Karnal wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 8:04pm:

I’ll throw the question back to you, FD: what do you think is a reasonable criticism of something? Do you agree, for example, that any criticism has to be true? I’m curious.

freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 9:08pm:

Statements of fact can be true or false. A criticism is a personal judgement. I'm not sure what you are getting at here, but it sounds very messy.

Karnal wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 11:14pm:

You don’t care whether a criticism is true or not? That’s a relief.  Your criticism of Islam is the valid one - that’s a relief too, FD. Freeedom is in safe hands. The winner here is demokracy. Would you care to posit who’s version of Christianity is the valid one? Y’s absence-of-Christ version or the old boy’s atheism? We won’t bite, you know.

Karnal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 11:36am:

freediver wrote on Jun 12th, 2014 at 7:07pm: What level of criticism of or interest in Islam would you tolerate as being within the bounds of rational inquiry? Or is being an apologist like you the only rational position to have? Pretty much, FD. The founding fathers of rational inquiry devised their methods to advocate freedom of religion. Descartes, Locke, Kant, Hegel - all based their respective philosophies in the context of religious enquiry. As I've argued, any criticism of Islam or the actions of Muslims should be based on actual facts. Not rumours, not misconstrued or fabricated events, not twisted words or ridiculous hypertheticals.

freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 12:58pm:

Quote: You don’t care whether a criticism is true or not? Read what I posted Karnal. Criticism is, by it's nature, a values based statement. [quote]Religion is not about criticizing others. If your religion is solely an attack of another religion, it's a false religion. And yes, when your religion or belief system is about creating division and harm to others, you should be pulled up on it.

I have never seen you do this.[/quote]

Karnal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 1:58pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 12:58pm: Quote: Are you suggesting that I am violating someone's freedom of religion, or advocating it's violation? Does freedom to you mean freedom from criticism, or freedom from criticism that you disapprove of? [quote]As I've argued, any criticism of Islam or the actions of Muslims should be based on actual facts. So you agree that it does not make sense to demand the criticism itself be true? Of course criticism of others should be true. Who would argue anything else? You have argued against Muslim immigration - you're arguing to discriminate on entry to Australia on the basis of religion. If this doesn't violate someone's freedom of religion, I don't know what does. To me, freedom requires integrity. If you're shown to be wrong, admit it and change your mind. If your argument is proven wrong, change your thesis. If the facts you use to back up your argument are found to be false, don't deny this and excuse it and forrage around desperately for new facts, admit it. Don't twist others' words, don't make up things they've said, don't use their lack of reply as proof of your argument. When you do this, you lose integrity, your credibility, and any freedom you have. As Jesus said, the truth shall set you free. This is the process of reason, of the scientific method. It's how we come to consensus on truth. "Truth" is relative to the processes we use. If the process is faulty, any conclusion will be highly questionable. Likewise, if your intent or purpose is pre-determined, your conclusions wil be flawed. You've already stated here that you have an anti-Muslim agenda. I'm stating here that I have no pro-Muslim agenda. If I'm an apologist, I'm an "apologist" for people I know who happen to be Muslims. I don't aim to defend Islam, and I'm against many Islamic practices - particularly Halal slaughter techniques. I also know that many Muslim practices are not prescribed Islamic practices, despite Muslims almost universally adopting them as their culture. Head coverings are one example of this, circumcision is another. All the Muslim rape and crime articles here are just silly, particularly when the teachings of Islam forbid this. "Joining the dots" and making connections to Islam or Mohammed's teachings is impossible when you admit that you have an anti-Islam agenda. If I admitted that I have a pro-Muslim agenda, you'd be equally free to take what I say with a grain of salt. I don't hold that people should be free to "criticize" whatever they don't like. I do, however, believe that people should be free to criticize things, where necessary, that they have a sound awareness of - that they have actual experience with. Criticism isn't an end in itself, its goal should be improvement. Critics often fall into the trap of looking for faults. In itself, this does not make for good critique. Civilisation requires restraint and humility. Civilisation is not an all-out war against a never-ending and ever-changing enemy. Such an understanding of civilisation (which is implicit in schools of thought like the neo-conservatism of Leo Strauss) owes much more to barbarism than an evolved and civilised social/political outlook. While I admit that these competing views of civilisation are an important tension in Western thought, I believe such attitudes are implicitly anti-Western. As Western subjects, we define ourselves through our tolerance and fairness. Again, and I'll continue to remind you of this, without such a way or view of life, you're no different to those you "criticize". Without an emphasis on truth and honesty, you fall prey to superstition, gossip, and what Francis Bacon called the "idols of the marketplace" - those who were the subject of false rumours and mercilessly hunted down or excluded. You can't argue for Freedom by ignoring the very basis of freedom, which requires certain restraints. You will, I think, agree with this.

Quote:

You have argued against Muslim immigration

I have argued against immigration of any person - regardless of religion - who is ideologically opposed to freedom and democracy. As I pointed out at the time, the advantage of this is that it captures all the various reasons, including a variety of religious outlooks, which lead people to oppose these things.


Quote:

I don't hold that people should be free to "criticize" whatever they don't like.

I do.

freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 6:54pm:

Quote: I don't hold that people should be free to "criticize" whatever they don't like. I do.

Me too.





When i was a child, 'discrimination' was not the 'dirty' word, which it has become today.

Today, the use of the word 'discrimination' always seems to default to the 'politically incorrect' meaning of #1 below.

When i was a child the word 'discrimination' almost always meant #2 below.


Dictionary;
discrimination = =
1 the action of discriminating against people.
2 recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.     good judgement or taste.


AND;

Dictionary;
discriminating = = having or showing good taste or judgement.




Today, we are all told [and taught] by 'sociologists' [the PC social engineers] that it is a 'social crime' to be critical of the bad behaviour of others.

Because we should never judge [nor ever condemn] the bad behaviour of others.

Being critical of the bad behaviour of others, only causes social disharmony!!       :P






"And what is good, Phaedrus? And what is not good? Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?"
Plato
found in, Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance






"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Karl Popper


"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil."
Thomas Mann

Of course you both do. Some grant themselves the liberty to criticize things they know nothing about on a daily basis.

And they know so little about their object of criticism that they feel compelled to make things up.

This isn’t freedom, it’s slavery.

Civilisation has its discontents. To live with others, a certain amount of forbearance is required. Tolerating people with placards is one concession. Putting up with the Bolts and the Divines and the Ackermans is another. This is how we are able to live in civil society with people who, for all intents and purposes, appear as enemies.

Jesus, of course, based his entire teaching on this: love your neighbour as yourself,  treat your enemy as a friend, turn the other cheek.

Y knows what I mean.

But alas, the internet has come along and we’ve become more atomised. Community forums are increasingly online. With the exception of the workplace, we don’t mix with people outside our very narrow interest groups anymore. Like the epidemic of stranger danger that’s hit parenting, we’ve become socially risk adverse to the point of paranoia.

And we sit on our screens and communicate this paranoia to others. It spreads.

The challenge is to make democracy fit such a society. Democracy was designed for small city states where everyone knew each other, or could at least visit them if they wanted to say something.

Now, what we say to other citizens is abstracted and mediated - by the communication technology, but also by the ideas that go with it. The PC is designed solely for individual use. To use it, we must stop talking to others and disappear into our screens. This now happens on streets, in offices, in homes, and even when people are trying to be intimate. People actually check Facebook during sex.

In such a world, we disassociate from.the world around us. We become insular and socially unaware. Our fantasies are able to take hold with little or no reference to reality, and like-minded people will always back us up.

This, I think, explains how Y can have beliefs so totally divorced from reality. Y doesn’t live in a Muslim neighbourhood or know any Muslims. Y gets his information from.Muslim hate sites - all foreign stories, many of which have been proven false.

I live in a Muslim neighbourhood - well, sort of. There’s a Muslim prayer hall a few houses down, but the neighbourhood is full off all types. I work with Muslims, and I do business with them. The doctor, the dentist (an atheist now), the barber, all the shops I buy food in. I often travel in Muslim countries. I go to Malaysia at least 3 times a year.

So I ask you this: should I believe hysterical hate rants drummed up in another country, a PR campaign funded largely for the purpose of mobilising us for war?

Or should I believe and trust the people I know - people I sit next to.at work, people who say hi on the street, people who cut my hair and fix my teeth?

Does it make sense to you that they’re all liars who want to kill me? Or could there be another explanation?

Feel free to answer - no one is compelled.

You should think for yourself Karnal.

Where’s your criticism of non-Muslims who are against Freeedom and demokracy, FD? I’ve only ever seen you criticize Muslims of this crime.

Come to think of it, I’ve only seen you criticize Muslims of any crime: terrorism, murder, child sexual abuse. Every time I’ve asked you about this you avoid the question or tell me to post it in a new thread.

Good to see you rebranding groupthink as "thinking for yourself". You should write ads for Nike and Microsoft.

Why does thinking for oneself only apply to the Muselmenace?

Quote:

Where’s your criticism of non-Muslims who are against Freeedom and demokracy, FD? I’ve only ever seen you criticize Muslims of this crime.

To be honest I was barely aware that there were people ideologically opposed to freedom and democracy until the Muslims turned up. However, if you look at my articles, there is a series of them on democracy, all dating to before Abu and Malik, with links to many discussions about democracy, where I criticised people for supporting the wrong version of democracy.

There is also a recent discussion where I have criticised you, a non-Muslim (apparently), for being opposed to freedom.

The reason you are unaware of all this is because you are disinterested. You are only here to be an apologist, so you only notice the discussions where you defend Muslims.

It it not because Rupert Murdoch stole our ability to think for ourselves and you are the only one interested in the truth.

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 1:09pm:

Of course you both do. Some grant themselves the liberty to criticize things they know nothing about on a daily basis. And they know so little about their object of criticism that they feel compelled to make things up. This isn’t freedom, it’s slavery. Civilisation has its discontents. To live with others, a certain amount of forbearance is required. Tolerating people with placards is one concession. Putting up with the Bolts and the Divines and the Ackermans is another. This is how we are able to live in civil society with people who, for all intents and purposes, appear as enemies. Jesus, of course, based his entire teaching on this: love your neighbour as yourself,  treat your enemy as a friend, turn the other cheek. Y knows what I mean.

Yes, i think that i do.

I can love my enemy, have mercy upon my enemy.

And Jesus taught that i can love the enemy of my God too.

NOT!





My God say's to me, that if i love him, IF I HONOUR HIM, then i will try to obey his law.

And, he encourages me to try to separate myself from those who constantly and without conscience break his laws.

The fact is, that the LAWLESS are the enemy of my God.

And my God is the enemy of those who are LAWLESS.





So where do moslems stand ?






THIS ?....

IMAGE....
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gvXwPghPsU4/TiV9dY_RIKI/AAAAAAAAC-k/yA0crbVWgvA/s320/10commandments.jpg





+++


OR THIS ?.....





"What makes Allah happy?
Allah is happy, when kafir get killed."

Please watch this YT...
Muslims being deceptive Islam EX-Muslims         goto 4m 30s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZx8cNSC9O0




[offensive image removed]i
"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98


"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11


"Fighting [against unbelievers] is prescribed for you, and [if] ye dislike it.....Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Koran 2.216


"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123


"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...."
Koran 9.111


"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29

You avoided the question again, FD, but how am I opposed to Freeedom?

I’m not disinterested at all. I’m curious.

Quote:

I don't hold that people should be free to "criticize" whatever they don't like.

Yadda wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 2:35pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14th, 2014 at 1:09pm: Of course you both do. Some grant themselves the liberty to criticize things they know nothing about on a daily basis. And they know so little about their object of criticism that they feel compelled to make things up. This isn’t freedom, it’s slavery. Civilisation has its discontents. To live with others, a certain amount of forbearance is required. Tolerating people with placards is one concession. Putting up with the Bolts and the Divines and the Ackermans is another. This is how we are able to live in civil society with people who, for all intents and purposes, appear as enemies. Jesus, of course, based his entire teaching on this: love your neighbour as yourself,  treat your enemy as a friend, turn the other cheek. Y knows what I mean. Yes, i think that i do. I can love my enemy, have mercy upon my enemy. And Jesus taught that i can love the enemy of my God, have mercy upon my enemy of my God too. NOT! My God say's to me, that if i love him, IF I HONOUR HIM, then i will try to obey his law. And, he encourages me to try to separate myself from those who constantly and without conscience break his laws. The fact is, that the LAWLESS are the enemy of my God. And my God is the enemy of those who are LAWLESS. So where do moslems stand ? THIS ?.... IMAGE.... http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gvXwPghPsU4/TiV9dY_RIKI/AAAAAAAAC-k/yA0crbVWgvA/s320/10commandments.jpg +++ OR THIS ?..... "What makes Allah happy? Allah is happy, when kafir get killed." Please watch this YT... Muslims being deceptive Islam EX-Muslims         goto 4m 30s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZx8cNSC9O0 IMAGE.... http://thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/happy.jpg [image above] Here we have a group of 'peace-loving' moslems, in Syria, engaging in their glorious religious duty, to rid the world of unbelief. And do you see how happy these moslems are!!! What is it that they are holding up ??? "....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith." Koran 2.98 "....those who reject Allah have no protector." Koran 47.008 v. 8-11 "Fighting [against unbelievers] is prescribed for you, and [if] ye dislike it.....Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Koran 2.216 "O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)." Koran 9.123 "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...." Koran 9.111 "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. " Koran 9.29

Nice one, Y. A picture of the original ten commandments given to Moses - in English - versus a picture of Arabs holding up a human head.

Says it all, no?

[offensive image removed]



And what about all of those Koran verses, which command moslems to be moslems, and fight for Allah's cause - to exterminate disbelievers and homosexuals ?         ;)

You never seem to try to convince me that those 'fight the infidels' Koran verses don't come out of a 'REAL' Koran - or that your moslem friends do not know what a 'Koran' is ?

Why is that ?

Another good example - the bikie law debate.

If you had a genuine concern for or interest in freedom and democracy (rather than merely being here as an apologist for those who want to see it taken away out of naive hope that the problem will disappear if we self censor) then you would be aware of this.

freediver wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 2:38pm:

Quote: I don't hold that people should be free to "criticize" whatever they don't like.

You took this as a call for censorship? How could a state impose limits on people criticizing what they don’t like?

I’m.arguing for self restraint. It’s an old fashioned notion, I know. The Enlightenment thinkers believed that people with knowledge have a duty to others, a form of Noblese Oblige. If you have an education and an enquiring mind, it’s your responsibility to use your powers for good.

This means you don’t tell porkies or twist other people’s words or be mean and nasty in your criticism.

The state can’t police this, only you can.

freediver wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 2:54pm:

Another good example - the bikie law debate. If you had a genuine concern for or interest in freedom and democracy (rather than merely being here as an apologist for those who want to see it taken away out of naive hope that the problem will disappear if we self censor) then you would be aware of this.

You’re right - I’m not aware of it.

This hardly makes me an apologist for those who want freedoms taken away, does it?

Yadda wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 2:53pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14th, 2014 at 2:42pm: Nice one, Y. A picture of the original ten commandments given to Moses - in English - versus a picture of Arabs holding up a human head. Says it all, no? He was a homosexual, K. IMAGE.... http://thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/happy.jpg [image above] Here we have a group of 'peace-loving' moslems, in Syria, engaging in their glorious religious duty, to rid the world of unbelief. And do you see how happy these moslems are!!! What is it that they are holding up ??? And what about all of those Koran verses, which command moslems to be moslems, and fight for Allah's cause - to exterminate disbelievers and homosexuals ?         ;) You never seem to try to convince me that those 'fight the infidels' Koran verses don't come out of a 'REAL' Koran - or that your moslem friends do not know what a 'Koran' is ? Why is that ?

Oh, they come out of the Koran alright - just as the call to kill gentiles and stone hommersexuals comes from the Old Testament - your "law".

And yet, here you are not stoning hommersexuals.

Why is that, Y?

Be careful what you say though. FD wants to ban people with beliefs like these from living in Australia.

Yadda, please desist posting that offensive image. It will be removed.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 3:21pm:

Yadda, please desist posting that offensive image. It will be removed.

Censorship, eh? Google: Taqqiya.

While you’re at it, G, you should ban that silly theme-park replica of the ten commandments.

One of the silliest myths of all time is that Gud handed them over to Moses on real stone tablets from a real burning bush.

And yet, the fundamentalists will have us believe we have to take this literally because it’s in the Bible.

Google: believe the unequivocal word of Gud or go to hell.

Karnal wrote:
Quote:

Oh, they come out of the Koran alright - just as the call to kill gentiles and stone hommersexuals comes from the Old Testament - your "law". And yet, here you are not stoning hommersexuals. Why is that, Y?

I can see how the Christian is not bound by the law of the Old Testament by the following verses of the New Testament

Luke 16:16  The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached , and every man presseth into it.


Romans 3:20  Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 3:28  Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.


Galatians 2:16  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.


Galatians 3:11  But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

I can understand that we don't affiliate Christianity with Old Testament Laws.

Now can you or any other apologist / supporter or muslim, tell me the relevant verses in the qur'an which terminate / end or finish the barbaric laws of allah and the teachings of muhammad, which today 2014 are absolutely at odds with any decent civilized society?

I agree, M. Christians follow the New Testament rather than the Old.

Except Y.

If I’m not mistaken, Muslims follow the Old Testament too. I believe there’s even passages in the Koran about this.

Muslims believe that the teachings of Muhammed are interpretable. This is why they have all these imams you’ve studied - they interpret the Koran for daily use.

The problem today is that people without educations believe they are as entitled to interpret the words of Muhammed themselves, and hence you get fundamentalism and soldiers beheading those who did what Lot did.

With all your knowledge of the Koran though, you’d never fall for that.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 3:21pm:

Yadda, please desist posting that offensive image. It will be removed.

Karnal has inadvertently quoted the link a couple of posts up.

Aussie wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 4:04pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 14th, 2014 at 3:21pm: Yadda, please desist posting that offensive image. It will be removed. Karnal has inadvertently quoted the link a couple of posts up.

Cunning, no?

Quote:

You took this as a call for censorship? How could a state impose limits on people criticizing what they don’t like?

Ask Hitler. Or Muhammed.


Quote:

I’m.arguing for self restraint.

You argued, explicitly, that people should not be free.


Quote:

The Enlightenment thinkers believed that people with knowledge have a duty to others, a form of Noblese Oblige. If you have an education and an enquiring mind, it’s your responsibility to use your powers for good.

And that's you is it? But not me?


Quote:

This hardly makes me an apologist for those who want freedoms taken away, does it?

No. You being an apologist for people who want freedoms taken away is what makes you an apologist.


Quote:

Be careful what you say though. FD wants to ban people with beliefs like these from living in Australia.

Quote:

This means you don’t tell porkies or twist other people’s words or be mean and nasty in your criticism.

How's that whole "use your powers for good thing going?


Quote:

Yadda, please desist posting that offensive image. It will be removed.

What image?


Quote:

The problem today is that people without educations believe they are as entitled to interpret the words of Muhammed themselves, and hence you get fundamentalism and soldiers beheading those who did what Lot did.

What, just because that is exactly what Muhammed said they should do?

Karnal wrote:
Quote:

Muslims believe that the teachings of Muhammed are interpretable. This is why they have all these imams you’ve studied - they interpret the Koran for daily use.

You're learning fast karnal, nice bit of a priori knowledge in  islamic beliefs from you there.

Now the fact is you did not give one verse in the qur'an which ends those commands / laws / teachings of islam which are completely barbaric and degenerate instructions.

With regard to your **teachings of Muhammed are interpretable**

Find me one muslim who disagrees with the following universal tenet of islam:

A fundamental islamic belief that muhammad was the last and final prophet and messenger of allah, after whom there can be no prophet or messenger.

A distinguished apostle in every aspect was none other than saidina muhammad .He was sent to be sent to the world as the last prophet, the final one, after whom no other messenger was to be sent again by allah. This is the reason why he was granted a shari'ah or the law that was perfect and final requiring no revision in the days to come.

For the teaching of the last prophet were to be everbinding, to remain unchanged to the end of time, he was sent as a acme of perfection with over-flowing guidance and resplendent light. There can be no revision of the qur'an.

E.G. muhammad was the final prophet, his teachings were perfect, they remain unchanged till the end of time, the qur'an cannot be revised or changed.

So the depraved muslim killer, rapist, torturer etc. is the one true muslim, following the perfect, unchanged qur'an and teachings of muhammad

Miam miam.

Right again, M. I believe Muhammed, pbuh, is believed to be the final prophet, and that this is a universal belief among Muslims.

Personally, I think this is a ludicrous claim.

I think the physical second coming of Christ is a ludicrous claim too, but that’s just me - how could I ever know?

I think the second coming of Christ refers to your own enlightenment. I don’t think it’s meant to be an historical event.

Muslims, however, do not believe Muhammed was the final messenger of God. Apparently the Koran talks about other messengers and other prophets. These messengers are too numerous to mention, but some Muslims follow them. I’ve met Muslim yogis and Muslims following gurus in the Hindu/Vedic tradition. India has a long history of Muslim saints and gurus, and the ones I’ve met don’t believe their religion prevents them from following other spiritual traditions. They even recite Sanskrit mantras and prayers. Some spend their time meditating in the Himalayas - I’m reading a book by a Muslim yogi right now.

Now, I don’t know if this is forbidden in Islam or not. Muslims, however, do follow other teachers and messengers outside the Islamic tradition.

India has a rich tradition of apologism. It’s been ruled at various times by dynasties of Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and Mother England. India even has a last bastion of Jews down in Kochi, and Kerala has Christian descendants of what is believed to be the disciple Thomas.

This is my version of Freeedom - as distinct from the levelers and straighteners’ version. It requires, of course, a degree fair of respect and humility towards others. Sometimes people fall short of this, but there are also amazing examples of cultural cross-pollination.

Ghandi, for example was a Hindu. He studied anarchism in England, he started a Karma yoga ashram in India, and he applied the Muslim idea of jihad to his spiritual and political work.

What an apologist.

Did he go round berating the ignorant locals for criticising the British without getting all their facts straight first?

freediver wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 6:04pm:

Did he go round berating the ignorant locals for criticising the British without getting all their facts straight first?

He most certainly did. He campaigned hard to get the locals not to raise arms against the British, and he worked hard to get the British on side. He wouldn’t have a bad word said about the British after the salt marches, where Indian protesters were beaten by British soldiers.

Nor would he have a bad word said about Muslims, who succeeded from India because they didn’t like his Hindu-inspired vision for India. His final years were spent trying to bring Hindus and Muslims together, even when he was mercilessly berated by both sides.

In the end, of course, in the words of Indian Muslims themselves, Ghandi was "martyred" by Muslims, just as he predicted.

Sounds like the facts were irrelevant to him too.

freediver wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 6:30pm:

Sounds like the facts were irrelevant to him too.

That depends on which facts you’re seeking. Ghandi’s was a spiritual path. He believed he followed the same God as Muslims, Mother England, and even atheists.

freediver wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 6:30pm:

Sounds like the facts were irrelevant to him too.

Umm....how can facts be irrelevant?

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 6:50pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 14th, 2014 at 6:30pm: Sounds like the facts were irrelevant to him too. That depends on which facts you’re seeking. Ghandi’s was a spiritual path. He believed he followed the same God as Muslims, Mother England, and even atheists.

So you can choose your facts? Is that a bit like what Yadda does? Or do we need your approval to do that? Perhaps we can only choose facts based on the truth?

Aussie wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 6:50pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 14th, 2014 at 6:30pm: Sounds like the facts were irrelevant to him too. Umm....how can facts be irrelevant?

FD’s referring to Mo’s (pbuh) directive to kill all non-Muslims. He’s saying I’m avoiding the fact that Muslims are assasinating Australians everywhere, right under our noses.

The police don’t do anything - they’re all Muslim apologists.

Typical.

Did Gandhi actually try to cover up the fact that British soldiers beat up protestors?

freediver wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 6:54pm:

Perhaps we can only choose facts based on the truth?

I think you’re right. For Ghandi, God is truth. He believed truth is in all people, regardless of their religion.

If I’m not mistaken, this is also in the Koran.

freediver wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 7:03pm:

Did Gandhi actually try to cover up the fact that British soldiers beat up protestors?

Oh no, he used it.The British media reported the attacks - they were largely on Ghandi’s side.

Apologists.

Quote:

I think you’re right. For Ghandi, God is truth. He believed truth is in all people, regardless of their religion.

So we should practice restraint in our criticism by only basing it on the truth within us?


Quote:

Oh no, he used it.The British media reported the attacks - they were largely on Ghandi’s side.

Did Gandhi try to stop them?

Good point on restraint - I completely agree. Truth, however, is not intellectual. It’s built on compassion and mutual understanding.

Ghandi gave interviews.

Hang on.....somehow we have moved from fact to truth.

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 7:11pm:

Good point on restraint - I completely agree. Truth, however, is not intellectual. It’s built on compassion and mutual understanding. Ghandi gave interviews.

Ah, nothing to do with facts then? We must base our criticism on compassion and mutual understanding, not the facts?

Karnal wrote:
Quote:

Right again, M. I believe Muhammed, pbuh, is believed to be the final prophet, and that this is a universal belief among Muslims. Personally, I think this is a ludicrous claim. I think the physical second coming of Christ is a ludicrous claim too, but that’s just me - how could I ever know? I think the second coming of Christ refers to your own enlightenment. I don’t think it’s meant to be an historical event. Muslims, however, do not believe Muhammed was the final messenger of God. Apparently the Koran talks about other messengers and other prophets. These messengers are too numerous to mention, but some Muslims follow them. I’ve met Muslim yogis and Muslims following gurus in the Hindu/Vedic tradition. India has a long history of Muslim saints and gurus, and the ones I’ve met don’t believe their religion prevents them from following other spiritual traditions. They even recite Sanskrit mantras and prayers. Some spend their time meditating in the Himalayas - I’m reading a book by a Muslim yogi right now. Now, I don’t know if this is forbidden in Islam or not. Muslims, however, do follow other teachers and messengers outside the Islamic tradition.

Yes I admit that there is a difference between a prophet and a messenger. however this does not detract from my stance that the qur'an cannot be changed or revised. It actually reinforces it.

From this source

We learn from the Quran that every prophet is also a messenger, but not every messenger is a prophet. Only prophets are sent with scripture to deliver

As a result, and in accordance with 33:40, Muhammad was NOT the last messenger. He was the last prophet, which means that there will be no scripture delivered after the Quran.

So muslims believe the qur'an cannot be changed or revised, they believe there can never be any scriptures revealed or delivered after the qur'an.

Therefore the tenet still is binding on all muslims:

muhammad was the last prophet, he was granted a shari'ah or the law that was perfect and final requiring no revision in the days to come.

For the teaching of the last prophet were to be everbinding, to remain unchanged to the end of time, he was sent as a acme of perfection with over-flowing guidance and resplendent light. There can be no revision of the qur'an.

So far nothing has been presented to show that the muslim who rapes, tortures and murders, as the qur'an instructs him to, is not the true muslim (who follows the literal commands in the qur'an).

I don’t.think this is a thread on the true Muslims, M. It’s about us apologists. FD will be very cranky with you if you don’t open a new thread and ask your question there. He’s not in a very good mood tonight.

I don’t agree with the last prophet rule in Islam, but I don’t think scripture in itself is meant to be the point. The point is what people do with scripture, how they live their lives.

I think it’s the height of arrogance to say this or that scripture is the last to be revealed by God, but then, I’d have to read the scripture. The parts I’ve read of the Koran haven’t interested me at all. It’s not my path.

I’m an apologist.

The Torah can’t be changed or revised either, but I don’t know many Jews who go around killing gentiles or taking their foreskins.

Who knows? Maybe Y does - he calls the Torah the Law.

It is very much a thread about true muslims.

What else are you apologizing for, if not the degenerate islamic qur'an / hadi'th and those true believers who follow to the core, the last clear and true scriptures of islam, which are the root cause of their debauched, perverted behaviour?

You also apologize for the false so called moderate muslim, who refuses to decry and ridicule the depravity of the commands of allah, the teachings of muhammad and the verses in the qur'an / hadi'th which provoke the blood lust and degeneracy of true muslims.

There will never be any progress in the islamic world until someone starts telling the truth.

But then we all know what that means don't we? ( the violent end of islam, the blood will flow thick and fast, as muslims sort out who's right and wrong)

Truth is the enemy of islam.

The truth is that Muhammed was a pacifist. When he said to kill gays, he meant only the inhospitable ones, not the loving, gentle ones. You can tell this from the context.

Is this a truth you approve of Karnal?

moses wrote on Jun 15^th, 2014 at 10:31am:

It is very much a thread about true muslims. What else are you apologizing for, if not the degenerate islamic qur'an / hadi'th and those true believers who follow to the core, the last clear and true scriptures of islam, which are the root cause of their debauched, perverted behaviour? You also apologize for the false so called moderate muslim, who refuses to decry and ridicule the depravity of the commands of allah, the teachings of muhammad and the verses in the qur'an / hadi'th which provoke the blood lust and degeneracy of true muslims. There will never be any progress in the islamic world until someone starts telling the truth. But then we all know what that means don't we? ( the violent end of islam, the blood will flow thick and fast, as muslims sort out who's right and wrong) Truth is the enemy of islam.

This thread is about me,. Stop changing the subject.

We are indeed in for a bloodbath in the Middle East. As George Bush said, demokracy can be a messy business, and as the leader of the Freee world, he should know. Someone recently compared the current situation in Iraq and Syria to the 30 years war in Europe, a 17th century conflict that errupted between Catholic and Protestant states.

I hope you don’t apologize for that.

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2014 at 11:42am:

The truth is that Muhammed was a pacifist. When he said to kill gays, he meant only the inhospitable ones, not the loving, gentle ones. You can tell this from the context. Is this a truth you approve of Karnal?

Absolutely not. I can’t stand loving and gentle gays. I prefer ones who put up a bit of a struggle - like the old boy.

If you don’t mind me saying, you don’t give in too easily yourself, FD. Still, we’re all good friends at the end of the day, and that’s the important thing.

Freeedom and demokracy types, Karmic Khristians, Huns, PBs, Muslims.

Gud is great, no?

Karnal wrote on Jun 15^th, 2014 at 1:31pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 15th, 2014 at 11:42am: The truth is that Muhammed was a pacifist. When he said to kill gays, he meant only the inhospitable ones, not the loving, gentle ones. You can tell this from the context. Is this a truth you approve of Karnal? Absolutely not. I can’t stand loving and gentle gays. I prefer ones who put up a bit of a struggle - like the old boy. If you don’t mind me saying, you don’t give in too easily yourself, FD. Still, we’re all good friends at the end of the day, and that’s the important thing. Freeedom and demokracy types, Karmic Khristians, Huns, PBs, Muslims. Gud is great, no?

Awe you're so funny  ;D

Gud is great, no?

He makes snackbars  ;D

You never did clarify this one Karnal:


freediver wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 7:23pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14th, 2014 at 7:11pm: Good point on restraint - I completely agree. Truth, however, is not intellectual. It’s built on compassion and mutual understanding. Ghandi gave interviews. Ah, nothing to do with facts then? We must base our criticism on compassion and mutual understanding, not the facts?

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2014 at 2:10pm:

You never did clarify this one Karnal: freediver wrote on Jun 14th, 2014 at 7:23pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 14th, 2014 at 7:11pm: Good point on restraint - I completely agree. Truth, however, is not intellectual. It’s built on compassion and mutual understanding. Ghandi gave interviews. Ah, nothing to do with facts then? We must base our criticism on compassion and mutual understanding, not the facts?

Now why don’t you tell me exactly what you want me to clarify, FD? I can then sign off on it and we can take it from there.

Alternatively, you can type up the confession in another language and get me to sign that.

No worries.

You started by insisting our criticism must be based on facts. Then you changed your mind and suggested it should be based on truth instead. Then you changed tack again with "Truth, however, is not intellectual. It’s built on compassion and mutual understanding."

How are we supposed to figure out what criticism you think we should be free to make?

Are you cranky about something, FD? You seem a little - unsettled.

To what extent did Gandhi attempt to censor discussion of British troops beating Indian protestors?

FD, if you want to learn about truth, love and soul-force, I invite you to Google Gandhiji’s notion of Satyagraha, or "truth force".

This is the correct, apologist-approved version of criticism in this thread from here on, so please read up on it.

If you want to have a debate, I pose this: how different would India be if Gandhi merely organised a conventional Hindu-nationalist resistance movement against the British - the sort of independence movement all the other upper-crust Hindus wanted at the time?

No passive resistance, no civil disobedience, no coalition with Muslims, no "appeasement" of British officers and concessions to the British Crown. No mass demonstrations of self-sacrifice. No sitting in jails and fasting close to death.

In my view? Absolutely the same. The Muslims partitioned, The British went anyway. And those Gandhi helped to rise to power, like Nehru, went completely against Gandhi’s ideas for development, inevitably turning India into the polluted, urban-sprawled, industrialized (but, in some parts, technologically savvy) country it is today.

But where would we apologists be?

Without real-life examples like Gandhiji and Nelson Mandella, we’d all be on this board posting pictures of decapitated human heads and telling fibs about people we don’t like.

Satyagraha. It didn’t do Gandhi much good in the end, but we apologists wouldn’t be trying to censor your Freeedom without it.

I don't think you represent the views of either Gandhi or Mandela.

To what extent did Gandhi attempt to censor discussion of British troops beating Indian protestors?

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2014 at 5:04pm:

I don't think you represent the views of either Gandhi or Mandela. To what extent did Gandhi attempt to censor discussion of British troops beating Indian protestors?

I have no idea -he wrote about the beatings himself.

And you didn’t answer my question.

Google: Taqqiya.

Quote:

he wrote about the beatings himself

Were these "good words"?

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2014 at 5:24pm:

Quote: he wrote about the beatings himself Were these "good words"?

You can read them in his book; an Autobiography: the Story of My Experiments with Truth.

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2014 at 5:24pm:

Quote: he wrote about the beatings himself Were these "good words"?

You can read them in his book; an Autobiography: the Story of My Experiments with Truth.

This is what you claimed about Gandhi:


Quote:

He wouldn’t have a bad word said about the British after the salt marches, where Indian protesters were beaten by British soldiers.

Was this based on the facts, or the truth that is within you?

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2014 at 5:04pm:

I don't think you represent the views of either Gandhi or Mandela. To what extent did Gandhi attempt to censor discussion of British troops beating Indian protestors?

Oh, I see now. You’re saying I’m trying to censor your eyewitness accounts of barbarous attrocities and stop you getting the message out to the rest of the world.

Well, why didn’t you just come out and say? Really, FD, you’re too polite. Sometimes you need to just spiit it out, you know.

Yes, I can see how you’d think that. When Sprint told fibs about things G hadn’t said, I probably shouldn’t have opened my big mouth. After all, they’re all Muslims. And when Y told a few white lies about Muslims in non-Muslim countries (like the ones in my street), I should have just kept quiet and not put myself out on a limb like that - quite rude of me. After all, Y’s only interested in preventing me from being beheaded. He might have even saved my life. Then there’s Herbie and the Muslim library book scam - who was I trying to fool there? If Herbie believes it, that’s his right in a Freee society. Well, he later admitted he didn’t believe it, but he wanted to make us believe it so badly it was clearly important to him. Then there’s Halal and underage marriage and Muslim grooming gangs and Taqqiya and all that other sordid business I should have kept quiet about, I can see how it’s important that this is all expressed even if it’s not, you know, completely true.

That’s our right in a Freee society, isn’t it? If we want to make things up about others and have a bit of a chuckle, it’s not like we’re actually bothering anyone else. And anyway, so what if we are?

You mentioned bikies - what am I doing about them?  I don’t actually know any bikies, but I’m sure they’re all terrible people. But that’s hardly the point - I shouldn’t have to know them. Why can’t I just join in like everyone else?

You’re right, FD. This sort of meddling is really going to get me nowhere. At the end of the day, it’s about Freeedom. If people want to have a laugh and tell a few tall tales, who am I to stand in the way? It’s all good fun, and it’s all about Freeedom.

Thanks for helping me to put things into perspective. This apologist racket really has to stop. Facts? Truth? I’ve forgotten the other one, but it’s all ridiculous - completely inconsistent with Freeedom.and demokracy. You let me know if I slip up in future, you just come out and say it. It might even help if you can.make a few amendments to what I’ve said to help me see things more clearly.

Better still, pull a word or two out of a post and seek clarification on it for a few pages. If I don’t respond in time, write me up for evasion - that should help.

The important thing is that we maintain Freeedom at all costs. As we both know, this precious commodity is currently at risk from those who seek to censor us and destroy our marvellous way of life.

Thankfully, FD, we have defenders of liberty like yourself, and we should never forget this.

Gandhi got most of his ideas from Tolstoy.

Quote:

Oh, I see now. You’re saying I’m trying to censor your eyewitness accounts of barbarous attrocities and stop you getting the message out to the rest of the world.

First it was facts. Then truth. Then compassion and mutual understanding. Now it is restricted to eyewitness accounts? How will we ever know the extent that the apologists think we should not be free?


Quote:

Yes, I can see how you’d think that. When Sprint told fibs about things G hadn’t said, I probably shouldn’t have opened my big mouth. After all, they’re all Muslims. And when Y told a few white lies about Muslims in non-Muslim countries (like the ones in my street), I should have just kept quiet and not put myself out on a limb like that - quite rude of me. After all, Y’s only interested in preventing me from being beheaded. He might have even saved my life. Then there’s Herbie and the Muslim library book scam - who was I trying to fool there? If Herbie believes it, that’s his right in a Freee society. Well, he later admitted he didn’t believe it, but he wanted to make us believe it so badly it was clearly important to him. Then there’s Halal and underage marriage and Muslim grooming gangs and Taqqiya and all that other sordid business I should have kept quiet about, I can see how it’s important that this is all expressed even if it’s not, you know, completely true.

That is how it is supposed to work Karnal. You think someone is bullshitting. You call bullshit on it. You don't invent some new field of thought to deny people the right to criticise what they don't like - then try to pretend Gandhi, Mandella and the great thinkers of the enlightenment all shared your limp wristedness.

Soren wrote on Jun 15^th, 2014 at 6:45pm:

Gandhi got most of his ideas from Tolstoy.

He shopped around. He was a PB.

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2014 at 6:50pm:

Quote: Oh, I see now. You’re saying I’m trying to censor your eyewitness accounts of barbarous attrocities and stop you getting the message out to the rest of the world. First it was facts. Then truth. Then compassion and mutual understanding. Now it is restricted to eyewitness accounts? How will we ever know the extent that the apologists think we should not be free? [quote]Yes, I can see how you’d think that. When Sprint told fibs about things G hadn’t said, I probably shouldn’t have opened my big mouth. After all, they’re all Muslims. And when Y told a few white lies about Muslims in non-Muslim countries (like the ones in my street), I should have just kept quiet and not put myself out on a limb like that - quite rude of me. After all, Y’s only interested in preventing me from being beheaded. He might have even saved my life. Then there’s Herbie and the Muslim library book scam - who was I trying to fool there? If Herbie believes it, that’s his right in a Freee society. Well, he later admitted he didn’t believe it, but he wanted to make us believe it so badly it was clearly important to him. Then there’s Halal and underage marriage and Muslim grooming gangs and Taqqiya and all that other sordid business I should have kept quiet about, I can see how it’s important that this is all expressed even if it’s not, you know, completely true.

That is how it is supposed to work Karnal. You think someone is bullshitting. You call bullshit on it. You don't invent some new field of thought to deny people the right to criticise what they don't like - then try to pretend Gandhi, Mandella and the great thinkers of the enlightenment all shared your limp wristedness.[/quote]

Limp wristedness? Now you’re going too far.

If you must know, it got caught in a door.

I can see why you wouldn’t get into Gandhi, Mandella and the great thinkers of the Enlightenment, FD.

You believe in Freeedom.

I've actually read Mandella's biography. I don't think you represent the views of either Gandhi or Mandela. I think even they would consider what you have suggested here to be spineless apologetics.

Excellent. Now that we’re back to civil discourse again, shall we discuss Mandella?

Twenty-odd years in the most repressive of jails, saw close friends murdered by his opponents in front of his eyes, and lost numerous friends and family members on the outside. They beg him to make concessions and get released, and he sticks it out, all the while making friends with his jailers.

When he finally does get out and gets elected president, he doesn’t seek revenge or try to get his own back, he begins a process of reconciliation with the people who took most of his life.

Was this a good thing? South Africans did not get to witness the purification of justice that people saw, for example, at the end of WWII. To this day, blacks are very resentful of whites in South Africa, although for the current generation this resentment has important economic causes.

So I ask you this. Mandella: Freeedom-loving nation builder or limp-wristed spineless apologist?

I’ll give your reply a good read, FD.

He was a freedom loving nation builder. You are nothing like him.

He also had this thing about the truth - the real truth, based on facts. Not some "non-intellectual truth" based on your innermost feelings, but what actually happened. Calling a spade a spade. Not some filtered truth that you had to get approved by limp-wristed apologists before you could speak it.

I see. If you don’t mind me saying, FD, you’re keeping your cards pretty close to your chest here.

Do you mind if I ask why you started a thread to discuss apologist-approved criticism? You don’t seem to have too much to say.

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2014 at 8:30pm:

He also had this thing about the truth - the real truth, based on facts. Not some "non-intellectual truth" based on your innermost feelings, but what actually happened. Calling a spade a spade. Not some filtered truth that you had to get approved by limp-wristed apologists before you could speak it.

That’s better. I completely agree. What did Mandela say about truth?

Did you read up on Satyagraha?

I challenge you to find a view from any of them - Gandhi, Mandella, or any of the great enlightenment thinkers, that comes close to this level of spinelessness:


Quote:

I don't hold that people should be free to "criticize" whatever they don't like.

Yadda wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 7:24pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 6:54pm: Quote: I don't hold that people should be free to "criticize" whatever they don't like. I do. Me too.

Moi aussi.

The whole process of advancing from the Neanderthal caves to the best that Western civilisation now provides for its members was one long whinge about what people didn't like about other people's behaviour in their social environment.

This still continues today in criticism of our neighbours for one reason and another.

Whinging, bitching, and criticising has been a huge element in shaping the civilisation we know today.

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2014 at 8:49pm:

I challenge you to find a view from any of them - Gandhi, Mandella, or any of the great enlightenment thinkers, that comes close to this level of spinelessness: Quote: I don't hold that people should be free to "criticize" whatever they don't like.

;D ;D ;D

It's intellectual cowardice of the most profound kind.

Ah - FD. You haven’t read what Gandhi had to say on truth force, an idea influenced by the Islamic understanding of jihad.

Gandhi and Mandela both believed in holding your tongue, in practicing patience, and in embracing foes. I’m not sure about Mandela - perhaps you would like to tell me - but Gandhi’s entire career (his "experiments with truth") was about steering a hot-headed Indian lawyer obsessed with white South African racism towards what he became - a man sitting on a racial civil war with millions killed.

And then himself.

Gandhi is the person who, when a Hindu bowed down to him to seek absolution for killing a Muslim child, Gandhi advised him to adopt a Muslim baby and raise him as a pious Muslim.

Satyagrahi is about much more than calling a spade a spade. "Truth" requires a different calling, a completely different mindset. Just think how you’d spend 18 years of your life bringing up a religious Muslim.

Food for thought, eh?

You’re right - I’m no Gandhi. But for me, this is the level of apologism to aspire to.

Being a limp-wristed apologist is not for everyone, FD. If you want to know more, please feel free to ask.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jun 15^th, 2014 at 9:16pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 15th, 2014 at 8:49pm: I challenge you to find a view from any of them - Gandhi, Mandella, or any of the great enlightenment thinkers, that comes close to this level of spinelessness: Quote: I don't hold that people should be free to "criticize" whatever they don't like. ;D ;D ;D It's intellectual cowardice of the most profound kind.

The good thing about Herbie is I can say whatever I like and he’s not allowed to reply.

I’m on Herbie’s "ignore list" - presumably a pad Herbie keeps with the used tissues next to his bed.

Now that’s Freeedom.

Karnal wrote on Jun 15^th, 2014 at 9:29pm:

Ah - FD. You haven’t read what Gandhi had to say on truth force, an idea influenced by the Islamic understanding of jihad. Gandhi and Mandela both believed in holding your tongue, in practicing patience, and in embracing foes. I’m not sure about Mandela - perhaps you would like to tell me - but Gandhi’s entire career (his "experiments with truth") was about steering a hot-headed Indian lawyer obsessed with white South African racism towards what he became - a man sitting on a racial civil war with millions killed. And then himself. Gandhi is the person who, when a Hindu bowed down to him to seek absolution for killing a Muslim child, Gandhi advised him to adopt a Muslim baby and raise him as a pious Muslim. Satyagrahi is about much more than calling a spade a spade. "Truth" requires a different calling, a completely different mindset. Just think how you’d spend 18 years of your life bringing up a religious Muslim. Food for thought, eh? You’re right - I’m no Gandhi. But for me, this is the level of apologism to aspire to. Being a limp-wristed apologist is not for everyone, FD. If you want to know more, please feel free to ask.

Quote him saying anything about not being free to criticise what you don't like.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jun 15^th, 2014 at 9:10pm:

Yadda wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 7:24pm: freediver wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 6:54pm: Quote: I don't hold that people should be free to "criticize" whatever they don't like. I do. Me too. Moi aussi. The whole process of advancing from the Neanderthal caves to the best that Western civilisation now provides for its members was one long whinge about what people didn't like about other people's behaviour in their social environment. This still continues today in criticism of our neighbours for one reason and another. Whinging, bitching, and criticising has been a huge element in shaping the civilisation we know today.

Food for thought, eh?

Does Herbie mean whinging, bitching sand criticizing about things that are actually true - or just any old thing he’s dreamed up to make a point about those he’s read about in the UK Daily Mail?

Or is the UK Daily Mail just a convenient reference point for anyone Herbie feels like criticizing?

Food for thought.

Herbie won’t say, poor thing. He’ll scramble around for the ignore list, cursing, but he won’t say a word.

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2014 at 9:48pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 15th, 2014 at 9:29pm: Ah - FD. You haven’t read what Gandhi had to say on truth force, an idea influenced by the Islamic understanding of jihad. Gandhi and Mandela both believed in holding your tongue, in practicing patience, and in embracing foes. I’m not sure about Mandela - perhaps you would like to tell me - but Gandhi’s entire career (his "experiments with truth") was about steering a hot-headed Indian lawyer obsessed with white South African racism towards what he became - a man sitting on a racial civil war with millions killed. And then himself. Gandhi is the person who, when a Hindu bowed down to him to seek absolution for killing a Muslim child, Gandhi advised him to adopt a Muslim baby and raise him as a pious Muslim. Satyagrahi is about much more than calling a spade a spade. "Truth" requires a different calling, a completely different mindset. Just think how you’d spend 18 years of your life bringing up a religious Muslim. Food for thought, eh? You’re right - I’m no Gandhi. But for me, this is the level of apologism to aspire to. Being a limp-wristed apologist is not for everyone, FD. If you want to know more, please feel free to ask. Quote him saying anything about not being free to criticise what you don't like.

I can’t, FD. My phone won’t let me do this.

You can though - have a look. I do this all the time when I’m questioning something someone says.

Have a go.

Do you not want to discuss what we’ve been talking about, or are you just clarifying?

I forgot to say - the Hindu Gandhi counselled had his entire family killed by Muslims before he killed a Muslim boy.

All we’ve experienced is a few "behead all those who insult the prophet" photos.

And yes, this Hindu did bring up a Muslim.boy as his son. Gandhi met him a couple of years later.

Now that’s apologism.

Some very limp-wristed apologist rhetoric I'm reading here.

Again ~ assassinating certain media sources as lacking credibility with their news stories because they publish what the apologists would rather not have to defend.

Incidentally, Gandhi was a racist in that he thought African Negroes were shiftless and lazy.

Karnal wrote on Jun 15^th, 2014 at 10:11pm:

All we’ve experienced is a few "behead all those who insult the prophet" photos.

Not from lack of trying. It will be a bad day when beardy weardies inspired by the religion of peace let off a bomb or two in Australia.  Then you are going to see some prejudice and subsequent radicalisation in a worsening cycle. 

Lord Herbert wrote on Jun 15^th, 2014 at 9:16pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 15th, 2014 at 8:49pm: I challenge you to find a view from any of them - Gandhi, Mandella, or any of the great enlightenment thinkers, that comes close to this level of spinelessness: Quote: I don't hold that people should be free to "criticize" whatever they don't like. ;D ;D ;D It's intellectual cowardice of the most profound kind.

But Herbie, I think having an "ignore list" shows admirable restraint. It's just the sort of apologism I admire.

True, some might see it as a little exclusive and elitist, but to me it shows great self-control.

If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. That's our motto.

Who asassinates media sources? Not us, that's for sure. Unlike the defenders of Freeedom, we believe in that apologist's creed, the AJA Code of Ethics.

Datalife wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 4:11pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 15th, 2014 at 10:11pm: All we’ve experienced is a few "behead all those who insult the prophet" photos. Not from lack of trying. It will be a bad day when beardy weardies inspired by the religion of peace let off a bomb or two in Australia.  Then you are going to see some prejudice and subsequent radicalisation in a worsening cycle.

Oh, that happened years ago, it's old news. Australia's only terrorist bomb explosion, the Hilton Bombing, was organised by the beardie wierdies in the NSW Police Special Branch.

Karnal wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 4:55pm:

Datalife wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 4:11pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 15th, 2014 at 10:11pm: All we’ve experienced is a few "behead all those who insult the prophet" photos. Not from lack of trying. It will be a bad day when beardy weardies inspired by the religion of peace let off a bomb or two in Australia.  Then you are going to see some prejudice and subsequent radicalisation in a worsening cycle.  Oh, that happened years ago, it's old news. The Hilton Bombing was organised by the beardie wierdies in the NSW Police Special Branch.

'Twas thinking more of Aussies and westerners targeted at Bali and the plots to commit atrocities at Holsworthy.

No matter, no doubt in my mind you will be apologising and deflecting long after the first bombs go off.

Or do you believe that oz as a developed and liberal western nation would be immune to the beardie weardies?  If so you might want to explain the reasoning behind your belief to the security agencies who take beardie weardies pretty seriously.

Datalife wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 5:03pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 4:55pm: Datalife wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 4:11pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 15th, 2014 at 10:11pm: All we’ve experienced is a few "behead all those who insult the prophet" photos. Not from lack of trying. It will be a bad day when beardy weardies inspired by the religion of peace let off a bomb or two in Australia.  Then you are going to see some prejudice and subsequent radicalisation in a worsening cycle.  Oh, that happened years ago, it's old news. The Hilton Bombing was organised by the beardie wierdies in the NSW Police Special Branch. 'Twas thinking more of Aussies and westerners targeted at Bali and the plots to commit atrocities at Holsworthy. No matter, no doubt in my mind you will be apologising and deflecting long after the first bombs go off. Or do you believe that oz as a developed and liberal western nation would be immune to the beardie weardies?  If so you might want to explain the reasoning behind your belief to the security agencies who take beardie weardies pretty seriously.

Bali's in Indonesia, Datalife. It's the next country up. 

This is a thread about spineless, limp-wristed apologism. Kindly stick to the subject, thanks. FD won't have any off-topic questions. Believe me - I've tried.

The developed and liberal Western nation of Australia has this apologist phenomenon called the rule of law. Unless you're the NSW Special Branch, it applies to all equally - Muselman, Freeedom-supporter, spineless apologist, all.

Back in the 70s, the Special Branch beardie wierdies took the Ananda Marga, a Hindu meditation group, very seriously. They even managed to pin the Hilton Bombing on them.

How times have changed, eh?

Karnal wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 5:37pm:

Datalife wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 5:03pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 4:55pm: Datalife wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 4:11pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 15th, 2014 at 10:11pm: All we’ve experienced is a few "behead all those who insult the prophet" photos. Not from lack of trying. It will be a bad day when beardy weardies inspired by the religion of peace let off a bomb or two in Australia.  Then you are going to see some prejudice and subsequent radicalisation in a worsening cycle.  Oh, that happened years ago, it's old news. The Hilton Bombing was organised by the beardie wierdies in the NSW Police Special Branch. 'Twas thinking more of Aussies and westerners targeted at Bali and the plots to commit atrocities at Holsworthy. No matter, no doubt in my mind you will be apologising and deflecting long after the first bombs go off. Or do you believe that oz as a developed and liberal western nation would be immune to the beardie weardies?  If so you might want to explain the reasoning behind your belief to the security agencies who take beardie weardies pretty seriously. Bali's in Indonesia, Datalife. It's the next country up.  This is a thread about spineless, limp-wristed apologism. Kindly stick to the subject, thanks. FD won't have any off-topic questions. Believe me - I've tried. The developed and liberal Western nation of Australia has this apologist phenomenon called the rule of law. Unless you're the NSW Special Branch, it applies to all equally - Muselman, Freeedom-supporter, spineless apologist, all. Back in the 70s, the Special Branch beardie wierdies took the Ananda Marga, a Hindu meditation group, very seriously. They even managed to pin the Hilton Bombing on them. How times have changed, eh?

Indeed they have.  May have escaped your attention that it is your beloved musselmen these days blowing up planes and trains, hotels and bars, places of worship and each other with monotonous regularity and with particular attention to the liberal west.

Still, you keep worrying about the Lutherans.  Or was that just an attempt to deflect?

Datalife wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 6:08pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 5:37pm: Datalife wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 5:03pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 4:55pm: Datalife wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 4:11pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 15th, 2014 at 10:11pm: All we’ve experienced is a few "behead all those who insult the prophet" photos. Not from lack of trying. It will be a bad day when beardy weardies inspired by the religion of peace let off a bomb or two in Australia.  Then you are going to see some prejudice and subsequent radicalisation in a worsening cycle.  Oh, that happened years ago, it's old news. The Hilton Bombing was organised by the beardie wierdies in the NSW Police Special Branch. 'Twas thinking more of Aussies and westerners targeted at Bali and the plots to commit atrocities at Holsworthy. No matter, no doubt in my mind you will be apologising and deflecting long after the first bombs go off. Or do you believe that oz as a developed and liberal western nation would be immune to the beardie weardies?  If so you might want to explain the reasoning behind your belief to the security agencies who take beardie weardies pretty seriously. Bali's in Indonesia, Datalife. It's the next country up.  This is a thread about spineless, limp-wristed apologism. Kindly stick to the subject, thanks. FD won't have any off-topic questions. Believe me - I've tried. The developed and liberal Western nation of Australia has this apologist phenomenon called the rule of law. Unless you're the NSW Special Branch, it applies to all equally - Muselman, Freeedom-supporter, spineless apologist, all. Back in the 70s, the Special Branch beardie wierdies took the Ananda Marga, a Hindu meditation group, very seriously. They even managed to pin the Hilton Bombing on them. How times have changed, eh? Indeed they have.  May have escaped your attention that it is your beloved musselmen these days blowing up planes and trains, hotels and bars, places of worship and each other with monotonous regularity and with particular attention to the liberal west. Still, you keep worrying about the Lutherans.  Or was that just an attempt to deflect?

Datalife, your deflection of a discussion of an actual terrorist bombing in Australia is admirable. Your switch to a terrorist "plot" that consisted solely of phone calls was an excellent diversion - as was your deflection of Indonesian bombings, although this might upset those on the board who’ve been calling for the Indonesians to be bombed for years.

And we wouldn’t want to do that. After all, no one has the right to not be offended.

Full marks for terrorist apologism there, but you lost a few in the limp-wristed category. Under FD and Herbie’s criteria, the Muslim plotters were just exercising their Freeedom to have a good old whinge, and as we know, speaking out against such behaviour is worse than terrorism itself.

Hopefully FD will be back to steer us in the right direction, but we’ve lost Herbie, I’m afraid.

Herbie’s practicing restraint - a quality I’ve been arguing for throughout the thread. Herbie is that most rare of wise men. He understands that speech is silver, but silence is golden.

We could all learn a lot from Herb, I feel.

Karnal wrote on Jun 15^th, 2014 at 9:59pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 15th, 2014 at 9:48pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 15th, 2014 at 9:29pm: Ah - FD. You haven’t read what Gandhi had to say on truth force, an idea influenced by the Islamic understanding of jihad. Gandhi and Mandela both believed in holding your tongue, in practicing patience, and in embracing foes. I’m not sure about Mandela - perhaps you would like to tell me - but Gandhi’s entire career (his "experiments with truth") was about steering a hot-headed Indian lawyer obsessed with white South African racism towards what he became - a man sitting on a racial civil war with millions killed. And then himself. Gandhi is the person who, when a Hindu bowed down to him to seek absolution for killing a Muslim child, Gandhi advised him to adopt a Muslim baby and raise him as a pious Muslim. Satyagrahi is about much more than calling a spade a spade. "Truth" requires a different calling, a completely different mindset. Just think how you’d spend 18 years of your life bringing up a religious Muslim. Food for thought, eh? You’re right - I’m no Gandhi. But for me, this is the level of apologism to aspire to. Being a limp-wristed apologist is not for everyone, FD. If you want to know more, please feel free to ask. Quote him saying anything about not being free to criticise what you don't like. I can’t, FD. My phone won’t let me do this. You can though - have a look. I do this all the time when I’m questioning something someone says. Have a go. Do you not want to discuss what we’ve been talking about, or are you just clarifying?

According to Mandela's biography (Long Walk to Freedom), even Gandhi was not entirely opposed to the use of violence. What you are claiming on his behalf simply doesn't make sense, and I can only imagine is some kind of reinterpretation of the type Gandalf is famous for.

I am not going to go looking for something I do not believe exists and is most likely a product of your delusion.

You maintaining that beardie wierdies inspired by the religion of peace are not going to set off bombs?  You that confident that attention should be instead be focused on Lutherans?  We should be complacent? 

Or are you just running interference, throwing out deflections and attempting to turn the subject to anything other than Islamic terrorism and acts of buggerbuggery inspired by the religion of peace?

Maybe the whole issue has passed you by, so focused you are on the threat posed by Lutherans.

Must be exhausting being an apologist and averting your eyes continually from forests and focusing instead on twigs.   ::)

You think I make up words like Satyagraha?

I’m not that creative, FD.

Google: Taqqiya.

Datalife wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 6:52pm:

You maintaining that beardie wierdies inspired by the religion of peace are not going to set off bombs?

I can’t answer that. If you want to ask me about the religion of peace, you’ll have to start another thread in the right department.

I don’t make the rules, you know.

Karnal wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 6:56pm:

You think I make up words like Satyagraha? I’m not that creative, FD. Google: Taqqiya.

I think you probably misunderstood them, or are drawing a long bow to equate it with what you have been saying.

Karnal wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 7:00pm:

Datalife wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 6:52pm: You maintaining that beardie wierdies inspired by the religion of peace are not going to set off bombs?  I can’t answer that. If you want to ask me about the religion of peace, you’ll have to start another thread in the right department. I don’t make the rules, you know.

Did you ever start a Christian thread to get your questions answered or you were happy to continue to run interference and deflections in the Muslim one?

People ain't silly you know.

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 7:02pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 6:56pm: You think I make up words like Satyagraha? I’m not that creative, FD. Google: Taqqiya. I think you probably misunderstood them, or are drawing a long bow to equate it with what you have been saying.

You probably think I didn’t research what I was saying before I said it, FD. Fair enough.

You believe in Freeedom.

Datalife wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 7:03pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:00pm: Datalife wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 6:52pm: You maintaining that beardie wierdies inspired by the religion of peace are not going to set off bombs?  I can’t answer that. If you want to ask me about the religion of peace, you’ll have to start another thread in the right department. I don’t make the rules, you know. Did you ever start a Christian thread to get your questions answered or you were happy to continue to run interference and deflections in the Muslim one?

Of course not. I just let my questions go unanswered.

I’m not as persistent as some, you know.

Karnal wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 7:13pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:02pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 6:56pm: You think I make up words like Satyagraha? I’m not that creative, FD. Google: Taqqiya. I think you probably misunderstood them, or are drawing a long bow to equate it with what you have been saying. You probably think I didn’t research what I was saying before I said it, FD. Fair enough. You believe in Freeedom.

Not really. Your sort of delusion takes years of study.

;D ;D ;D

Good one, Datalife.

"But it's not Islam that's the problem, you fools!!"

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 7:17pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:13pm: I think you probably misunderstood them, or are drawing a long bow to equate it with what you have been saying. You probably think I didn’t research what I was saying before I said it, FD. Fair enough. You believe in Freeedom. Not really. Your sort of delusion takes years of study.

Thanks, FD. I'm grateful for your defence of my right to be delusional. Gandhiji, however, had a slightly different take on Freeedom and criticism:


Quote:

Satyagraha (/ˌsætɪəˈɡrɑːhɑː/; Sanskrit: सत्याग्रह satyāgraha), loosely translated as "insistence on truth" (satya "truth"; agraha "insistence") or soul force[1] or truth force, is a particular philosophy and practice within the broader overall category generally known as nonviolent resistance or civil resistance. The term satyagraha was coined and developed by Mahatma Gandhi.[2] He deployed satyagraha in the Indian independence movement and also during his earlier struggles in South Africa for Indian rights. Satyagraha theory influenced Nelson Mandela's struggle in South Africa under apartheid, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s and James Bevel's campaigns during the civil rights movement in the United States, and many other social justice and similar movements.[3][4] Someone who practices satyagraha is a satyagrahi.     Truth (satya) implies love, and firmness (agraha) engenders and therefore serves as a synonym for force. I thus began to call the Indian movement Satyagraha, that is to say, the Force which is born of Truth and Love or non-violence, and gave up the use of the phrase “passive resistance”, in connection with it, so much so that even in English writing we often avoided it and used instead the word “satyagraha” itself or some other equivalent English phrase.[6] Gandhi described it as follows:     I have also called it love-force or soul-force. In the application of satyagraha, I discovered in the earliest stages that pursuit of truth did not admit of violence being inflicted on one’s opponent but that he must be weaned from error by patience and compassion. For what appears to be truth to the one may appear to be error to the other. And patience means self-suffering. So the doctrine came to mean vindication of truth, not by infliction of suffering on the opponent, but on oneself.[8] Satyagraha theory Defining success Assessing the extent to which Gandhi's ideas of satyagraha were or were not successful in the Indian independence struggle is a complex task. Judith Brown has suggested that "this is a political strategy and technique which, for its outcomes, depends of historical specificities."[10] The view taken by Gandhi differs from the idea that the goal in any conflict is necessarily to defeat the opponent or frustrate the opponent’s objectives, or to meet one’s own objectives despite the efforts of the opponent to obstruct these. In satyagraha, by contrast, these are not the goals. “The Satyagrahi’s object is to convert, not to coerce, the wrong-doer.”[11] Success is defined as cooperating with the opponent to meet a just end that the opponent is unwittingly obstructing. The opponent must be converted, at least as far as to stop obstructing the just end, for this cooperation to take place. Means and ends The theory of satyagraha sees means and ends as inseparable. The means used to obtain an end are wrapped up in and attached to that end. Therefore, it is contradictory to try to use unjust means to obtain justice or to try to use violence to obtain peace. As Gandhi wrote: “They say, 'means are, after all, means'. I would say, 'means are, after all, everything'. As the means so the end...”[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha

The Wikipedia article was hard to find, FD. My Google search found it buried in a Muslim propaganda site:


Quote:

In BBC's special Gandhi, presented by Mishal Hussein, South African anti-apartheid activist (and one of my heroes) Fatima Meer compared Gandhi's philosophy of Satyagraha - which he developed during his time in South Africa -with Islamic Jihad in that one is prepared to die for what they believe in. Meer acknowledged that some might be upset with such a comparison between these two ideologies since Satyagraha is totally and strictly non-violent, whereas violence is permissible under certain conditions in Islamic Jihad. I can see why some may be upset by the comparison, but I do believe it is accurate. Do any of you notice other similarities between Satyagraha, Islam and Jihad (violent or non-violent)?

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/734831-satyagraha-jihad-and-islam/

Lord Herbert wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 8:14pm:

;D ;D ;D Good one, Datalife. "But it's not Islam that's the problem, you fools!!"

You were doing so nicely there for a short while, Herbie. Now you’re apologizing for non-Muslim terrorists, criminals, library book thieves, etc.

The way you’re going you’ll have to deal with yourself in the fullness of time.

Karnal wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 9:23pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:17pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:13pm: I think you probably misunderstood them, or are drawing a long bow to equate it with what you have been saying. You probably think I didn’t research what I was saying before I said it, FD. Fair enough. You believe in Freeedom. Not really. Your sort of delusion takes years of study. Thanks, FD. I'm grateful for your defence of my right to be delusional. Gandhiji, however, had a slightly different take on Freeedom and criticism: Quote: Satyagraha (/ˌsætɪəˈɡrɑːhɑː/; Sanskrit: सत्याग्रह satyāgraha), loosely translated as "insistence on truth" (satya "truth"; agraha "insistence") or soul force[1] or truth force, is a particular philosophy and practice within the broader overall category generally known as nonviolent resistance or civil resistance. The term satyagraha was coined and developed by Mahatma Gandhi.[2] He deployed satyagraha in the Indian independence movement and also during his earlier struggles in South Africa for Indian rights. Satyagraha theory influenced Nelson Mandela's struggle in South Africa under apartheid, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s and James Bevel's campaigns during the civil rights movement in the United States, and many other social justice and similar movements.[3][4] Someone who practices satyagraha is a satyagrahi.     Truth (satya) implies love, and firmness (agraha) engenders and therefore serves as a synonym for force. I thus began to call the Indian movement Satyagraha, that is to say, the Force which is born of Truth and Love or non-violence, and gave up the use of the phrase “passive resistance”, in connection with it, so much so that even in English writing we often avoided it and used instead the word “satyagraha” itself or some other equivalent English phrase.[6] Gandhi described it as follows:     I have also called it love-force or soul-force. In the application of satyagraha, I discovered in the earliest stages that pursuit of truth did not admit of violence being inflicted on one’s opponent but that he must be weaned from error by patience and compassion. For what appears to be truth to the one may appear to be error to the other. And patience means self-suffering. So the doctrine came to mean vindication of truth, not by infliction of suffering on the opponent, but on oneself.[8] Satyagraha theory Defining success Assessing the extent to which Gandhi's ideas of satyagraha were or were not successful in the Indian independence struggle is a complex task. Judith Brown has suggested that "this is a political strategy and technique which, for its outcomes, depends of historical specificities."[10] The view taken by Gandhi differs from the idea that the goal in any conflict is necessarily to defeat the opponent or frustrate the opponent’s objectives, or to meet one’s own objectives despite the efforts of the opponent to obstruct these. In satyagraha, by contrast, these are not the goals. “The Satyagrahi’s object is to convert, not to coerce, the wrong-doer.”[11] Success is defined as cooperating with the opponent to meet a just end that the opponent is unwittingly obstructing. The opponent must be converted, at least as far as to stop obstructing the just end, for this cooperation to take place. Means and ends The theory of satyagraha sees means and ends as inseparable. The means used to obtain an end are wrapped up in and attached to that end. Therefore, it is contradictory to try to use unjust means to obtain justice or to try to use violence to obtain peace. As Gandhi wrote: “They say, 'means are, after all, means'. I would say, 'means are, after all, everything'. As the means so the end...”[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha The Wikipedia article was hard to find, FD. My Google search found it buried in a Muslim propaganda site: [quote]In BBC's special Gandhi, presented by Mishal Hussein, South African anti-apartheid activist (and one of my heroes) Fatima Meer compared Gandhi's philosophy of Satyagraha - which he developed during his time in South Africa -with Islamic Jihad in that one is prepared to die for what they believe in. Meer acknowledged that some might be upset with such a comparison between these two ideologies since Satyagraha is totally and strictly non-violent, whereas violence is permissible under certain conditions in Islamic Jihad. I can see why some may be upset by the comparison, but I do believe it is accurate. Do any of you notice other similarities between Satyagraha, Islam and Jihad (violent or non-violent)?

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/734831-satyagraha-jihad-and-islam/
[/quote]

I still don't see anything about not criticising, or not being free to criticise what you don't like.

Perhaps you took it a step too far by equating criticism with violence. I doubt Gandhi meant to laugh and pretend to have a jolly good time while someone is raping and pillaging, in the hope that you can win them over with friendship.


Quote:

Success is defined as cooperating with the opponent to meet a just end that the opponent is unwittingly obstructing.

Muslims are not unwittingly opposing freedom and democracy. They are consciously hostile to it.

Quote:

I still don't see anything about not criticising, or not being free to criticise what you don't like.

Wikipedia is only a starting point for research, FD, and I haven't even quoted the entire article. You're free to do your own research on Gandhi's principles.

Your freedom to criticize what you don't understand, however, will continue to take you further away from your desired state of Freeedom. As we've seen, it gets you into all sorts of trouble. I'm not sure if Gandhiji explicitly stated this point, but it's the correct form of apologist-approved criticism that you've requested.

You are preaching intellectually bankrupt spineless apologetics. You have attempted to give it legitimacy by associating it with the views of the great thinkers of the enlightenment, as well as Mandela and Gandhi. You have failed.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 12:24pm:

You are preaching intellectually bankrupt spineless apologetics. You have attempted to give it legitimacy by associating it with the views of the great thinkers of the enlightenment, as well as Mandela and Gandhi. You have failed.

Yes, but we spineless apologists would specify how. We'd have a marking criteria and go through each point and say how. Your Freeedom to criticize anything you don't like without saying why is a different model of assessment. Alas, we don't have that freedom.


Quote:

I still don't see anything about not criticising, or not being free to criticise what you don't like.

We apologists have a lot of theories about that. Here's one about Gandhi and the great thinkers of the enlightenment:


Quote:

Karuna Mantena: Action and Criticism in Gandhian Satyagraha - Debleena Biswas. In her lecture on Gandhian satyagraha this Monday, political theorist Karuna Mantena set out to show M.K. Gandhi’s political thought as a form of transformative action focused on relations between the individual and the collective. Satyagraha,which is often associated with non-violent protest but means something along the lines of “truth-force” in English, emerged less as an epistemological inquiry into truth and more as a mode of “connected” action which seeks to actuate truth by shaping political relations. Mantena began by examining social criticism in general, and Gandhi’s mode in particular, from the standpoint of Michael Walzer’s Interpretation and Social Criticism (1993). Gandhi’s mode is not “neo-Kantian”: that is, it does not involve the detached and dispassionate outlook of a critic intent on solving problems who speaks from an allegedly objective and universal position by assuming that his or her reasoned criticism will be acceptable to all. Nor does Gandhi occupy a Marxist externalist standpoint that sets out to demonstrate truth, unmask others’ views and, as a corollary, dehumanize its opponents. A politically effective criticism, Mantena argued, is one that addresses its public as equals, under shared conditions. Gandhi’s satyagraha strives to achieve this efficacy by taking the passions and the heart into account in politics. Reform is not sought through coercion but through active participation and persuasion. For Mantena, Gandhi is a “connected critic” because of the stance he adopted. As a critic of the British Empire, he self-consciously presented himself as a loyal British subject who demanded that the empire make good on its promise to provide political equality and protection for all the subjects and, thus, an end to racial discrimination. Despite the extra-legality of some of his methods, he demonstrated a deep respect for the law in his civil disobedience. Second, as a critic of radical and extremist forms of Indian nationalism, Gandhi acknowledged the unhappiness of militant nationalists but believed their elitist methods, which excluded India’s peasant millions, would achieve merely a change of masters, not a change of rule. Finally, as a critic of inequality in the Hindu social order, in his disputes with Hindu orthodoxy, Gandhi claimed to be the most orthodox of all. According to Mantena’s interpretation of Gandhi, such criticism belongs resolutely to the plane of action and not to the plane of contemplation. ... In response to Lauren Goodlad’s question about Mantena’s larger project and the future of the political “realism” she had outlined, Mantena spoke of the need to situate Gandhi within a tradition of non-violent action, and the need to map what is lost and gained between Gandhi’s ideas of localized non-violent action linked to politics in his time and the generalized non-violent action we see now which is often really the political power of the masses. Her response to a reading of Gandhi as an epistemological anarchist skeptical of truth claims acknowledged that non-violence has its anarchist moments but emphasized that Gandhi would have preferred moderation in both means and ends. The “necessary thing” in politics must be set against efficacy. If there is a myth of our time it is not that we do not do enough but that we are not sufficiently self-constrained.

Quote:

Success is defined as cooperating with the opponent to meet a just end that the opponent is unwittingly obstructing. Muslims are not unwittingly opposing freedom and democracy. They are consciously hostile to it.

And Ghandiji had a lot to say about that. Still, you're trying to divert the topic back to the Muselman again.

Sorry, FD, you'll need to open up a new thread to discuss them. 

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 12:24pm:

You are preaching intellectually bankrupt spineless apologetics. You have attempted to give it legitimacy by associating it with the views of the great thinkers of the enlightenment, as well as Mandela and Gandhi. You have failed.

Why are you being an apologist for bigotry and hatred, FD?   ;D ;D ;D

Appears you believe that only your brand of apologist-approved criticism is allowable.  Why?   ;D ;D ;D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 1:24pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:24pm: You are preaching intellectually bankrupt spineless apologetics. You have attempted to give it legitimacy by associating it with the views of the great thinkers of the enlightenment, as well as Mandela and Gandhi. You have failed. Why are you being an apologist for bigotry and hatred, FD?   ;D ;D ;D Appears you believe that only your brand of apologist-approved criticism is allowable.  Why?   ;D ;D ;D ;D

No no, FD's practicing Satyagraha. FD's showing that in a discussion or debate, the means not only justify the ends, the means are the ends.

I think we can all agree on that, no?

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 12:24pm:

You are preaching intellectually bankrupt spineless apologetics. You have attempted to give it legitimacy by associating it with the views of the great thinkers of the enlightenment, as well as Mandela and Gandhi. You have failed.

Dismally.

Gandalf suicide-bombed his own credibility with that nonsense about not being able to criticise someone if it offends.

His credibility is stuck all over the inside of my screen here and I don't know how to wipe it off.

Well, okay, we might not all agree. But at least Herb should get something decent to waink over once in a while.

I think we can all agree on that.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 2:00pm:

Gandalf suicide-bombed his own credibility with that nonsense about not being able to criticise someone if it offends.

Excuse me?

Mind quoting me Herb?

I think you'll find that on planet earth I specifically stated my objection to such an outlook. Unlike the majority of Australians.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 4:33pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 2:00pm: Gandalf suicide-bombed his own credibility with that nonsense about not being able to criticise someone if it offends. Excuse me? Mind quoting me Herb?

That's just the sort of apologism FD's complaining about. Why should Herb have to quote anyone to get his point across? It's intellectual cowardice of the worst kind:


Quote:

I don't hold that people should be free to "criticize" whatever they don't like.

Don't fall into the apologist trap, G. The one thing FD admires about genuine Muslims like Abu is their willingness to call a spade a spade.

This puts FD alongside great men like Gandhi, who argued,
Quote:

"the Satyagrahi’s object is to convert, not to coerce, the wrong-doer.”[11] Success is defined as cooperating with the opponent to meet a just end that the opponent is unwittingly obstructing.

I do feel there's a little apologism in all of us, no?

Quote:

For Mantena, Gandhi is a “connected critic” because of the stance he adopted. As a critic of the British Empire, he self-consciously presented himself as a loyal British subject who demanded that the empire make good on its promise to provide political equality and protection for all the subjects and, thus, an end to racial discrimination. Despite the extra-legality of some of his methods, he demonstrated a deep respect for the law in his civil disobedience. Second, as a critic of radical and extremist forms of Indian nationalism, Gandhi acknowledged the unhappiness of militant nationalists but believed their elitist methods, which excluded India’s peasant millions, would achieve merely a change of masters, not a change of rule. Finally, as a critic of inequality in the Hindu social order, in his disputes with Hindu orthodoxy, Gandhi claimed to be the most orthodox of all. According to Mantena’s interpretation of Gandhi, such criticism belongs resolutely to the plane of action and not to the plane of contemplation.

In other words, he was a classic wind-up merchant, using the Brit's own standards against them. Fancy trying to tell the Brahmins that they can't be superior to the Shadras any more? Gandhi was the first troll. Certainly not a spineless apologist.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 6:49pm:

Quote: For Mantena, Gandhi is a “connected critic” because of the stance he adopted. As a critic of the British Empire, he self-consciously presented himself as a loyal British subject who demanded that the empire make good on its promise to provide political equality and protection for all the subjects and, thus, an end to racial discrimination. Despite the extra-legality of some of his methods, he demonstrated a deep respect for the law in his civil disobedience. Second, as a critic of radical and extremist forms of Indian nationalism, Gandhi acknowledged the unhappiness of militant nationalists but believed their elitist methods, which excluded India’s peasant millions, would achieve merely a change of masters, not a change of rule. Finally, as a critic of inequality in the Hindu social order, in his disputes with Hindu orthodoxy, Gandhi claimed to be the most orthodox of all. According to Mantena’s interpretation of Gandhi, such criticism belongs resolutely to the plane of action and not to the plane of contemplation. In other words, he was a classic wind-up merchant, using the Brit's own standards against them. Fancy trying to tell the Brahmins that they can't be superior to the Shadras any more? Gandhi was the first troll. Certainly not a spineless apologist.

Good to see you doing some research on the topic, FD. I see where you’re going with this.

By trying to overturn the caste system, Gandhi was practicing Taqqiya.

Cunning, no?

Progressive muslim & pretend muslim  ;D

gud is gwait no ?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 4:33pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 2:00pm: Gandalf suicide-bombed his own credibility with that nonsense about not being able to criticise someone if it offends. Excuse me? Mind quoting me Herb? I think you'll find that on planet earth I specifically stated my objection to such an outlook. Unlike the majority of Australians.

Very generously I've decided not to run you to ground over your latest moral indiscretions on the matter of freedom of speech as I believe you'll feel less pressured and have more wriggle-room with your latest joustings with freediver.

If we took each other up on every point we'd be here all day.  8-)

Let it not be said I lack compassion for those with their backs to the wall.

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 8:20pm:

Progressive muslim & pretend muslim  ;D gud is gwait no ?

Censor this one, Moderator. You know why.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 8:24pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 4:33pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 2:00pm: Gandalf suicide-bombed his own credibility with that nonsense about not being able to criticise someone if it offends. Excuse me? Mind quoting me Herb? I think you'll find that on planet earth I specifically stated my objection to such an outlook. Unlike the majority of Australians. Very generously I've decided not to run you to ground over your latest moral indiscretions on the matter of freedom of speech as I believe you'll feel less pressured and have more wriggle-room with your latest joustings with freediver. If we took each other up on every point we'd be here all day.  8-)

Very generous, Herb. Best to take G up on a new point when you need to spray your screen again.

Karnal wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 8:18pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 6:49pm: Quote: For Mantena, Gandhi is a “connected critic” because of the stance he adopted. As a critic of the British Empire, he self-consciously presented himself as a loyal British subject who demanded that the empire make good on its promise to provide political equality and protection for all the subjects and, thus, an end to racial discrimination. Despite the extra-legality of some of his methods, he demonstrated a deep respect for the law in his civil disobedience. Second, as a critic of radical and extremist forms of Indian nationalism, Gandhi acknowledged the unhappiness of militant nationalists but believed their elitist methods, which excluded India’s peasant millions, would achieve merely a change of masters, not a change of rule. Finally, as a critic of inequality in the Hindu social order, in his disputes with Hindu orthodoxy, Gandhi claimed to be the most orthodox of all. According to Mantena’s interpretation of Gandhi, such criticism belongs resolutely to the plane of action and not to the plane of contemplation. In other words, he was a classic wind-up merchant, using the Brit's own standards against them. Fancy trying to tell the Brahmins that they can't be superior to the Shadras any more? Gandhi was the first troll. Certainly not a spineless apologist. Good to see you doing some research on the topic, FD. I see where you’re going with this. By trying to overturn the caste system, Gandhi was practicing Taqqiya. Cunning, no?

You are preaching intellectually bankrupt spineless apologetics. You have attempted to give it legitimacy by associating it with the views of the great thinkers of the enlightenment, as well as Mandela and Gandhi. You have failed. Again.

Karnal wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 8:24pm:

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 8:20pm: Progressive muslim & pretend muslim  ;D gud is gwait no ? Censor this one, Moderator. You know why.

Yes do as you're told by the fake one.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 8:27pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 8:18pm: freediver wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 6:49pm: Quote: For Mantena, Gandhi is a “connected critic” because of the stance he adopted. As a critic of the British Empire, he self-consciously presented himself as a loyal British subject who demanded that the empire make good on its promise to provide political equality and protection for all the subjects and, thus, an end to racial discrimination. Despite the extra-legality of some of his methods, he demonstrated a deep respect for the law in his civil disobedience. Second, as a critic of radical and extremist forms of Indian nationalism, Gandhi acknowledged the unhappiness of militant nationalists but believed their elitist methods, which excluded India’s peasant millions, would achieve merely a change of masters, not a change of rule. Finally, as a critic of inequality in the Hindu social order, in his disputes with Hindu orthodoxy, Gandhi claimed to be the most orthodox of all. According to Mantena’s interpretation of Gandhi, such criticism belongs resolutely to the plane of action and not to the plane of contemplation. In other words, he was a classic wind-up merchant, using the Brit's own standards against them. Fancy trying to tell the Brahmins that they can't be superior to the Shadras any more? Gandhi was the first troll. Certainly not a spineless apologist. Good to see you doing some research on the topic, FD. I see where you’re going with this. By trying to overturn the caste system, Gandhi was practicing Taqqiya. Cunning, no? You are preaching intellectually bankrupt spineless apologetics. You have attempted to give it legitimacy by associating it with the views of the great thinkers of the enlightenment, as well as Mandela and Gandhi. You have failed. Again.

Good point, FD. Haven’t we heard it before?

Oh - you’re doing a Y and quoting yourself to save time.

I can see why you’d start a thread on a useful subject like this to enlighten everyone and then just end up playing a recording of yourself.

You’re expressing your Freeedom.

Karnal wrote on Jun 15^th, 2014 at 7:52pm:

Excellent. Now that we’re back to civil discourse again, shall we discuss Mandella? Twenty-odd years in the most repressive of jails, saw close friends murdered by his opponents in front of his eyes, and lost numerous friends and family members on the outside. They beg him to make concessions and get released, and he sticks it out, all the while making friends with his jailers. When he finally does get out and gets elected president, he doesn’t seek revenge or try to get his own back, he begins a process of reconciliation with the people who took most of his life. Was this a good thing? South Africans did not get to witness the purification of justice that people saw, for example, at the end of WWII. To this day, blacks are very resentful of whites in South Africa, although for the current generation this resentment has important economic causes. So I ask you this. Mandella: Freeedom-loving nation builder or limp-wristed spineless apologist? I’ll give your reply a good read, FD.

Jail made him a better man.

Without jail he would have become a long forgotten black terrorist.

Yes, dear boy, but the aim of keeping him in jail was to make him a long forgotten terrorist.

And all Mandela had to do to get out of jail was publicly renounce armed struggle.

He never did.

Jailing Mandela had the opposite effect of what the regime intended. But when he was released and became leader, there was no better friend to the old regime than Mandela. Without him, they would all have been executed. At the very least, they would have been killed in an almost inevitable civil war.

We apologists are you old boys’ best friends, dear chap. Always, absolutely, never ever.

and easily manipulated I might add as well.  ;D

Soren wrote on Jun 21^st, 2014 at 5:01pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 15th, 2014 at 7:52pm: Excellent. Now that we’re back to civil discourse again, shall we discuss Mandella? Twenty-odd years in the most repressive of jails, saw close friends murdered by his opponents in front of his eyes, and lost numerous friends and family members on the outside. They beg him to make concessions and get released, and he sticks it out, all the while making friends with his jailers. When he finally does get out and gets elected president, he doesn’t seek revenge or try to get his own back, he begins a process of reconciliation with the people who took most of his life. Was this a good thing? South Africans did not get to witness the purification of justice that people saw, for example, at the end of WWII. To this day, blacks are very resentful of whites in South Africa, although for the current generation this resentment has important economic causes. So I ask you this. Mandella: Freeedom-loving nation builder or limp-wristed spineless apologist? I’ll give your reply a good read, FD. Jail made him a better man. Without jail he would have become a long forgotten black terrorist.

It was also the only thing that saved him from getting AIDs like the rest of his countrymen.  8-)

Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jun 21^st, 2014 at 8:42pm:

and easily manipulated I might add as well.  ;D

Welcome Mahdi! Rage Boy is one of my all-time favourite people.  ;D

Lord Herbert wrote on Jun 21^st, 2014 at 8:45pm:

Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jun 21st, 2014 at 8:42pm: and easily manipulated I might add as well.  ;D Welcome Mahdi! Rage Boy is one of my all-time favourite people.  ;D

We’ve always known you like angry boys, Herbie.

Miam miam.

Nice to meet you Lord Herbert.

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 1:09pm:

So I ask you this: should I believe hysterical hate rants drummed up in another country, a PR campaign funded largely for the purpose of mobilising us for war? Or should I believe and trust the people I know - people I sit next to.at work, people who say hi on the street, people who cut my hair and fix my teeth? Does it make sense to you that they’re all liars who want to kill me? Or could there be another explanation? Feel free to answer - no one is compelled.

Mebbe you should talk to Yugoslavs and Iraqis and Syrians and Labians and Egyptians and Somalis and Cambodians and Africans generally - it's all hair cutting and dental work until it's not and the head hacking starts.

Soren wrote on Jun 21^st, 2014 at 9:27pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14th, 2014 at 1:09pm: So I ask you this: should I believe hysterical hate rants drummed up in another country, a PR campaign funded largely for the purpose of mobilising us for war? Or should I believe and trust the people I know - people I sit next to.at work, people who say hi on the street, people who cut my hair and fix my teeth? Does it make sense to you that they’re all liars who want to kill me? Or could there be another explanation? Feel free to answer - no one is compelled. Mebbe you should talk to Yugoslavs and Iraqis and Syrians and Labians and Egyptians and Somalis and Cambodians and Africans generally - it's all hair cutting and dental work until it's not and the head hacking starts.

He wouldn't last a month in one of his Islamic mother lands.

Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jun 21^st, 2014 at 9:40pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 21st, 2014 at 9:27pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 14th, 2014 at 1:09pm: So I ask you this: should I believe hysterical hate rants drummed up in another country, a PR campaign funded largely for the purpose of mobilising us for war? Or should I believe and trust the people I know - people I sit next to.at work, people who say hi on the street, people who cut my hair and fix my teeth? Does it make sense to you that they’re all liars who want to kill me? Or could there be another explanation? Feel free to answer - no one is compelled. Mebbe you should talk to Yugoslavs and Iraqis and Syrians and Labians and Egyptians and Somalis and Cambodians and Africans generally - it's all hair cutting and dental work until it's not and the head hacking starts. He wouldn't last a month in one of his Islamic mother lands.

He’s spent over a month passing through the Motherland of Malaysia over the last 2 years, Matty.

I say, old boy, why does your list include Cambodians?

I’m curious.

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 1:09pm:

I go to Malaysia at least 3 times a year.

Still on terror training are you? Maybe a slope? Or to get toy boys, dried haddock fish flaps are hard to sell nowadays!


Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 1:09pm:

Or should I believe and trust the people I know - people I sit next to at the dole counter, people who say eff off to me on the street, people who adjust my wig and clean my dentures?

What ever grabs ya trolly Granny.




Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 1:09pm:

Does it make sense to you that they’re all liars who want to kill me? Or could there be another explanation?

Does it make sense to you that they’re all liars who want to kill me. YES

Or could there be another explanation? Yes they are disgusted by your inane stupidity!

Goodbye.

Karnal wrote on Jun 21^st, 2014 at 10:01pm:

Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jun 21st, 2014 at 9:40pm: Soren wrote on Jun 21st, 2014 at 9:27pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 14th, 2014 at 1:09pm: So I ask you this: should I believe hysterical hate rants drummed up in another country, a PR campaign funded largely for the purpose of mobilising us for war? Or should I believe and trust the people I know - people I sit next to.at work, people who say hi on the street, people who cut my hair and fix my teeth? Does it make sense to you that they’re all liars who want to kill me? Or could there be another explanation? Feel free to answer - no one is compelled. Mebbe you should talk to Yugoslavs and Iraqis and Syrians and Labians and Egyptians and Somalis and Cambodians and Africans generally - it's all hair cutting and dental work until it's not and the head hacking starts. He wouldn't last a month in one of his Islamic mother lands. He’s spent over a month passing through the Motherland of Malaysia over the last 2 years, Matty. I say, old boy, why does your list include Cambodians? I’m curious.

It sounds more like you haven't left your armchair for quite a few years Matty.

Karnal wrote on Jun 21^st, 2014 at 10:01pm:

Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jun 21st, 2014 at 9:40pm: Soren wrote on Jun 21st, 2014 at 9:27pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 14th, 2014 at 1:09pm: So I ask you this: should I believe hysterical hate rants drummed up in another country, a PR campaign funded largely for the purpose of mobilising us for war? Or should I believe and trust the people I know - people I sit next to.at work, people who say hi on the street, people who cut my hair and fix my teeth? Does it make sense to you that they’re all liars who want to kill me? Or could there be another explanation? Feel free to answer - no one is compelled. Mebbe you should talk to Yugoslavs and Iraqis and Syrians and Labians and Egyptians and Somalis and Cambodians and Africans generally - it's all hair cutting and dental work until it's not and the head hacking starts. He wouldn't last a month in one of his Islamic mother lands. He’s spent over a month passing through the Motherland of Malaysia over the last 2 years, Matty. I say, old boy, why does your list include Cambodians? I’m curious.

Like a lot of these thirdy-worldy mass-muderers, they were like Chaucer's "smyler with the knyf under the cloke" to the tune of a million or so. As were the ever-smiling African chappies of the Hutu and Schmutu persuasion who one day woke up and cut the throats of their barbers and dentists and what have you.
The custom has now spread to the famously hospitable lands of the caliphate.

Unremarkable barber from Bankstown one day, mass murderer in Iraq the next. Global village, no?

Have a hair cut.
Have two.
All you can eat shite sabdwiches

Thanks, old chap, I do see now. You’re saying Muselmen everywhere are going to wake up one day, a la Hitchcock’s the Birds, and hack us all to death.

Like the Hutus and Tutsis, like the Khmer Rouge, the Balkans War, various recent Middle Eastern revolutions and civil wars (including, of course, Labia), and countless other completely unrelated historical conflicts.

And you are, as ever, completely serious.

You have the wisdom of Solomon, old boy. Carry on.

More than ever, we need you here.

Karnal wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2014 at 2:12am:

Thanks, old chap, I do see now. You’re saying Muselmen everywhere are going to wake up one day, a la Hitchcock’s the Birds, and hack us all to death. Like the Hutus and Tutsis, like the Khmer Rouge, the Balkans War, various recent Middle Eastern revolutions and civil wars (including, of course, Labia), and countless other completely unrelated historical conflicts. And you are, as ever, completely serious. You have the wisdom of Solomon, old boy. Carry on. More than ever, we need you here.

What's it like skat eater?

Is it like you say "Miam Miam" yummy yummy?

Soren wrote on Jun 21^st, 2014 at 9:27pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14th, 2014 at 1:09pm: So I ask you this: should I believe hysterical hate rants drummed up in another country, a PR campaign funded largely for the purpose of mobilising us for war? Or should I believe and trust the people I know - people I sit next to.at work, people who say hi on the street, people who cut my hair and fix my teeth? Does it make sense to you that they’re all liars who want to kill me? Or could there be another explanation? Feel free to answer - no one is compelled. Mebbe you should talk to Yugoslavs and Iraqis and Syrians and Labians and Egyptians and Somalis and Cambodians and Africans generally - it's all hair cutting and dental work until it's not and the head hacking starts.

Sounds like an interesting country.

Karnal wrote on Jun 21^st, 2014 at 8:29pm:

Yes, dear boy, but the aim of keeping him in jail was to make him a long forgotten terrorist. And all Mandela had to do to get out of jail was publicly renounce armed struggle. He never did.

How about criticism and saying unapproved things about the regime? Did he renounce that?

freediver wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2014 at 3:48am:

Karnal wrote on Jun 21st, 2014 at 8:29pm: Yes, dear boy, but the aim of keeping him in jail was to make him a long forgotten terrorist. And all Mandela had to do to get out of jail was publicly renounce armed struggle. He never did. How about criticism and saying unapproved things about the regime? Did he renounce that?

Good to see you back on the scent, FD. You’re a seeker of truth, as are we all in our own ways.

Given you’ve read Mandela’s autobiography, why don’t you tell us about Mandela’s criticisms of Apartheid?

We’re all here to learn, you know. Feel free to give us summaries of the relevant chapters.

Thanks, FD.

Winston Smith wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2014 at 2:18am:

Soren wrote on Jun 21st, 2014 at 9:27pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 14th, 2014 at 1:09pm: So I ask you this: should I believe hysterical hate rants drummed up in another country, a PR campaign funded largely for the purpose of mobilising us for war? Or should I believe and trust the people I know - people I sit next to.at work, people who say hi on the street, people who cut my hair and fix my teeth? Does it make sense to you that they’re all liars who want to kill me? Or could there be another explanation? Feel free to answer - no one is compelled. Mebbe you should talk to Yugoslavs and Iraqis and Syrians and Labians and Egyptians and Somalis and Cambodians and Africans generally - it's all hair cutting and dental work until it's not and the head hacking starts. Sounds like an interesting country.

Very hairy - in every sense.

Karnal wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2014 at 2:12am:

Thanks, old chap, I do see now. You’re saying Muselmen everywhere are going to wake up one day, a la Hitchcock’s the Birds, and hack us all to death.

Well, if not everywhere, Musulmen are conspicuous for their taste for laying into each other with uncommon savagery at the drop of a kaffiyeh.  And that's just Muslim-on-Muslim action, PB, no holds barred hairy-beast-from-the-Middle-East-on-hairy-beast-from-the-Middle-East action.
Imagine what they'd do to the delicately nurtured.

The mind boggles, old chap.

On another note, we PBs are from the subcontinent. We kill fare evaders, not Arabs. We eat curry, not homos. And we love Amerika and Mother England. 

Miam miam, eh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

Karnal wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2014 at 7:46pm:

The mind boggles, old chap. On another note, we PBs are from the subcontinent. We kill fare evaders, not Arabs. We eat curry, not homos. And we love Amerika and Mother England.  Miam miam, eh?

You'll say anything for those sandwiches, won't you, PB?

Well, alright, have another one. Have two.