Australian Politics Forum - spineless apologetics

Sprintcyclist

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 40683
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #300 - Oct 18^th, 2013 at 8:55pm

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 7:53pm:

Brian is a moral contortionist. It's what he gets off on. He doesn't need sex. Brian thrives on annoying people by being deliberately counter-intuitive to common sense and common knowledge.

When it comes to finding impossible reasons to excuse the Bad Guys he'll happily twist himself into a human pretzel rather than admit that a Negro, or a Muslim, or an Aborigine might be wholly at fault for a crime they have committed.

Somewhere in the primordial swampland of Brian's diseased psyche there's a Voice that tells him that the ultimate blame for all wickedness and evil in this world can be sheeted back to the Anglo-Saxons and their British Empire.

as much as I dislike you herbert, - Quote:

....the Anglo-Saxons and their British Empire..

are one of the best tribes in the worlds history

Back to top

Modern Classic Right Wing

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 40817

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #301 - Oct 18^th, 2013 at 10:28pm

freediver wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 12:43am:

freediver wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 5:27pm:

HB, he claimed that it is a Muslim's right to chop people's heads off for thinking the wrong thoughts. Does that count?

Did I, you can of course provide a quote where I directly said that, FD? Or is it you merely erecting another strawman? Roll Eyes

Quote:

Except of course to defend Muslim's rights to commit atrocities.

Did I, you can of course provide a quote where I directly said that, FD? Or is it you merely erecting another strawman? Roll Eyes

You appear to enjoy making up lies about what I have said, FD. Why? Roll Eyes

What do you think this thread is about Brian? This is the opening post:

freediver wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 6:22pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15^th, 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.

Context, FD, context. It as said in what context? In the context of criticism of the nation of Saudi Arabia imposing legal punishments on it's own citizens. While I know you'd prefer to keep stripping what I said of it's context so it is easier to criticise me, it doesn't work.

You'll also note, I said, "It is terrible". In otherwords, the punishments were terrible and that I didn't agree with them. However, as I said I, "recognise I have no right or ability to criticise them." In otherwords that as a non-citizen of the nation of Saudi Arabia and as a non-member of Islam, I can't change those laws merely by typing something on an Australian internet bulletin board. To believe you can is delusional, FD. But then, we've see how delusional you really are, haven't you? With your single-minded persecution of Muslims. Roll Eyes

That you need this explained to you, despite it being there written in plain English simply amazes me. That this thread has reached 21 pages shouws that your bigotry knows no depths. You simply cannot tolerate any difference of opinion from your own or the possibility that people may see Islam and Muslims in a different light to you. It is most unAustralian that you cannot give them a fair go, FD. Most unAustralian. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 40817

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #302 - Oct 18^th, 2013 at 10:33pm

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 7:53pm:

Brian is a moral contortionist. It's what he gets off on. He doesn't need sex. Brian thrives on annoying people by being deliberately counter-intuitive to common sense and common knowledge.

As you do, Herbie, as you do. You display little sense, let alone common. As for "common knowledge" why is it that I can keep trumping you and demonstrating your ignorance for you? Grin

Quote:

When it comes to finding impossible reasons to excuse the Bad Guys he'll happily twist himself into a human pretzel rather than admit that a Negro, or a Muslim, or an Aborigine might be wholly at fault for a crime they have committed.

As usual, erecting strawmen, Herbie? Your thatching skills are improving! You misrepresent everything I've said over the years in a single paragraph. I have always maintained that individuals are responsible for their own actions, Herbie and you know it. However, I have also maintained that there are reasons, often because of their circumstances which explain why they made those decisions. You, OTOH, merely attributed it all to that mysterious and non-Scientific concept of "race". Which is pretty ironic, considering your own personal history. Roll Eyes

Quote:

Somewhere in the primordial swampland of Brian's diseased psyche there's a Voice that tells him that the ultimate blame for all wickedness and evil in this world can be sheeted back to the Anglo-Saxons and their British Empire.

Another strawman. Well done, Herbie. Two in a single post. You're getting better, soon you'll be able to do a whole roof! Grin

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 40817

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #303 - Oct 18^th, 2013 at 10:34pm

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 8:55pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 7:53pm:

Brian is a moral contortionist. It's what he gets off on. He doesn't need sex. Brian thrives on annoying people by being deliberately counter-intuitive to common sense and common knowledge.

When it comes to finding impossible reasons to excuse the Bad Guys he'll happily twist himself into a human pretzel rather than admit that a Negro, or a Muslim, or an Aborigine might be wholly at fault for a crime they have committed.

Somewhere in the primordial swampland of Brian's diseased psyche there's a Voice that tells him that the ultimate blame for all wickedness and evil in this world can be sheeted back to the Anglo-Saxons and their British Empire.

as much as I dislike you herbert, - Quote:

....the Anglo-Saxons and their British Empire..

are one of the best tribes in the worlds history

Really? According to whom? You? Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #304 - Oct 19^th, 2013 at 8:38am

Quote:

Context, FD, context. It as said in what context? In the context of criticism of the nation of Saudi Arabia imposing legal punishments on it's own citizens. While I know you'd prefer to keep stripping what I said of it's context so it is easier to criticise me, it doesn't work.

I am not stripping it of context. I am deliberately including that in the quote because it makes your views look all the more horrid. Why do you think the context somehow diminishes the spinelessness of your views? How is it even possible to make your views more spineless by stripping the context? The absence of context could only allow people to give you the benefit of the doubt. Including the context removes any scope for doubt.

Quote:

However, as I said I, "recognise I have no right or ability to criticise them."

Well done Brian. This is one of the spineless bits that any reasonable person would feel great shame for uttering.

Quote:

In otherwords that as a non-citizen of the nation of Saudi Arabia and as a non-member of Islam, I can't change those laws merely by typing something on an Australian internet bulletin board. To believe you can is delusional, FD.

Duh. What about not having the right to criticise? You and Gandalf seem to be playing the same trick - pretending that the entirety of your post is the little bits of it that are not quite as spineless as the bulk of it (and you have to look pretty hard to find them).

Quote:

That this thread has reached 21 pages shouws that your bigotry knows no depths. You simply cannot tolerate any difference of opinion from your own or the possibility that people may see Islam and Muslims in a different light to you. It is most unAustralian that you cannot give them a fair go, FD. Most unAustralian.

So it is unAustralian to criticise pedophiles and murderers? Or to insist you have the right to criticise and that it is spineless to pretend you don't?

Quote:

However, I have also maintained that there are reasons, often because of their circumstances which explain why they made those decisions.

Spineless apologetics.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 40817

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #305 - Oct 20^th, 2013 at 12:56am

freediver wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 8:38am:

Quote:

Context, FD, context. It as said in what context? In the context of criticism of the nation of Saudi Arabia imposing legal punishments on it's own citizens. While I know you'd prefer to keep stripping what I said of it's context so it is easier to criticise me, it doesn't work.

I am not stripping it of context. I am deliberately including that in the quote because it makes your views look all the more horrid.

What? That I recognise the sovereign right of nations to make their own laws? That while I disagree with them, I recognise my inability to change them? That I refuse to be judgemental? FD, you have strange definition of the word "horrid" if you believe that qualifies as such. Very strange indeed but then, of course we have seen that in many other aspects of your bigotry towards Muslims. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Lucas The Innkeeper

Full Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 162
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #306 - Oct 20^th, 2013 at 1:01am

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 12:56am:

freediver wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 8:38am:

Quote:

Context, FD, context. It as said in what context? In the context of criticism of the nation of Saudi Arabia imposing legal punishments on it's own citizens. While I know you'd prefer to keep stripping what I said of it's context so it is easier to criticise me, it doesn't work.

I am not stripping it of context. I am deliberately including that in the quote because it makes your views look all the more horrid.

What? That I recognise the sovereign right of nations to make their own laws? That while I disagree with them, I recognise my inability to change them? That I refuse to be judgemental? FD, you have strange definition of the word "horrid" if you believe that qualifies as such. Very strange indeed but then, of course we have seen that in many other aspects of your bigotry towards Muslims. Roll Eyes

Wow someone pulling someone else up over bigotry toward muslims Grin

Yet Muslims if they follow the Quaran are the biggest bigots on the planet. Shame on you FD you naughty man for repaying the favor.

Islam is the most bigoted scourge of one pedophiles religion on the face of the earth.

Waits for the slamming of all the Islamic Muslim bigots on the planet as well.

Back to top

IP Logged

Brian Ross Gold Member Offline Representative of me Posts: 40817	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #307 - Oct 20^th, 2013 at 1:43am I take it that you believe then, that two negatives can produce a positive?
Back to top	Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... IP Logged

Lucas The Innkeeper Full Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 162 Gender:	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #308 - Oct 20^th, 2013 at 1:51am Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 1:43am: I take it that you believe then, that two negatives can produce a positive? Lets take -5 and -6 and multiply them. You do the math Genius.
Back to top	IP Logged

Brian Ross Gold Member Offline Representative of me Posts: 40817	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #309 - Oct 20^th, 2013 at 2:00am Clever but we both know that we were talking about addition, not multiplication.
Back to top	Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... IP Logged

Lucas The Innkeeper Full Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 162 Gender:	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #310 - Oct 20^th, 2013 at 2:05am Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 2:00am: Clever but we both know that we were talking about addition, not multiplication. No you would like to make out you were talking about addition do post it right. I was spot on. Weasel if you must. Math is math. The fact remains I was correct.
Back to top	IP Logged

Lucas The Innkeeper

Full Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 162
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #311 - Oct 20^th, 2013 at 2:10am

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 1:43am:

I take it that you believe then, that two negatives can produce a positive? Roll Eyes

Again we take -5 and -6 IE two negatives

and by simple multiplication what have we done ? We can produce a Positive

Viola.

That's pretty clear.

Now if you wanted a caveat that we could only do it your way to make your post the winning one then perhaps you should have worded it like this.

"I take it that you believe then, that two negatives can produce a positive just as long as you don't use multiplication cause then I would look like a dufus ? Roll Eyes

"

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #312 - Oct 20^th, 2013 at 8:14am

Quote:

What? That I recognise the sovereign right of nations to make their own laws? That while I disagree with them, I recognise my inability to change them? That I refuse to be judgemental?

Here it is again for you Brian:

Quote:

I have no right or ability to criticise them.

Remember, even Gandalf, one of the people you are supposedly standing up for, thinks your views are morally reprehensible.

Quote:

FD, you have strange definition of the word "horrid" if you believe that qualifies as such.

Horrid, spineless and morally reprehensible. I am fairly open-minded about these things.

Quote:

No you would like to make out you were talking about addition do post it right.

He's got you there Brian. Can't argue with facts, can you? Perhaps you should attack his motives instead?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #313 - Oct 20^th, 2013 at 8:17am

Apparently it is also wrong to try to "impose your will" on modern rapists and murderers if they are merely following an example set 1400 years ago. I don't quite get the logic - something to do with it being common back then, therefor we must be more accepting if people want to continue the practice:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 12:37am:

freediver wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 8:42am:

Quote:

As I've pointed out, FD Muhammed was no different to most other warlords in the Medieval or Ancient periods, or even up to the start of the 20th for that matter. History unfortunately is littered with atrocities. You, OTOH appear to believe he was unique in this regard, perhaps because of your bigoted viewpoint towards Muslims.

He is unique in that people turned him into a religious leader, despite all the raping and pillaging. It's like worshiping Hitler.

And? Some people do, do that, FD. That is their choice. You may disagree with it but can you impose your will on them to make them change? Really? Roll Eyes

As I keep pointing out and you keep refusing to accept - what happened 1400 years ago was done to a completely different set of social mores to those in use today. Different standards, FD. Roll Eyes

Can you explain Brian?

If Germans started worshiping Hitler, would you defend their right to gas Jews? After all, you are neither German nor Nazi, and therefor must be accepting of their customs. Or did Hitler miss the historical boat?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 40817

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #314 - Oct 20^th, 2013 at 12:23pm

freediver wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 8:14am:

Quote:

What? That I recognise the sovereign right of nations to make their own laws? That while I disagree with them, I recognise my inability to change them? That I refuse to be judgemental?

Here it is again for you Brian

I've made my explanation several times now, FD. You can continue to believe what you like, I am the one who knows though, what I meant and I've made it clear. Repeating what I typed ad infinitum will not change that explanation. Your refusal to accept it is your problem, not mine.

That you seem to believe that personal attack threads are acceptable behaviour indicates why you find the lack of moderator so convenient.

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged