Australian Politics Forum - Gandalf's version of democracy

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #60 - Jan 7^th, 2014 at 11:48am

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 6:20pm:

Quote:
Which brings us back to the original topic: it is *NOT* a scenario where a minority (1/3) are frothing at the mouth desperate to get "killing people in the name of islam" laws through - but are only held back by a majority of civilized "opposers" who are successfully holding the barbarians at bay.

That is exactly how it is, and you are deluding yourself to think otherwise.

Oh dear God, you really are saying that.

When I quote this back to you, don't dare say that I am making up fantasies of what you said. Here you are on record as saying a majority of Malaysian Muslims are "frothing at the mouth - desperate to get 'killing people in the name of islam' laws through.

Frothing at the mouth FD? Really?? Oh yeah, you really did say that.

Here's a question FD - do you think its possible to answer positively about something in a survey and not be "frothing at the mouth" and "desperate" about it?

Have a think about that - please.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #61 - Jan 8^th, 2014 at 8:53am

Quote:

You seriously believe that when asked about "hudud" - with no qualifications - respondents will naturally infer that some parts of hudud are not included

Wrong. You are the only one assuming anything about what the respondents meant. As I pointed out, and you regularly ignore, I was going by what they said - "fair to all", "applying only to Muslims" and "reduce rampant crime" - hardly sounds like executing apostates.

Quote:

even when the context of such a question is *SPECIFICALLY* about a particular political party's hudud policy, of which apostasy and adultery laws are well known to be part of?

Like I said, it does not make sense to generalise. People will inevitably have different opinions about each specific law, as the Pew survey highlights. Furthermore, by not mentioning the specific laws and phrasing the questions so they are not ones of support or opposition, the survey appears deliberately intended to skew the results, or at the very least, provide sufficiently ambiguous results so that Muslims such as yourself can spin them however you want.

Quote:

You are being unreasonable.

No I am not. You are responding to a survey that showed different views on each specific Shariah Law with a generalisation about a group of laws in which the opinions expressed don't even make sense for executing apostates.

Quote:

By the way, here is the survey. The relevant question is on page 45. It translates as: "Do hudud laws promise justice for all?" Very simple - no qualifications, just hudud in its entirety. If you are going to invent some scenario that they were actually only talking about parts of hudud, then you need some evidence.

No I don't.

Quote:

You do believe that the vast majority of non-muslims oppose implementing hudud stoning and apostasy - err oops sorry I mean killing people in the name of islam laws yes?

Of course. I challenge you to find a single non-Muslim who supports Muslims executing apostates. That you project such absurd views onto these people just shows how deluded you are.

Quote:

Prey tell, show me your calculations.

They are in the opening post. Both numbers come out to less than 1/3 of the population. To get 99.6%, you have to round at several stages of the calculation, compounding your error.

To be more precise, I get 32.5% and 31.5%. To bring each of these up to exactly 1/3 with support from the remaining 39% of the population would require 2.1% and 4.8% of that group to be in support of the laws.

There are two reasons why it does not make sense to provide this 'spurious' accuracy. One is that the original numbers were rounded to the nearest percent. The other is that I actually claimed that "roughly" 2/3 of the population oppose the laws. It required an unusual combination of pedantry and careless or deliberate errors on your part to lead you to demand I "prove" that 100% of the non-Muslim population oppose these laws. It really not take so much effort to get you to move on from this.

Quote:

You did however infer that that is what it is like.

I said that it is killing people in the name of Islam, which is exactly what it is.

Quote:

You simply cannot bear using an accurate description like "introducing laws to execute apostates and stone adulterers". No, it is far too neutral and unemotional.

I think you will find that I have used those terms far more frequently in this thread. But don't let the facts get in the way of more Gandalf spin.

Quote:

"Take an honest guess - how many non-Muslims do you really believe are in favour of allowing Muslims to start killing people in the name of Islam?"

Yes, you still haven't done that have you Gandalf?

Quote:

number 3 is the most accurate question to ask in the context of what Malaysians think about the laws. And it also addresses the fact that non-muslims don't have to support, or be in "favour" of the laws to not be an obstacle for their implementation. And the correct and obvious answer must start with "the evidence indicates...".

That is not how democracy works Gandalf. You are hardly going to get a third of the population abstaining on allowing Muslims to kill people in the name of Islam. That you think this way merely highlights the extent of your own delusion.

Quote:

Oh dear God, you really are saying that.

Yes Gandalf. It is a democracy. Only 1/3 of the population support the laws. The laws are inevitably going to be controversial and there is no way they will slip under the radar, which is why Anwar Ibrahim had to clarify his coalition's position on them. If only 1/3 of the population support such a law it will fail, and not because of lack of motivation on the part of those who support it, as you claim. Nor could it succeed, for want of such motivation, because of lack of interest or ambivalence among non-Muslims regarding Muslims killing people in the name of Islam. Non-Muslims are simply not going to turn a blind eye to the barbarity of Islam rearing it's ugly head in their own backyard.

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: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #62 - Jan 8^th, 2014 at 9:11am

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 12:43pm:

... that despite the fact that Muslims in Malaysia on the whole don't actually vote for these laws when given the opportunity at elections. And curiously we don't ever actually see these "frothing at the mouth" barbarians bombarding the streets with violent protests, terror campaigns etc to try and get what they can't through democracy.

Roughly half the people who support these laws vote for one minor religious party whose core policy is to implement these laws. In a representative democracy (where elections are not referendums on one single issue) that actually demonstrates a high level of motivation on this particular issue. If you disagree, I challenge you to come up with any other issue that gets so much attention. Contrary to your absurd spin about there being no "serious" debate on the issue, it gets far more attention than nearly any other issue with so little support.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #63 - Jan 8^th, 2014 at 11:20am

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 8:53am:

Wrong. You are the only one assuming anything about what the respondents meant. As I pointed out, and you regularly ignore, I was going by what they said - "fair to all", "applying only to Muslims" and "reduce rampant crime" - hardly sounds like executing apostates.

That you can't see that you are blatantly assuming what the respondents meant just shows how blinded you are by your own prejudice. By the way, the "fair to all" and "reduce rampant crime" responses were two separate questions, and the "fair to all" came first. I'm only going to say this once more - they were asked if "hudud promises justice for all" - there are no qualifications about only including certain parts of hudud - and unless you can demonstrate that the respondents were applying any qualifications about the question, you don't have a leg to stand on.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 8:53am:

Furthermore, by not mentioning the specific laws and phrasing the questions so they are not ones of support or opposition, the survey appears deliberately intended to skew the results

Only someone with your blinding prejudice would claim with a straight face that people who apparently are so "passionately opposed to hudud could possibly give the responses they did - ambiguous question or not. The reality is, if non-muslims really thought the way you claim about hudud, they would have a massive red flag light up in their brains as soon as the word "hudud" is mentioned. And they most definitely would not respond in such a positive way for anything related to hudud.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 8:53am:

Of course. I challenge you to find a single non-Muslim who supports Muslims executing apostates.

Just after you assured me that there is a "small but significant minority" of non-muslims who do indeed support this law. Kind of a redundant request wouldn't you say?

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 8:53am:

I think you will find that I have used those terms far more frequently in this thread. But don't let the facts get in the way of more Gandalf spin.

Yes, but isn't it funny that every time we get to the evidence question, it always comes out as "take an honest guess - how many non-muslims would allow muslims to kill people in the name of islam". Isn't it curious, while you don't disagree with my version, you have never once justified your non-evidence by saying (for example) ""take an honest guess - how many non-muslims would allow muslims to enact their own hudud apostasy and adultery laws". Could it be because this wording sounds just slightly more viable and less hysterical than your words? Food for though no?

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 8:53am:

That is not how democracy works Gandalf. You are hardly going to get a third of the population abstaining on allowing Muslims to kill people in the name of Islam. That you think this way merely highlights the extent of your own delusion.

*NEWSFLASH* FD - the government is dominated by the Malay UMNO party. Malay (muslim) -represented parties make a majority of parliament. If 53% of these parties members and supporters really were "frothing at the mouth", "desperate" to get these "killing in the name of islam" laws through, I'm pretty sure you would at the very least see something more than the complete inaction on the issue we are seeing now.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 8:53am:

Quote:
Oh dear God, you really are saying that.

Yes Gandalf. It is a democracy. Only 1/3 of the population support the laws. The laws are inevitably going to be controversial and there is no way they will slip under the radar, which is why Anwar Ibrahim had to clarify his coalition's position on them. If only 1/3 of the population support such a law it will fail, and not because of lack of motivation on the part of those who support it, as you claim. Nor could it succeed, for want of such motivation, because of lack of interest or ambivalence among non-Muslims regarding Muslims killing people in the name of Islam. Non-Muslims are simply not going to turn a blind eye to the barbarity of Islam rearing it's ugly head in their own backyard.

Way to completely avoid the point Roll Eyes

Once again:

do you think its possible to answer positively about something in a survey and not be "frothing at the mouth" and "desperate" about it?

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #64 - Jan 8^th, 2014 at 11:49am

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 9:11am:

Roughly half the people who support these laws vote for one minor religious party whose core policy is to implement these laws.

Oh there you go again, blissfully assuming what non-muslims do and think.

Apparently, PAS has quite a significant non-muslim support base:

Quote:

one fact which has emerged is that an overwhelming number of Chinese voters had backed PAS candidates this time around.

Quote:

One example is in Selayang's Taman Daya, a predominantly Chinese area, where the PAS candidate garnered 1681 votes against BN's 160 votes.

Said Zaidy Talib, PAS's winning candidate in the Taman Templer state seat:

"I won with a majority of 7467 (votes) due to support from urban voters especially the Chinese," he told Harakahdaily.

http://en.harakahdaily.net/index.php/berita-utama/7165-despite-mcas-hate-campaig...

Quote:

JOHOR BARU: JOHOR Pas has admitted that Chinese votes contributed to the party's success in winning two more seats here.

Its commissioner Datuk Dr Mahfodz Mohamed said the party managed to win seats where Chinese voters made up of more than 40 per cent of the voters.

"This means the Chinese not only voted for DAP candidates but also for ours.

"The election results also show that Chinese voters gave between 75 per cent and 80 per cent of their votes to Pas candidates," he said.

Read more: 'Chinese votes helped Pas' - General - New Straits Times http://www.nst.com.my/nation/general/chinese-votes-helped-pas-1.276559#ixzz2plYoVo5b

PAS even has its own non-muslim supporters wing which fielded non-muslim candidates on behalf of PAS

What proportion of PAS votes actually are muslim? Oh thats right, you don't have a damn clue. For all you know the percentage of muslim votes is far less than "roughly half the people who [according to the PEW survey] support these laws." And its anyone's guess as to how many of these people voted for PAS because of rather than in spite of "these laws".

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 9:11am:

Contrary to your absurd spin about there being no "serious" debate on the issue, it gets far more attention than nearly any other issue with so little support.

lol - confused as always FD. Straight after explaining to me that elections are never referendums on single issues, you then use PAS's (relatively) high vote to argue that it "demonstrates a high level of motivation" on this hudud issue. In the spirit of "elections never being referendums on single issues", is it possible that PAS's high vote actually had little to do with their hudud policy? Do you think that just maybe Malaysians were voting in favour of some of PAS's far more prominent (and appealing) credentials such as anti-corruption, anti-status-quo and anti-BN in general? And that Malaysians voted for PAS because of these issue, and quite possibly in spite of, not because of their policies on hudud?

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #65 - Jan 8^th, 2014 at 12:45pm

Oh and just in case FD's confusion is not highlighted enough:

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 9:11am:

Roughly half the people who support these laws vote for one minor religious party whose core policy is to implement these laws. In a representative democracy (where elections are not referendums on one single issue) that actually demonstrates a high level of motivation on this particular issue.

The vast majority of muslim Malaysians vote consistently for parties that take a clear anti-hudud stance. But somehow this does not "demonstrate a high level of motivation on this particular issue".

More impeccable FD logic:
- most Malays voting for anti-hudud parties = says nothing about level of support for hudud

- a minority of Malays voting for pro-hudud party, but whose most prominent platform is an anti-corruption, anti-status quo one (and hudud was conspicuously relegated to the back-burner) = definitely "demonstrates a high level of motivation on this particular issue"

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #66 - Jan 8^th, 2014 at 1:51pm

Quote:

That you can't see that you are blatantly assuming what the respondents meant

You introduced the survey. You made claims (that do not even make sense) about what it means regarding stoning adulterers and executing apostates.

Quote:

By the way, the "fair to all" and "reduce rampant crime" responses were two separate questions

OK, please point out the response to questions about executing apostates and stoning adulterers to death.

Quote:

I'm only going to say this once more - they were asked if "hudud promises justice for all" - there are no qualifications about only including certain parts of hudud - and unless you can demonstrate that the respondents were applying any qualifications about the question, you don't have a leg to stand on.

I am not "standing on" this survey. I am not trying to make anything out of it. You are. I am merely pointing out that it does not show what they think about adultery and stoning laws.

Quote:

Only someone with your blinding prejudice would claim with a straight face that people who apparently are so "passionately opposed to hudud could possibly give the responses they did - ambiguous question or not.

Your words Gandalf, not mine.

Quote:

he reality is, if non-muslims really thought the way you claim about hudud

You mean if they were opposed to Muslims killing people in the name of Islam?

Quote:

they would have a massive red flag light up in their brains as soon as the word "hudud" is mentioned

The survey was conducted in a foreign language. I have no idea how it was presented. I just know that even after translation to English, it is still transparent spin.

Quote:

Just after you assured me that there is a "small but significant minority" of non-muslims who do indeed support this law. If, as you claim, this really was about executing apostates and stoning adulterers, and they failed to mention this in the survey, then it is obvious and transparent spin and you are either incredibly naive or seeking to reinforce your own self delusion.

Your words Gandalf, not mine. It is all there if you wish to quote me instead of lying about what I said.

Quote:

Yes, but isn't it funny that every time we get to the evidence question, it always comes out as "take an honest guess - how many non-muslims would allow muslims to kill people in the name of islam".

No Gandalf. You are wrong on that also. It did most times, for the obvious reason that I copied and pasted it. I often have to ask you something 100 times before getting a straight answer. I know the drill.

Quote:

Isn't it curious, while you don't disagree with my version, you have never once justified your non-evidence by saying (for example) ""take an honest guess - how many non-muslims would allow muslims to enact their own hudud apostasy and adultery laws". Could it be because this wording sounds just slightly more viable and less hysterical than your words? Food for though no?

I did exactly that. Surprise surprise, Gandalf still could not give a straight answer. At any time you could have given a straight answer and if you felt it necessary, qualified it with the context. After all, you spent many posts explaining that I was trying to make it sound like blowing up malls. Surely it would have been easier to give a straight answer and explain that you were not talking about blowing up malls.

Quote:

*NEWSFLASH* FD - the government is dominated by the Malay UMNO party. Malay (muslim) -represented parties make a majority of parliament. If 53% of these parties members and supporters really were "frothing at the mouth", "desperate" to get these "killing in the name of islam" laws through, I'm pretty sure you would at the very least see something more than the complete inaction on the issue we are seeing now.

Complete inaction means not getting the laws through parliament, but getting less barbaric ones through (eg the "rehabilitation" camps). If only 1/3 of the country supports the laws, this makes perfect sense.

Quote:

do you think its possible to answer positively about something in a survey and not be "frothing at the mouth" and "desperate" about it?

Your words, not mine.

Quote:

lol - confused as always FD. Straight after explaining to me that elections are never referendums on single issues, you then use PAS's (relatively) high vote to argue that it "demonstrates a high level of motivation" on this hudud issue. In the spirit of "elections never being referendums on single issues", is it possible that PAS's high vote actually had little to do with their hudud policy? Do you think that just maybe Malaysians were voting in favour of some of PAS's far more prominent (and appealing) credentials such as anti-corruption, anti-status-quo and anti-BN in general? And that Malaysians voted for PAS because of these issue, and quite possibly in spite of, not because of their policies on hudud?

Sure, that's possible, just as it is possible that the reason Muslims who support these laws and don't vote for PAS do so for any number of reasons. You have spent a few pages arguing that you can read whatever you feel like into the election results. You seem perfectly capable of understanding the potential flaws in this when I do it, but seem oblivious when I try to explain the same thing to you.

BTW, all minor parties rail against the corruption etc of the major parties.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #67 - Jan 8^th, 2014 at 3:06pm

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 1:51pm:

Quote:
do you think its possible to answer positively about something in a survey and not be "frothing at the mouth" and "desperate" about it?

Your words, not mine.

Shall I quote your response again? When I claimed that Muslims are not "frothing at the mouth" "desperate" to get those hudud laws through, why did you correct me and assure me "that is exactly how it is, and you are deluding yourself to think otherwise."??

Are you saying now you didn't really mean that?

Its a simple question really, do you think respondents in a survey who answer "yes" to a particular question must necessarily be "frothing at the mouth" and "desperate" about the issue? Why is that "exactly how it is"? I don't think its an unreasonable thing to ask given your response.

Maybe I should follow the FD way, and start a new thread entitled "FD said something stupid" (or words to that effect).

But anyway, lets cut to the chase shall we?

Do you, Freediver, have any evidence at all that supports your claim that 2/3rds of the Malaysian population oppose the introduction of hudud laws for apostasy and adultery?

Simple question, no need to obfuscate or unnecessarily spin it into something incomprehensible. You made a claim, I think its only reasonable that you back it up with some plausible evidence (or even any evidence).

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Pete Waldo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 503
U.S.
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #68 - Jan 9^th, 2014 at 4:16am

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 3:14pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 1:48pm:

How many non-Muslim Malaysians do you think are in favour of allowing Muslims to start killing people in the name of Islam?

Hillarious that you seem to have no clue as to how dishonest this is. "muslims killing people in the name of islam" could be jihadists running around blowing people up in shopping malls. It is not - yet why do you seem to go out of your way to make it sound like that? The truth is, we are talking about whether or not muslims have the right to introduce hudud apostasy and adultery laws on themselves, and only on themselves. What is actually being proposed is vastly different to your dishonest spin.

It is so tragic that you seem so blind to THE REASON for apostasy laws in Islam and instead dither on about who they should apply to. Don't Sunnis murder Shiites? Don't Sunnis and Shiites murder Ahmadiyya? The practice of such Satan inspired laws is inevitable, as a Christian mother of 5 sits on death row in Pakistan, for nothing more than a false accusation of "blasphemy":
http://life.nationalpost.com/2010/11/11/christian-woman-sentenced-to-death-in-pa...
Because Satan hates Jesus.

Muslims are murdered for the "apostasy" of beginning a life in Jesus Christ, because Islam cannot stand in the light of the truth since it is a scripture-contrary, counter-religion with a pre-Muhammad history-devoid, archaeology-absent, reality-rejecting, geographically-impossible so-called "tradition", that masquerades as thousands of years of pre-Muhammad history, that was all created and put to the pen in the 7th to 10th centuries AD without reference to any actual historical record that preceded the 5th century AD.

Former Muslims who begin a life in Jesus Christ are murdered, because the anti-religion of Islam is the very antitheses of freedom, liberty and the right to self-determination. Because the threat of someone walking in truth presents far too much of a threat to those indoctrinated into the lie of Islam. As manifest even in the conspicuous and transparent jealousy that Muhammad's followers exhibit for those of us that enjoy the freedom of a life in Jesus Christ.

John 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
http://www.muslimjourneytohope.com/

That's why as we look around the world today, we find totalitarian governments that even murder their own citizens, for exercising their God-given right to freedom, liberty and self-determination. With 51 mainly Islamic States that ban or restrict the Gospel because of the threat that the truth of the Gospel has always posed to Islam.
http://www.persecution.com/public/restrictednations.aspx?clickfrom=bWFpbl9tZW51

The same reason Muslim mothers and fathers murder their own children for "apostasy", while actually believing that murder restores their "honor".

For 1400 years Muslims have had to be forced to stay in Muhammad's cult because Islam is a lie. Were it not for the intimidation of the threat of being murdered, or at least punished by being disowned, disinherited, ostracized by one's community and fired from jobs and such, Islam would have died with Muhammad. That's why the penalty for leaving is death, just like the Mafia and every other dangerous cult. Islam IS slavery - to Muhammad's followers.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/islamic_slavery_dhimmitude.htm

The slavery created by "apostasy" laws is akin to the "blasphemy" laws you have in Malaysia, that prevent honest and open discussion regarding Islam and Muhammad. The reason is obviously because Islam cannot stand the light of truth.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/blasphemy_laws.htm

If you disagree that Islam is a lie then let's begin with the post in which I replied to you, that you ignored, regarding the history of Mecca. If you try a point by point reply, I believe it will go a long way toward helping you overcome the false prophet Muhammad. If Mecca did not exist prior to the 4th century AD then all of the Islamic so-called "tradition" regarding things prior to the 5th century AD like Islam's created nonsense about Adam and Abraham, are proven to be pure poppycock, since other ancient Arabian towns are well attested in the historical and archaeological records of Arabia.
Did you notice that Wally couldn't reply either?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388067196/20#20

Then perhaps we can move on to Muhammad proclaiming the exact opposite of the whole subject of the Gospel:
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/

Just as Muhammad was the exact opposite of Jesus Christ:
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jesus_or_muhammad.htm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 3:14pm:

And to answer your question, yet again, there is no evidence that non-muslims have any great qualms with muslims enacting their own hudud apostasy and adultery laws, and no real reason to suspect that they would.

Except perhaps for those of us that live civilized societies in which citizen's God -given rights to freedom, liberty and self-determination are protected, who recognize that such as the death penalty for "apostasy" is nothing less than cold-blooded murder, of someone who just wants to be free instead of being a slave.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 9^th, 2014 at 5:34am by Pete Waldo »

Truth can never be told so as to be understood and not be believed. ~ William Blake

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #69 - Jan 9^th, 2014 at 12:05pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 10:20am:

Your "explanation" rests on the premise that these muslims are "desperate" to get their laws through

No it doesn't Gandalf. Do I really need to explain how democracy works? It requires no assumptions at all about the extent of motivation of these people, beyond being able to figure out what box to tick on election day. You are the one trying to change it from a discussion over who supports or opposes the laws to a discussion about how motivated they are.

Quote:

and are only stopped by a majority of "opposers"

That's how democracy works Gandalf.

Quote:

Are you saying now you didn't really mean that?

I am saying I was referring to the functioning of democracy, not the forthiness of Muslims. I am also saying that this should have been bleeding obvious from the context. We actually had the same discussion a few times, and you managed to find the least qualified response on my part.

Quote:

Its a simple question really, do you think respondents in a survey who answer "yes" to a particular question must necessarily be "frothing at the mouth" and "desperate" about the issue? Why is that "exactly how it is"? I don't think its an unreasonable thing to ask given your response.

I have also clarified this several times already.

Quote:

Do you, Freediver, have any evidence at all that supports your claim that 2/3rds of the Malaysian population oppose the introduction of hudud laws for apostasy and adultery?

I have the Pew survey. We have been over the maths several times already.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #70 - Jan 9^th, 2014 at 12:21pm

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 12:05pm:

I have the Pew survey. We have been over the maths several times already.

The PEW survey only asks muslims. That gets us to around 1/3 who oppose - where does the other 1/3 come from? Not from the survey.

Again, have any evidence at all that supports your claim that 2/3rds of the Malaysian population oppose the introduction of hudud laws for apostasy and adultery?

Simple question.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48833 At my desk.	Re: Gandalf's version of democracy Reply #71 - Jan 9^th, 2014 at 12:26pm It comes from non-Muslims Gandalf. Got any more stupid questions?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: Gandalf's version of democracy Reply #72 - Jan 9^th, 2014 at 12:33pm freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 12:26pm: It comes from non-Muslims Gandalf. Got any more stupid questions? Just one, where is the survey that shows these non-muslims expressing their opposition to the laws?
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48833 At my desk.	Re: Gandalf's version of democracy Reply #73 - Jan 9^th, 2014 at 12:40pm Someone showed me a survey where they avoided asking about the laws. Will that do?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #74 - Jan 9^th, 2014 at 12:53pm

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 12:40pm:

Someone showed me a survey where they avoided asking about the laws. Will that do?

No.

Again, 2/3rds of the entire population are allegedly "opposing" a couple of laws from being implemented. Where is the evidence? All you have is a survey that states that about 1/3 support that law and 1/3 oppose it. Where does it say that the remaining 1/3 oppose it?

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged