Australian Politics Forum - Gandalf's version of human rights

Stratos

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4725

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #15 - Jan 8^th, 2014 at 2:11pm

Why not just ask him to clarify his point on the question then? Might make things a bit clearer.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 1:57pm:

Malaysians already have the right to elect their leaders

eh, kind of. You don't get to have the longest serving ever "democratically elected" government by playing by the rules. In the most recent election the conut was close at one point, then there were mass blackouts, followed by a massive boost in votes for the government. Dodgy as lol

Back to top

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 11:24pm:

Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #16 - Jan 8^th, 2014 at 2:20pm

Quote:

Why not just ask him to clarify his point on the question then? Might make things a bit clearer.

I have already. Apparently he opposes executing apostates and he was making some kind of rhetorical point by spinning this issue as one of rights for Muslims to kill people. If you think you can get him to make sense, be my guest.

Quote:

eh, kind of. You don't get to have the longest serving ever "democratically elected" government by playing by the rules. In the most recent election the conut was close at one point, then there were mass blackouts, followed by a massive boost in votes for the government. Dodgy as lol

There are all sorts of problems, including a complete lack of freedom of speech, which makes democracy tricky at best. If this issue were closer to a 50-50 split, the extremists would probably get their way, but it is hard for them when only 1/3 of the population support the policy, and barely a majority of Muslims support it.

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 human rights
Reply #17 - Jan 8^th, 2014 at 2:28pm

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 1:23pm:

Quote:
You have to be muslim at the time the law is introduced to be affected by it. Again, it is a proposed law by muslims for muslims.

That does not even make sense. Are you suggested every person who is later born into Islam or converts escapes the law? Furthermore, in Malaysia the government decides who is a Muslim. People are not given a choice. There are people in rehabilitation camps in Malaysia right now because they attempted to apostasise.

You are not making any sort of argument here. I'm perfectly happy to agree that 100% of these "muslim only by force of law" Malays are probably dead set against the laws.

But it doesn't mean anything in this discussion. The truth is, since these people are officially recognised as muslim, they make up part of the 48% of "muslims" who oppose the hudud laws in your PEW survey. So those people are already accounted for. You still end up having to justify your claim that the vast majority of non-malay non-muslims oppose letting Malays enact the laws on themselves.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 1:23pm:

Quote:
Islamophobia is saying that people who respond in a survey saying they believe in stoning for adulterers and death for apostasy are "frothing at the mouth" and "desperate" to get their "killing in the name of islam" laws through.

Half of those were your words Gandalf, not mine.

No, they were *ALL* my words. But you were quite clear in your response:

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.

"Exactly how it is"?? Surely you didn't say that FD? Oh wait, you did.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 1:23pm:

For the most part, Muslims are patient and superficially reasonable in ther pursuit of their "right" to kill people.

In case the other islamophobic rant wasn't clear enough. Roll Eyes

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 human rights
Reply #18 - Jan 8^th, 2014 at 2:35pm

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 1:57pm:

Quote:
we are talking about whether or not muslims have the right to introduce hudud apostasy and adultery laws on themselves, and only on themselves.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 1:57pm:

Quote:
How many non-Muslims believe muslims have the right to introduce their own laws for executing apostates and stoning adulterers?

There you go Stratos, this is me apparently asserting that "ethnic Indians and Chinese accept that Muslims have a right to execute these people" Tongue

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 human rights
Reply #19 - Jan 9^th, 2014 at 7:49am

Quote:

The truth is, since these people are officially recognised as muslim, they make up part of the 48% of "muslims" who oppose the hudud laws in your PEW survey.

I would expect the Pew people to go by who self-identifies as Muslim.

Quote:

You still end up having to justify your claim that the vast majority of non-malay non-muslims oppose letting Malays enact the laws on themselves.

Not what I said Gandalf. They may be perfectly happy with letting Muslims impose the less barbaric laws.

Quote:

No, they were *ALL* my words. But you were quite clear in your response:

Apparently not. I was trying to explain to you how democracy works, not how frothy the Muslims are.

Quote:

In case the other islamophobic rant wasn't clear enough.

Obviously not. Can you explain why you cry Islamophobia in response to me describing Muslims who want to kill apostates as patient and superficially reasonable? Or why you still think I was referring to the frothiness of Muslims rather than the functioning of democracy?

Quote:

There you go Stratos, this is me apparently asserting that "ethnic Indians and Chinese accept that Muslims have a right to execute these people"

and here:

Quote:

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.

and here:

Quote:

And the point here is non-muslim Malaysians don't have to like the laws to appreciate that muslims have the right to enact those laws on themselves if they like.

You need to have a pretty messed up view of human rights to even think of spinning the execution of apostates this way.

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 human rights
Reply #20 - Jan 9^th, 2014 at 10:20am

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 7:49am:

Not what I said Gandalf. They may be perfectly happy with letting Muslims impose the less barbaric laws.

Oh for goodness sake Roll Eyes

"You still end up having to justify your claim that the vast majority of non-malay non-muslims oppose letting Malays enact hudud apostasy and adultery laws on themselves

Keep spinning away, but the simple fact is you cannot substantiate this. Thats why you fail.

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 7:49am:

Apparently not. I was trying to explain to you how democracy works, not how frothy the Muslims are.

Your "explanation" rests on the premise that these muslims are "desperate" to get their laws through, and are only stopped by a majority of "opposers".

Two obvious flaws:

1. muslims who state in a survey they are in favour of hudud apostasy and stoning laws are "desperate" to get these laws through = utterly baseless.

2. the majority of the Malaysian population oppose these laws = utterly baseless.

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 7:49am:

Can you explain why you cry Islamophobia in response to me describing Muslims who want to kill apostates as patient and superficially reasonable?

prejudice
ˈprɛdʒʊdɪs/
noun
noun: prejudice; plural noun: prejudices

1.
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

Accusing them of being "superficial" is particularly hilarious. All I've seen in this discussion is muslims being perfectly honest and upfront about their support for these hudud laws. What *DID* you actually mean by "superficial" FD? This implies deceit and dishonesty. Are muslims being deceitful about their pursuit of apostasy laws? Where? How?

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 7:49am:

You need to have a pretty messed up view of human rights to even think of spinning the execution of apostates this way.

right, so let me get this straight: me opining about what other people might think about a particular human rights issue is me having a messed up view of human rights?

Presumably then the next time you offer an opinion about a particular group of muslim's views on sharia, I can start ranting about freediver having a messed up view of human rights?

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

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #21 - Jan 9^th, 2014 at 11:19am

8 January 2014

Malaysia: Move to outlaw human rights groups is an assault on freedom

Today’s attempt by Malaysia’s Ministry of Home Affairs to ban the country’s leading coalition of human rights NGOs is a disturbing assault on the rights to freedom of expression and association, Amnesty International said.

The Ministry alleged that the majority of the 54 groups that make up the Coalition of Malaysian NGOs (COMANGO) are “un-Islamic”, lack official registration, and are therefore prohibited.
...
“It is concerning to see the Malaysian authorities increasingly taking their cue from hardline religious groups and others seeking to silence those who espouse views that differ from their own agenda,” said Galang-Folli.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/malaysia-move-outlaw-human-rights-groups-assault-...

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #22 - Jan 9^th, 2014 at 12:02pm

Quote:

"You still end up having to justify your claim that the vast majority of non-malay non-muslims oppose letting Malays enact hudud apostasy and adultery laws on themselves

No I don't. Like I said, I am happy to defer to common sense. Not wanting Muslims killing people in the name of Islam is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make on behalf of these people. It makes a lot more sense than assuming they see it as a Muslim's right to kill people.

Quote:

Accusing them of being "superficial" is particularly hilarious. All I've seen in this discussion is muslims being perfectly honest and upfront about their support for these hudud laws.

Are you referring to yourself?

Quote:

What *DID* you actually mean by "superficial" FD?

I mean they sound thoughtful and considered, until you realise they are talking about killing people in the name of Islam. Think "the banality of evil", or Hannibal Lecter.

Quote:

right, so let me get this straight: me opining about what other people might think about a particular human rights issue is me having a messed up view of human rights?

Pretty much. That you even came up with the idea of spinning it as a rights issue is pretty messed up. That you would project this view onto non-Muslims is just deluded.

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 human rights
Reply #23 - Jan 9^th, 2014 at 1:12pm

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 12:02pm:

No I don't. Like I said, I am happy to defer to common sense. Not wanting Muslims killing people in the name of Islam is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make on behalf of these people. It makes a lot more sense than assuming they see it as a Muslim's right to kill people.

Right, good, no evidence whatsoever for a baseless claim. You just project your own narrow prejudiced views onto other people and label it "common sense". Glad we've got that sorted.

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 12:02pm:

Pretty much. That you even came up with the idea of spinning it as a rights issue is pretty messed up.

Yep got it - completely messed up that I would even consider that non-muslims living amongst muslims might see the issue of hudud laws by muslims for muslims as an issue for muslims to sort out themselves.

Personally I don't agree with this stance either, but I'm not going to be so arrogant as to assume that just about every non-muslim must necessarily think the same - just because I disagree with 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

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48833 At my desk.	Re: Gandalf's version of human rights Reply #24 - Jan 9^th, 2014 at 7:31pm So thinking that people have a right to choose their own religion, without getting executed, and also thinking other people likely share this view, is narrow and prejudiced? Where are you getting this crap from Gandalf?
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 human rights
Reply #25 - Jan 10^th, 2014 at 7:39am

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 7:31pm:

So thinking that people have a right to choose their own religion, without getting executed, and also thinking other people likely share this view, is narrow and prejudiced?

You are *NOT* saying that - thats the problem. You are saying they *DEFINITELY" share this view, and that there is no possibility that they might have a different view, and any suggestions that they might, is having a "messed up view of human rights". And every time I point out that this might not be the case, you haughtilly come out with your "take an honest guess" and "I'm happy to defer to common sense" schtick.

If you really did say that its "likely" they share your view, but also concede you have no evidence to support this claim - and acknowledge also that its possible they might share a different view, and that its not *UNREASONABLE* to suggest this possibility...

...then it would not be a narrow and prejudiced view.

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 human rights
Reply #26 - Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:14am

Quote:

You are *NOT* saying that - thats the problem. You are saying they *DEFINITELY" share this view, and that there is no possibility that they might have a different view

We have been over the maths already Gandalf.

Quote:

and any suggestions that they might, is having a "messed up view of human rights"

No Gandalf. What you said is messed up, and not because it is an alternative view to mine. That you don't seem to even realise why it is so weird just adds to this.

Quote:

If you really did say that its "likely" they share your view,

Let's start by you agreeing that I did not say *DEFINITELY". It took me a few pages to get you to understand that I never said 100%. Now you have dreamt up another way of making the same idiotic mistake.

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 human rights
Reply #27 - Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:58am

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:14am:

Let's start by you agreeing that I did not say *DEFINITELY". It took me a few pages to get you to understand that I never said 100%. Now you have dreamt up another way of making the same idiotic mistake.

Ok good - so you must therefore acknowledge the *POSSIBILITY* that they might consider it an issue for muslims and muslims alone to sort out for themselves, and agree that this is not an unreasonable position given the complete absence of any evidence that says otherwise.

Oh wait, you don't Roll Eyes

Apparently the mere suggestion is "having a messed up view of human rights".

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 human rights
Reply #28 - Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:19am

Quote:

Ok good - so you must therefore acknowledge the *POSSIBILITY* that they might consider it an issue for muslims and muslims alone to sort out for themselves

I am sure there are a few who would be glad to see the indigenous population kill each other over their idiotic beliefs. Out of these, a few would be cynical enough to spin it as a rights issue for them, just like you do.

Quote:

and agree that this is not an unreasonable position given the complete absence of any evidence that says otherwise.

I think it is pretty messed up to assume this on behalf of the Indians and Chinese. You would whine for pages if anyone made such an assumption about Muslims. That was the point of the survey - to actually prove just how buggered up these Muslims are, because people like Brian and yourself kept insisting they were "normal". Yet even with the survey you still attempt to paint the Muslims as the good guys.

Quote:

Apparently the mere suggestion is "having a messed up view of human rights".

You still haven't explained where you pulled this idea from. Do you see it as natural to assume that other people think Muslims have the right to kill people in the name of Islam?

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 human rights
Reply #29 - Jan 10^th, 2014 at 10:33am

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:19am:

I think it is pretty messed up to assume this on behalf of the Indians and Chinese. You would whine for pages if anyone made such an assumption about Muslims.

And yet I'm not making any such assumptions. You are the only one making assumptions about how these people think.

Unbelievable. Trully.

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:19am:

That was the point of the survey - to actually prove just how buggered up these Muslims are, because people like Brian and yourself kept insisting they were "normal". Yet even with the survey you still attempt to paint the Muslims as the good guys.

When they're actually the "bad guys"?

And don't forget 'little Hitlers'.

You are right FD, we absolutely should use this survey to demonize and exercise our prejudice against muslims. Its certainly a whole lot more constructive than trying to understand the clear inconsistency between this one survey and the demonstrated voting and political behaviour of Malays in the real world.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 10^th, 2014 at 11:20am by polite_gandalf »

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