freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 5:18pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 17th, 2017 at 5:10pm: freediver wrote on Aug 17th, 2017 at 4:52pm: Why the extraordinary efforts to boil everything down to simplistic hysteria about racism? Gosh FD, hysteria about racism? Some might think that screeching months and years on end about how "racist" it is to suggest that the mass execution of members of a 7th century tribe for breaking a treaty might be deemed justified by the standards and culture of the time - is a pretty good example of "simplistic hysteria about racism". But what this is about is your stubborn refusal to acknowledge what is evident to blind Freddy: that mealy mouthed racists, who absolutely *ARE* terrified of being seen as racist,  have latched on to the anti-Islam bandwagon to feed their racism, with their favourite rejoinder "Islam is not a race"  merely being the latest incantation of the old "I'm not racist but..." excuse. And the fact that you are the most hysterical whiner about racism - sorry wacism - here, when it concerns muslims and/or their apologists attacking jews, is just an interesting aside. I asked you to point these people out Gandalf. So far they are a figment of your imagination. And I called you out on your racism because you are a textbook case of mealy mouthed racism, and you are right here on this forum. You described them over a span of years variously as a mindless collective a treacherous warrior Jews, all in efforts to justify Muhammad's genocide. But when your own words are presented to you you reject them because (again, in your own words) it 'sounds' racist. You absolutely *ARE* terrified of being seen as racist, but when all else failed, you fell back on racism because your religion compels you to come up with any excuse you can find to justify mass murder.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18^th, 2017 at 10:15am:

freediver wrote on Aug 17th, 2017 at 5:18pm: I asked you to point these people out Gandalf. So far they are a figment of your imagination. Sure, FD - one good example is constantly broad-stroking the entire muslim population as a monolithic hive mind of sinister conspirators out to deceive everyone

Islam is not a race Gandalf. And you are the only one here who invokes a hive mind of sinister conspirators to justify genocide.


polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18^th, 2017 at 10:15am:

freediver wrote on Aug 17th, 2017 at 5:18pm: You described them over a span of years variously as a mindless collective a treacherous warrior Jews,   Like a "typical muslim" I guess.

Not sure. Did you ever say where you got the racist theories from? I seem to recall being taken by surprise when you said that. I think that is what prompted Karnal to describe it as an 'Abu moment'.


Quote:

And as usual this is rubbish. 1. I described the arab tribes of the 7th century - of which the banu qurayza were but one as a "mindless collective" - in the sense that there was no real concept of the individual in society - everyone was subordinated to the tribe.

So you did in fact describe them as a mindless collective, and use that to justify Muhammad's genocide?

Were the early Muslims also a mindless collective?


Quote:

This point I made abundantly clear in the original quote that you will always conveniently edit out when you requote it.

What exactly is this point you think I am editing out? That your racist propaganda about mindless collectives is not in fact racist because it is true? That it is in fact correct to call them a mindless collective and justify their genocide because they had no individual personality? That it's not racist if you also ascribe collective traits to other groups? What makes you think that repeating it and insisting it is true makes your racism any less abhorrent?


Quote:

as I have told you a hundred times at least - "treacherous jew" was your term, not mine

Are you denying referring to them as treacherous?


Quote:

And I even made the point that the term would be racist and I would never say it.

So racism is not about what you say, but how you say it? That is, you can argue they were a mindless collective of treacherous Jews, but so long as you don't use the words together in a way that sounds familiarly racist, you are not actually being racist?

Are you saying that mealy mouthed racists, who absolutely *ARE* terrified of being seen as racist, who have latched on to the anti-Jew bandwagon to feed their religion, with their favourite rejoinder "they had no individuality or personality because they literally were a mindless collective of traitors, tough titties, off with their heads" are somehow not merely the latest incantation of the old "I'm not racist but..." excuse, so long as they really, truly believe their own absurd racist propaganda?

freediver wrote on Aug 18^th, 2017 at 12:49pm:

That it's not racist if you also ascribe collective traits to other groups?

Bingo.

If I had suggested that jews in particular are innately prone - because of their 'race' - to being a "mindless collective" that makes them inherently "treacherous" or whatever , then yeah that would be racist. Instead of what I actually said - which was to merely make an observation about Arab tribal society of the time, and the prevailing culture vis-a-vis the individual's subordination to the tribe.

Thus the entire quote of mine that kicked this whole 'mindless collective' nonsense off in the first place:


polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 5^th, 2013 at 10:27am:

Thats exactly what they were. Thats exactly how 7th arab society worked - your loyalty was with the tribe, far above anything else. They were of one mind - what the tribal leaders decided, every single member decided. No individual member of the tribe would even dream of taking a position that was at odds with the tribe. It sounds ridiculous to our western individualistic minds, but thats exactly how it was.

freediver wrote on Aug 18^th, 2017 at 12:49pm:

So racism is not about what you say, but how you say it? That is, you can argue they were a mindless collective of treacherous Jews, but so long as you don't use the words together in a way that sounds familiarly racist, you are not actually being racist?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I wonder if FD can detect the irony in this statement - after his heroic defence of racists who attack muslims who are careful enough to steer clear of "racist" sounding slurs.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18^th, 2017 at 3:23pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 12:49pm: That it's not racist if you also ascribe collective traits to other groups? Bingo.

So if a white supremacist ascribes collective traits to both white and black people, he is not racist?

What if one of those traits just happens to be 'treacherous'?


Quote:

If I had suggested that jews in particular are innately prone - because of their 'race' - to being a "mindless collective" that makes them inherently "treacherous" or whatever , then yeah that would be racist. Instead of what I actually said - which was to merely make an observation about Arab tribal society of the time, and the prevailing culture vis-a-vis the individual's subordination to the tribe.

You said they had no individual personality and that they were treacherous individuals by virtue of being part of a treacherous collective - racist. You said they were found guilty and sentenced to death based on this collective guilt - racist.


Quote:

I wonder if FD can detect the irony in this statement - after his heroic defence of racists who attack muslims who are careful enough to steer clear of "racist" sounding slurs.

Do you think it could be that they don;t say racist things because they are actually talking about Islam, which is not a race?

Were the early Muslims also a mindless collective?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18^th, 2017 at 3:23pm:

Thus the entire quote of mine that kicked this whole 'mindless collective' nonsense off in the first place: polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 5th, 2013 at 10:27am: Thats exactly what they were. Thats exactly how 7th arab society worked - your loyalty was with the tribe, far above anything else. They were of one mind - what the tribal leaders decided, every single member decided. No individual member of the tribe would even dream of taking a position that was at odds with the tribe. It sounds ridiculous to our western individualistic minds, but thats exactly how it was.

It doesn't sound ridiculous to our Western minds that it was like that over a millennium ago.

What IS ridiculous is that it is still like that for most Muslim Arabs, even after they left Lebanon and the Middle East a couple of generations ago. That's what is ridiculous.

They are still tribal, they are still clannish, they still treat women as chattel.

freediver wrote on Aug 18^th, 2017 at 6:23pm:

So if a white supremacist ascribes collective traits to both white and black people, he is not racist? What if one of those traits just happens to be 'treacherous'?

If a white supremacist said that all black and white people from a certain time and place had some common behavioural trait because of the society and place and time they both found themselves in - does that sound racist to you?

See how ridiculous your attempt at moral (non)-equivalence sounds?

Frank wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 3:06pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:23pm: Thus the entire quote of mine that kicked this whole 'mindless collective' nonsense off in the first place: polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 5th, 2013 at 10:27am: Thats exactly what they were. Thats exactly how 7th arab society worked - your loyalty was with the tribe, far above anything else. They were of one mind - what the tribal leaders decided, every single member decided. No individual member of the tribe would even dream of taking a position that was at odds with the tribe. It sounds ridiculous to our western individualistic minds, but thats exactly how it was. It doesn't sound ridiculous to our Western minds that it was like that over a millennium ago. What IS ridiculous is that it is still like that for most Muslim Arabs, even after they left Lebanon and the Middle East a couple of generations ago. That's what is ridiculous. They are still tribal, they are still clannish, they still treat women as chattel.

Well said. This is the biggest issue, in my view. They are still tribal. Many of the laws which Muhammad established were contextual to a society that was tribal. The idea of the nation-state hasn't taken root in the Middle-East just yet.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:55pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 6:23pm: So if a white supremacist ascribes collective traits to both white and black people, he is not racist? What if one of those traits just happens to be 'treacherous'? If a white supremacist said that all black and white people from a certain time and place had some common behavioural trait because of the society and place and time they both found themselves in - does that sound racist to you? See how ridiculous your attempt at moral (non)-equivalence sounds?

If he said the white people were white and the black people were black I don't think anyone would care. If he said one group was a mindless collective of treacherous warrior Jews who deserved to die as collective punishment for the crimes of a few, that would be racist.

Were the early Muslims also a mindless collective Gandalf?

freediver wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 7:14pm:

If he said one group was a mindless collective of treacherous warrior Jews who deserved to die as collective punishment for the crimes of a few, that would be racist.

Good point FD - singling out one racial group as having particular innate negative attributes - because of their race, would indeed be racist. 


Quote:

Were the early Muslims also a mindless collective Gandalf?

You've asked me that before FD, and my answer was yes. They all were - it was an arab thing
you see - not a jewish thing.

https://novembrepleut.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/clutching_at_straws.jpg

When did Muslims stop being a mindless collective?


Quote:

Good point FD - singling out one racial group as having particular innate negative attributes - because of their race, would indeed be racist.

 

You don't think treacherous, guilty, and dead are negative attributes?

freediver wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 8:24pm:

You don't think treacherous, guilty, and dead are negative attributes?

Again, and read carefully FD singling out one racial group as having particular innate negative attributes - because of their race, would indeed be racist.

As opposed to what I actually said, and attributed those "negative attributes" (which is the so called "mindless collective"- not the "treacherous jew", again which are words you keep shoving in my mouth) - to the entire tribal culture in that time and place - of which the jews were just one part of. As I have said before, if it had been a non-jewish tribe breaking a treaty in the same way against a jewish tribe, I would expect nothing different.

Quote:

which is the so called "mindless collective"- not the "treacherous jew", again which are words you keep shoving in my mouth

Are you now denying that they were a mindless collective of treacherous Jews? Or just reminding everyone that you absolutely *ARE* terrified of being seen as racist, so you prefer to use more politically correct terminology?

When did Muslims stop being a mindless collective?


Quote:

it was an arab thing you see - not a jewish thing

Can you explain how insisting it is an Arab thing rather than a Jewish thing makes it not racist?

FD do you agree that to be racist against jews, one would need to single out jews for their inherent negative attributes/behaviour specifically because of their "jewishness"? As opposed to making a general observation about the culture of a particular society in a particular time and place - which has absolutely nothing to do with any real or perceived characteristics that are particular to the jewish "race"?


freediver wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 8:28pm:

Are you now denying that they were a mindless collective of treacherous Jews?

You can attempt to shove that term down my mouth as much as you like, but it doesn't change the fact that its your phrase FD, not mine.


freediver wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 8:28pm:

Can you explain how insisting it is an Arab thing rather than a Jewish thing makes it not racist?

Its possibly racist against 7th century arabs. I'll accept that charge. Are you now saying I'm not an anti-semite?

Quote:

You can attempt to shove that term down my mouth as much as you like, but it doesn't change the fact that its your phrase FD, not mine.

Is it an accurate description of what you think and what you have argued? Is your only criticism that it makes you sound racist, despite being true?


Quote:

Its possibly racist against 7th century arabs. I'll accept that charge. Are you now saying I'm not an anti-semite?

Isn't Arab and Semite pretty much the same thing?

When did Muslims stop being a mindless collective?

freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 10:20am:

Is it an accurate description of what you think and what you have argued?

Of course not. They broke a treaty, that is a fact. Mass execution was probably an appropriate punishment for it (even though it almost certainly didn't happen) - according to the customs and culture of the time. From this most uncontroversial comment you turn this into rabid racism - by shoving words down my mouth. Thus because I said they broke a treaty, and because they happened to be jews, they become "treacherous jews", which you know brings on a completely new spin on the whole thing. You attempt to be clever with attempted logic and argue: 'well they were treaty breakers, and they were jews, therefore 'treacherous jews' accurately describes them - right?'. Thats literally how you come up with the absurd claim that I call them "treacherous jews". And of course when I deny it, you have another brilliant rejoinder - 'oh, by denying it, you're just covering up your racism and being sneaky about it' - which according to you only muslim racists do.



freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 10:20am:

Isn't Arab and Semite pretty much the same thing?

Yes. But you know as well as I know that the term "anti-semite" has been adopted as a specific word to refer to anti-jewish racism.


freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 10:20am:

When did Muslims stop being a mindless collective?

Mostly they haven't - right?

Try again Gandalf.

When did Muslims stop being a mindless collective?

Does denying the genocide make you less racist?

And who said it was specifically about Jews?

Let's break the rest down:

Were they mindless?

Were they a collective?

Were they treacherous?

Were they Jewish?

Try to impress Karnal with your amazing abilities at giving straight answers.

freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 10:58am:

When did Muslims stop being a mindless collective?

Mostly they haven't - right?


freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 10:58am:

And who said it was specifically about Jews?

you did.

Here you go, this is just the latest instance:


freediver wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2017 at 8:28pm:

Are you now denying that they were a mindless collective of treacherous Jews

freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 10:58am:

Let's break the rest down: Were they mindless? Were they a collective? Were they treacherous? Were they Jewish?

These are your words FD, not mine. Here's my actual words, again:

Me: they broke a treaty and mass execution was probably an appropriate punishment according to the customs and culture of 7th century Arab society.

Remembering, these are the actual words that causes you to shriek like a babbling imbecile "gah!! wacist!!"

Also, please ask me again "who said it was specifically about Jews" - while keeping a straight face.


freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 10:58am:

Try to impress Karnal with your amazing abilities at giving straight answers.

Done.

Now here's one for you FD:


polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 9:02am:

FD do you agree that to be racist against jews, one would need to single out jews for their inherent negative attributes/behaviour specifically because of their "jewishness"? As opposed to making a general observation about the culture of a particular society in a particular time and place - which has absolutely nothing to do with any real or perceived characteristics that are particular to the jewish "race"?

Try to impress me with your amazing abilities at not being a hypocrite because you don't actually ignore a question completely - let alone give a straight answer to it.

Quote:

Mostly they haven't - right?

Are you asking me a question in response Gandalf? You know that I do not buy into your racist propaganda about mindless collectives. Do you think Muslims have largely brought this 7th century Arab trait of mindless collectiveness into the modern world?


Quote:

Done

You left out the bit where you actually answer the questions Gandalf. Is it racist to give straight answers to these questions?

Were they mindless?

Were they a collective?

Were they treacherous?

Were they Jewish?


Quote:

Remembering, these are the actual words that causes you to shriek like a babbling imbecile "gah!! wacist!!"

Are you saying that you absolutely *ARE* terrified of being seen as racist, but agree with the substance anyway, even if you would prefer to put a more PC spin on it?


Quote:

FD do you agree that to be racist against jews

Who said this was about being racist against Jews in general?

freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 11:39am:

Are you asking me a question in response Gandalf? You know that I do not buy into your racist propaganda about mindless collectives.

But... but.... Islam isn't a race FD - remember? I can call muslims a mindless collective and it can't be racist. I know because you taught me that. So whats this you're saying now about it being "racist propaganda"? I thought I can literally say anything about muslims and not be racist - like saying 100% of the male muslim population are intellectually disabled due to inbreeding. And if you accuse me of being racist, I'll just throw back the good ol' "Islam isn't a race".

Don't you agree that muslims today are largely a "mindless collective"? Frank does.


freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 11:39am:

You left out the bit where you actually answer the questions Gandalf. Is it racist to give straight answers to these questions? Were they mindless? Were they a collective? Were they treacherous? Were they Jewish?

Sorry FD, perhaps I wasn't clear: these are all *YOUR* words, not mine. What you are doing here is feebly attempting to entrap me by getting me to admit to clearly racist terminology that are entirely your invention. Here's my words again: they broke a treaty and mass execution was probably an appropriate punishment according to the customs and culture of 7th century Arab society. Thats all FD. Continue twisting this into whatever rabidly racist nonsense you wish - it doesn't alter what I actually said. Nor would any reasonable person who read my actual words make the absurd leap in logic to say "oooh he really means a "'mindless collective of treacherous jews!'" How wacist!!


freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 11:39am:

Who said this was about being racist against Jews in general?

Cute.

FD are you saying I'm not an anti-semite (as in anti-jew racist)? I've asked this before, you seem to want to avoid it.

Quote:

But... but.... Islam isn't a race FD - remember? I can call muslims a mindless collective and it can't be racist.

Do you?


Quote:

Sorry FD, perhaps I wasn't clear: these are all *YOUR* words, not mine.

Yes Gandalf. They are my questions to you. Inspired by things you have said.

Were they mindless?

Were they a collective?

Were they treacherous?

Were they Jewish?


Quote:

What you are doing here is feebly attempting to entrap me by getting me to admit to clearly racist terminology that are entirely your invention.

Again, it's the substance that matters, not the spin. Right? Or can racists avoid the charge of racism merely by being cautious with their terminology? Are you going for mealy mouthed racism here?


Quote:

Here's my words again: they broke a treaty and mass execution was probably an appropriate punishment according to the customs and culture of 7th century Arab society. Thats all FD.

That is your current version. You have tried many excuses for Muhammad's genocide previously.


Quote:

Continue twisting this into whatever rabidly racist nonsense you wish - it doesn't alter what I actually said. Nor would any reasonable person who read my actual words make the absurd leap in logic to say "oooh he really means a "'mindless collective of treacherous jews!'" How wacist!!

So why not answer the questions then?


Quote:

FD are you saying I'm not an anti-semite (as in anti-jew racist)? I've asked this before, you seem to want to avoid it.

I have responded plenty of times by pointing out that you don't have to target Jews to be racist. Your propaganda in this case appears to be targetted at a particular trial grouping.

freediver wrote on Aug 18^th, 2017 at 12:49pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 17th, 2017 at 5:18pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 17th, 2017 at 5:10pm: freediver wrote on Aug 17th, 2017 at 4:52pm: Why the extraordinary efforts to boil everything down to simplistic hysteria about racism? Gosh FD, hysteria about racism? Some might think that screeching months and years on end about how "racist" it is to suggest that the mass execution of members of a 7th century tribe for breaking a treaty might be deemed justified by the standards and culture of the time - is a pretty good example of "simplistic hysteria about racism". But what this is about is your stubborn refusal to acknowledge what is evident to blind Freddy: that mealy mouthed racists, who absolutely *ARE* terrified of being seen as racist,  have latched on to the anti-Islam bandwagon to feed their racism, with their favourite rejoinder "Islam is not a race"  merely being the latest incantation of the old "I'm not racist but..." excuse. And the fact that you are the most hysterical whiner about racism - sorry wacism - here, when it concerns muslims and/or their apologists attacking jews, is just an interesting aside. I asked you to point these people out Gandalf. So far they are a figment of your imagination. And I called you out on your racism because you are a textbook case of mealy mouthed racism, and you are right here on this forum. You described them over a span of years variously as a mindless collective a treacherous warrior Jews, all in efforts to justify Muhammad's genocide. But when your own words are presented to you you reject them because (again, in your own words) it 'sounds' racist. You absolutely *ARE* terrified of being seen as racist, but when all else failed, you fell back on racism because your religion compels you to come up with any excuse you can find to justify mass murder. polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 10:15am: freediver wrote on Aug 17th, 2017 at 5:18pm: I asked you to point these people out Gandalf. So far they are a figment of your imagination. Sure, FD - one good example is constantly broad-stroking the entire muslim population as a monolithic hive mind of sinister conspirators out to deceive everyone Islam is not a race Gandalf. And you are the only one here who invokes a hive mind of sinister conspirators to justify genocide. polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 10:15am: freediver wrote on Aug 17th, 2017 at 5:18pm: You described them over a span of years variously as a mindless collective a treacherous warrior Jews,   Like a "typical muslim" I guess. Not sure. Did you ever say where you got the racist theories from? I seem to recall being taken by surprise when you said that. I think that is what prompted Karnal to describe it as an 'Abu moment'. Quote: And as usual this is rubbish. 1. I described the arab tribes of the 7th century - of which the banu qurayza were but one as a "mindless collective" - in the sense that there was no real concept of the individual in society - everyone was subordinated to the tribe. So you did in fact describe them as a mindless collective, and use that to justify Muhammad's genocide? Were the early Muslims also a mindless collective? [quote]This point I made abundantly clear in the original quote that you will always conveniently edit out when you requote it.

What exactly is this point you think I am editing out? That your racist propaganda about mindless collectives is not in fact racist because it is true? That it is in fact correct to call them a mindless collective and justify their genocide because they had no individual personality? That it's not racist if you also ascribe collective traits to other groups? What makes you think that repeating it and insisting it is true makes your racism any less abhorrent?


Quote:

as I have told you a hundred times at least - "treacherous jew" was your term, not mine

Are you denying referring to them as treacherous?


Quote:

And I even made the point that the term would be racist and I would never say it.

So racism is not about what you say, but how you say it? That is, you can argue they were a mindless collective of treacherous Jews, but so long as you don't use the words together in a way that sounds familiarly racist, you are not actually being racist?

Are you saying that mealy mouthed racists, who absolutely *ARE* terrified of being seen as racist, who have latched on to the anti-Jew bandwagon to feed their religion, with their favourite rejoinder "they had no individuality or personality because they literally were a mindless collective of traitors, tough titties, off with their heads" are somehow not merely the latest incantation of the old "I'm not racist but..." excuse, so long as they really, truly believe their own absurd racist propaganda?[/quote]

Strange. Everybody knows you invented the term, mindless collective.

Do you deny this?

Frank wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 3:06pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:23pm: Thus the entire quote of mine that kicked this whole 'mindless collective' nonsense off in the first place: polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 5th, 2013 at 10:27am: Thats exactly what they were. Thats exactly how 7th arab society worked - your loyalty was with the tribe, far above anything else. They were of one mind - what the tribal leaders decided, every single member decided. No individual member of the tribe would even dream of taking a position that was at odds with the tribe. It sounds ridiculous to our western individualistic minds, but thats exactly how it was. It doesn't sound ridiculous to our Western minds that it was like that over a millennium ago. What IS ridiculous is that it is still like that for most Muslim Arabs, even after they left Lebanon and the Middle East a couple of generations ago. That's what is ridiculous. They are still tribal, they are still clannish, they still treat women as chattel.

But you still like Danish, no?

freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 8:22pm:

Do you?

I asked first FD. Can you explain this seeming backpeddling of your usual "Islam isn't a race" droning when you described calling muslims a mindless collective "racist propaganda"? I'm genuinely interested in this apparent about-face in your thinking FD.


freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 8:22pm:

Yes Gandalf. They are my questions to you. Inspired by things you have said.

Ah inspired by things you have said. Translation: putting words into my mouth. You know what? Rather than wasting your time attempting to entrap me into saying wacist things, how about we stick to what I actually say? Here it is again:

they broke a treaty and mass execution was probably an appropriate punishment according to the customs and culture of 7th century Arab society.

oh and you can also throw in...

Thats exactly what they were [a mindless collective]. Thats exactly how 7th arab society worked - your loyalty was with the tribe, far above anything else. They were of one mind - what the tribal leaders decided, every single member decided. No individual member of the tribe would even dream of taking a position that was at odds with the tribe. It sounds ridiculous to our western individualistic minds, but thats exactly how it was.

As I said, there was no real concept of individuality - your personality was literally defined by which tribe you belonged to. And the decisions that govern the tribe are very much decisions that are represented by all the individuals who make up the tribe. Thus there really is no question of collective guilt - no matter how abhorrent we find the term today.

Tell me FD, do you reckon taking those actual words of mine and asserting that I'm really demonstrating my hideous racism towards jews and I really mean "mindless collective of treacherous jews" - would pass the pub test?


freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 8:22pm:

I have responded plenty of times by pointing out that you don't have to target Jews to be racist.  Your propaganda in this case appears to be targetted at a particular trial grouping.

"Particular" - as in 7th century arab tribes? I'll happily accept that charge FD, but isn't it funny you are now claiming it doesn't require targeting jews - when its you who continually keeps bringing jews up. "Treacherous jews" no less. If this is now your position FD, why don't you put the words "mindless collective of treacherous arabs into my mouth? It would at least be far closer to what I actually said.

FD ever noticed that you only ever pull out the 'wacist' card when you perceive muslims or their apologists attacking jews? Now you pull out the "oh it doesn't have to be targeting jews to be wacist" card - all the while shoving the words "treacherous *JEWS*" down my mouth. Which is it FD? This campaign against me is a massive incoherent mess.

Quote:

Translation: putting words into my mouth.

They are questions Gandalf, that just happen to demonstrate that you are more concerned with the appearance of racism rather than the substance.

Were they mindless?

Were they a collective?

Were they treacherous?

Were they Jewish?

Ah. Questions.

freediver wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 11:38am:

Quote: Translation: putting words into my mouth. They are questions Gandalf, that just happen to demonstrate that you are more concerned with the appearance of racism rather than the substance. Were they mindless? Were they a collective? Were they treacherous? Were they Jewish?

FD, can you at least concede that the purpose of this exercise is to turn these most uncontroversial and un-racist words:


Quote:

they broke a treaty and mass execution was probably an appropriate punishment according to the customs and culture of 7th century Arab society. ... Thats exactly what they were [a mindless collective]. Thats exactly how 7th arab society worked - your loyalty was with the tribe, far above anything else. They were of one mind - what the tribal leaders decided, every single member decided. No individual member of the tribe would even dream of taking a position that was at odds with the tribe. It sounds ridiculous to our western individualistic minds, but thats exactly how it was. ... As I said, there was no real concept of individuality - your personality was literally defined by which tribe you belonged to. And the decisions that govern the tribe are very much decisions that are represented by all the individuals who make up the tribe. Thus there really is no question of collective guilt - no matter how abhorrent we find the term today.

into  - "MINDLESS COLLECTIVE OF TREACHEROUS JEWS!!" - GAH WAAACIST!!

?

Quote:

FD, can you at least concede that the purpose of this exercise is to turn these most uncontroversial and un-racist words:

Uncontroversial eh? A literal mindless collective? People who literally have no individual personality of their own? Being punished collectively is not collective punishment?

Is it OK to be racist so long as you put a politically correct spin on it?

Were they mindless?

Were they a collective?

Were they treacherous?

Were they Jewish?

Why are you so concerned with the spin rather than the substance of your argument?

freediver wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 4:02pm:

Were they Jewish?

FD, can you explain your latest line that "you don't have to target Jews to be racist" - while at every opportunity you are so determined to make this about jews?

Do you concede that I have never once made this about jews?

Is it in fact your only argument that I am racist against 7th century arabs?

You are the one getting hung up on the fact that they were Jewish Gandalf. I include that question because you have argued that omitting the fact that they were Jewish makes your propaganda not racist. You keep trying to blame everything on the Jews, as if the holocaust is some inconvenience that you must work around in developing your racist propaganda to justify Muhammad's genocide.

Were they mindless?

Were they a collective?

Were they treacherous?

Were they Jewish?

freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 9:14am:

You are the one getting hung up on the fact that they were Jewish Gandalf. I include that question because you have argued that omitting the fact that they were Jewish makes your propaganda not racist. You keep trying to blame everything on the Jews, as if the holocaust is some inconvenience that you must work around in developing your racist propaganda to justify Muhammad's genocide. Were they mindless? Were they a collective? Were they treacherous? Were they Jewish?

Who coined the term, mindless collective, FD?

That's a question.

freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 9:14am:

You are the one getting hung up on the fact that they were Jewish Gandalf.

LOL What? Explain yourself please - if you can.

Hi FD, you seem to have forgotton about this one.


freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 11:39am:

You know that I do not buy into your racist propaganda about mindless collectives.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 2:29pm:

But... but.... Islam isn't a race FD - remember? I can call muslims a mindless collective and it can't be racist. I know because you taught me that. So whats this you're saying now about it being "racist propaganda"? I thought I can literally say anything about muslims and not be racist - like saying 100% of the male muslim population are intellectually disabled due to inbreeding. And if you accuse me of being racist, I'll just throw back the good ol' "Islam isn't a race". Don't you agree that muslims today are largely a "mindless collective"? Frank does.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 6:54am:

freediver wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 8:22pm: Do you? I asked first FD. Can you explain this seeming backpeddling of your usual "Islam isn't a race" droning when you described calling muslims a mindless collective "racist propaganda"? I'm genuinely interested in this apparent about-face in your thinking FD.

Once again - is calling muslims a "mindless collective" racist now? Even though Islam isn't a race?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 12:02pm:

Hi FD, you seem to have forgotton about this one. freediver wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 11:39am: You know that I do not buy into your racist propaganda about mindless collectives. polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 2:29pm: But... but.... Islam isn't a race FD - remember? I can call muslims a mindless collective and it can't be racist. I know because you taught me that. So whats this you're saying now about it being "racist propaganda"? I thought I can literally say anything about muslims and not be racist - like saying 100% of the male muslim population are intellectually disabled due to inbreeding. And if you accuse me of being racist, I'll just throw back the good ol' "Islam isn't a race". Don't you agree that muslims today are largely a "mindless collective"? Frank does. polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 24th, 2017 at 6:54am: freediver wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 8:22pm: Do you? I asked first FD. Can you explain this seeming backpeddling of your usual "Islam isn't a race" droning when you described calling muslims a mindless collective "racist propaganda"? I'm genuinely interested in this apparent about-face in your thinking FD. Once again - is calling muslims a "mindless collective" racist now? Even though Islam isn't a race?

That's a question too.

I imagine FD will be keen to answer, given his views on Muslim evasion.

karnal you are the most racist person I've come across on this site...  no one talks colours quite like you.

As for you lot repeating the Muslim racist shite...  that's shite not shiite.... the answer is as it was before NO a religion is NOT a race.

Just how many times must you be told?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 11:54am:

freediver wrote on Aug 25th, 2017 at 9:14am: You are the one getting hung up on the fact that they were Jewish Gandalf. LOL What? Explain yourself please - if you can.

Sure. Is it OK if I just quote the rest of the paragraph you took that sentence from?

Those pesky Jews have made genocide unpopular, haven't they Gandalf?


Quote:

Once again - is calling muslims a "mindless collective" racist now? Even though Islam isn't a race?

No.

Grendel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 4:31pm:

karnal you are the most racist person I've come across on this site...  no one talks colours quite like you.

Oh, I know. Muslim inbreeding, Negroid interbreeding subspecies, retarded inbreds squatting down to pee, plausible theories - all of it. And Muslims are not a race, don't forget that.

Always absolutely never ever - since 2007, anyway.

That's when FD changed his mind.

How many times must I be told? You keep telling me, Grendel. Keep wasting your time.

freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 6:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 25th, 2017 at 11:54am: Once again - is calling muslims a "mindless collective" racist now? Even though Islam isn't a race? No.

Now that's an answer.

Can I ask you one, FD?

freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 6:30pm:

Sure. Is it OK if I just quote the rest of the paragraph you took that sentence from?

Allow me...


Quote:

You are the one getting hung up on the fact that they were Jewish Gandalf. I include that question because you have argued that omitting the fact that they were Jewish makes your propaganda not racist. You keep trying to blame everything on the Jews, as if the holocaust is some inconvenience that you must work around in developing your racist propaganda to justify Muhammad's genocide.

Oh deary me, its even worse when you include it all.

Where to begin?

" I include that question because you have argued that omitting the fact that they were Jewish makes your propaganda not racist.

Hillarious. So your solution to me not being racist against jews is to shove words down my mouth that make me sound racist against jews. You are literally conceding that nothing in what I say is actually racist - and that the only way to make what I say racist is to find something actually racist and insist that I say it. This would be unbelievable if it didn't come from you FD.

You keep trying to blame everything on the Jews, as if the holocaust is some inconvenience that you must work around in developing your racist propaganda to justify Muhammad's genocide

Could you explain this FD? Exactly how do I "keep trying to blame everything on the Jews?" Or is this just another case of you having an episode because I don't play your game of "say racist things for me"?

freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 6:30pm:

Quote: Once again - is calling muslims a "mindless collective" racist now? Even though Islam isn't a race? No.

Oh good, so that means you can answer my question and not have to worry about "racist propaganda" - as you seem to have mistakenly thought it was before.

So... do you believe muslims today are a mindless collective?

Quote:

Allow me...

Thanks Gandalf. In future, feel free to quote me yourself. Or, if you want to cut out a few more steps, respond directly to my explanation rather than asking me for it.


Quote:

So your solution to me not being racist against jews is to shove words down my mouth that make me sound racist against jews.

They are questions Gandalf. Remember, it's the substance that counts not the spin.

Were they mindless?

Were they a collective?

Were they treacherous?

Were they Jewish?

Why is it that you are so loathe to "appear" racist against Jews, but happily admit to being racist against Arabs?


Quote:

You are literally conceding that nothing in what I say is actually racist

Literally?


Quote:

Could you explain this FD? Exactly how do I "keep trying to blame everything on the Jews?"

You only seem to think it is racist if you mention the fact that they are Jews. Or are you referring to your complaints about wealthy Jews putting Toben in jail?


Quote:

Or is this just another case of you having an episode because I don't play your game of "say racist things for me"?

Back in my day we called the game "a straight answer to a simple question".


Quote:

So... do you believe muslims today are a mindless collective?

No. I have told you this before Gandalf. You are the only one here going on about mindless collectives.

Do you believe muslims today are a mindless collective?

Will you answer a question, FD?

Why or why not?

A mindless collective as in having practiced incest for about 50 generations they are now scientifically recognized as having severe mental etc problems?


Quote:

Implications for the Muslim Worlds: The consequences for offspring of consanguineous marriages are unpleasantly clear: Death, low intelligence and mental retardation, handicaps, diseases leading to a slow and painful death. Other consequences are: Limited social skills and understanding, limited ability to manage education and work procedures. The negative cognitive consequences also influence the executive functions. The impairment of concentration and emotional control leads to anti-social behaviour. Islamic inbreeding has genetically limited the ability of muslims to understand, appreciate and produce knowledge due to their severely restricted IQ. (Reproductive Health Journal, 2009) (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2/2009 “More stillbirths among immigrants”)

I'd like to be as sure of winning the lotto as I am they've inbred themselves into a mentally challenged group.

moses wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 1:18pm:

A mindless collective as in having practiced incest for about 50 generations they are now scientifically recognized as having severe mental etc problems? Quote: Implications for the Muslim Worlds: The consequences for offspring of consanguineous marriages are unpleasantly clear: Death, low intelligence and mental retardation, handicaps, diseases leading to a slow and painful death. Other consequences are: Limited social skills and understanding, limited ability to manage education and work procedures. The negative cognitive consequences also influence the executive functions. The impairment of concentration and emotional control leads to anti-social behaviour. Islamic inbreeding has genetically limited the ability of muslims to understand, appreciate and produce knowledge due to their severely restricted IQ. (Reproductive Health Journal, 2009) (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2/2009 “More stillbirths among immigrants”) I'd like to be as sure of winning the lotto as I am they've inbred themselves into a mentally challenged group.

What do you think, FD? Scientific.

Islam is not a race, you know.

moses wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 1:18pm:

A mindless collective as in having practiced incest for about 50 generations they are now scientifically recognized as having severe mental etc problems? Quote: Implications for the Muslim Worlds: The consequences for offspring of consanguineous marriages are unpleasantly clear: Death, low intelligence and mental retardation, handicaps, diseases leading to a slow and painful death. Other consequences are: Limited social skills and understanding, limited ability to manage education and work procedures. The negative cognitive consequences also influence the executive functions. The impairment of concentration and emotional control leads to anti-social behaviour. Islamic inbreeding has genetically limited the ability of muslims to understand, appreciate and produce knowledge due to their severely restricted IQ. (Reproductive Health Journal, 2009) (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2/2009 “More stillbirths among immigrants”) I'd like to be as sure of winning the lotto as I am they've inbred themselves into a mentally challenged group.

Have you got a link to the article, Moses? I can't find it on Google Scholar.

karnal wrote
Quote:

Have you got a link to the article, Moses? I can't find it on Google Scholar.

My pleasure;

Reproductive Health Journal, 2009 Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs.

Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants

or there are several links in this document:
Muslim Inbreeding: Impacts on intelligence, sanity, health and society

or take your pick

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islamic_Incest_Ratchet

http://www.ozpolitic.com/images/Global_prevalence_of_consanguinity.png

http://www.ozpolitic.com/images/Map_of_expansion_of_Caliphate.png

moses wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 3:09pm:

karnal wrote Quote: Have you got a link to the article, Moses? I can't find it on Google Scholar. My pleasure; Reproductive Health Journal, 2009 Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs.

Arabs, Moses. Arabs are a race.

Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants

This is in Danish. Even in Danish, I can read that it's a completely different article to what you quoted.

Muslim Inbreeding: Impacts on intelligence, sanity, health and society

Europe news - nothing to do with European news at all. It's an anti-Islam blog created by Nicholai Sennels, a contributor to Jihadwatch and other hate sites.

So where did you get your quoted reference from, Moses? If you could post a link, it would be great.

Quote:

Europe news - nothing to do with European news at all. It's an anti-Islam blog created by Nicholai Sennels, a contributor to Jihadwatch and other hate sites. So where did you get your quoted reference from, Moses? If you could post a link, it would be great.

I got my quoted references here

Nicolai Sennels is a psychologist and author who gave these and many other sources in his document on the effects of inbreeding in the muslim world.

Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants"

Reproductive Health Journal, 2009 Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs

Indian National Science Academy, 1983 Consanguinity Effects on Intelligence Quotient and Neonatal Behaviours of nsari Muslim Children").

(Behaviour Genetics, 1984).

Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 1978 Effect of inbreeding on IQ and mental retardation")

A study of possible deleterious effects of consanguinity

American Psychiatric Press, 1982 The role of genetic factors  in the ethiology of the schizophrenic disorders.

Kristeligt Dagblad, 26/6 2007] Ethnic minorities overrepresented among the criminal insane).

I certainly believe his works and references he provided over the pathetic excuses of muslims and their apologists.

moses wrote on Aug 27^th, 2017 at 11:51am:

Quote: Europe news - nothing to do with European news at all. It's an anti-Islam blog created by Nicholai Sennels, a contributor to Jihadwatch and other hate sites. So where did you get your quoted reference from, Moses? If you could post a link, it would be great.  I got my quoted references here Nicolai Sennels is a psychologist and author who gave these and many other sources in his document on the effects of inbreeding in the muslim world. Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants" Reproductive Health Journal, 2009 Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs Indian National Science Academy, 1983 Consanguinity Effects on Intelligence Quotient and Neonatal Behaviours of nsari Muslim Children"). (Behaviour Genetics, 1984). Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 1978 Effect of inbreeding on IQ and mental retardation") A study of possible deleterious effects of consanguinity American Psychiatric Press, 1982 The role of genetic factors  in the ethiology of the schizophrenic disorders. Kristeligt Dagblad, 26/6 2007] Ethnic minorities overrepresented among the criminal insane). I certainly believe his works and references he provided over the pathetic excuses of muslims and their apologists.

I still can't find the Reproductive Health Journal article (2009) you quoted describing the inbreeding of Muslims.


Quote:

Islamic inbreeding has genetically limited the ability of muslims to understand, appreciate and produce knowledge due to their severely restricted IQ.

Can you post a direct link to this? You cited Jylland Posten as its author and claimed this is now "scientifically recognised" based on a peer-reviewed journal article.

freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 10:15pm:

Quote: Could you explain this FD? Exactly how do I "keep trying to blame everything on the Jews?" You only seem to think it is racist if you mention the fact that they are Jews.

ummm... sorry FD, do you actually think that is a logical answer to the question? Because its not.

So, are you now saying this is not about jews? Cool, does that mean you'll take out your "are they jewish" question from your question sheet the next time you post it?

FD do you agree that you are the only person who has ever made this discussion about jews?

Is it true that the only racist charge you can come up with is that I'm racist against 7th century arabs?


freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 10:15pm:

Or are you referring to your complaints about wealthy Jews putting Toben in jail?

Why are you asking me? Its your story. And you are confused - I support the law that got Tobin in gaol remember?

Quote:

Cool, does that mean you'll take out your "are they jewish" question from your question sheet the next time you post it?

No Gandalf. It demonstrates that is all about spin rather than substance for you. You will happily admit to being racist against Arabs, but are afraid to even mention the fact that the victims of Muhammad's genocide were Jewish.

Were they mindless?

Were they a collective?

Were they treacherous?

Were they Jewish?


Quote:

Is it true that the only racist charge you can come up with is that I'm racist against 7th century arabs?

No. We have been over this before, remember Gandalf?


Quote:

Why are you asking me? Its your story. And you are confused - I support the law that got Tobin in gaol remember?

You keep changing your mind. It is hard to keep up. Or is it only the use of the law by wealthy Jews to put Toben in jail that you oppose?

freediver wrote on Aug 27^th, 2017 at 3:29pm:

It demonstrates that is all about spin rather than substance for you. You will happily admit to being racist against Arabs, but are afraid to even mention the fact that the victims of Muhammad's genocide were Jewish.

Hmm I can think of a few ways in which spin has been employed to justify racism - like claiming that slurring the entire muslim population by denigrating them as retarded inbreds who squat to pee isn't racist - because Islam isn't a race. It sure would be difficult to beat that for spin. But I must say I think this is the first time I've heard someone being accused of racist spin - apparently because they refused to attack, denigrate, stereotype - or even mention the group they are supposed to be racist against. It really is quite a sight to behold watching someone throw such a hissy fit because a person they insist is such a racist won't actually play ball and say racist things. And thats exactly what we are seeing here. When FD says I am "afraid to even mention the fact that the victims of Muhammad's genocide were Jewish" - that is just another way of saying 'gandalf isn't actually saying anything racist against jews'. Hence his pathetic begging me to call jews "mindless collective of treacherous jews" post after post after post.

FD's approach to make gandalf the muslim racist can be summed up thusly:

1. put racist words that I have never said, and specifically objected to, into my mouth
2. when I object, beg me to just say those racist things anyway
3. when I refuse, accuse me of spin

Quote:

I still can't find the Reproductive Health Journal article (2009) you quoted describing the inbreeding of Muslims.

Probably because I posted information gleaned from Muslim Inbreeding: Impacts on intelligence, sanity, health and society by Nicolai Sennels a psychologist, author and authority of renown in the field of muslim inbreeding.

Nicolai Sennels cited Reproductive Health Journal, 2009 Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs as one of his many sources in his informative article on muslim inbreeding.

Reproductive Health Journal, 2009 Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs is not the essential factor / element, it is one only source to the overall problem of islamic inbreeding, there are numerous other references, unitedly they all help to illustrate the problems of islamic incest.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 27^th, 2017 at 4:06pm:

Hmm I can think of a few ways in which spin has been employed to justify racism - like claiming that slurring the entire muslim population by denigrating them as retarded inbreds who squat to pee isn't racist - because Islam isn't a race.

It's stating facts when saying muslims are retarded inbreds who squat to pee.

Islam is an ideology a set of beliefs that guide life for muslims, muslims aren't a race of people.

Do you think it's possible to change your race by reciting the Shahada?

moses wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 1:18pm:

A mindless collective as in having practiced incest for about 50 generations they are now scientifically recognized as having severe mental etc problems?

What do you reckon FD - "racist propaganda" like how you just recently claimed that phrase "mindless collective" is?

Or do you only get your knickers in a knot when its muslims saying it?

Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 27^th, 2017 at 4:16pm:

Do you think it's possible to change your race by reciting the Shahada?

no, but according to moses, by doing so I magically become an intellectually disabled inbred.


moses wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2015 at 4:39pm:

if there's 1.5 billion muslims, half are men 750 million inbred low intellect muslim men all squatting down to urinate

What do you reckon baron - just "stating facts"?

Quote:

Hmm I can think of a few ways in which spin has been employed to justify racism - like claiming that slurring the entire muslim population by denigrating them as retarded inbreds who squat to pee isn't racist - because Islam isn't a race. It sure would be difficult to beat that for spin.

Difficult because it is true?


Quote:

But I must say I think this is the first time I've heard someone being accused of racist spin - apparently because they refused to attack, denigrate, stereotype - or even mention the group they are supposed to be racist against.

No-one is saying that Gandalf. All it proves is that you are more concerned with spin that substance. You still post racist propaganda to justify Muhammad's genocide.


Quote:

It really is quite a sight to behold watching someone throw such a hissy fit because a person they insist is such a racist won't actually play ball and say racist things.

Feel free to answer no, if that is what you really think Gandalf.

Were they mindless?

Were they a collective?

Were they treacherous?

Were they Jewish?


Quote:

When FD says I am "afraid to even mention the fact that the victims of Muhammad's genocide were Jewish" - that is just another way of saying 'gandalf isn't actually saying anything racist against jews'.

Have I accused you of being racist against Jews?


Quote:

1. put racist words that I have never said, and specifically objected to, into my mouth 2. when I object, beg me to just say those racist things anyway 3. when I refuse, accuse me of spin

Are you refering to these questions Gandalf?

Were they mindless?

Were they a collective?

Were they treacherous?

Were they Jewish?

moses wrote on Aug 27^th, 2017 at 4:11pm:

Quote: I still can't find the Reproductive Health Journal article (2009) you quoted describing the inbreeding of Muslims. Probably because I posted information gleaned from Muslim Inbreeding: Impacts on intelligence, sanity, health and society by Nicolai Sennels a psychologist, author and authority of renown in the field of muslim inbreeding. Nicolai Sennels cited Reproductive Health Journal, 2009 Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs as one of his many sources in his informative article on muslim inbreeding. Reproductive Health Journal, 2009 Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs is not the essential factor / element, it is one only source to the overall problem of islamic inbreeding, there are numerous other references, unitedly they all help to illustrate the problems of islamic incest.

Arabs? Your quote said Muslims. Here:


Quote:

Islamic inbreeding has genetically limited the ability of muslims to understand, appreciate and produce knowledge due to their severely restricted IQ.

But now I'm wondering - why did you reference the Reproductive Health Journal - with its author and publication date - when your quote came from an anti-Islam blog?

freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 10:15pm:

Quote: So... do you believe muslims today are a mindless collective? No. I have told you this before Gandalf. You are the only one here going on about mindless collectives. Do you believe muslims today are a mindless collective?

Gandalf?

Quote:

But now I'm wondering - why did you reference the Reproductive Health Journal - with its author and publication date - when your quote came from an anti-Islam blog?

Here we go again:

Reproductive Health Journal is one only source for celebrated  psychologist, author and authority on muslim inbreeding, Nicolai Sennels' work.

There are numerous other sources, all of his references conglomerated, constitute the body of his works on the dangers of muslim inbreeding.   

moses wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 2:34pm:

Quote: But now I'm wondering - why did you reference the Reproductive Health Journal - with its author and publication date - when your quote came from an anti-Islam blog? Here we go again: Reproductive Health Journal is one only source for celebrated  psychologist, author and authority on muslim inbreeding, Nicolai Sennels' work.

So why didn't you reference his blog, where you got your quote from?

Did you make a mistake in your referencing, or was your false reference deliberate?

I'm curious. This is what we call scientific.

freediver wrote on Aug 27^th, 2017 at 6:01pm:

Have I accused you of being racist against Jews?

Yes FD - every time you shove the words "treacherous jews" in my mouth.

FD, do you agree that you are the only one who has ever made this about jews in this discussion?


freediver wrote on Aug 27^th, 2017 at 6:01pm:

Were they Jewish?

Have you actually stopped to think why you are asking this  - now that your latest line is that your not accusing me of being racist against jews?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 8:20pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 27th, 2017 at 6:01pm: Have I accused you of being racist against Jews? Yes FD - every time you shove the words "treacherous jews" in my mouth. FD, do you agree that you are the only one who has ever made this about jews in this discussion? freediver wrote on Aug 27th, 2017 at 6:01pm: Were they Jewish? Have you actually stopped to think why you are asking this  - now that your latest line is that your not accusing me of being racist against jews?

FD's not accusing you of anything, G, he just wants a confession. Oh - and a few names would be good too.

Hurry up, please. We can have all this over with by tonight.

Make it easy on yourself. Once you confess, we can go back to discussing carbon taxes and sustainable fishing again, yes?

Quote:

Yes FD - every time you shove the words "treacherous jews" in my mouth.

But you actually think they were treacherous Jews. This is not the same as accusing you of being racist against all Jews. This is just an attempt to establish the facts.


Quote:

FD, do you agree that you are the only one who has ever made this about jews in this discussion?

Your unwillingness to answer a simple question like "Were they Jewish" is indeed part of the discussion, because we are discussing your mealy mouthed racism. It is only relevant because you think that not mentioning the fact that they were Jewish changes anything. You think that avoiding a direct comparison between Islam and Nazism will allow you to escape the charge of racism.


Quote:

Have you actually stopped to think why you are asking this  - now that your latest line is that your not accusing me of being racist against jews?

Are you trying to negotiate with me to get me to stop asking the question Gandalf? If it doesn't matter any more, why are you afraid to answer?

Were they mindless?

Were they a collective?

Were they treacherous?

Were they Jewish?


freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 10:15pm:

Quote: So... do you believe muslims today are a mindless collective? No. I have told you this before Gandalf. You are the only one here going on about mindless collectives. Do you believe muslims today are a mindless collective?

Gandalf?

I don't think G wants to say, FD. What do we call someone who is too scared to answer questions again?

Effendi, was Custer's 7th Cavalry a 'mindless collective of soldiers?'

I don't know much about them Aussie. Can you make your point all by yourself?

freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 8:56pm:

I don't know much about them Aussie. Can you make your point all by yourself?

Oh....I guess I know as much about them as you know of that bunch of Jews you claim Mo committed genocide upon.

They were a regiment of cavalry which were led by a bloke called Custer and they had, to adopt your term, genocide committed upon them by a much of savages led by some fellas called Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull.

Was that bunch of cavalry a 'mindless collective of soldiers' Effendi?

Quote:

Oh....I guess I know as much about them as you know of that bunch of Jews you claim Mo committed genocide upon.

I don't know much about the victims of the Nazis either. Still waiting on that point Aussie. Have you forgotten it?

freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 9:13pm:

Quote: Oh....I guess I know as much about them as you know of that bunch of Jews you claim Mo committed genocide upon. I don't know much about the victims of the Nazis either. Still waiting on that point Aussie. Have you forgotten it?

Yes, so ~ remind me.

Karnal wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 8:43pm:

I don't think G wants to say, FD. What do we call someone who is too scared to answer questions again?

FD?

You didn't answer this.

freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 8:56pm:

I don't know much about them Aussie. Can you make your point all by yourself?

And G, can you make FD's point all by yourself too, please?

freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 9:13pm:

Quote: Oh....I guess I know as much about them as you know of that bunch of Jews you claim Mo committed genocide upon. I don't know much about the victims of the Nazis either. Still waiting on that point Aussie. Have you forgotten it?

That's right. Your expertise is in 8th century genocides of treacherous Jews, no?

Were they mindless?

Were they a collective?

Were they treacherous?

Were they Jewish?

freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 8:30pm:

But you actually think they were treacherous Jews. This is not the same as accusing you of being racist against all Jews.

all jews? Now your introducing strawmen FD.

Lets try a simple question - are you whinging about me being racist against jews or not? If not, why is it so important to you that I admit they were jews - treacherous jews no less?


freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 8:30pm:

Your unwillingness to answer a simple question like "Were they Jewish" is indeed part of the discussion, because we are discussing your mealy mouthed racism.

Perhaps if you actually explained this mealy mouthed racism of mine it might help. Is it racism against jews or not? If you insist that I call them "treacherous jews" (specifically), and if you think thats core to my racism, can you at least admit you are talking nonsense by claiming you are not accusing me of being an anti-jewish racist?


freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 8:30pm:

Are you trying to negotiate with me to get me to stop asking the question Gandalf?

I'm trying to understand why you are asking them. I don't think you even know yourself. Its apparent that its finally dawned on you that your years long campaign against "gandalf the anti-semite" is entirely down to you shoving words into my mouth. So we have this latest squirming that racism doesn't have to be about jews, and even more absurdly, now pretending that you have never accused me of being an anti-semite (as in anti-jew racist). Clearly you are attempting to change your position by accusing me of some abstract racism against no one in particular, rather than your previous position of being specifically racist against jews. And yet, you seem to have forgotton this about-face each time you post those stupid questions. Why would you still shove the racist words "treacherous jews" in my mouth, while at the same time whinging that you aren't accusing me of being anti-jewish? Obviously because you aren't thinking about it, you just have them on your 'reply to gandalf' template. So if nothing else FD, I ask that you just reflect on the incoherency of your line.

According to FD, G, you're racist because you're a Muslim. Remember those 800 treacherous Jews Moh killed in a day 1200 years ago? Racism.

And you're complicit because you refuse to blame Moh.

Who's a naughty racist?

Quote:

Lets try a simple question - are you whinging about me being racist against jews or not? If not, why is it so important to you that I admit they were jews - treacherous jews no less?

The targets of your racism are Jewish.


Quote:

If not, why is it so important to you that I admit they were jews - treacherous jews no less?

It is your refusal to answer the question that is important. As far as I can tell it is something to do with the holocaust, and the appearance of racism. You will happily admit to being racist against Arabs, but cannot bring yourself to admit that they are Jewish. You will even negotiate to have the question removed from the table. But the question is no more significant than the others that you refuse to answer.

Were they mindless?

Were they a collective?

Were they treacherous?

Were they Jewish?

Do you believe muslims today are a mindless collective?


Quote:

Perhaps if you actually explained this mealy mouthed racism of mine it might help.

You justified Muhammad's genocide by describing them as a mindless collective of treacherous Jews. I acknowledge that you have since switched to denying the genocide and excusing it by insisting they were warriors.

For Aussie - apparently this is based on them failing Muhammad's genital inspection criteria. Those whose genitals displeased Muhammad were killed. Those with pleasing genitals suffered the same fate as the women and goats.


Quote:

I'm trying to understand why you are asking them.

Because you changed your excuse for the genocide to a more politically correct one, in the belief that this would allow you to escape the charge of racism. But you still think they were a mindless collective of treacherous Jews. You are just a bit mealy mouthed about it.


Quote:

I don't think you even know yourself. Its apparent that its finally dawned on you that your years long campaign against "gandalf the anti-semite" is entirely down to you shoving words into my mouth. So we have this latest squirming that racism doesn't have to be about jews, and even more absurdly, now pretending that you have never accused me of being an anti-semite (as in anti-jew racist).

Perhaps you should quote me.


Quote:

Clearly you are attempting to change your position by accusing me of some abstract racism against no one in particular

Are you saying that the victims of Muhammad's genocide don't count?


Quote:

Why would you still shove the racist words "treacherous jews" in my mouth

They are questions Gandalf. I am asking for your answer.

freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2017 at 1:36pm:

It is your refusal to answer the question that is important.

Ah.

Is he mindless?

Is he a collective?

Is he treacherous?

Is he FD?

karnal wrote:Reply #61 - Yesterday at 4:08pm

Quote:

So why didn't you reference his blog, where you got your quote from?

I thought I'd cleared that up in Reply #48 - Aug 27th, 2017 at 11:51am

Where I posted:

I got my quoted references here

This is a direct link to  Nicolai Sennels' report on Muslim-Inbreeding-Impacts-on-intelligence-sanity-health-and-society.

I also gave several other links all of which are used in the studies of Nicolai Sennels.


Quote:

Did you make a mistake in your referencing

It appears for some people I probably did.

However several direct extracts from Reproductive Health journal such as: 


Quote:

Negative Effects of Consanguinity on Reproductive Health Approximately 3-5% of all live newborns have a medically significant birth defect. The recent report by March of Dimes estimated birth defects to be >69.9/1000 live births in most Arab countries, as opposed to <52.1/1000 live births in Europe, North America and Australia & puts the offspring of first cousin unions at a 1.7-2.8% increased risk for congenital defects above the population background risk & cousin progeny experience 4.4% more pre-reproductive deaths than the offspring of non-consanguineous unions & consanguineous marriage being an important factor contributing to the preponderance of autosomal recessive genetic disorders & higher rates of postnatal mortality and birth defects in offspring of consanguineous parents.

All support the claim that incest among  muslims is a pernicious practice.

In fact the very last paragraph of the Reproductive Health journal report states:


Quote:

Young Arabs contemplating marriage are nowadays seeking a scientifically sound answer to their questions: "Will our children be physically or mentally abnormal if I marry my cousin?" "How can we prevent having abnormal children?" Research on inbreeding is considered a priority in societies with high consanguinity rates to help understand and prevent the deleterious impact of consanguinity on health.

So it appears that muslims themselves are starting to realize that inbreeding is wrong and can / has caused very serious problems (mental and physical) for them.

moses wrote on Aug 29^th, 2017 at 3:38pm:

karnal wrote:Reply #61 - Yesterday at 4:08pm Quote: So why didn't you reference his blog, where you got your quote from? I thought I'd cleared that up in Reply #48 - Aug 27th, 2017 at 11:51am Where I posted: I got my quoted references here This is a direct link to  Nicolai Sennels' report on Muslim-Inbreeding-Impacts-on-intelligence-sanity-health-and-society. I also gave several other links all of which are used in the studies of Nicolai Sennels. [quote]Did you make a mistake in your referencing

It appears for some people I probably did.

However several direct extracts from Reproductive Health journal such as: 


Quote:

Negative Effects of Consanguinity on Reproductive Health Approximately 3-5% of all live newborns have a medically significant birth defect. The recent report by March of Dimes estimated birth defects to be >69.9/1000 live births in most Arab countries, as opposed to <52.1/1000 live births in Europe, North America and Australia & puts the offspring of first cousin unions at a 1.7-2.8% increased risk for congenital defects above the population background risk & cousin progeny experience 4.4% more pre-reproductive deaths than the offspring of non-consanguineous unions & consanguineous marriage being an important factor contributing to the preponderance of autosomal recessive genetic disorders & higher rates of postnatal mortality and birth defects in offspring of consanguineous parents.

All support the claim that incest among  muslims is a pernicious practice.

In fact the very last paragraph of the Reproductive Health journal report states:


Quote:

Young Arabs contemplating marriage are nowadays seeking a scientifically sound answer to their questions: "Will our children be physically or mentally abnormal if I marry my cousin?" "How can we prevent having abnormal children?" Research on inbreeding is considered a priority in societies with high consanguinity rates to help understand and prevent the deleterious impact of consanguinity on health.

So it appears that muslims themselves are starting to realize that inbreeding is wrong and can / has caused very serious problems (mental and physical) for them.


[/quote]

Your article identifies the genetic/linguistic group of Arabs, Moses. They are what we call a race. Arabs comprise of Muslims, Christians, Zoroastrians, and even other strange religions.

The journal of Reproductive Health makes absolutely no reference to Muslims. I've even tried a keyword search.

Was this a mistake as well?

Karnal wrote on Aug 29^th, 2017 at 8:20pm:

moses wrote on Aug 29th, 2017 at 3:38pm: karnal wrote:Reply #61 - Yesterday at 4:08pm Quote: So why didn't you reference his blog, where you got your quote from? I thought I'd cleared that up in Reply #48 - Aug 27th, 2017 at 11:51am Where I posted: I got my quoted references here This is a direct link to  Nicolai Sennels' report on Muslim-Inbreeding-Impacts-on-intelligence-sanity-health-and-society. I also gave several other links all of which are used in the studies of Nicolai Sennels. [quote]Did you make a mistake in your referencing It appears for some people I probably did. However several direct extracts from Reproductive Health journal such as:  [quote]Negative Effects of Consanguinity on Reproductive Health Approximately 3-5% of all live newborns have a medically significant birth defect. The recent report by March of Dimes estimated birth defects to be >69.9/1000 live births in most Arab countries, as opposed to <52.1/1000 live births in Europe, North America and Australia & puts the offspring of first cousin unions at a 1.7-2.8% increased risk for congenital defects above the population background risk & cousin progeny experience 4.4% more pre-reproductive deaths than the offspring of non-consanguineous unions & consanguineous marriage being an important factor contributing to the preponderance of autosomal recessive genetic disorders & higher rates of postnatal mortality and birth defects in offspring of consanguineous parents.

All support the claim that incest among  muslims is a pernicious practice.

In fact the very last paragraph of the Reproductive Health journal report states:


Quote:

Young Arabs contemplating marriage are nowadays seeking a scientifically sound answer to their questions: "Will our children be physically or mentally abnormal if I marry my cousin?" "How can we prevent having abnormal children?" Research on inbreeding is considered a priority in societies with high consanguinity rates to help understand and prevent the deleterious impact of consanguinity on health.

So it appears that muslims themselves are starting to realize that inbreeding is wrong and can / has caused very serious problems (mental and physical) for them.


[/quote]

Your article identifies the genetic/linguistic group of Arabs, Moses. They are what we call a race. Arabs comprise of Muslims, Christians, Zoroastrians, and even other strange religions.

The journal of Reproductive Health makes absolutely no reference to Muslims. I've even tried a keyword search.

Was this a mistake as well? [/quote]

Hmm I wonder what most Arab people refer to for behavioural guidance.  It must be the bible. Or perhaps it's all the Canadian yip incest?  Must be that.

Also, not a race but an ethnicity.  Get it right. 

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 29^th, 2017 at 10:23pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 29th, 2017 at 8:20pm: moses wrote on Aug 29th, 2017 at 3:38pm: karnal wrote:Reply #61 - Yesterday at 4:08pm Quote: So why didn't you reference his blog, where you got your quote from? I thought I'd cleared that up in Reply #48 - Aug 27th, 2017 at 11:51am Where I posted: I got my quoted references here This is a direct link to  Nicolai Sennels' report on Muslim-Inbreeding-Impacts-on-intelligence-sanity-health-and-society. I also gave several other links all of which are used in the studies of Nicolai Sennels. [quote]Did you make a mistake in your referencing It appears for some people I probably did. However several direct extracts from Reproductive Health journal such as:  [quote]Negative Effects of Consanguinity on Reproductive Health Approximately 3-5% of all live newborns have a medically significant birth defect. The recent report by March of Dimes estimated birth defects to be >69.9/1000 live births in most Arab countries, as opposed to <52.1/1000 live births in Europe, North America and Australia & puts the offspring of first cousin unions at a 1.7-2.8% increased risk for congenital defects above the population background risk & cousin progeny experience 4.4% more pre-reproductive deaths than the offspring of non-consanguineous unions & consanguineous marriage being an important factor contributing to the preponderance of autosomal recessive genetic disorders & higher rates of postnatal mortality and birth defects in offspring of consanguineous parents. All support the claim that incest among  muslims is a pernicious practice. In fact the very last paragraph of the Reproductive Health journal report states: [quote]Young Arabs contemplating marriage are nowadays seeking a scientifically sound answer to their questions: "Will our children be physically or mentally abnormal if I marry my cousin?" "How can we prevent having abnormal children?" Research on inbreeding is considered a priority in societies with high consanguinity rates to help understand and prevent the deleterious impact of consanguinity on health.

So it appears that muslims themselves are starting to realize that inbreeding is wrong and can / has caused very serious problems (mental and physical) for them.


[/quote]

Your article identifies the genetic/linguistic group of Arabs, Moses. They are what we call a race. Arabs comprise of Muslims, Christians, Zoroastrians, and even other strange religions.

The journal of Reproductive Health makes absolutely no reference to Muslims. I've even tried a keyword search.

Was this a mistake as well? [/quote]

Hmm I wonder what most Arab people refer to for behavioural guidance.  It must be the bible. Or perhaps it's all the Canadian yip incest?  Must be that.

Also, not a race but an ethnicity.  Get it right.  [/quote]

Glad to have you back, Alevine. What book do Indians refer to?

They have the same inbreeding levels as the ethnicity you unracistly refer to as Arabs.

Muhammad had sex with his relatives. While the church has outlawed consanguineous marriages at various times in the past, often to absurd levels, Islamic countries to this day are hobbled in their efforts to prevent the practice because to say it is wrong is to insult the prophet. The could get rid of the entire burden of inbreeding in a single generation, simply by not having sex with their relatives, but because of Islam it is not going to happen.

The link between Arabs and inbreeding is as strong as the historical link between Arabs and Islam.

Karnal wrote on Aug 29^th, 2017 at 11:28pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 29th, 2017 at 10:23pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 29th, 2017 at 8:20pm: moses wrote on Aug 29th, 2017 at 3:38pm: karnal wrote:Reply #61 - Yesterday at 4:08pm Quote: So why didn't you reference his blog, where you got your quote from? I thought I'd cleared that up in Reply #48 - Aug 27th, 2017 at 11:51am Where I posted: I got my quoted references here This is a direct link to  Nicolai Sennels' report on Muslim-Inbreeding-Impacts-on-intelligence-sanity-health-and-society. I also gave several other links all of which are used in the studies of Nicolai Sennels. [quote]Did you make a mistake in your referencing It appears for some people I probably did. However several direct extracts from Reproductive Health journal such as:  [quote]Negative Effects of Consanguinity on Reproductive Health Approximately 3-5% of all live newborns have a medically significant birth defect. The recent report by March of Dimes estimated birth defects to be >69.9/1000 live births in most Arab countries, as opposed to <52.1/1000 live births in Europe, North America and Australia & puts the offspring of first cousin unions at a 1.7-2.8% increased risk for congenital defects above the population background risk & cousin progeny experience 4.4% more pre-reproductive deaths than the offspring of non-consanguineous unions & consanguineous marriage being an important factor contributing to the preponderance of autosomal recessive genetic disorders & higher rates of postnatal mortality and birth defects in offspring of consanguineous parents. All support the claim that incest among  muslims is a pernicious practice. In fact the very last paragraph of the Reproductive Health journal report states: [quote]Young Arabs contemplating marriage are nowadays seeking a scientifically sound answer to their questions: "Will our children be physically or mentally abnormal if I marry my cousin?" "How can we prevent having abnormal children?" Research on inbreeding is considered a priority in societies with high consanguinity rates to help understand and prevent the deleterious impact of consanguinity on health. So it appears that muslims themselves are starting to realize that inbreeding is wrong and can / has caused very serious problems (mental and physical) for them.

Your article identifies the genetic/linguistic group of Arabs, Moses. They are what we call a race. Arabs comprise of Muslims, Christians, Zoroastrians, and even other strange religions.

The journal of Reproductive Health makes absolutely no reference to Muslims. I've even tried a keyword search.

Was this a mistake as well? [/quote]

Hmm I wonder what most Arab people refer to for behavioural guidance.  It must be the bible. Or perhaps it's all the Canadian yip incest?  Must be that.

Also, not a race but an ethnicity.  Get it right.  [/quote]

Glad to have you back, Alevine. What book do Indians refer to?

They have the same inbreeding levels as the ethnicity you unracistly refer to as Arabs. [/quote]
Which Indians, Karnal? Southern, Northern, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh?  The point being made, which you of course failed to miss (as you do every point), is that we have to look at what drives behaviours, and not just classify something as a 'regional' problem because it is too inconvenient to suggest it may be a 'religion' problem.  For instance, Karnal, can it perhaps be said that on average Aussies take quicker showers than europeans, because our behaviour has been driven by our regional condition.  In this case, our behaviour is driven by the region having a lack of water for decades. 

Now. if this isn't a religious issue, then what regional condition causes Arabs or Indians, as a ethnic group from a region, to inbreed? Or could it be that their behaviours are driven by something else...perhaps some teachings?  Especially given the highly questionable actions of a certain prophet? What do you think?

BTW, of course, incest may very well inflict Hindu teachings as much as islamic teachings.  Or it could be that it impacts the muslim population in India only. I don't know, Karnal. But I fail to see how this point helps establish that inbreeding is not a problem in Islam?  Mm?  Karnal? Do you ever make any sense, dear?

freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2017 at 11:50pm:

Muhammad had sex with his relatives. While the church has outlawed consanguineous marriages at various times in the past, often to absurd levels, Islamic countries to this day are hobbled in their efforts to prevent the practice because to say it is wrong is to insult the prophet. The could get rid of the entire burden of inbreeding in a single generation, simply by not having sex with their relatives, but because of Islam it is not going to happen. The link between Arabs and inbreeding is as strong as the historical link between Arabs and Islam.

Well yes - and Hindus. Don't forget them, FD.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 12:04am:

Karnal wrote on Aug 29th, 2017 at 11:28pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 29th, 2017 at 10:23pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 29th, 2017 at 8:20pm: moses wrote on Aug 29th, 2017 at 3:38pm: karnal wrote:Reply #61 - Yesterday at 4:08pm Quote: So why didn't you reference his blog, where you got your quote from? I thought I'd cleared that up in Reply #48 - Aug 27th, 2017 at 11:51am Where I posted: I got my quoted references here This is a direct link to  Nicolai Sennels' report on Muslim-Inbreeding-Impacts-on-intelligence-sanity-health-and-society. I also gave several other links all of which are used in the studies of Nicolai Sennels. [quote]Did you make a mistake in your referencing It appears for some people I probably did. However several direct extracts from Reproductive Health journal such as:  [quote]Negative Effects of Consanguinity on Reproductive Health Approximately 3-5% of all live newborns have a medically significant birth defect. The recent report by March of Dimes estimated birth defects to be >69.9/1000 live births in most Arab countries, as opposed to <52.1/1000 live births in Europe, North America and Australia & puts the offspring of first cousin unions at a 1.7-2.8% increased risk for congenital defects above the population background risk & cousin progeny experience 4.4% more pre-reproductive deaths than the offspring of non-consanguineous unions & consanguineous marriage being an important factor contributing to the preponderance of autosomal recessive genetic disorders & higher rates of postnatal mortality and birth defects in offspring of consanguineous parents. All support the claim that incest among  muslims is a pernicious practice. In fact the very last paragraph of the Reproductive Health journal report states: [quote]Young Arabs contemplating marriage are nowadays seeking a scientifically sound answer to their questions: "Will our children be physically or mentally abnormal if I marry my cousin?" "How can we prevent having abnormal children?" Research on inbreeding is considered a priority in societies with high consanguinity rates to help understand and prevent the deleterious impact of consanguinity on health. So it appears that muslims themselves are starting to realize that inbreeding is wrong and can / has caused very serious problems (mental and physical) for them. Your article identifies the genetic/linguistic group of Arabs, Moses. They are what we call a race. Arabs comprise of Muslims, Christians, Zoroastrians, and even other strange religions. The journal of Reproductive Health makes absolutely no reference to Muslims. I've even tried a keyword search. Was this a mistake as well?

Hmm I wonder what most Arab people refer to for behavioural guidance.  It must be the bible. Or perhaps it's all the Canadian yip incest?  Must be that.

Also, not a race but an ethnicity.  Get it right.  [/quote]

Glad to have you back, Alevine. What book do Indians refer to?

They have the same inbreeding levels as the ethnicity you unracistly refer to as Arabs. [/quote]
Which Indians, Karnal? Southern, Northern, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh?  The point being made, which you of course failed to miss (as you do every point), is that we have to look at what drives behaviours, and not just classify something as a 'regional' problem because it is too inconvenient to suggest it may be a 'religion' problem.  For instance, Karnal, can it perhaps be said that on average Aussies take quicker showers than europeans, because our behaviour has been driven by our regional condition.  In this case, our behaviour is driven by the region having a lack of water for decades. 

Now. if this isn't a religious issue, then what regional condition causes Arabs or Indians, as a ethnic group from a region, to inbreed? Or could it be that their behaviours are driven by something else...perhaps some teachings?  Especially given the highly questionable actions of a certain prophet? What do you think?

BTW, of course, incest may very well inflict Hindu teachings as much as islamic teachings.  Or it could be that it impacts the muslim population in India only. I don't know, Karnal. But I fail to see how this point helps establish that inbreeding is not a problem in Islam?  Mm?  Karnal? Do you ever make any sense, dear?[/quote]

No worries, Alevine. Show us the world's biggest Muslim country on FD's map, okay?

Cheers.

Karnal wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 12:20am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 12:04am: Karnal wrote on Aug 29th, 2017 at 11:28pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 29th, 2017 at 10:23pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 29th, 2017 at 8:20pm: moses wrote on Aug 29th, 2017 at 3:38pm: karnal wrote:Reply #61 - Yesterday at 4:08pm Quote: So why didn't you reference his blog, where you got your quote from? I thought I'd cleared that up in Reply #48 - Aug 27th, 2017 at 11:51am Where I posted: I got my quoted references here This is a direct link to  Nicolai Sennels' report on Muslim-Inbreeding-Impacts-on-intelligence-sanity-health-and-society. I also gave several other links all of which are used in the studies of Nicolai Sennels. [quote]Did you make a mistake in your referencing It appears for some people I probably did. However several direct extracts from Reproductive Health journal such as:  [quote]Negative Effects of Consanguinity on Reproductive Health Approximately 3-5% of all live newborns have a medically significant birth defect. The recent report by March of Dimes estimated birth defects to be >69.9/1000 live births in most Arab countries, as opposed to <52.1/1000 live births in Europe, North America and Australia & puts the offspring of first cousin unions at a 1.7-2.8% increased risk for congenital defects above the population background risk & cousin progeny experience 4.4% more pre-reproductive deaths than the offspring of non-consanguineous unions & consanguineous marriage being an important factor contributing to the preponderance of autosomal recessive genetic disorders & higher rates of postnatal mortality and birth defects in offspring of consanguineous parents. All support the claim that incest among  muslims is a pernicious practice. In fact the very last paragraph of the Reproductive Health journal report states: [quote]Young Arabs contemplating marriage are nowadays seeking a scientifically sound answer to their questions: "Will our children be physically or mentally abnormal if I marry my cousin?" "How can we prevent having abnormal children?" Research on inbreeding is considered a priority in societies with high consanguinity rates to help understand and prevent the deleterious impact of consanguinity on health. So it appears that muslims themselves are starting to realize that inbreeding is wrong and can / has caused very serious problems (mental and physical) for them. Your article identifies the genetic/linguistic group of Arabs, Moses. They are what we call a race. Arabs comprise of Muslims, Christians, Zoroastrians, and even other strange religions. The journal of Reproductive Health makes absolutely no reference to Muslims. I've even tried a keyword search. Was this a mistake as well? Hmm I wonder what most Arab people refer to for behavioural guidance.  It must be the bible. Or perhaps it's all the Canadian yip incest?  Must be that. Also, not a race but an ethnicity.  Get it right.

Glad to have you back, Alevine. What book do Indians refer to?

They have the same inbreeding levels as the ethnicity you unracistly refer to as Arabs. [/quote]
Which Indians, Karnal? Southern, Northern, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh?  The point being made, which you of course failed to miss (as you do every point), is that we have to look at what drives behaviours, and not just classify something as a 'regional' problem because it is too inconvenient to suggest it may be a 'religion' problem.  For instance, Karnal, can it perhaps be said that on average Aussies take quicker showers than europeans, because our behaviour has been driven by our regional condition.  In this case, our behaviour is driven by the region having a lack of water for decades. 

Now. if this isn't a religious issue, then what regional condition causes Arabs or Indians, as a ethnic group from a region, to inbreed? Or could it be that their behaviours are driven by something else...perhaps some teachings?  Especially given the highly questionable actions of a certain prophet? What do you think?

BTW, of course, incest may very well inflict Hindu teachings as much as islamic teachings.  Or it could be that it impacts the muslim population in India only. I don't know, Karnal. But I fail to see how this point helps establish that inbreeding is not a problem in Islam?  Mm?  Karnal? Do you ever make any sense, dear?[/quote]

No worries, Alevine. Show us the world's biggest Muslim country on FD's map, okay?

Cheers. [/quote]

It must be those Canadian Yips after all, Karnal.

Incest, Rape, FGM, child marriage, are all the problems of islamic states because of Canadian Yips.

And Burqas, Alevine, don't forget them.

I blame Islam.

---

Karnal wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 5:40pm:

And Burqas, Alevine, don't forget them. I blame Islam.

You reckon those children already have children? Ah, islam. Paradise.

People don't just start having sex with their cousin because they convert to Islam. Ask Gandalf. But the longer a place has been dominated by Islam, the worse it is. That's what the maps show, and they would look very much the same for any indicator you choose. They turn women into chattels first, then come the arranged marriages, then the inbreeding. I would expect Aceh to be heading that way noticeably already.

freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2017 at 1:36pm:

You justified Muhammad's genocide by describing them as a mindless collective of treacherous Jews.

Oh deary me - thats just a flat out lie FD. Doesn't that bother you?

Lets start from the top again: do you concede that you are the only one who has ever made this about jews?



Quote:

They are questions Gandalf. I am asking for your answer.

Why bother? You don't even need me to say it - you just lie about what I say anyway. Like this:


freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2017 at 1:36pm:

You justified Muhammad's genocide by describing them as a mindless collective of treacherous Jews.

Karnal wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 12:17am:

freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2017 at 11:50pm: Muhammad had sex with his relatives. While the church has outlawed consanguineous marriages at various times in the past, often to absurd levels, Islamic countries to this day are hobbled in their efforts to prevent the practice because to say it is wrong is to insult the prophet. The could get rid of the entire burden of inbreeding in a single generation, simply by not having sex with their relatives, but because of Islam it is not going to happen. The link between Arabs and inbreeding is as strong as the historical link between Arabs and Islam. Well yes - and Hindus. Don't forget them, FD.

Animist/Christian central Africa has inbreeding levels at least as bad if not worse than arab countries. I guess we can blame Muhammad for that too.

freediver wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 6:47pm:

People don't just start having sex with their cousin because they convert to Islam. Ask Gandalf.

True - but they do magically become intellectually disabled inbreds who squat to pee. Well at least the males do. Ask moses.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 7:16pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 12:17am: freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2017 at 11:50pm: Muhammad had sex with his relatives. While the church has outlawed consanguineous marriages at various times in the past, often to absurd levels, Islamic countries to this day are hobbled in their efforts to prevent the practice because to say it is wrong is to insult the prophet. The could get rid of the entire burden of inbreeding in a single generation, simply by not having sex with their relatives, but because of Islam it is not going to happen. The link between Arabs and inbreeding is as strong as the historical link between Arabs and Islam. Well yes - and Hindus. Don't forget them, FD. Animist/Christian central Africa has inbreeding levels at least as bad if not worse than arab countries. I guess we can blame Muhammad for that too.

This is just such a stupendous argument. Rape exists everywhere therefore let's not care about it type of argument.  Like I've said, it's what causes the behaviour that is of issue, not that the issue happens to be prevalent amongst other religions also. 

Any more ignorant dribble, gandalf?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 6:40pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 5:40pm: And Burqas, Alevine, don't forget them. I blame Islam. You reckon those children already have children? Ah, islam. Paradise.

I know. You blame Islam for Canadian Yids too, ya?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 7:42pm:

This is just such a stupendous argument. Rape exists everywhere therefore let's not care about it type of argument.  Like I've said, it's what causes the behaviour that is of issue

Sorry alevine, my bad. I'll be sure to "care" more in the future - by blaming Islam.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 8:05pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 7:42pm: This is just such a stupendous argument. Rape exists everywhere therefore let's not care about it type of argument.  Like I've said, it's what causes the behaviour that is of issue Sorry alevine, my bad. I'll be sure to "care" more in the future - by blaming Islam.

for incest in Arabic countries? I'm glad you will, rather than excusing it by talking about animists.

Of course I couldn't possibly suggest that the existence of incest in areas neighbouring arab countries casts doubt on the "Islam made them do it" argument could I? That would be not caring, I guess.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 8:18pm:

Of course I couldn't possibly suggest that the existence of incest in areas neighbouring arab countries casts doubt on the "Islam made them do it" argument could I? That would be not caring, I guess.

I'm sure the animists made them do it.  Or perhaps the Canadian Yids? Karnal?

Casting doubt would be offering an alternative explanation for the behaviour, not simply pointing out that other religions/beliefs may cause similar behaviour.  No one ever said that incest was solely an issue for islam.  Simply stupendous reasoning, gandalf. Sorry, but it really is.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 8:18pm:

Of course I couldn't possibly suggest that the existence of incest in areas neighbouring arab countries casts doubt on the "Islam made them do it" argument could I? That would be not caring, I guess.

Now now, G, that would be stupendous.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 8:27pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Of course I couldn't possibly suggest that the existence of incest in areas neighbouring arab countries casts doubt on the "Islam made them do it" argument could I? That would be not caring, I guess. I'm sure the animists made them do it.  Or perhaps the Canadian Yids? Karnal?

Indeed. Orthodox Canadians have some of the highest inbreeding rates in the world.

Shurely shome mishtake, nein?

Karnal wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 9:00pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Of course I couldn't possibly suggest that the existence of incest in areas neighbouring arab countries casts doubt on the "Islam made them do it" argument could I? That would be not caring, I guess. Now now, G, that would be stupendous.

Ah of course, the region must have always lacked in numbers of men and women who weren't related to each other!  That must be the cause. Yes, karnal?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 9:03pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:00pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Of course I couldn't possibly suggest that the existence of incest in areas neighbouring arab countries casts doubt on the "Islam made them do it" argument could I? That would be not caring, I guess. Now now, G, that would be stupendous. Ah of course, the region must have always lacked in numbers of men and women who weren't related to each other!  That must be the cause. Yes, karnal?

Not at all. The region has always married off daughters to family members. This keeps wealth within the clan. This is far older than Islam, as every schoolboy knows.

Karnal wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 9:06pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:03pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:00pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Of course I couldn't possibly suggest that the existence of incest in areas neighbouring arab countries casts doubt on the "Islam made them do it" argument could I? That would be not caring, I guess. Now now, G, that would be stupendous. Ah of course, the region must have always lacked in numbers of men and women who weren't related to each other!  That must be the cause. Yes, karnal? Not at all. The region has always married off daughters to family members. This keeps wealth within the clan. This is far older than Islam, as every schoolboy knows.

Ahhh, and the reason the region has decided to uphold a medieval culture? Well, except Israel of course.

freediver wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 6:47pm:

People don't just start having sex with their cousin because they convert to Islam. Ask Gandalf. But the longer a place has been dominated by Islam, the worse it is. That's what the maps show, and they would look very much the same for any indicator you choose. They turn women into chattels first, then come the arranged marriages, then the inbreeding. I would expect Aceh to be heading that way noticeably already.

Couldn't be, FD. They don't interbreed with the Negroid subgene - unless you count Malays, I guess.

That could be a plausible theory too.

Better put in it the Wiki, FD.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 9:11pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:06pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:03pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:00pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Of course I couldn't possibly suggest that the existence of incest in areas neighbouring arab countries casts doubt on the "Islam made them do it" argument could I? That would be not caring, I guess. Now now, G, that would be stupendous. Ah of course, the region must have always lacked in numbers of men and women who weren't related to each other!  That must be the cause. Yes, karnal? Not at all. The region has always married off daughters to family members. This keeps wealth within the clan. This is far older than Islam, as every schoolboy knows. Ahhh, and the reason the region has decided to uphold a medieval culture? Well, except Israel of course.

Except Israeli Orthodox Yips, Alevine. They're up there with Druze as the highest inbreeders on the planet.

If you don't mind me asking, why are we calling them Yips?

Karnal wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 9:00pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Of course I couldn't possibly suggest that the existence of incest in areas neighbouring arab countries casts doubt on the "Islam made them do it" argument could I? That would be not caring, I guess. Now now, G, that would be stupendous.

Islam ain't  stoppin' them either. What DOES Islam teach them, then?

Mutilate your women, make them wear sacks, kill and subjugate 'diverse' people.  ISLAM. Dontcha love it?

Karnal wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 9:17pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:11pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:06pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:03pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:00pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Of course I couldn't possibly suggest that the existence of incest in areas neighbouring arab countries casts doubt on the "Islam made them do it" argument could I? That would be not caring, I guess. Now now, G, that would be stupendous. Ah of course, the region must have always lacked in numbers of men and women who weren't related to each other!  That must be the cause. Yes, karnal? Not at all. The region has always married off daughters to family members. This keeps wealth within the clan. This is far older than Islam, as every schoolboy knows. Ahhh, and the reason the region has decided to uphold a medieval culture? Well, except Israel of course. Except Israeli Orthodox Yips, Alevine. If you don't mind me asking, why are we calling them Yips?

Oh so then it is because of religion, but only amongst Orthodox Jews? In the rest of the Arab world it's not Islam, it's a medieval practice they've never really been able to shake off. Probably because but of the Jews. But only the religious ones. Yes, karnal?

You're a hoot, and a great waste of time  :)

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 9:21pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:17pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:11pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:06pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:03pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:00pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Of course I couldn't possibly suggest that the existence of incest in areas neighbouring arab countries casts doubt on the "Islam made them do it" argument could I? That would be not caring, I guess. Now now, G, that would be stupendous. Ah of course, the region must have always lacked in numbers of men and women who weren't related to each other!  That must be the cause. Yes, karnal? Not at all. The region has always married off daughters to family members. This keeps wealth within the clan. This is far older than Islam, as every schoolboy knows. Ahhh, and the reason the region has decided to uphold a medieval culture? Well, except Israel of course. Except Israeli Orthodox Yips, Alevine. If you don't mind me asking, why are we calling them Yips? Oh so then it is because of religion, but only amongst Orthodox Jews? In the rest of the Arab world it's not Islam, it's a medieval practice they've never really been able to shake off. Probably because but of the Jews. But only the religious ones. Yes, karnal? You're a hoot, and a great waste of time  :)

Thanks, Alevine. You've moved on from blaming Islam to religions, eh? You've got to blame someone, I guess.

So why are we calling them Yips again?

Frank wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 9:19pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:00pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Of course I couldn't possibly suggest that the existence of incest in areas neighbouring arab countries casts doubt on the "Islam made them do it" argument could I? That would be not caring, I guess. Now now, G, that would be stupendous. Islam ain't  stoppin' them either. What DOES Islam teach them, then? Mutilate your women, make them wear sacks, kill and subjugate 'diverse' people.  ISLAM. Dontcha love it?

Marrying daughters not allowed.  But cousins is okay.

Is that it, karnal?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 9:25pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:19pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:00pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Of course I couldn't possibly suggest that the existence of incest in areas neighbouring arab countries casts doubt on the "Islam made them do it" argument could I? That would be not caring, I guess. Now now, G, that would be stupendous. Islam ain't  stoppin' them either. What DOES Islam teach them, then? Mutilate your women, make them wear sacks, kill and subjugate 'diverse' people.  ISLAM. Dontcha love it? Marrying daughters not allowed.  But cousins is okay. Is that it, karnal?

I'm not sure. I read the old boy's post as a waste of time.

Quote:

Oh deary me - thats just a flat out lie FD. Doesn't that bother you? Lets start from the top again: do you concede that you are the only one who has ever made this about jews?

Still going on about the Jews eh? Why is it the Jews bit and not the mindless collective of traitors bit that you keep complaining about?

Were they mindless?

Were they a collective?

Were they treacherous?

Were they Jewish?

Do you believe muslims today are a mindless collective?


Quote:

Why bother? You don't even need me to say it - you just lie about what I say anyway.

If you gave your own answer, it would make it a bit harder for me to 'lie', wouldn't it?


Quote:

Animist/Christian central Africa has inbreeding levels at least as bad if not worse than arab countries.

What makes you think that?


Quote:

Of course I couldn't possibly suggest that the existence of incest in areas neighbouring arab countries casts doubt on the "Islam made them do it" argument could I? That would be not caring, I guess.

Are you suggesting there is no causal link between Muhammad having sex with his relatives and the high levels of incest in traditional Muslim communities, and the modern difficulties that the medical community has in advising against it without upsetting religious sensibilities? Is this why you won't answer the question about modern Muslims being a mindless collective?

BTW the Arabs have plenty of neighbours. That's why they call it the middle east.

Karnal wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 9:24pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:21pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:17pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:11pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:06pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:03pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:00pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Of course I couldn't possibly suggest that the existence of incest in areas neighbouring arab countries casts doubt on the "Islam made them do it" argument could I? That would be not caring, I guess. Now now, G, that would be stupendous. Ah of course, the region must have always lacked in numbers of men and women who weren't related to each other!  That must be the cause. Yes, karnal? Not at all. The region has always married off daughters to family members. This keeps wealth within the clan. This is far older than Islam, as every schoolboy knows. Ahhh, and the reason the region has decided to uphold a medieval culture? Well, except Israel of course. Except Israeli Orthodox Yips, Alevine. If you don't mind me asking, why are we calling them Yips? Oh so then it is because of religion, but only amongst Orthodox Jews? In the rest of the Arab world it's not Islam, it's a medieval practice they've never really been able to shake off. Probably because but of the Jews. But only the religious ones. Yes, karnal? You're a hoot, and a great waste of time  :) Thanks, Alevine. You've moved on from blaming Islam to religions, eh? You've got to blame someone, I guess. So why are we calling them Yips again?

I never said incest was solely an issue for Islam. But it definitely is yet another issue with Islam, that makes this particular religion nothing more than a basket case of bad ideas.  Incest, rape, FGM, child marriage, the list of stupid crap that plagues the muslim world doesn't seem to end. 

But it must all be because of medieval practices before the time of Islam. Because you know... it can't possibly be the result of behaviour being taught by the interpretations of archaic musings of a warlord.

freediver wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 9:29pm:

Quote: Oh deary me - thats just a flat out lie FD. Doesn't that bother you? Lets start from the top again: do you concede that you are the only one who has ever made this about jews? Still going on about the Jews eh? Why is it the Jews bit and not the mindless collective of traitors bit that you keep complaining about? Were they mindless? Were they a collective? Were they treacherous? Were they Jewish? Do you believe muslims today are a mindless collective? [quote]Why bother? You don't even need me to say it - you just lie about what I say anyway.

If you gave your own answer, it would make it a bit harder for me to 'lie', wouldn't it?


Quote:

Animist/Christian central Africa has inbreeding levels at least as bad if not worse than arab countries.

What makes you think that?


Quote:

Of course I couldn't possibly suggest that the existence of incest in areas neighbouring arab countries casts doubt on the "Islam made them do it" argument could I? That would be not caring, I guess.

Are you suggesting there is no causal link between Muhammad having sex with his relatives and the high levels of incest in traditional Muslim communities, and the modern difficulties that the medical community has in advising against it without upsetting religious sensibilities? Is this why you won't answer the question about modern Muslims being a mindless collective?

BTW the Arabs have plenty of neighbours. That's why they call it the middle east.[/quote]

What do you think, Alevine? FD, remember, changed his mind.

Can I ask why they're Yips?

You haven't said.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 9:32pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:24pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:21pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:17pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:11pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:06pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:03pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:00pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Of course I couldn't possibly suggest that the existence of incest in areas neighbouring arab countries casts doubt on the "Islam made them do it" argument could I? That would be not caring, I guess. Now now, G, that would be stupendous. Ah of course, the region must have always lacked in numbers of men and women who weren't related to each other!  That must be the cause. Yes, karnal? Not at all. The region has always married off daughters to family members. This keeps wealth within the clan. This is far older than Islam, as every schoolboy knows. Ahhh, and the reason the region has decided to uphold a medieval culture? Well, except Israel of course. Except Israeli Orthodox Yips, Alevine. If you don't mind me asking, why are we calling them Yips? Oh so then it is because of religion, but only amongst Orthodox Jews? In the rest of the Arab world it's not Islam, it's a medieval practice they've never really been able to shake off. Probably because but of the Jews. But only the religious ones. Yes, karnal? You're a hoot, and a great waste of time  :) Thanks, Alevine. You've moved on from blaming Islam to religions, eh? You've got to blame someone, I guess. So why are we calling them Yips again? I never said incest was solely an issue for Islam. But it definitely is yet another issue with Islam, that makes this particular religion nothing more than a basket case of bad ideas.  Incest, rape, FGM, child marriage, the list of stupid crap that plagues the muslim world doesn't seem to end.  But it must all be because of medieval practices before the time of Islam. Because you know... it can't possibly be the result of behaviour being taught by the interpretations of archaic musings of a warlord.

All of the things you mentioned are factors in other religions, yes? And not practised by all Muslims or spoken on the Quran?

Remeber now ... 1.6 billion of them. Perhaps you need reminding of that.

mothra wrote on Aug 31^st, 2017 at 1:15am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:32pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:24pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:21pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:17pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:11pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:06pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:03pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:00pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Of course I couldn't possibly suggest that the existence of incest in areas neighbouring arab countries casts doubt on the "Islam made them do it" argument could I? That would be not caring, I guess. Now now, G, that would be stupendous. Ah of course, the region must have always lacked in numbers of men and women who weren't related to each other!  That must be the cause. Yes, karnal? Not at all. The region has always married off daughters to family members. This keeps wealth within the clan. This is far older than Islam, as every schoolboy knows. Ahhh, and the reason the region has decided to uphold a medieval culture? Well, except Israel of course. Except Israeli Orthodox Yips, Alevine. If you don't mind me asking, why are we calling them Yips? Oh so then it is because of religion, but only amongst Orthodox Jews? In the rest of the Arab world it's not Islam, it's a medieval practice they've never really been able to shake off. Probably because but of the Jews. But only the religious ones. Yes, karnal? You're a hoot, and a great waste of time  :) Thanks, Alevine. You've moved on from blaming Islam to religions, eh? You've got to blame someone, I guess. So why are we calling them Yips again? I never said incest was solely an issue for Islam. But it definitely is yet another issue with Islam, that makes this particular religion nothing more than a basket case of bad ideas.  Incest, rape, FGM, child marriage, the list of stupid crap that plagues the muslim world doesn't seem to end.  But it must all be because of medieval practices before the time of Islam. Because you know... it can't possibly be the result of behaviour being taught by the interpretations of archaic musings of a warlord. All of the things you mentioned are factors in other religions, yes? And not practised by all Muslims or spoken on the Quran? Remeber now ... 1.6 billion of them. Perhaps you need reminding of that.

Not to the same calibre.  We know the vast problems with rape and islam, and we know FGM is almost exclusively an issue for Islam.  And I don't get your numbers concern? I'd say that there are probably a random 1.6 billion people on this planet, regardless of religion or culture, who share in a belief that women are lesser than men to some degree, whether that be that they stay home and cook or that thye are literally sex slaves to the male.  Does that validate the belief that 'women are lesser than men' ? I mean, 1.6 billion people would agree to some extent so if we are to use this as some sort of weighting for whether or not we can raise legitimate concerns about a belief then we'd always all keep our mouths shut for just about every issue.  I don't care that 1.6 billion people follow islam in some shape or form. I look at the majority group and its beliefs, which is the conservative mulsim group, and based on the state of the islamic states where their beliefs are practiced I say WTF, this is all so horribly wrong!  AND can I add mothra, that if even 1% of muslims get impacted by incest then that's 16 million people. Now, we know actually it's a whole lot higher, but do you realise how in fact the number of people that islam impacts actually does indeed matter quite a bit? rather than tell me to keep hush because of the number of people I may be insulting because I believe the teachings are so fcked up, you should be siding with me to stop 16 million people (and many more) from being impacted by the terrible teachings.

And I'm ever so surprised at you - you claim to be a feminist and yet when it comes to islam you quickly shy away from your feminist beliefs.  Mothra, stop supporting what is probably the most prominent anti-feminist ideology in the world today.

Well, aside from being wrong about everything in the first paragraph you try to feminist-shame me? Are you for real? I expect that kind of crap from some of the other dickheads on here Alevine but it's a new low for you.

It is, in fact, how easily women reconcile their Muslim beliefs with their feminist principles that makes it so easy to defend from a feminist perspective ... comparitive to other mainstream religions at least. I, as a feminist, fully support all women in their representation of their beliefs ... i don't negate them because they attract less attention than women who are oppressed. Of which there are many in some Muslim majority countries.

... and some Muslims are just revolting.

Still, i don't understand why Muslims specifically aren't allowed to have whack-a-doodles and arseholes amongst their ranks. Everyone else is.

mothra wrote on Aug 31^st, 2017 at 1:15am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:32pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:24pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:21pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:17pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:11pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:06pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:03pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:00pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Of course I couldn't possibly suggest that the existence of incest in areas neighbouring arab countries casts doubt on the "Islam made them do it" argument could I? That would be not caring, I guess. Now now, G, that would be stupendous. Ah of course, the region must have always lacked in numbers of men and women who weren't related to each other!  That must be the cause. Yes, karnal? Not at all. The region has always married off daughters to family members. This keeps wealth within the clan. This is far older than Islam, as every schoolboy knows. Ahhh, and the reason the region has decided to uphold a medieval culture? Well, except Israel of course. Except Israeli Orthodox Yips, Alevine. If you don't mind me asking, why are we calling them Yips? Oh so then it is because of religion, but only amongst Orthodox Jews? In the rest of the Arab world it's not Islam, it's a medieval practice they've never really been able to shake off. Probably because but of the Jews. But only the religious ones. Yes, karnal? You're a hoot, and a great waste of time  :) Thanks, Alevine. You've moved on from blaming Islam to religions, eh? You've got to blame someone, I guess. So why are we calling them Yips again? I never said incest was solely an issue for Islam. But it definitely is yet another issue with Islam, that makes this particular religion nothing more than a basket case of bad ideas.  Incest, rape, FGM, child marriage, the list of stupid crap that plagues the muslim world doesn't seem to end.  But it must all be because of medieval practices before the time of Islam. Because you know... it can't possibly be the result of behaviour being taught by the interpretations of archaic musings of a warlord. All of the things you mentioned are factors in other religions, yes? And not practised by all Muslims or spoken on the Quran? Remeber now ... 1.6 billion of them. Perhaps you need reminding of that.

Muhammad had sex with his relatives. Therefor Muslims cannot say that incest is either immoral or stupid or unnatural. This has very real implications for medical professionals trying to discourage incest in Muslim countries. The religion is a minefield for them. Islam does not just happen to coincide with incest. It actually causes it.

Jesus did not. At various times in history the church has officially banned incest, up to limits so absurd (ie sharing a common ancestor up to 6 to 10 generations back) that it became a genuine burden to keep track of.

There are plenty of other similar issues, and the fact that Muhammad was a political, military and religious leaders means all the political, military and religious crap from 7th century Arabia now has the seal of approval from Islam. Sex slavery, dictatorship, slaughtering innocent people on the weakest of pretexts etc. Incest is the least of Islam's problems. At least it is voluntary.


Quote:

I, as a feminist, fully support all women in their representation of their beliefs ...

Even if they are idiots and their beliefs and representations undermine women's rights?

Even if their beliefs are that non-Muslim women should become sex slaves for Muslim men and they should help make this happen?

mothra wrote on Aug 31^st, 2017 at 3:01am:

Well, aside from being wrong about everything in the first paragraph you try to feminist-shame me? Are you for real? I expect that kind of crap from some of the other dickheads on here Alevine but it's a new low for you. It is, in fact, how easily women reconcile their Muslim beliefs with their feminist principles that makes it so easy to defend from a feminist perspective ... comparitive to other mainstream religions at least. I, as a feminist, fully support all women in their representation of their beliefs ... i don't negate them because they attract less attention than women who are oppressed. Of which there are many in some Muslim majority countries. ... and some Muslims are just revolting. Still, i don't understand why Muslims specifically aren't allowed to have whack-a-doodles and arseholes amongst their ranks. Everyone else is.

Would you care to elaborate on what I was wrong about in the first paragraph?

And yes, every religion has whack a doodles and arseholes. Except it is Muslim aresholes who go around driving over people in the name of their religion. It is Muslim arseholes who have state sanctioned stoning of women for being raped, in the name of their religion. And it is Muslim arseholes who go about raping because they think their religion allows for it, or performing genital mutilation on their little girls, or treating women as sex objects who must be hidden from the world.  Every religion has its whack a doodles. But not every whack a doodle is equal. If Muslim whack a doodles were the same as Hare Krishna whack a doodles, then I wouldn't really care: let them sit for ever in silence and in fear of killing an ant.

As for reconciling beliefs and feminism, when it comes to Islam. I'd say that's really a luxury only afforded in countries like Australia, where luckily our principles do reduce the threat of having your throat slit for standing out. But the biggest problem with women who pretend Islam is great for women and is somehow a feminist religion is that while you may interpret this within Australia and not face the same level of treat, at the same time you end up becoming oblivious to the hundreds of millions of women in Islam who are forced by their religion and so called culture to take on a role in society that is clearly that of a subservient to men.  And I can bet you that if it were white women in the western world you wouldn't be sitting around trying to tell us how compatible Islam is with feminism. You wouldn't peddle nonsense while hundreds of millions continue to live a secondary life to yours.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 8:27pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Of course I couldn't possibly suggest that the existence of incest in areas neighbouring arab countries casts doubt on the "Islam made them do it" argument could I? That would be not caring, I guess. I'm sure the animists made them do it.  Or perhaps the Canadian Yids? Karnal? Casting doubt would be offering an alternative explanation for the behaviour, not simply pointing out that other religions/beliefs may cause similar behaviour.  No one ever said that incest was solely an issue for islam.  Simply stupendous reasoning, gandalf. Sorry, but it really is.

Sorry Alevine, I don't think I'm getting through.

To put it as plainly as I can - what I'm trying to say is that the "stupendous" argument is the one that assumes that religion - any religion - is to blame for incest.

freediver wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 9:29pm:

Quote: Oh deary me - thats just a flat out lie FD. Doesn't that bother you? Lets start from the top again: do you concede that you are the only one who has ever made this about jews? Still going on about the Jews eh? Why is it the Jews bit and not the mindless collective of traitors bit that you keep complaining about? Were they mindless? Were they a collective? Were they treacherous? Were they Jewish? Do you believe muslims today are a mindless collective? [quote]Why bother? You don't even need me to say it - you just lie about what I say anyway.

If you gave your own answer, it would make it a bit harder for me to 'lie', wouldn't it?[/quote]


Wow so much obfuscation to excuse porkies.

FD - very simply, do you understand this is a flat out lie:


freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2017 at 1:36pm:

You justified Muhammad's genocide by describing them as a mindless collective of treacherous Jews.

?

Does that not bother you?

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2017 at 3:31am:

mothra wrote on Aug 31st, 2017 at 1:15am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:32pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:24pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:21pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:17pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:11pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:06pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:03pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:00pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Of course I couldn't possibly suggest that the existence of incest in areas neighbouring arab countries casts doubt on the "Islam made them do it" argument could I? That would be not caring, I guess. Now now, G, that would be stupendous. Ah of course, the region must have always lacked in numbers of men and women who weren't related to each other!  That must be the cause. Yes, karnal? Not at all. The region has always married off daughters to family members. This keeps wealth within the clan. This is far older than Islam, as every schoolboy knows. Ahhh, and the reason the region has decided to uphold a medieval culture? Well, except Israel of course. Except Israeli Orthodox Yips, Alevine. If you don't mind me asking, why are we calling them Yips? Oh so then it is because of religion, but only amongst Orthodox Jews? In the rest of the Arab world it's not Islam, it's a medieval practice they've never really been able to shake off. Probably because but of the Jews. But only the religious ones. Yes, karnal? You're a hoot, and a great waste of time  :) Thanks, Alevine. You've moved on from blaming Islam to religions, eh? You've got to blame someone, I guess. So why are we calling them Yips again? I never said incest was solely an issue for Islam. But it definitely is yet another issue with Islam, that makes this particular religion nothing more than a basket case of bad ideas.  Incest, rape, FGM, child marriage, the list of stupid crap that plagues the muslim world doesn't seem to end.  But it must all be because of medieval practices before the time of Islam. Because you know... it can't possibly be the result of behaviour being taught by the interpretations of archaic musings of a warlord. All of the things you mentioned are factors in other religions, yes? And not practised by all Muslims or spoken on the Quran? Remeber now ... 1.6 billion of them. Perhaps you need reminding of that. Muhammad had sex with his relatives. Therefor Muslims cannot say that incest is either immoral or stupid or unnatural. This has very real implications for medical professionals trying to discourage incest in Muslim countries. The religion is a minefield for them. Islam does not just happen to coincide with incest. It actually causes it. Jesus did not. At various times in history the church has officially banned incest, up to limits so absurd (ie sharing a common ancestor up to 6 to 10 generations back) that it became a genuine burden to keep track of. There are plenty of other similar issues, and the fact that Muhammad was a political, military and religious leaders means all the political, military and religious crap from 7th century Arabia now has the seal of approval from Islam. Sex slavery, dictatorship, slaughtering innocent people on the weakest of pretexts etc. Incest is the least of Islam's problems. At least it is voluntary. Quote: I, as a feminist, fully support all women in their representation of their beliefs ... Even if they are idiots and their beliefs and representations undermine women's rights? Even if their beliefs are that non-Muslim women should become sex slaves for Muslim men and they should help make this happen?

Can you show one time in its history that the church has banned incest?

Thanks, FD.

Alevine, FGM is pre-Islamic. Cleopatra was circumcised. To my knowledge, there is no Islamic ritual for FGM. African Christians do it.

FGM is understood in the places it's performed as a cultural phenomenon, and not religious. The same applies for male circumcision, despite it being a Muslim practice.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 31^st, 2017 at 7:40am:

freediver wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:29pm: Quote: Oh deary me - thats just a flat out lie FD. Doesn't that bother you? Lets start from the top again: do you concede that you are the only one who has ever made this about jews? Still going on about the Jews eh? Why is it the Jews bit and not the mindless collective of traitors bit that you keep complaining about? Were they mindless? Were they a collective? Were they treacherous? Were they Jewish? Do you believe muslims today are a mindless collective? [quote]Why bother? You don't even need me to say it - you just lie about what I say anyway. If you gave your own answer, it would make it a bit harder for me to 'lie', wouldn't it?

Wow so much obfuscation to excuse porkies.

FD - very simply, do you understand this is a flat out lie:


freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2017 at 1:36pm:

You justified Muhammad's genocide by describing them as a mindless collective of treacherous Jews.

?

Does that not bother you?
[/quote]

Were they mindless?

Were they a collective?

Were they treacherous?

Were they Jewish?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 31^st, 2017 at 7:32am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:27pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Of course I couldn't possibly suggest that the existence of incest in areas neighbouring arab countries casts doubt on the "Islam made them do it" argument could I? That would be not caring, I guess. I'm sure the animists made them do it.  Or perhaps the Canadian Yids? Karnal? Casting doubt would be offering an alternative explanation for the behaviour, not simply pointing out that other religions/beliefs may cause similar behaviour.  No one ever said that incest was solely an issue for islam.  Simply stupendous reasoning, gandalf. Sorry, but it really is. Sorry Alevine, I don't think I'm getting through. To put it as plainly as I can - what I'm trying to say is that the "stupendous" argument is the one that assumes that religion - any religion - is to blame for incest.

Why?

karnal Today at 9:41am


Quote:

Can you show one time in its history that the church has banned incest?

Incest was prohibited as one of the earliest Hebrew teachings:

Leviticus says:

Quote:

18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD. 18:7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness. 18:9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover. 18:10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness. 18:11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 18:12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman. 18:13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman. 18:14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt. 18:15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness. 18:17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness. 18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time. 18:19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. 18:20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her. 18:21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 18:23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto

I'd say near of kin to you means just that, don't practice incest.

Karnal wrote on Aug 31^st, 2017 at 9:41am:

freediver wrote on Aug 31st, 2017 at 3:31am: mothra wrote on Aug 31st, 2017 at 1:15am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:32pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:24pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:21pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:17pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:11pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:06pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:03pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:00pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Of course I couldn't possibly suggest that the existence of incest in areas neighbouring arab countries casts doubt on the "Islam made them do it" argument could I? That would be not caring, I guess. Now now, G, that would be stupendous. Ah of course, the region must have always lacked in numbers of men and women who weren't related to each other!  That must be the cause. Yes, karnal? Not at all. The region has always married off daughters to family members. This keeps wealth within the clan. This is far older than Islam, as every schoolboy knows. Ahhh, and the reason the region has decided to uphold a medieval culture? Well, except Israel of course. Except Israeli Orthodox Yips, Alevine. If you don't mind me asking, why are we calling them Yips? Oh so then it is because of religion, but only amongst Orthodox Jews? In the rest of the Arab world it's not Islam, it's a medieval practice they've never really been able to shake off. Probably because but of the Jews. But only the religious ones. Yes, karnal? You're a hoot, and a great waste of time  :) Thanks, Alevine. You've moved on from blaming Islam to religions, eh? You've got to blame someone, I guess. So why are we calling them Yips again? I never said incest was solely an issue for Islam. But it definitely is yet another issue with Islam, that makes this particular religion nothing more than a basket case of bad ideas.  Incest, rape, FGM, child marriage, the list of stupid crap that plagues the muslim world doesn't seem to end.  But it must all be because of medieval practices before the time of Islam. Because you know... it can't possibly be the result of behaviour being taught by the interpretations of archaic musings of a warlord. All of the things you mentioned are factors in other religions, yes? And not practised by all Muslims or spoken on the Quran? Remeber now ... 1.6 billion of them. Perhaps you need reminding of that. Muhammad had sex with his relatives. Therefor Muslims cannot say that incest is either immoral or stupid or unnatural. This has very real implications for medical professionals trying to discourage incest in Muslim countries. The religion is a minefield for them. Islam does not just happen to coincide with incest. It actually causes it. Jesus did not. At various times in history the church has officially banned incest, up to limits so absurd (ie sharing a common ancestor up to 6 to 10 generations back) that it became a genuine burden to keep track of. There are plenty of other similar issues, and the fact that Muhammad was a political, military and religious leaders means all the political, military and religious crap from 7th century Arabia now has the seal of approval from Islam. Sex slavery, dictatorship, slaughtering innocent people on the weakest of pretexts etc. Incest is the least of Islam's problems. At least it is voluntary. Quote: I, as a feminist, fully support all women in their representation of their beliefs ... Even if they are idiots and their beliefs and representations undermine women's rights? Even if their beliefs are that non-Muslim women should become sex slaves for Muslim men and they should help make this happen? Can you show one time in its history that the church has banned incest? Thanks, FD. Alevine, FGM is pre-Islamic. Cleopatra was circumcised. To my knowledge, there is no Islamic ritual for FGM. African Christians do it. FGM is understood in the places it's performed as a cultural phenomenon, and not religious. The same applies for male circumcision, despite it being a Muslim practice.

Oh Karnal, we've been through this time and again. Yes, FGM may date back to before Mohammad.  But that doesn't mean that the behaviour today is because Cleopatra was circumsised, Perhaps it has something to do with some of the lovely hadiths mmm?  And I think you ought to go look at the statistics again, mr statistician. You'll find that *predominately* this sickness inflicts the muslim world.  Just ask mothra if you can't find them, I think she'll go telling you the last predominately 'christian' country to have widespread FGM that she tried to tell us about was actually predominately muslim.  And I think you'll also find that within African countries with predominately christian faith, the FGm that exists happens to be within the minority muslim population.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 31^st, 2017 at 3:17pm:

Why?

You really didn't consider an alternative to "Its all Islam's fault" did you?

Now thats what I call "stupendous".

moses wrote on Aug 31^st, 2017 at 3:57pm:

karnal Today at 9:41am Quote: Can you show one time in its history that the church has banned incest? Incest was prohibited as one of the earliest Hebrew teachings: Leviticus says: [quote]18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD. 18:7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness. 18:9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover. 18:10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness. 18:11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 18:12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman. 18:13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman. 18:14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt. 18:15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness. 18:17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness. 18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time. 18:19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. 18:20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her. 18:21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 18:23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto

I'd say near of kin to you means just that, don't practice incest.[/quote]

I'd say so too, Moses. Well, sort of.

But can you say where the church banned incest?

Help FD out. He doesn't answer questions.

Freeeedom, innit.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 31^st, 2017 at 5:35pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 31st, 2017 at 9:41am: freediver wrote on Aug 31st, 2017 at 3:31am: mothra wrote on Aug 31st, 2017 at 1:15am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:32pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:24pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:21pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:17pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:11pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:06pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:03pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:00pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Of course I couldn't possibly suggest that the existence of incest in areas neighbouring arab countries casts doubt on the "Islam made them do it" argument could I? That would be not caring, I guess. Now now, G, that would be stupendous. Ah of course, the region must have always lacked in numbers of men and women who weren't related to each other!  That must be the cause. Yes, karnal? Not at all. The region has always married off daughters to family members. This keeps wealth within the clan. This is far older than Islam, as every schoolboy knows. Ahhh, and the reason the region has decided to uphold a medieval culture? Well, except Israel of course. Except Israeli Orthodox Yips, Alevine. If you don't mind me asking, why are we calling them Yips? Oh so then it is because of religion, but only amongst Orthodox Jews? In the rest of the Arab world it's not Islam, it's a medieval practice they've never really been able to shake off. Probably because but of the Jews. But only the religious ones. Yes, karnal? You're a hoot, and a great waste of time  :) Thanks, Alevine. You've moved on from blaming Islam to religions, eh? You've got to blame someone, I guess. So why are we calling them Yips again? I never said incest was solely an issue for Islam. But it definitely is yet another issue with Islam, that makes this particular religion nothing more than a basket case of bad ideas.  Incest, rape, FGM, child marriage, the list of stupid crap that plagues the muslim world doesn't seem to end.  But it must all be because of medieval practices before the time of Islam. Because you know... it can't possibly be the result of behaviour being taught by the interpretations of archaic musings of a warlord. All of the things you mentioned are factors in other religions, yes? And not practised by all Muslims or spoken on the Quran? Remeber now ... 1.6 billion of them. Perhaps you need reminding of that. Muhammad had sex with his relatives. Therefor Muslims cannot say that incest is either immoral or stupid or unnatural. This has very real implications for medical professionals trying to discourage incest in Muslim countries. The religion is a minefield for them. Islam does not just happen to coincide with incest. It actually causes it. Jesus did not. At various times in history the church has officially banned incest, up to limits so absurd (ie sharing a common ancestor up to 6 to 10 generations back) that it became a genuine burden to keep track of. There are plenty of other similar issues, and the fact that Muhammad was a political, military and religious leaders means all the political, military and religious crap from 7th century Arabia now has the seal of approval from Islam. Sex slavery, dictatorship, slaughtering innocent people on the weakest of pretexts etc. Incest is the least of Islam's problems. At least it is voluntary. Quote: I, as a feminist, fully support all women in their representation of their beliefs ... Even if they are idiots and their beliefs and representations undermine women's rights? Even if their beliefs are that non-Muslim women should become sex slaves for Muslim men and they should help make this happen? Can you show one time in its history that the church has banned incest? Thanks, FD. Alevine, FGM is pre-Islamic. Cleopatra was circumcised. To my knowledge, there is no Islamic ritual for FGM. African Christians do it. FGM is understood in the places it's performed as a cultural phenomenon, and not religious. The same applies for male circumcision, despite it being a Muslim practice. Oh Karnal, we've been through this time and again. Yes, FGM may date back to before Mohammad.  But that doesn't mean that the behaviour today is because Cleopatra was circumsised, Perhaps it has something to do with some of the lovely hadiths, mmm?.

Then we agree.