   

No prizes for guessing which side I'm skewed towards. 

The regimes that are considered successful are secular ones. Theocracies dont work very well.

SOB

after your emotionally weighted comment, my statement holds. did you call yourself a name (love to talk with you ina gay marriage thread). if human thought is reduced to 2 components then, sharing your knowlege me.. don't call me LOL  ;)
... wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 11:24am:

magpie wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 11:12am: how would you know what is or is not rational? what you have said is not rational. by inference, you are denegrating rationality and like the nurse in'one flew over the cookoos nest' trying to reduce people/ the level of debate to a level that you can comprehend. Ummm reading the dictionary is a good start... :-? I'll share my knowledge with you.  I'm here to help. ra·tion·al/ˈraSHənl/Adjective: Based on or in accordance with reason or logic: "a rational explanation". There are 2 components of human thought - logic and emotion.  Everyone uses a mix of two, but the balance between the 2 differs between individuals.  Highly rational people think in cold, calculating terms, and tend to be attracted to maths and science.  Highly emotional people think in fluffy, airy fairy terms and tend to be attracted to people-oriented professions.    No prizes for guessing which side I'm skewed towards.

Oh I see....you're retarded. 

wondered how long it would take you to set a new limbo record. I should play with you more often you're such a hoot! LOL though mother would chastise me for taking advantage..
... wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 11:37am:

Oh I see....you're retarded.

Go play over there.

http://www.freelancesuccess.com.au/images/Sandpit.gif

Where has the file attach button gone?

http://soxkat.com/crap/kats/Kat-Tray-001a.gif

SOB

When spot says rational people, he means people who agree with him, even when he disagrees with himself.


magpie wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 10:42am:

sanofi is making a valid point. it is about a subtle but simple shift in perspective. the war museum in vietnam displays american atrocities. by logical extension then, all americans commit attrocities. read neirdorfs deductive logic or google deductive logic. freediver wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 8:20am: The problem with your logic sanofi is that Muslims actually want to stone people to death for apostasy etc. Swapping the words around won't change that.

So what is your point magpie? Are you just here to remind us that not all Muslims are identical, while ignoring the fact that 400 of them marched through Sydney calling for murder? Do you have any idea how many Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy, blasphemy etc? Are you more concerned about protecting the image of Islam than defending freedom of speech?

]The problem with your logic sanofi is that Muslims actually want to stone people to death for apostasy etc. Swapping the words around won't change that.[/quote]

one of the primary exaamples in Neirdorf's Deductive logic  goes: 1. all swans are white. 2. that is a swan.3. therefore it is white. it is an invalid statement. Quod erat demonstrandum. *dusts haands and walks away* this is too easy..
sanofi wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 1:05pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 12:22pm:

When spot says rational people, he means people who agree with him, even when he disagrees with himself. magpie wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 10:42am: sanofi is making a valid point. it is about a subtle but simple shift in perspective. the war museum in vietnam displays american atrocities. by logical extension then, all americans commit attrocities. read neirdorfs deductive logic or google deductive logic. freediver wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 8:20am: The problem with your logic sanofi is that Muslims actually want to stone people to death for apostasy etc. Swapping the words around won't change that. So what is your point magpie? Are you just here to remind us that not all Muslims are identical, while ignoring the fact that 400 of them marched through Sydney calling for murder? Do you have any idea how many Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy, blasphemy etc? Are you more concerned about protecting the image of Islam than defending freedom of speech?

Seriously after all the talk you are still saying that 400 of them wanted murder?

And by rational i mean not relying on fairy tales

SOB

that is just profound. so profound.did you find it on a weeties box?
... wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 10:28am:

Faith.  It's the ability to believe something in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  It's the same reason atheists think they're uber-smart.  The same reason that egalitarians think they're supporting a 'free' society.  The same reason that Christians think theres a bearded man watching over them from the sky.

His return will be thunderous.

Gee.  I wonder if sanofi and magpie are the same person...

Just seems an amazing coincidence that two members would join within hours of each other, back each other up, speak in the same syntax, and display the same inability to cleanly use the quote function.

and what might your position on the death penalty freedriver?
Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 1:37pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 12:22pm: When spot says rational people, he means people who agree with him, even when he disagrees with himself. magpie wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 10:42am: sanofi is making a valid point. it is about a subtle but simple shift in perspective. the war museum in vietnam displays american atrocities. by logical extension then, all americans commit attrocities. read neirdorfs deductive logic or google deductive logic. freediver wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 8:20am: The problem with your logic sanofi is that Muslims actually want to stone people to death for apostasy etc. Swapping the words around won't change that. So what is your point magpie? Are you just here to remind us that not all Muslims are identical, while ignoring the fact that 400 of them marched through Sydney calling for murder? Do you have any idea how many Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy, blasphemy etc? Are you more concerned about protecting the image of Islam than defending freedom of speech? Seriously after all the talk you are still saying that 400 of them wanted murder? And by rational i mean not relying on fairy tales SOB

sanofi wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 1:50pm:

that is just profound. so profound.did you find it on a weeties box? ... wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 10:28am: Faith.  It's the ability to believe something in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  It's the same reason atheists think they're uber-smart.  The same reason that egalitarians think they're supporting a 'free' society.  The same reason that Christians think theres a bearded man watching over them from the sky.

Why yes.  Yes I did.  Is there a problem magpie?

sorry, I shouldn't have embarrassed you.. I withdraw the remark.. about the weeties box
... wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

sanofi wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 1:50pm: that is just profound. so profound.did you find it on a weeties box? ... wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 10:28am: Faith.  It's the ability to believe something in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  It's the same reason atheists think they're uber-smart.  The same reason that egalitarians think they're supporting a 'free' society.  The same reason that Christians think theres a bearded man watching over them from the sky. Why yes.  Yes I did.  Is there a problem magpie?

ah OK.

Thanks. 

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 1:37pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 12:22pm: When spot says rational people, he means people who agree with him, even when he disagrees with himself. magpie wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 10:42am: sanofi is making a valid point. it is about a subtle but simple shift in perspective. the war museum in vietnam displays american atrocities. by logical extension then, all americans commit attrocities. read neirdorfs deductive logic or google deductive logic. freediver wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 8:20am: The problem with your logic sanofi is that Muslims actually want to stone people to death for apostasy etc. Swapping the words around won't change that. So what is your point magpie? Are you just here to remind us that not all Muslims are identical, while ignoring the fact that 400 of them marched through Sydney calling for murder? Do you have any idea how many Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy, blasphemy etc? Are you more concerned about protecting the image of Islam than defending freedom of speech? Seriously after all the talk you are still saying that 400 of them wanted murder? And by rational i mean not relying on fairy tales SOB

Not only that spot. They went to the trouble of walking through Sydney demanding it.

I don't think what you do counts as discussion. You repeat yourself over and over, most of the time oblivious to the responses you get. I honestly think you are unaware of them most of the time, as if you still haven't figured out what a thread is. If you expect that to change people's minds you have a lot to learn.

Sanofi, I oppose the death penalty, however your question completely misses the point, which is not so much about the punishment, but what they are being punished for. I oppose any legal punishment for blasphemy, apostasy, adultery, etc. That muslims like Abu and the protestors wish the punishment to be death by stoning reflects their barbarity, but the important issue here is that these are fundamental human rights that the government has no place interfering with.

Also Sanofi, please try to separate your response visually from the quotes, preferably putting them underneath. Otherwise people are likely to miss them.

freediver wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 6:58pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 1:37pm: freediver wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 12:22pm: When spot says rational people, he means people who agree with him, even when he disagrees with himself. magpie wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 10:42am: sanofi is making a valid point. it is about a subtle but simple shift in perspective. the war museum in vietnam displays american atrocities. by logical extension then, all americans commit attrocities. read neirdorfs deductive logic or google deductive logic. freediver wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 8:20am: The problem with your logic sanofi is that Muslims actually want to stone people to death for apostasy etc. Swapping the words around won't change that. So what is your point magpie? Are you just here to remind us that not all Muslims are identical, while ignoring the fact that 400 of them marched through Sydney calling for murder? Do you have any idea how many Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy, blasphemy etc? Are you more concerned about protecting the image of Islam than defending freedom of speech? Seriously after all the talk you are still saying that 400 of them wanted murder? And by rational i mean not relying on fairy tales SOB Not only that spot. They went to the trouble of walking through Sydney demanding it. I don't think what you do counts as discussion. You repeat yourself over and over, most of the time oblivious to the responses you get. I honestly think you are unaware of them most of the time, as if you still haven't figured out what a thread is. If you expect that to change people's minds you have a lot to learn. Sanofi, I oppose the death penalty, however your question completely misses the point, which is not so much about the punishment, but what they are being punished for. I oppose any legal punishment for blasphemy, apostasy, adultery, etc. That muslims like Abu and the protestors wish the punishment to be death by stoning reflects their barbarity, but the important issue here is that these are fundamental human rights that the government has no place interfering with. Also Sanofi, please try to separate your response visually from the quotes, preferably putting them underneath. Otherwise people are likely to miss them.

No freediver. Several ppl did but not 400. the majority of the 400 were peaceful protesters not demanding any deaths.

SOB

Quote:

the majority of the 400 were peaceful protesters not demanding any deaths.

What were they demanding Spot?

freediver wrote on Sep 21^st, 2012 at 8:25am:

Quote: the majority of the 400 were peaceful protesters not demanding any deaths. What were they demanding Spot?

Were they demanding anything? They were protesting the insults. They werent demanding deaths. the media didnt actually tell us what they wanted i expect but logically they would have wanted the yanks to get rid of the film.

SOB

The "protest" had no purpose but to act as an excuse for them to make some noise.  It's a video on friggin youtube for crying out loud - what possible connection could there be between a video on youtube, and shouting and waving banners in the streets of Sydney?

... wrote on Sep 21^st, 2012 at 10:14am:

The "protest" had no purpose but to act as an excuse for them to make some noise.  It's a video on friggin youtube for crying out loud - what possible connection could there be between a video on youtube, and shouting and waving banners in the streets of Sydney?

Heh yeah prolly @the making noise but the connection is obvious. Not rational to us but obvious.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21^st, 2012 at 10:18am:

... wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:14am: The "protest" had no purpose but to act as an excuse for them to make some noise.  It's a video on friggin youtube for crying out loud - what possible connection could there be between a video on youtube, and shouting and waving banners in the streets of Sydney? Heh yeah prolly @the making noise but the connection is obvious. Not rational to us but obvious. SOB

If it was obvious, I'd see the connection.  Please help me - I'm a little sloooow.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21^st, 2012 at 10:18am:

... wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:14am: The "protest" had no purpose but to act as an excuse for them to make some noise.  It's a video on friggin youtube for crying out loud - what possible connection could there be between a video on youtube, and shouting and waving banners in the streets of Sydney? Heh yeah prolly @the making noise but the connection is obvious. Not rational to us but obvious. SOB

No its not. Some bloke living in America made a movie* insulting Muhammed... So the Muslims rip sh1t out of Sydney in protest.

Do you want to connect the dots; A to B to C for us? No one in Sydney, or even at the American consulate, has anything to do with this movie. They didn't produce it, fund it, distribute it, or even verbally support it. I don't think anyone even acknowledged it's existence until after the riot.

What connection is there between the Youtube trailer and what happened in Syndey? 




(*I don't think anyone has even seen the movie in total, but just the trailer of it on YouTube. The actual full length movie doesn't seem to be available anywhere. I am start to wonder if it even exist as an actual movie, or if it is nothing but this short clip.)

... wrote on Sep 21^st, 2012 at 10:21am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:18am: ... wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:14am: The "protest" had no purpose but to act as an excuse for them to make some noise.  It's a video on friggin youtube for crying out loud - what possible connection could there be between a video on youtube, and shouting and waving banners in the streets of Sydney? Heh yeah prolly @the making noise but the connection is obvious. Not rational to us but obvious. SOB If it was obvious, I'd see the connection.  Please help me - I'm a little sloooow.

Muslims dont like anyone insulting their religion. The protest in sydney was @ the yank embassy. Yanks supposedly insulted their religion. Whats not obvious about that?

SOB

Quantum wrote on Sep 21^st, 2012 at 10:47am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:18am: ... wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:14am: The "protest" had no purpose but to act as an excuse for them to make some noise.  It's a video on friggin youtube for crying out loud - what possible connection could there be between a video on youtube, and shouting and waving banners in the streets of Sydney? Heh yeah prolly @the making noise but the connection is obvious. Not rational to us but obvious. SOB No its not. Some bloke living in America made a movie* insulting Muhammed... So the Muslims rip sh1t out of Sydney in protest. Do you want to connect the dots; A to B to C for us? No one in Sydney, or even at the American consulate, has anything to do with this movie. They didn't produce it, fund it, distribute it, or even verbally support it. I don't think anyone even acknowledged it's existence until after the riot. What connection is there between the Youtube trailer and what happened in Syndey?  (*I don't think anyone has even seen the movie in total, but just the trailer of it on YouTube. The actual full length movie doesn't seem to be available anywhere. I am start to wonder if it even exist as an actual movie, or if it is nothing but this short clip.)

I said it wasnt rational but you wouldn't understand it even if it was i expect. The connection is that the yank government didnt force youtube to take the thing offline. Duh.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21^st, 2012 at 11:36am:

... wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:21am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:18am: ... wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:14am: The "protest" had no purpose but to act as an excuse for them to make some noise.  It's a video on friggin youtube for crying out loud - what possible connection could there be between a video on youtube, and shouting and waving banners in the streets of Sydney? Heh yeah prolly @the making noise but the connection is obvious. Not rational to us but obvious. SOB If it was obvious, I'd see the connection.  Please help me - I'm a little sloooow. Muslims dont like anyone insulting their religion. The protest in sydney was @ the yank embassy. Yanks supposedly insulted their religion. Whats not obvious about that? SOB

Firstly, the filmmakers were not acting on behalf of the US government. 

Second, the interwebz are not under any one countries jurisdiction.  The US couldn't can it if they tried.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21^st, 2012 at 11:38am:

Quantum wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:47am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:18am: ... wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:14am: The "protest" had no purpose but to act as an excuse for them to make some noise.  It's a video on friggin youtube for crying out loud - what possible connection could there be between a video on youtube, and shouting and waving banners in the streets of Sydney? Heh yeah prolly @the making noise but the connection is obvious. Not rational to us but obvious. SOB No its not. Some bloke living in America made a movie* insulting Muhammed... So the Muslims rip sh1t out of Sydney in protest. Do you want to connect the dots; A to B to C for us? No one in Sydney, or even at the American consulate, has anything to do with this movie. They didn't produce it, fund it, distribute it, or even verbally support it. I don't think anyone even acknowledged it's existence until after the riot. What connection is there between the Youtube trailer and what happened in Syndey?  (*I don't think anyone has even seen the movie in total, but just the trailer of it on YouTube. The actual full length movie doesn't seem to be available anywhere. I am start to wonder if it even exist as an actual movie, or if it is nothing but this short clip.) I said it wasnt rational but you wouldn't understand it even if it was i expect. The connection is that the yank government didnt force youtube to take the thing offline. Duh. SOB

If it is not rational then there can not be an obvious connection. Otherwise I could walk down the street and set someone's house on fine and claim that it was because I got a high electricity bill. It would not be rational, but by your reasoning there would still be a connection. All I would have to do is say that A (high bill) led to B (house burning) and that would make a connection.

It seems fairly obvious that the above is ridiculous. But I see it as no less ridiculous than smashing a police car in Sydney Australia because someone in the USA made a video and put it on the net. Trying to draw connections between the two is a serious stretch of apologetics. Last weekend was pure ugliness and the video is no excuse for it. 

... wrote on Sep 21^st, 2012 at 11:59am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 11:36am: ... wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:21am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:18am: ... wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:14am: The "protest" had no purpose but to act as an excuse for them to make some noise.  It's a video on friggin youtube for crying out loud - what possible connection could there be between a video on youtube, and shouting and waving banners in the streets of Sydney? Heh yeah prolly @the making noise but the connection is obvious. Not rational to us but obvious. SOB If it was obvious, I'd see the connection.  Please help me - I'm a little sloooow. Muslims dont like anyone insulting their religion. The protest in sydney was @ the yank embassy. Yanks supposedly insulted their religion. Whats not obvious about that? SOB Firstly, the filmmakers were not acting on behalf of the US government.  Second, the interwebz are not under any one countries jurisdiction.  The US couldn't can it if they tried.

So? Doesnt stop it being their excuse . . . .

SOB

Quantum wrote on Sep 21^st, 2012 at 12:47pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 11:38am: Quantum wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:47am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:18am: ... wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:14am: The "protest" had no purpose but to act as an excuse for them to make some noise.  It's a video on friggin youtube for crying out loud - what possible connection could there be between a video on youtube, and shouting and waving banners in the streets of Sydney? Heh yeah prolly @the making noise but the connection is obvious. Not rational to us but obvious. SOB No its not. Some bloke living in America made a movie* insulting Muhammed... So the Muslims rip sh1t out of Sydney in protest. Do you want to connect the dots; A to B to C for us? No one in Sydney, or even at the American consulate, has anything to do with this movie. They didn't produce it, fund it, distribute it, or even verbally support it. I don't think anyone even acknowledged it's existence until after the riot. What connection is there between the Youtube trailer and what happened in Syndey?  (*I don't think anyone has even seen the movie in total, but just the trailer of it on YouTube. The actual full length movie doesn't seem to be available anywhere. I am start to wonder if it even exist as an actual movie, or if it is nothing but this short clip.) I said it wasnt rational but you wouldn't understand it even if it was i expect. The connection is that the yank government didnt force youtube to take the thing offline. Duh. SOB If it is not rational then there can not be an obvious connection. Otherwise I could walk down the street and set someone's house on fine and claim that it was because I got a high electricity bill. It would not be rational, but by your reasoning there would still be a connection. All I would have to do is say that A (high bill) led to B (house burning) and that would make a connection. It seems fairly obvious that the above is ridiculous. But I see it as no less ridiculous than smashing a police car in Sydney Australia because someone in the USA made a video and put it on the net. Trying to draw connections between the two is a serious stretch of apologetics. Last weekend was pure ugliness and the video is no excuse for it.

Blah blah blah blah. That is the official reason they gave.

Is it rational to believe in sky pixies? No but it is used as the excuse for a lot of stuff. A lot of ppl believe on them. A lot more pretend to (which is even more irrational).

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21^st, 2012 at 1:05pm:

... wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 11:59am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 11:36am: ... wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:21am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:18am: ... wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:14am: The "protest" had no purpose but to act as an excuse for them to make some noise.  It's a video on friggin youtube for crying out loud - what possible connection could there be between a video on youtube, and shouting and waving banners in the streets of Sydney? Heh yeah prolly @the making noise but the connection is obvious. Not rational to us but obvious. SOB If it was obvious, I'd see the connection.  Please help me - I'm a little sloooow. Muslims dont like anyone insulting their religion. The protest in sydney was @ the yank embassy. Yanks supposedly insulted their religion. Whats not obvious about that? SOB Firstly, the filmmakers were not acting on behalf of the US government.  Second, the interwebz are not under any one countries jurisdiction.  The US couldn't can it if they tried. So? Doesnt stop it being their excuse . . . . SOB

Yeah...and if you look back, you'll see that's what I said.  You don't have to argue for the sake of arguing you know.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21^st, 2012 at 1:08pm:

Quantum wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 12:47pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 11:38am: Quantum wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:47am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:18am: ... wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:14am: The "protest" had no purpose but to act as an excuse for them to make some noise.  It's a video on friggin youtube for crying out loud - what possible connection could there be between a video on youtube, and shouting and waving banners in the streets of Sydney? Heh yeah prolly @the making noise but the connection is obvious. Not rational to us but obvious. SOB No its not. Some bloke living in America made a movie* insulting Muhammed... So the Muslims rip sh1t out of Sydney in protest. Do you want to connect the dots; A to B to C for us? No one in Sydney, or even at the American consulate, has anything to do with this movie. They didn't produce it, fund it, distribute it, or even verbally support it. I don't think anyone even acknowledged it's existence until after the riot. What connection is there between the Youtube trailer and what happened in Syndey?  (*I don't think anyone has even seen the movie in total, but just the trailer of it on YouTube. The actual full length movie doesn't seem to be available anywhere. I am start to wonder if it even exist as an actual movie, or if it is nothing but this short clip.) I said it wasnt rational but you wouldn't understand it even if it was i expect. The connection is that the yank government didnt force youtube to take the thing offline. Duh. SOB If it is not rational then there can not be an obvious connection. Otherwise I could walk down the street and set someone's house on fine and claim that it was because I got a high electricity bill. It would not be rational, but by your reasoning there would still be a connection. All I would have to do is say that A (high bill) led to B (house burning) and that would make a connection. It seems fairly obvious that the above is ridiculous. But I see it as no less ridiculous than smashing a police car in Sydney Australia because someone in the USA made a video and put it on the net. Trying to draw connections between the two is a serious stretch of apologetics. Last weekend was pure ugliness and the video is no excuse for it.  Blah blah blah blah. That is the official reason they gave. Is it rational to believe in sky pixies? No but it is used as the excuse for a lot of stuff. A lot of ppl believe on them. A lot more pretend to (which is even more irrational). SOB

Whose they? Your argument over this whole issue has constantly been that there is are a minority of extremist, as well as a majority of peace lovers who just happened to there.

Were "they" a unified group who put out an "official" reason? Or is the reason just the vibe that comes from a group of individuals?

... wrote on Sep 21^st, 2012 at 1:09pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 1:05pm: ... wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 11:59am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 11:36am: ... wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:21am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:18am: ... wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:14am: The "protest" had no purpose but to act as an excuse for them to make some noise.  It's a video on friggin youtube for crying out loud - what possible connection could there be between a video on youtube, and shouting and waving banners in the streets of Sydney? Heh yeah prolly @the making noise but the connection is obvious. Not rational to us but obvious. SOB If it was obvious, I'd see the connection.  Please help me - I'm a little sloooow. Muslims dont like anyone insulting their religion. The protest in sydney was @ the yank embassy. Yanks supposedly insulted their religion. Whats not obvious about that? SOB Firstly, the filmmakers were not acting on behalf of the US government.  Second, the interwebz are not under any one countries jurisdiction.  The US couldn't can it if they tried. So? Doesnt stop it being their excuse . . . . SOB Yeah...and if you look back, you'll see that's what I said.  You don't have to argue for the sake of arguing you know.

You asked . . .. .  i agree with you quite often but you choose to ignore/avoid it because you have decided you dont want to agree with me on anything.

SOB

Quantum wrote on Sep 21^st, 2012 at 1:31pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 1:08pm: Quantum wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 12:47pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 11:38am: Quantum wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:47am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:18am: ... wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:14am: The "protest" had no purpose but to act as an excuse for them to make some noise.  It's a video on friggin youtube for crying out loud - what possible connection could there be between a video on youtube, and shouting and waving banners in the streets of Sydney? Heh yeah prolly @the making noise but the connection is obvious. Not rational to us but obvious. SOB No its not. Some bloke living in America made a movie* insulting Muhammed... So the Muslims rip sh1t out of Sydney in protest. Do you want to connect the dots; A to B to C for us? No one in Sydney, or even at the American consulate, has anything to do with this movie. They didn't produce it, fund it, distribute it, or even verbally support it. I don't think anyone even acknowledged it's existence until after the riot. What connection is there between the Youtube trailer and what happened in Syndey?  (*I don't think anyone has even seen the movie in total, but just the trailer of it on YouTube. The actual full length movie doesn't seem to be available anywhere. I am start to wonder if it even exist as an actual movie, or if it is nothing but this short clip.) I said it wasnt rational but you wouldn't understand it even if it was i expect. The connection is that the yank government didnt force youtube to take the thing offline. Duh. SOB If it is not rational then there can not be an obvious connection. Otherwise I could walk down the street and set someone's house on fine and claim that it was because I got a high electricity bill. It would not be rational, but by your reasoning there would still be a connection. All I would have to do is say that A (high bill) led to B (house burning) and that would make a connection. It seems fairly obvious that the above is ridiculous. But I see it as no less ridiculous than smashing a police car in Sydney Australia because someone in the USA made a video and put it on the net. Trying to draw connections between the two is a serious stretch of apologetics. Last weekend was pure ugliness and the video is no excuse for it.  Blah blah blah blah. That is the official reason they gave. Is it rational to believe in sky pixies? No but it is used as the excuse for a lot of stuff. A lot of ppl believe on them. A lot more pretend to (which is even more irrational). SOB Whose they? Your argument over this whole issue has constantly been that there is are a minority of extremist, as well as a majority of peace lovers who just happened to there. Were "they" a unified group who put out an "official" reason? Or is the reason just the vibe that comes from a group of individuals?

WTH? You will pick on any lil nitpicky thing wont you. What an argumentative sod you are. "They" is the muslims on TV and media and the ones that supposedly protested @ the yank embassy about the film. Duh. WTF are you talking about?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21^st, 2012 at 8:47am:

freediver wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 8:25am: Quote: the majority of the 400 were peaceful protesters not demanding any deaths. What were they demanding Spot? Were they demanding anything? They were protesting the insults. They werent demanding deaths. the media didnt actually tell us what they wanted i expect but logically they would have wanted the yanks to get rid of the film. SOB

Yes Spot, usually when people protest they go a bit beyond saying they are pissed off to actually making demands. Otherwise the protest would not have much point.

Are you suggesting that you have no idea at all what these people were demanding, but you somehow just know that the one thing they were not demanding is what was on the placards they were marching behind? That is a bit naive don't you think spot? Since when do you speak on behalf of Muslims to the extent that you can ignore what they actually say and put your own words into their mouths?


Quote:

Blah blah blah blah. That is the official reason they gave.

How was it official spot? Was there an official demand, other than the placards calling for beheadings?


Quote:

WTH? You will pick on any lil nitpicky thing wont you.

You say completely stupid things like this all the time spot. It is not nitpicking if it stands out like a sore thumb and leaves everyone scratching their heads and wondering what you are on. Try thinking before you post.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21^st, 2012 at 1:56pm:

Quantum wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 1:31pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 1:08pm: Quantum wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 12:47pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 11:38am: Quantum wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:47am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:18am: ... wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 10:14am: The "protest" had no purpose but to act as an excuse for them to make some noise.  It's a video on friggin youtube for crying out loud - what possible connection could there be between a video on youtube, and shouting and waving banners in the streets of Sydney? Heh yeah prolly @the making noise but the connection is obvious. Not rational to us but obvious. SOB No its not. Some bloke living in America made a movie* insulting Muhammed... So the Muslims rip sh1t out of Sydney in protest. Do you want to connect the dots; A to B to C for us? No one in Sydney, or even at the American consulate, has anything to do with this movie. They didn't produce it, fund it, distribute it, or even verbally support it. I don't think anyone even acknowledged it's existence until after the riot. What connection is there between the Youtube trailer and what happened in Syndey?  (*I don't think anyone has even seen the movie in total, but just the trailer of it on YouTube. The actual full length movie doesn't seem to be available anywhere. I am start to wonder if it even exist as an actual movie, or if it is nothing but this short clip.) I said it wasnt rational but you wouldn't understand it even if it was i expect. The connection is that the yank government didnt force youtube to take the thing offline. Duh. SOB If it is not rational then there can not be an obvious connection. Otherwise I could walk down the street and set someone's house on fine and claim that it was because I got a high electricity bill. It would not be rational, but by your reasoning there would still be a connection. All I would have to do is say that A (high bill) led to B (house burning) and that would make a connection. It seems fairly obvious that the above is ridiculous. But I see it as no less ridiculous than smashing a police car in Sydney Australia because someone in the USA made a video and put it on the net. Trying to draw connections between the two is a serious stretch of apologetics. Last weekend was pure ugliness and the video is no excuse for it.  Blah blah blah blah. That is the official reason they gave. Is it rational to believe in sky pixies? No but it is used as the excuse for a lot of stuff. A lot of ppl believe on them. A lot more pretend to (which is even more irrational). SOB Whose they? Your argument over this whole issue has constantly been that there is are a minority of extremist, as well as a majority of peace lovers who just happened to there. Were "they" a unified group who put out an "official" reason? Or is the reason just the vibe that comes from a group of individuals? WTH? You will pick on any lil nitpicky thing wont you. What an argumentative sod you are. "They" is the muslims on TV and media and the ones that supposedly protested @ the yank embassy about the film. Duh. WTF are you talking about? SOB

Right. So when did "they" put out an official reason?

Governments put out official reasons. Businesses put out official reasons. Sports teams put out official reasons. That is because these entities speak with one voice. You could watch the press conference or read the documents that list the official reasons.

What is the voice of last weekend? Hundreds of people confronting police with signs about cutting off peoples heads is hardly anything official. Yet even if it was to be taken that this was an organized group that had a single voice that represented something, you are the first to claim that you can't judge them all by the actions of a few.

Was wanting to cut off people heads part of this official voice as well?    

You ppl are showing that you dont watch the news or read the news or pay any attention to the news. There were a couple ppl with signs asking for beheadings and about 399 ppl who were just upset about the film. They made demands that the film be taken off youtube.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 21^st, 2012 at 4:30pm:

You ppl are showing that you dont watch the news or read the news or pay any attention to the news. There were a couple ppl with signs asking for beheadings and about 399 ppl who were just upset about the film. They made demands that the film be taken off youtube. SOB

How anyone can say this;

"You ppl are showing that you dont watch the news or read the news or pay any attention to the news. "

and then follow it with this

"There were a couple ppl with signs asking for beheadings and about 399 ppl who were just upset about the film."

is simply unfathomable. It takes a special person to first smother themselves in dog sh1t, and then walk down the street pointing at others saying how much they all stink. 

"399" standing around. Only a "couple" with signs. You have truly lost your marbles boy.

Quote:

There were a couple ppl with signs asking for beheadings and about 399 ppl who were just upset about the film.

Who were also marching behind the signs calling for beheadings. Are you suggesting you can speak on behalf of these Muslims better than they can for themselves? Cany ou tell us what they really think, if it is not reflected by the banner they march behind? Or do you expect everyone to take your absurdly naive approacvh of assuming the best about Muslims, even when the evidence directly contradicts it?


Quote:

They made demands that the film be taken off youtube.

They also demanded beheadings, didn't they spot? If they had weetbix for breakfast, would that in your mind exclude every other possible thing they might have done that day? Can you point to a single one of those protestors who opposes the death penalty for blasphemy?

woof woof wrote on Sep 19^th, 2012 at 7:15pm:

Why do muslims think that our culture is not good enough for them and they want it changed to suit their beliefs?? What would our society become if it were changed to that of Afghanistan or Egypt etc?? Would we become a basket case with stone age beliefs and a society that fell into decay and disrepair?? Why would an 8 year old girl call for muslims to rise up against the enemies of Islam?? Why would an 8 year olf girl want to live under sharia law??

The point is only muslims think they are superior. Nobody else does !!

freediver wrote on Sep 21^st, 2012 at 6:27pm:

Quote: There were a couple ppl with signs asking for beheadings and about 399 ppl who were just upset about the film. Who were also marching behind the signs calling for beheadings. Are you suggesting you can speak on behalf of these Muslims better than they can for themselves? Cany ou tell us what they really think, if it is not reflected by the banner they march behind? Or do you expect everyone to take your absurdly naive approacvh of assuming the best about Muslims, even when the evidence directly contradicts it? [quote]They made demands that the film be taken off youtube.

They also demanded beheadings, didn't they spot? If they had weetbix for breakfast, would that in your mind exclude every other possible thing they might have done that day? Can you point to a single one of those protestors who opposes the death penalty for blasphemy?[/quote]

And spokesppl have been on TV ever since trying to get ppl like you to see reason. Obviously not going to happen.

SOB

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2012 at 12:07pm:

woof woof wrote on Sep 19th, 2012 at 7:15pm: Why do muslims think that our culture is not good enough for them and they want it changed to suit their beliefs?? What would our society become if it were changed to that of Afghanistan or Egypt etc?? Would we become a basket case with stone age beliefs and a society that fell into decay and disrepair?? Why would an 8 year old girl call for muslims to rise up against the enemies of Islam?? Why would an 8 year olf girl want to live under sharia law?? The point is only muslims think they are superior. Nobody else does !!

BS. Go ask avram who is superior.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2012 at 12:14pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 6:27pm: Quote: There were a couple ppl with signs asking for beheadings and about 399 ppl who were just upset about the film. Who were also marching behind the signs calling for beheadings. Are you suggesting you can speak on behalf of these Muslims better than they can for themselves? Cany ou tell us what they really think, if it is not reflected by the banner they march behind? Or do you expect everyone to take your absurdly naive approacvh of assuming the best about Muslims, even when the evidence directly contradicts it? [quote]They made demands that the film be taken off youtube. They also demanded beheadings, didn't they spot? If they had weetbix for breakfast, would that in your mind exclude every other possible thing they might have done that day? Can you point to a single one of those protestors who opposes the death penalty for blasphemy?

And spokesppl have been on TV ever since trying to get ppl like you to see reason. Obviously not going to happen.

SOB[/quote]

What 'reason' spot? That we should all relax and ignore the fact that 400 people marched through Sydney calling for Murder? That it is now considered impolite to talk about freedom of speech in case the Muslims get upset and think we oppose their barbaric ideas?

On what basis do you insist that the 400 people marching behind the signs did not in fact support the signs?

freediver wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2012 at 7:41pm:

On what basis do you insist that the 400 people marching behind the signs did not in fact support the signs?

The onus is on you.

What evidence do you have that suggests that the 400 were supporting what was said on the signs.

The ones carrying them were obviously crazy idiots advocating violence, however, I've seen nothing demonstrating that all 400 had the same views.

What do you have?

Quote:

The onus is on you. What evidence do you have that suggests that the 400 were supporting what was said on the signs.

The fact that they were marching behind them. Have you seen any of the 400 protestors publicly speak out in opposition to the death penalty for blasphemy?

Given that they were marching behind these signs, the onus is not on me to prove anything more. It is pretty absurd to expect people to believe anything else.


Quote:

The ones carrying them were obviously crazy idiots advocating violence, however, I've seen nothing demonstrating that all 400 had the same views.

They were all idiots to be marching behind signs calling for murder. But even Abu supports the death penalty for blasphemers.

What exactly would it take for you to realise they are nutters? Do you need 400 stat decs saying they support what they were protesting for?

freediver wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2012 at 7:55pm:

The fact that they were marching behind them.

That proves nothing.

Do you have any actual evidence?

freediver wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2012 at 7:55pm:

They were all idiots to be marching behind signs calling for murder.

100% agree.

However, it doesn't mean that they support murder.

Have you seen any of the 400 protestors publicly speak out in opposition to the death penalty for blasphemy?

Or are we pretending to be Jews insisting that Hitler is a really nice guy up until they are inside the gas chambers? Honestly, you couldn't get more naive.

freediver wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2012 at 7:59pm:

Have you seen any of the 400 protestors publicly speak out in opposition to the death penalty for blasphemy?

You're answering my question with a question, and avoiding the issue.

What evidence do you have that suggests that the 400 were supporting what was said on the signs.

And no, I haven't seen any of the 400 publicly speak out in opposition.  However, that's not evidence that they support murder.

So, over to you ... what evidence do you have?

Quote:

You're answering my question with a question

I gave you a straight answer. You just wanted more, that's all.


Quote:

However, that's not evidence that they support murder.

No evidence at all eh? Nothing?

freediver wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2012 at 8:09pm:

Quote: You're answering my question with a question I gave you a straight answer. You just wanted more, that's all. [quote]However, that's not evidence that they support murder.

No evidence at all eh? Nothing?[/quote]


You've provided no evidence, merely assumptions.

Do you have any empirical evidence?

It's not a trick question.

Yes, or no?

If yes, what is it?

freediver wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2012 at 8:09pm:

No evidence at all eh? Nothing?

Correct.

It's merely evidence that they were walking behind people carrying signs calling for murder.

Nobody is disputing that fact.

However, do you have evidence to support your claim that they were calling for murder too?

Anything?

Yes. I have already told you what the evidence was. You seem to be stuck in some kind of alternative reality where protestors march behind signs calling for things they oppose. Marching behind multiple signs calling for the same thing is evidence that you support it - especially combined with the public outcry, the Muslims community leaders distancing themselves from it, and not a single one of those 400 religious nutters coming out and saying oops I don't actually support that.

freediver wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2012 at 8:19pm:

Yes. I have already told you what the evidence was. You seem to be stuck in some kind of alternative reality where protestors march behind signs calling for things they oppose.

You have no evidence.

Just as I suspected.

Your white flag is accepted.

In the future, you may want to use evidence to back up your claims.

Failing to do so just makes you look a little silly.

Assumptions are not evidence.  Remember that.

Better luck next time.

freediver wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2012 at 8:19pm:

Marching behind multiple signs calling for the same thing is evidence that you support it ...

No, it quite simply is not.

It's evidence that they were marching behind signs calling for murder.  Nothing more.

If anyone has ever taken part in a protest or any public gathering you would know that you cant see anything beyond the few ppl near you. The ppl NOT involved can see the signs on TV but i expect most of the 400 werent even aware of their existence.

BTW I enjoyed seeing freediver put in his place. Thanks greggorypeccory.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 4:01am:

If anyone has ever taken part in a protest or any public gathering you would know that you cant see anything beyond the few ppl near you. The ppl NOT involved can see the signs on TV but i expect most of the 400 werent even aware of their existence. BTW I enjoyed seeing freediver put in his place. Thanks greggorypeccory. SOB

Then you must be disappointed to know that outside of your twisted mind it hasn't happened yet. So far this new boy dumbarse has tried to hit freediver (and others) with one ridiculous quote and victory chant after another. He seems to be a certified spastic with his head up his arse.

That being the case, I have to wonder; Is this mr greg pecy another one of your forum friends? They always seem to have a smell of ill conceived left wing stupidity, coupled with aggression and a fetish for the high daily post counts. Their inability to understand written English also seems to be a trait highly regarded by your kind.

As for the rest of your post... they must have been blind. As if anyone could spend that much time in a protest and not see what others were carrying. But then again, I suppose the signs where written mostly in English, so you might have a point. But they are all supposed to be born and raised here Australians and are as much Australian as anyone else... so I guess you still don't have one.

Quantum wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 10:25am:

That being the case, I have to wonder; Is this mr greg pecy another one of your forum friends? They always seem to have a smell of ill conceived left wing stupidity, coupled with aggression and a fetish for the high daily post counts. Their inability to understand written English also seems to be a trait highly regarded by your kind.

What do you mean "another one"? Who is from my forum? And how would you know if they were? Oh oops. Forgot. You are freediver.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2012 at 12:14pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 23rd, 2012 at 12:07pm: woof woof wrote on Sep 19th, 2012 at 7:15pm: Why do muslims think that our culture is not good enough for them and they want it changed to suit their beliefs?? What would our society become if it were changed to that of Afghanistan or Egypt etc?? Would we become a basket case with stone age beliefs and a society that fell into decay and disrepair?? Why would an 8 year old girl call for muslims to rise up against the enemies of Islam?? Why would an 8 year olf girl want to live under sharia law?? The point is only muslims think they are superior. Nobody else does !! BS. Go ask avram who is superior. SOB

I meant that nobody else thinks muslims are superior except muslims ;)

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 11:17am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 23rd, 2012 at 12:14pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 23rd, 2012 at 12:07pm: woof woof wrote on Sep 19th, 2012 at 7:15pm: Why do muslims think that our culture is not good enough for them and they want it changed to suit their beliefs?? What would our society become if it were changed to that of Afghanistan or Egypt etc?? Would we become a basket case with stone age beliefs and a society that fell into decay and disrepair?? Why would an 8 year old girl call for muslims to rise up against the enemies of Islam?? Why would an 8 year olf girl want to live under sharia law?? The point is only muslims think they are superior. Nobody else does !! BS. Go ask avram who is superior. SOB I meant that nobody else thinks muslims are superior except muslims ;)

Yup. That is true. And nobody thinks avram is superior except avram (and maybe yadda).

SOB

not all  people of muslim faith agree with the stoning or behading punishments. but you do hanging and other ways. in UK these are not permitted
freediver wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 8:20am:

The problem with your logic sanofi is that Muslims actually want to stone people to death for apostasy etc. Swapping the words around won't change that.

Quantum wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 10:25am:

Their inability to understand written English also seems to be a trait highly regarded by your kind.

Examples?

Quantum wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 10:25am:

So far this new boy dumbarse has tried to hit freediver (and others) with one ridiculous quote and victory chant after another. He seems to be a certified spastic with his head up his arse.

Do you have anything to offer besides insults?

Have you thought about using reasoning and rationale instead of personal attacks?

If so, I'd be pleased to hear what you have to offer.

freediver wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2012 at 7:55pm:

What exactly would it take for you to realise they are nutters?

They are "nutters", I agree.  Anyone involving themselves in a march with those sort of banners obviously has some problems.

What I'm saying is that this statement is incorrect:

"Marching behind multiple signs calling for the same thing is evidence that you support it ... "

Nope.  It's evidence that you're a sheep marching behind multiple signs.  That's all.

You could make the assumption that they support what's written on the signs, but there's no way of knowing for sure.

Sheep get caught up in all sorts of protest marches.  It happens all the time.  While they might not agree with what's written on the signs they still go along for the ride with the hope of getting their face on the news, or impressing their girlfriends etc.

There are many idiots out there, from all religions and backgrounds, who do this sort of thing.

Nothing new.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 2:41pm:

Quantum wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 10:25am: So far this new boy dumbarse has tried to hit freediver (and others) with one ridiculous quote and victory chant after another. He seems to be a certified spastic with his head up his arse. Do you have anything to offer besides insults? Have you thought about using reasoning and rationale instead of personal attacks? If so, I'd be pleased to hear what you have to offer.

No you wouldn't. You already made that clear in your first post to me on the "Muslim" thread.

Anyone who joins a forum first day and goes on a posting rampage against others; by either asking stupid repetitive questions or mocking their comments, is clearly not here for discussion. When they also come here and are in agreement with Spot then they are definitely not looking for debate using reasoning.

Either you are another troll from spot's forum, or a moron. Whatever the case, you ain't here to discuss anything rationally. Your premature and childish victory chants against freediver on this very thread are proof of that.

Quantum wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 3:06pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 2:41pm: Quantum wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 10:25am: So far this new boy dumbarse has tried to hit freediver (and others) with one ridiculous quote and victory chant after another. He seems to be a certified spastic with his head up his arse. Do you have anything to offer besides insults? Have you thought about using reasoning and rationale instead of personal attacks? If so, I'd be pleased to hear what you have to offer. No you wouldn't. You already made that clear in your first post to me on the "Muslim" thread. Anyone who joins a forum first day and goes on a posting rampage against others; by either asking stupid repetitive questions or mocking their comments, is clearly not here for discussion. When they also come here and are in agreement with Spot then they are definitely not looking for debate using reasoning. Either you are another troll from spot's forum, or a moron. Whatever the case, you ain't here to discuss anything rationally. Your premature and childish victory chants against freediver on this very thread are proof of that.

Are my questions too difficult for you?

I can ask easier ones if you like.

You just let me know, OK?

I'm happy to do whatever it takes to keep the debate on-topic.

Cheers.

Quantum wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 3:06pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 2:41pm: Quantum wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 10:25am: So far this new boy dumbarse has tried to hit freediver (and others) with one ridiculous quote and victory chant after another. He seems to be a certified spastic with his head up his arse. Do you have anything to offer besides insults? Have you thought about using reasoning and rationale instead of personal attacks? If so, I'd be pleased to hear what you have to offer. No you wouldn't. You already made that clear in your first post to me on the "Muslim" thread. Anyone who joins a forum first day and goes on a posting rampage against others; by either asking stupid repetitive questions or mocking their comments, is clearly not here for discussion. When they also come here and are in agreement with Spot then they are definitely not looking for debate using reasoning. Either you are another troll from spot's forum, or a moron. Whatever the case, you ain't here to discuss anything rationally. Your premature and childish victory chants against freediver on this very thread are proof of that.

That's funny because that is exactly what you do :(

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 10:47am:

Quantum wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 10:25am: That being the case, I have to wonder; Is this mr greg pecy another one of your forum friends? They always seem to have a smell of ill conceived left wing stupidity, coupled with aggression and a fetish for the high daily post counts. Their inability to understand written English also seems to be a trait highly regarded by your kind. What do you mean "another one"? Who is from my forum? And how would you know if they were? Oh oops. Forgot. You are freediver. SOB

Quantum is longweekend's brother ;)

Quantum wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 3:06pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 2:41pm: Quantum wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 10:25am: So far this new boy dumbarse has tried to hit freediver (and others) with one ridiculous quote and victory chant after another. He seems to be a certified spastic with his head up his arse. Do you have anything to offer besides insults? Have you thought about using reasoning and rationale instead of personal attacks? If so, I'd be pleased to hear what you have to offer. No you wouldn't. You already made that clear in your first post to me on the "Muslim" thread. Anyone who joins a forum first day and goes on a posting rampage against others; by either asking stupid repetitive questions or mocking their comments, is clearly not here for discussion. When they also come here and are in agreement with Spot then they are definitely not looking for debate using reasoning. Either you are another troll from spot's forum, or a moron. Whatever the case, you ain't here to discuss anything rationally. Your premature and childish victory chants against freediver on this very thread are proof of that.

Another troll? Who do you think is from my forum? Anyone that disagrees with you freediver is automatically from my forum? With us or agaisnt us mentality . . .  cant say im surprised.. . .

SOB

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 3:27pm:

Quantum wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 3:06pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 2:41pm: Quantum wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 10:25am: So far this new boy dumbarse has tried to hit freediver (and others) with one ridiculous quote and victory chant after another. He seems to be a certified spastic with his head up his arse. Do you have anything to offer besides insults? Have you thought about using reasoning and rationale instead of personal attacks? If so, I'd be pleased to hear what you have to offer. No you wouldn't. You already made that clear in your first post to me on the "Muslim" thread. Anyone who joins a forum first day and goes on a posting rampage against others; by either asking stupid repetitive questions or mocking their comments, is clearly not here for discussion. When they also come here and are in agreement with Spot then they are definitely not looking for debate using reasoning. Either you are another troll from spot's forum, or a moron. Whatever the case, you ain't here to discuss anything rationally. Your premature and childish victory chants against freediver on this very thread are proof of that. That's funny because that is exactly what you do :(

Cuts deep from the bloke who starts threads> gets responses that are on topic> then accuses everyone of covering up pedophiles and relates it all back to the inquisition> before finally when called out on this lack of logic tells everyone to "bugger off". However if this trolling doesn't work to plan, he then gets on messenger to his boyfriend asking him to come on-line so as to back up everything he just said, and to attack anyone who has actually been debating the topic.

I am constantly amazed at the amount of people on this forum who just want to state an opinion and just scream "bugger off" at anyone who doesn't agree. Likewise they just want to post one word questions like "Link?" or "evidence?" without ever offering to give any argument themselves. Apparently they think this is debating.

Spot, Lastnail, this new greggory bloke. Never here to discuss the topic, but just here to scream "I'm right I'm right, you know your wrong" and ignore anything else that is said that doesn't support them.

Quantum wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 4:01pm:

Spot, Lastnail, this new greggory bloke. Never here to discuss the topic, but just here to scream "I'm right I'm right, you know your wrong" and ignore anything else that is said that doesn't support them.

I can't speak for the others, but I'd never use spelling as bad as that.

I hope tomorrow treats you better.  Seems like you're having a bad day today.

So, back to the question (and topic): has anyone come up with any evidence to support the claim that all 400 marchers were advocating murder?

Far out.  You couldn't make this poo up.


Quote:

has anyone come up with any evidence to support the claim that all 400 marchers were advocating murder?

Would you demand evidence that all members of the SS wished death on jews, or would accept that they are complicit by association?

... wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 4:12pm:

Far out.  You couldn't make this poo up. Quote: has anyone come up with any evidence to support the claim that all 400 marchers were advocating murder? Would you demand evidence that all members of the SS wished death on jews, or would accept that they are complicit by association?

Seriously i have to call godwin on you there. This was a protest in which a couple of ppl had offensive signs and several got violent. It wasnt an army and it wasnt even violent except for a couple of ppl (which seems to happen @ any public gathering anyway theres always a couple that wreck it for everyone else). you are straining the bounds of rationality there.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 4:28pm:

... wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 4:12pm: Far out.  You couldn't make this poo up. Quote: has anyone come up with any evidence to support the claim that all 400 marchers were advocating murder? Would you demand evidence that all members of the SS wished death on jews, or would accept that they are complicit by association? Seriously i have to call godwin on you there. This was a protest in which a couple of ppl had offensive signs and several got violent. It wasnt an army and it wasnt even violent except for a couple of ppl (which seems to happen @ any public gathering anyway theres always a couple that wreck it for everyone else). you are straining the bounds of rationality there. SOB

Okie dokie then.  Would you demand proof that the thousands of people you'll see dressed in yellow and brown outside the MCG this weekend are Hawthorn supporters? 

... wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 4:35pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 4:28pm: ... wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 4:12pm: Far out.  You couldn't make this poo up. Quote: has anyone come up with any evidence to support the claim that all 400 marchers were advocating murder? Would you demand evidence that all members of the SS wished death on jews, or would accept that they are complicit by association? Seriously i have to call godwin on you there. This was a protest in which a couple of ppl had offensive signs and several got violent. It wasnt an army and it wasnt even violent except for a couple of ppl (which seems to happen @ any public gathering anyway theres always a couple that wreck it for everyone else). you are straining the bounds of rationality there. SOB Okie dokie then.  Would you demand proof that the thousands of people you'll see dressed in yellow and brown outside the MCG this weekend are Hawthorn supporters?

Heh wouldn't be surprised if a couple of them get violent before the night is out too . . . .

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 4:47pm:

... wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 4:35pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 4:28pm: ... wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 4:12pm: Far out.  You couldn't make this poo up. Quote: has anyone come up with any evidence to support the claim that all 400 marchers were advocating murder? Would you demand evidence that all members of the SS wished death on jews, or would accept that they are complicit by association? Seriously i have to call godwin on you there. This was a protest in which a couple of ppl had offensive signs and several got violent. It wasnt an army and it wasnt even violent except for a couple of ppl (which seems to happen @ any public gathering anyway theres always a couple that wreck it for everyone else). you are straining the bounds of rationality there. SOB Okie dokie then.  Would you demand proof that the thousands of people you'll see dressed in yellow and brown outside the MCG this weekend are Hawthorn supporters?  Heh wouldn't be surprised if a couple of them get violent before the night is out too . . . . SOB

But that's not the issue.

... wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 4:12pm:

Far out.  You couldn't make this poo up. Quote: has anyone come up with any evidence to support the claim that all 400 marchers were advocating murder? Would you demand evidence that all members of the SS wished death on jews, or would accept that they are complicit by association?

Answering a question with a question ... again.

And changing the subject.

Hmmm.   ::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 5:13pm:

... wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 4:12pm: Far out.  You couldn't make this poo up. Quote: has anyone come up with any evidence to support the claim that all 400 marchers were advocating murder? Would you demand evidence that all members of the SS wished death on jews, or would accept that they are complicit by association? Answering a question with a question ... again. And changing the subject. Hmmm.   ::)

Reciting a play by play commentary doesn't constitute worthy debate.

To put it simply, your demand for proof is ridiculous - and I'd hoped by taking the same principle and reapplying it elsewhere, you'd see the absurdity of it. 

But no.  It seems I've given you far too much credit. 

... wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 5:18pm:

But no.

I didn't think so.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 5:19pm:

... wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 5:18pm: But no.  I didn't think.

It shows.

... wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 5:18pm:

To put it simply, your demand for proof is ridiculous ...

I'm not demanding proof.

I merely asked: "has anyone come up with any evidence to support the claim that all 400 marchers were advocating murder?"

That's a question, not a demand.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 5:21pm:

... wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 5:18pm: To put it simply, your demand for proof is ridiculous ... I'm not demanding proof. I merely asked: "has anyone come up with any evidence to support the claim that all 400 marchers were advocating murder?" That's a question, not a demand.

Oh.  Well in that case, allow me to correct myself.  That should read:  "Your facetious, mock-question is ridiculous."

Apologies for the misunderstanding.

... wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 5:20pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 5:19pm: ... wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 5:18pm: But no.  I didn't think. It shows.

I'm taking "But no" as the answer to the question: "has anyone come up with any evidence to support the claim that all 400 marchers were advocating murder?"

It took a while, but we got there.

... wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 5:23pm:

Apologies for the misunderstanding.

No need to apologise: I've come to expect it.

This is called a debate?

Anyone can hold the power in a farce of a discussion like this. All you need to do is follow these simple rules;

1) Be the first to ask the question. Don't take any answers, and certainly don't answer any questions given back.

2) Make sure the question you ask requires a ridiculous (and even impossible) burden of proof. That way you can claim that any answer is not good enough. 

3) Make out that everyone is trying to avoid the question because they are scared to answer it. This is apparently because they know they have been shown to be wrong.

4) Keep claiming victory in the debate by saying that no answer has reached your level of proof.

A moron like spot would see all this and start going on like a cymbal-banging monkey toy, simply because his nemesis (freediver) is apparently getting owned. For the rest of us, its obvious when someone has no interest in real discussion, and is simply trying to stretch the conversation out just for the fun of it. So impressive....

Quantum wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 5:49pm:

This is called a debate? Anyone can hold the power in a farce of a discussion like this. All you need to do is follow these simple rules; 1) Be the first to ask the question. Don't take any answers, and certainly don't answer any questions given back. 2) Make sure the question you ask requires a ridiculous (and even impossible) burden of proof. That way you can claim that any answer is not good enough.  3) Make out that everyone is trying to avoid the question because they are scared to answer it. This is apparently because they know they have been shown to be wrong. 4) Keep claiming victory in the debate by saying that no answer has reached your level of proof. A moron like spot would see all this and start going on like a cymbal-banging monkey toy, simply because his nemesis (freediver) is apparently getting owned. For the rest of us, its obvious when someone has no interest in real discussion, and is simply trying to stretch the conversation out just for the fun of it. So impressive....

Ahh you mean for example like the question "prove that all 400 ppl werent calling for beheadings?" ?

SOB

PS too bad i was told i cant "report" ppl if i reply to them . . .. not that it matters since i doubt you would do anything about yourself.

Quantum wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 5:49pm:

A moron like spot ....

Again with the abusive ad hominem.

Hmmm  :(

I usually like peccaries.

http://afeatheradrift.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/collared-peccary-f1.jpg

This one called greggery is a bit of a dick though.

... wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 6:17pm:

I usually like peccaries.

As long as it's consensual , I'm not going to judge.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 6:07pm:

Quantum wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 5:49pm: A moron like spot .... Again with the abusive ad hominem. Hmmm  :(

I'm sorry but you will have to prove that it is an abusive ad hominem. I didn't say Spot was a moron to undermine his argument. I only said a moron like spot would agree with this type of debating.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 6:23pm:

... wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 6:17pm: I usually like peccaries. As long as it's consensual , I'm not going to judge.

Classic.

Maybe Corey Bernardi gave him ideas.

what motivates muslims to stage a prayer session on the grounds of westminster abbey?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-Zzace1pac

they would be outraged if a dozen christians or jews or hindus or buddhists went and staged a prayer meeting on on the temple mount or even lakemba mosque. the muslims would be rioting across the world.

how is this conducive to harmony and mutual respect?  they do not seem to be terrorists. they are the moderates everyone is talking about. but i think they are being provocative deliberately. but this sort of thing does not increase confidence and trust towards muslims. quite the opposite. they are being deliberately offensive.

freediver wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 8:20am:

The problem with your logic sanofi is that Muslims actually want to stone people to death for apostasy etc. Swapping the words around won't change that.

I have no idea how I missed this one!
Get a grip FreeDiver, the stoning to death outside of one or two remote villages, is more of a myth than an actuality, Mossad propoganda.
It really comes down to differentiation (like the jewish mother and the rottweiler - the difference? the rottweiler eventually lets go) of the facts and the myth/zionist lies.

Quantum wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 6:32pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 6:07pm: Quantum wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 5:49pm: A moron like spot .... Again with the abusive ad hominem. Hmmm  :( I'm sorry but you will have to prove that it is an abusive ad hominem. I didn't say Spot was a moron to undermine his argument. I only said a moron like spot would agree with this type of debating.

Awww diddums - werent you getting any attention in this thread?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Oct 8^th, 2012 at 6:03am:

Quantum wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 6:32pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 6:07pm: Quantum wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 5:49pm: A moron like spot .... Again with the abusive ad hominem. Hmmm  :( I'm sorry but you will have to prove that it is an abusive ad hominem. I didn't say Spot was a moron to undermine his argument. I only said a moron like spot would agree with this type of debating. Awww diddums - werent you getting any attention in this thread? SOB

quantum may be developing a complex about 'making it' in the big pond.
but it is one of the many challenges that he, as  tadpole, faces.

Good to see spot's band of morons searching back a couple of weeks to find posts to derail the thread. For a second I thought the troll troop had given up on trying to destroy this forum. You all seem to be hard at work today though. 

Quantum wrote on Oct 8^th, 2012 at 10:27am:

Good to see spot's band of morons searching back a couple of weeks to find posts to derail the thread. For a second I thought the troll troop had given up on trying to destroy this forum. You all seem to be hard at work today though.

say something positive and I will follow you.. not spot.

sanofi wrote on Oct 7^th, 2012 at 11:26pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 8:20am: The problem with your logic sanofi is that Muslims actually want to stone people to death for apostasy etc. Swapping the words around won't change that. I have no idea how I missed this one! Get a grip FreeDiver, the stoning to death outside of one or two remote villages, is more of a myth than an actuality, Mossad propoganda. It really comes down to differentiation (like the jewish mother and the rottweiler - the difference? the rottweiler eventually lets go) of the facts and the myth/zionist lies.

Of course it is rare - because most of the worlds Muslims are kept in check by non-Muslims, and by the other Muslims of a different type that they also want to kill. That does not mean they don't want to do the killing. Ask Abu. He wants people to be stoned to death for thinking or saying the wrong thing. He even thinks that it is inevitable that this will happen in Australia. The 400 Muslims who marched through Sydney behind banners calling for murder obviously also support the Islamic punishment for blasphemy, apostasy etc. There are more than enough Muslims to maintain two wars to prevent the establishment of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are not fighting for a slightly different version of democracy. They are completely opposed to democracy. That's how backwards they are. Abu objects to the Shites in these countries having a real say in how it is run, even though they represent the majority. He thinks it is inevitable that the Sunni minority will once again reign supreme.

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2012 at 6:33pm:

sanofi wrote on Oct 7th, 2012 at 11:26pm: freediver wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 8:20am: The problem with your logic sanofi is that Muslims actually want to stone people to death for apostasy etc. Swapping the words around won't change that. I have no idea how I missed this one! Get a grip FreeDiver, the stoning to death outside of one or two remote villages, is more of a myth than an actuality, Mossad propoganda. It really comes down to differentiation (like the jewish mother and the rottweiler - the difference? the rottweiler eventually lets go) of the facts and the myth/zionist lies. Of course it is rare - because most of the worlds Muslims are kept in check by non-Muslims, and by the other Muslims of a different type that they also want to kill. That does not mean they don't want to do the killing. Ask Abu. He wants people to be stoned to death for thinking or saying the wrong thing. He even thinks that it is inevitable that this will happen in Australia. The 400 Muslims who marched through Sydney behind banners calling for murder obviously also support the Islamic punishment for blasphemy, apostasy etc. There are more than enough Muslims to maintain two wars to prevent the establishment of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are not fighting for a slightly different version of democracy. They are completely opposed to democracy. That's how backwards they are. Abu objects to the Shites in these countries having a real say in how it is run, even though they represent the majority. He thinks it is inevitable that the Sunni minority will once again reign supreme.

I think I'll come back to your points and discuss them later..

I don't.