Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 ... 188
Send Topic Print
spineless apologetics (Read 350555 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #240 - Oct 12th, 2013 at 12:31pm
 
Quote:
I merely recognise that it is their right to create and unfortunately impose those punishments.


Are you a fan of this sort of thing HB?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
|dev|null
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4434
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #241 - Oct 12th, 2013 at 12:35pm
 
freediver wrote on Oct 12th, 2013 at 12:31pm:
Quote:
I merely recognise that it is their right to create and unfortunately impose those punishments.


Are you a fan of this sort of thing HB?


Are you suggesting that Saudi Arabia isn't a sovereign nation?  I wonder what your reaction is to criticism of Australia's right to create and impose what some consider unfair punishments (such as shipping Asylum Seekers who have broken no laws off to mandatory detention in our Pacific Gulags)?   Cheesy Grin Cheesy Grin Cheesy Grin Cheesy

Whether I am a fan or not, their right to do this exists.  Time you recognised it Freediver.   Cheesy Grin Cheesy Grin Cheesy Grin
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 12th, 2013 at 12:43pm by |dev|null »  

"Pens and books are the weapons that defeat terrorism." - Malala Yousefzai, 2013.

"we will never ever solve violence while we grasp for overly simplistic solutions."
Freediver, 2007.
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #242 - Oct 12th, 2013 at 5:34pm
 
|dev|null wrote on Oct 12th, 2013 at 12:35pm:
freediver wrote on Oct 12th, 2013 at 12:31pm:
Quote:
I merely recognise that it is their right to create and unfortunately impose those punishments.


Are you a fan of this sort of thing HB?


Are you suggesting that Saudi Arabia isn't a sovereign nation?  I wonder what your reaction is to criticism of Australia's right to create and impose what some consider unfair punishments (such as shipping Asylum Seekers who have broken no laws off to mandatory detention in our Pacific Gulags)?   Cheesy Grin Cheesy Grin Cheesy Grin Cheesy

Whether I am a fan or not, their right to do this exists.  Time you recognised it Freediver.   Cheesy Grin Cheesy Grin Cheesy Grin



what Jnr is trying to say is that as Australia is a Sovereign nation it has the right to say who will come here and under what conditions...  also that if people disobey our laws we have the right to deport them.  regardless what  LW Progs like himself suggest. Or despite his criticism.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #243 - Oct 12th, 2013 at 7:26pm
 
|dev|null wrote on Oct 12th, 2013 at 12:35pm:
freediver wrote on Oct 12th, 2013 at 12:31pm:
Quote:
I merely recognise that it is their right to create and unfortunately impose those punishments.


Are you a fan of this sort of thing HB?


Are you suggesting that Saudi Arabia isn't a sovereign nation?  I wonder what your reaction is to criticism of Australia's right to create and impose what some consider unfair punishments (such as shipping Asylum Seekers who have broken no laws off to mandatory detention in our Pacific Gulags)?   Cheesy Grin Cheesy Grin Cheesy Grin Cheesy

Whether I am a fan or not, their right to do this exists.  Time you recognised it Freediver.   Cheesy Grin Cheesy Grin Cheesy Grin


Would you mind elaborating on your concept of rights here? I couldn't get Brian to.

I wasn't asking you whether you were a fan of what goes on over there, but whether you were a fan of Brian's spineless approach to human rights.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #244 - Oct 12th, 2013 at 9:28pm
 
Oh yeah...  bwian does comment and judge muslims after all
when asked why they worship/venerate a black stone he said

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

I'm guessing he thinks they are loopy...  fits with his atheism.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Datalife
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2405
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #245 - Oct 13th, 2013 at 8:52am
 
|dev|null wrote on Oct 12th, 2013 at 12:19pm:
You can of course produce proof from your long dirt files that Brian has ever directly condoned any Islamic atrocities?  Cheesy Grin Cheesy Grin Cheesy Grin Cheesy Grin


LOL, Brian is stupid, but not stupid enough to directly condone in writing mad mullahs chopping off the heads of unbelievers.

Brian is all up for rights it seems, just not any silly right of the UN for freedom of belief. 

Of course he is all over any silly right of the UN on asylum seekers.  Nothing like the ability to pick and choose for Brian.  The epitome of being spineless is selective and targeted outrage, flexible morality and personal convictions.

And with both of your stated strong stances on the rights of nations to do what they bugger they like, I guess you support the US right to execute convicted criminals, be they believers or unbelievers. 

It is going to be fun in future watching you both supporting a nations rights no matter what reprehensible crap they get up to. Going to be very uncomfortable for you idiots supporting the rights of Israel.  Grin Grin

What a pair of clowns and what idiot paths your shared hypocrisys and twisted pretzel "logic" force you to walk. 
Back to top
 

"If they’re out there in the high seas, what you would do is seek to turn them back through the agency of the Australian Navy".

Kevin Rudd on 2GB, July 12, 2007
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #246 - Oct 13th, 2013 at 8:56am
 
Quote:
LOL, Brian is stupid, but not stupid enough to directly condone in writing mad mullahs chopping off the heads of unbelievers.


Except of course to insist that it is their right to do so, and that he is incapable of criticising them and does not even have the right to criticise - because he is not of their religion and nationality.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Datalife
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2405
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #247 - Oct 13th, 2013 at 9:06am
 
freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2013 at 8:56am:
Quote:
LOL, Brian is stupid, but not stupid enough to directly condone in writing mad mullahs chopping off the heads of unbelievers.


Except of course to insist that it is their right to do so, and that he is incapable of criticising them and does not even have the right to criticise - because he is not of their religion and nationality.


Yeah, blokes a joke.  Going to be fun preserving that quote for when the clown next contradicts himself as he always does.  Morals like a windvane but with the wind blowing from one direction.
Back to top
 

"If they’re out there in the high seas, what you would do is seek to turn them back through the agency of the Australian Navy".

Kevin Rudd on 2GB, July 12, 2007
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #248 - Oct 13th, 2013 at 8:30pm
 
He's at it again - apparently it is the right of Muslims to execute gays as well as blasphemers. But at least he has conjured up the courage to condemn them. Not sure how he managed to give himself permission to do that.

From the "Muslim's invent 'gay' detector" thread:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 13th, 2013 at 7:18pm:
freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2013 at 8:46am:
I wonder what Brian thinks of this one.


Same thing I've always said, FD.  It is their right to create such laws as they see fit.  They are, afterall, sovereign states, now aren't they?  Do I agree with those laws?  No, of course not.  Do I condemn them?  Yes, but I recognise I have no right or means to change them.  Does that make me "spineless"?  Of course not, it makes me a realist but of course you'll attempt to spin it out yet again as a personal attack upon me, simply because I refuse to conform to your politically correct view that all Muslims must be automatically condemned no matter what or where.    Roll Eyes

Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #249 - Oct 13th, 2013 at 8:57pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15th, 2013 at 5:39pm:
Quote:
Is this the Islam you are so keen to defend with your "fair deal" nonsense, what about those who no longer believe in that bullshit barfed up by a 7th century desert bandit do they deserve a fair deal like article 18 of the Universal declaration of human rights?
Quote:
7 nations where atheism is punishable by death.
All 7 establish Islam as the state religion.
Pakistan,Saudi Arabia,Iran,Afghanistan,Sudan,Mauritania and the Maldives
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/10/the-seven-countries-where-...



I make no excuses for those nations and their laws, BV.  I merely recognise that it is their right to create and unfortunately impose those punishments.   It is terrible but I also recognise I have no right or ability to criticise them.  I am neither a member of their religion or a citizen of any of those nations.




Brian Ross wrote on Oct 13th, 2013 at 7:45pm:
freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2013 at 12:20pm:
Spineless is when you insist that Muslims have a right to chop people's heads of for blasphemy, and that you have no right to criticise and are incapable of criticising because you are not a member of their nation and religion.


Misunderstanding what was said, still, FD?  Roll Eyes



Can anyone explain this? Both Brian and Gandalf keep going on about how I misunderstand, but go all quiet on me whenever I ask them to clarify the misunderstanding.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #250 - Oct 13th, 2013 at 9:38pm
 
freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2013 at 8:57pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15th, 2013 at 5:39pm:
I make no excuses for those nations and their laws, BV.  I merely recognise that it is their right to create and unfortunately impose those punishments.   It is terrible but I also recognise I have no right or ability to criticise them.  I am neither a member of their religion or a citizen of any of those nations.

freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2013 at 12:20pm:
Spineless is when you insist that Muslims have a right to chop people's heads of for blasphemy, and that you have no right to criticise and are incapable of criticising because you are not a member of their nation and religion.


Misunderstanding what was said, still, FD?  Roll Eyes



Can anyone explain this? Both Brian and Gandalf keep going on about how I misunderstand, but go all quiet on me whenever I ask them to clarify the misunderstanding.


Everyone is entitled to their own views and their comments seem fairly straight forward. Of course outsiders have to accept that some of the fundamentalists go to the extremes in their treatment of people, but what are we supposed to do about it? Insist they become democratic like us and impose our will on them by force? It certainly hasn't worked in Afghanistan or Iraq.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 21583
A cat with a view
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #251 - Oct 14th, 2013 at 7:20am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10th, 2013 at 10:32am:

FD defends the right of muslim women to wear the burqa.

But what FD and his ilk will never accept is that

personal freedoms must extend to having the freedom not to be vilified and intimidated on the basis of religion.




What a hypocrite!

As that is precisely how all 'rightly guided' moslems behave [within the authority of the law], in ALL moslem majority jurisdictions.


Quote:

The "freedom" to wear the burqa is rather meaningless if the people who choose to wear the burqa cannot do it without fear of being harassed and intimidated for making that choice.

Freedom to criticise must be protected, but protecting people's right to not be vilified is just as important.

Especially when it is based on outright lies.





gandalf,

How would you describe a group of people who join, or, who choose to freely associate with members of an organisation, which teaches its members that it is 'lawful' ['lawful' in their 'society'], to murder people who do not believe as they believe ?


A moslem, is a person who chooses to embrace a philosophy [ISLAM], which teaches every moslem, that it is 'lawful' for a moslem, to kill those, who do not believe, as he believes.





gandalf,

You speak
of the importance of moslems NOT being vilified,

"Especially when it is based on outright lies."




gandalf,

I condemn moslems, all moslems.

And, imo, there can be no 'innocent' moslems [among those who have come to the age of consent, and yet still declare themselves to be moslems.]


But gandalf, who are the people, who are the 'outright liars' ?


JUST A SINGLE EXAMPLE, WHICH EXPOSES WHO THOSE LIARS ARE;

The Muslim Council of Britain [which represents all British 'mainstream' moslems] declares on its website, that the moslem community of the UK, condemns extremism and violence....

Quote:

Rejecting Terror
Thursday, 11 April 2013

Muslims everywhere consider all acts of terrorism that aims to murder and maim innocent human beings utterly reprehensible and abhorrent. There is no theological basis whatsoever for such acts in our faith. The very meaning of the word 'Islam' is peace. It rejects terror and promotes peace and harmony.




http://www.mcb.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2307:mcbnewst...
http://www.mcb.org.uk/article_detail.php?article=announcement-656




COUNTER EVIDENCE - WHICH EXPOSES THE 'OUTRIGHT' DECEPTION AND LIES OF THOSE WHO SPEAK FOR THE WHOLE UK MOSLEM COMMUNITY;

ISLAMIC law....

"Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: "The bare essence of Islam and the basics of the religion are three [acts], upon which Islam has been established. Whoever leaves one of them becomes an unbeliever and his blood may legally be spilled. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan."...."
fiqhussunnah/#3.110

n.b.
"Whoever......becomes an unbeliever.....his blood may legally be spilled."





FROM THE SUNNA OF MOHAMMED

"...If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him."

hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260

[/quote]






Who is a moslem ?

"Allah is my god, and Mohammed is his prophet."

[i.e. these, are the Allah, and the Mohammed, that are described in the Koran and Hadith]


By making such a declaration;

"I am a moslem."
;

.....every moslem, is choosing to directly associate themselves with the 'religious' violence which ISLAM justifies, legitimises, promotes and encourages [within the moslem community].

And every moslem is thereby associating >> themselves << with every violent criminal act which is purposefully done, 'in the name of Allah/ISLAM'.


+++


Google;
Shahadah


The Shahadah is the ISLAMIC declaration of faith [so as to become a moslem].

The Shahadah goes;

Quote:

     “There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.”


Longer versions are common, especially those beginning with “I bear witness” or “I testify,” e.g.:

    “I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.”



http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012/10/what-is-shahada.html




It is not credible, imo, that a person declares himself to be a 'moslem', and that that person, a self declared moslem, then tries to portray to others [non-moslems] that he is unaware that,
the fundamental tenets and laws of ISLAM, mandate a relationship of everlasting hatred and cultural enmity towards all persons who are not moslems.



Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 21583
A cat with a view
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #252 - Oct 14th, 2013 at 7:31am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10th, 2013 at 10:32am:

Freedom to criticise must be protected, but protecting people's right to not be vilified is just as important.

Especially when it is based on outright lies.




Outright lies ???






This ---> is how the moslem community [often/always] seek to portray their religion [to those who are outside of their own 'camp'];

IMAGE....
...
A moslem advertising campaign [2007] in the UK.
Which promotes British moslems as normal, integrated citizens, who reject all forms of extremism.
"PROUD TO BE A.....MOSLEM"


It just makes you proud, doesn't it!




THE REALITY - [the mindset of moslems] WHEREVER MOSLEMS LIVE WITHIN A 'WESTERN', NON-MOSLEM HOST COMMUNITY;
#1,
Moslems must be allowed to portray their religion as they wish, as being benign.

#2,
But, no body else, no non-moslem, must be allowed to 'vilify' ISLAM/moslems, even when the religious tenets of ISLAM [and the societal behaviour of moslems] have been scrutinised, and are found to be 'wanting' - found to be 'wanting', by comparison with the standards of the host community [where moslems choose insist that they must have the right to reside].


+++



Quote:
Quote:

But what FD and his ilk will never accept is that personal freedoms must extend to having the freedom not to be vilified and intimidated on the basis of religion.




That is pretty much the definition of freedom. Religion is a choice, and if you cannot criticise someone for the choices they make then you do not have freedom of speech.







IMAGE....
...
"Freedom of expression - GO TO HELL!"




WHAT DOES THAT IMAGE [above] DEPICT ?;
1/ A group of moslems, on the streets of a Western nation [London, the UK].
2/ A moslem on the street of a Western nation, is exercising his lawful right  >>> to express <<<  his views and opinions, publicly.
3/ A moslem on the streets of a Western nation, expressing a view, that the right of "Freedom of expression" of non-moslems, must be revoked, if that right [of "Freedom of expression"] extends, to a non-moslem, the right to 'vilify' or criticise ISLAM...
[i.e. if "Freedom of expression" extends the right to scrutinise, and to then to publicly expose what is abhorrent and egregious ISLAMIC 'religious' tenets - IN THE OPINION OF A PERSON WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE, AS A MOSLEM BELIEVES].



Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 21583
A cat with a view
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #253 - Oct 14th, 2013 at 7:39am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10th, 2013 at 10:32am:

The "freedom" to wear the burqa is rather meaningless if the people who choose to wear the burqa cannot do it without fear of being harassed and intimidated for making that choice.






FD responded;
Quote:

There comes a point where actual harassment or intimidation undermines that freedom. Obviously posting comments on an internet forum will not get you there, but if a person is afraid to walk down the street, then they are not free.







My own response;

IMAGE...
...
Sydney CBD, 2012, moslem street protests.




WHAT DOES THAT IMAGE [above] DEPICT ?;
1/ A group of moslems, on the streets of a Western nation.
2/ A group of moslems, on the streets of a Western nation, exercising their lawful right >>> to express <<< their views and opinions, publicly.
3/ A group of moslems, on the streets of a Western nation, who are, ALSO, inciting the murder of persons who would dare to PUBLICLY EXPRESS, that they [non-moslems], do not believe as they [moslems] believe.
4/ A group of moslems, on the streets of a Western nation, demanding their right to exercise their 'freedom of religion',
...i.e. their 'right', to kill people who do not believe as they [moslems] believe.

5/ A group of moslems, on the streets of a Western nation, who [by their own PUBLIC DECLARATIONS] are seeking to intimidate [into silence] all other persons who may wish to PUBLICLY EXPRESS, that they [non-moslems], do not believe as they [moslems] believe.

AND #6/ A group of moslems,
religious bigots
, 'demonstrating', just how 'peaceful' ISLAM and moslems really are.



Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 34441
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #254 - Oct 14th, 2013 at 8:18am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 1:03pm:
I do love it how FD starts all these threads with absolutely no scope for a constructive discussion - just to say "there! I scored a point!"


That's not why he 'starts all these threads'. It's not an exercise in personal vanity for him. Nothing so trite, as you would like to believe for your own egotistical convenience.

Every time you and your little coterie of apologist 'Useful Idiot' collaborators attempt to defend the indefensible, fd once again successfully demonstrates that civilisation is always at risk of its enemies, and that you people would like to drag us back to a time when theocratic lunacy used to rule the lives of whole nations as is still the case in half a dozen Islamic states.






Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 ... 188
Send Topic Print