Australian Politics Forum - Gandalf's version of human rights

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #60 - Jan 20^th, 2014 at 7:15pm

freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 6:24pm:

Please explain why you think it is the same thing.

Its very simple FD - it doesn't make any difference because you still have no basis whatsoever to claim that non-Malays overwhelmingly oppose Malays introducing laws that apply only to Malays. Its still you claiming that 2/3rds of the population "oppose" the laws based on nothing at all.

freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 6:24pm:

Wanting to kill people for having the wrong belief is an unusual position to hold.

no its not - and muslims certainly don't have a monopoly there.

freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 6:24pm:

Even you went to great lengths to convince us that these Muslims did not really hold those views

I think this is about the third time I've had to point out to you I never said that. Please stick to what I say FD.

freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 6:24pm:

But in a feat of hypocrisy, you assume the exact opposite for non-Muslims

There you go again - I never assumed anything about non-muslims. Please stick to what I actually say. You're getting confused with your own argument - remember "take an honest guess" about what non-muslims think - and all that crap? Hillarious that you would (repeatedly) attempt to turn this into *ME* making stupid, baseless assumptions about what people think.

freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 6:24pm:

You are demanding that I prove the bleeding obvious

I am demanding proof that the "vast majority" of one race would "oppose" another race applying laws that only affect themselves. Its really not that unreasonable - if you could only get off your irrational anti-islam bandwagon and consider that not all non-muslims share the same beliefs as you, then you might understand that.

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: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #61 - Jan 20^th, 2014 at 9:44pm

Quote:

freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 6:24pm:

Even you went to great lengths to convince us that these Muslims did not really hold those views

I think this is about the third time I've had to point out to you I never said that. Please stick to what I say FD.

In each of your posts in this thread you attempt to argue that, for a variety of reasons, these Malaysian Muslims do not really think what they say they think:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1387754522

Do you remember all the crap you spun about them only supporting it in an "abstract" sense and not in reality?

Quote:

freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 6:24pm:

But in a feat of hypocrisy, you assume the exact opposite for non-Muslims

There you go again - I never assumed anything about non-muslims. Please stick to what I actually say. You're getting confused with your own argument - remember "take an honest guess" about what non-muslims think - and all that crap? Hillarious that you would (repeatedly) attempt to turn this into *ME* making stupid, baseless assumptions about what people think.

Do you often argue positions that you do not hold and that you know nothing about? You introduced the argument that non-Muslim Malaysians consider it a Muslim's "right" to execute these people. Was this a case of "here is yet another stupid possibility that you must disprove before I accept the obvious?"

Quote:

I am demanding proof that the "vast majority" of one race would "oppose" another race applying laws that only affect themselves.

Do you realise how stupid that sounds? Would you oppose letting Australian Aborigines (or Muslims) kill each other for thinking the wrong thoughts? Why is it so absurd to think the ethnic Indians and Chinese feel the same way? Would you take me seriously if I demanded proof that white Australians oppose letting Aborigines or Arabs kill each other for exercising their fundamental human rights?

These Muslims support the barbaric laws because of Islam. It does not make sense to project that onto non-Muslim Malaysians.

Quote:

Its really not that unreasonable - if you could only get off your irrational anti-islam bandwagon and consider that not all non-muslims share the same beliefs as you, then you might understand that.

I am not arguing that they think exactly like me. I am arguing that they would oppose Muslims killing people in the name of Islam. They do so because they are human. If not that, because it is in their own interest to oppose Islamic extremism in their own country. There are probably dozens of other good reasons. Yet you expect us to think they might support these laws for no good reason at all, other than to prop up your idiotic claim that the 1/3 who say they support this barbarity could achieve it if they really wanted to, but do not achieve it because they do not want what they say they want.

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 #62 - Jan 20^th, 2014 at 11:31pm

freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 9:44pm:

Do you realise how stupid that sounds? Would you oppose letting Australian Aborigines (or Muslims) kill each other for thinking the wrong thoughts? Why is it so absurd to think the ethnic Indians and Chinese feel the same way?

Just hillarious that throughout this discussion you find it so necessary to frame the question in the most misleading way you can think of. I absolutely agree that if you asked a Chinese or Indian Malaysian "do you support muslims killing each other for thinking the wrong thoughts?" or, your favourite - "do you support muslims killing people in the name of islam?" - then I would expect the answer to be a resounding "no". But the very idea that the responses to such phrasing wouldn't be significantly different to describing it accurately - ie "do you support muslims enacting their own hudud apostasy laws" - is beyond stupid. And thats the crux here - you simply can't bare the thought that answering "yes" to the proper question is not the ridiculous notion you are trying so hard to make it out to be. And thats why you have to invent those silly and misleading phrasings.

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

Sprintcyclist

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 40703
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #63 - Jan 21^st, 2014 at 3:50am

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 11:31pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 9:44pm:

Do you realise how stupid that sounds? Would you oppose letting Australian Aborigines (or Muslims) kill each other for thinking the wrong thoughts? Why is it so absurd to think the ethnic Indians and Chinese feel the same way?

Just hillarious that throughout this discussion you find it so necessary to frame the question in the most misleading way you can think of. I absolutely agree that if you asked a Chinese or Indian Malaysian "do you support muslims killing each other for thinking the wrong thoughts?" or, your favourite - "do you support muslims killing people in the name of islam?" - then I would expect the answer to be a resounding "no". But the very idea that the responses to such phrasing wouldn't be significantly different to describing it accurately - ie "do you support muslims enacting their own hudud apostasy laws" - is beyond stupid. And thats the crux here - you simply can't bare the thought that answering "yes" to the proper question is not the ridiculous notion you are trying so hard to make it out to be. And thats why you have to invent those silly and misleading phrasings.

so, the same action. Just rephrasing it makes it all better ?
Murder is murder.
muslims always lie about such matters

Back to top

Modern Classic Right Wing

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #64 - Jan 21^st, 2014 at 11:08am

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 21^st, 2014 at 3:50am:

so, the same action. Just rephrasing it makes it all better ?

It makes a big difference sprint. There is a very interesting field in psychology around suggestive questioning. The landmark experiment in this field had respondents witness a car prang, and then were asked to estimate the speed of the car when it "bumped" "hit" or "smashed" into the other car. As you might have guessed, estimates from the respondents varied significantly according to what word was used to describe the prang.

Blind Freddy can tell you that non-muslim respondents will respond very differently between "do you oppose muslims killing people for thinking the wrong thoughts?" or "do you oppose muslims killing people in the name of islam" and "do you oppose muslims introducing an islamic law that would impose the death sentence on those who leave islam?"

The last is far less offensive sounding than the first (not to mention more accurate) - and this is why FD has to avoid it like the plague when rhetorically asking us to "take an honest guess" about what non-muslims would think 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

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #65 - Jan 21^st, 2014 at 7:29pm

Quote:

Just hillarious that throughout this discussion you find it so necessary to frame the question in the most misleading way you can think of.

Like I keep saying, it is not misleading. Whether you get your head chopped off after an unfair trial run by Muslims, or blown off in a shopping mall by Muslims, you are still dead, in the name of Islam, at the hands of Muslims. Filling out paperwork does not change this.

Quote:

I absolutely agree that if you asked a Chinese or Indian Malaysian "do you support muslims killing each other for thinking the wrong thoughts?" or, your favourite - "do you support muslims killing people in the name of islam?" - then I would expect the answer to be a resounding "no".

Likewise, if you asked them whether they support Muslims executing people who do not want to be labelled as Muslim by the government because of their race, they would also say no - which is precisely why the BS survey you keep trotting out did not ask this question, or anything like it. It is only by failing to even mention it in any shape or form that you are able to delude yourself into seeing a positive response.

Quote:

But the very idea that the responses to such phrasing wouldn't be significantly different to describing it accurately - ie "do you support muslims enacting their own hudud apostasy laws"

The BS survey you keep trotting out did not even ask this question either.

Quote:

And thats the crux here - you simply can't bare the thought that answering "yes" to the proper question is not the ridiculous notion you are trying so hard to make it out to be.

I reject it because it is idiotic to suggest it and idiotic to demand I prove the bleeding obvious.

Quote:

It makes a big difference sprint. There is a very interesting field in psychology around suggestive questioning.

That is why the BS survey you keep trotting out did not mention executing apostates, did not mention stoning adulterers to death, and did not even ask them whether they support or oppose the proposed group of laws. The Pew survey asked specific, straight questions and got straight answers. Your survey was designed to fool the most gullible and ignorant. It is ironic that you claim to understand this but do not recognise such a blatant example when you see it. It is as if knowledge to you is nothing but another tool to create more lies 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:	Re: Gandalf's version of human rights Reply #66 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 12:13pm So according to FD, it is "not misleading" to ask someone their view about introducing laws to execute apostates and not once mention the word apostasy or apostates in the question - just describe it as "killing people in the name of islam". Glad we've got that cleared up.
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

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18312
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #67 - Jan 24^th, 2014 at 8:07pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 21^st, 2014 at 11:08am:

There is a very interesting field in psychology around suggestive questioning. The landmark experiment in this field had respondents witness a car prang, and then were asked to estimate the speed of the car when it "bumped" "hit" or "smashed" into the other car. As you might have guessed, estimates from the respondents varied significantly according to what word was used to describe the prang.

We could also apply that theory to the Quran which was passed down by word of mouth with the hafiz(those who memorised that crappy book) until Uthman got worried about them getting killed in battles and made a book that muslims claim is gods words.

The Quran and hadith were passed down by word of mouth for many decades, what do the experts say about that for a reliable method of passing down information?

Back to top

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #68 - Jan 24^th, 2014 at 9:37pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 12:13pm:

So according to FD, it is "not misleading" to ask someone their view about introducing laws to execute apostates and not once mention the word apostasy or apostates in the question - just describe it as "killing people in the name of islam".

Glad we've got that cleared up.

The Pew survey asked Muslims directly about execution as a punishment for apostasy and stoning people to death for adultery.

The survey you trotted out mentioned neither. Yet you insist that non-Muslims understand that this is what hudud means (while also claiming that no-one talks about it in Malaysia because it is off the radar) and therefor a survey that asks vague questions about hudud (without ever mentioning stoning or execution) shows what these people think about stoning and execution.

So we have a Pew survey that asks the questions directly but does not reflect what Muslims really think because they would come to their senses if they got what they wanted, and a survey that completely avoids asking people what they think about the issue that you insist does show what they think - and you spin this as non-Muslims considering it the "right" of Muslims to kill people in the name of Islam (so long as they fill out the paperwork first...).

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Stratos Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4725	Re: Gandalf's version of human rights Reply #69 - Jan 24^th, 2014 at 10:16pm freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2014 at 9:37pm: while also claiming that no-one talks about it in Malaysia because it is off the radar pretty sure that was me
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: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #70 - Jan 24^th, 2014 at 10:37pm

Not just you.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:55am:

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 7:52am:

here is Gandalf making excuses for his fellow Muslims

Its not about apologising or excusing, its about coming up with an explanation for why their stated beliefs about this punishment is at odds with their demonstrated behaviour. Why doesn't Malaysia (a democracy) have stoning in their penal code if most muslims love it so much? Why isn't it even so much as discussed? Why do Malays simply don't care about the issue until asked to make a 'yes' or 'no' response to a completely detached and hypothetical survey?

Quote:

If you knew anything about Malaysia you would know that there are separate islamic laws that apply only to Malays. The point is though, if muslims were that passionate about introducing stoning, there would be at the very least some serious public debate about it. There is none. And like most things of this nature, once a public debate starts, public support for it will undoubtedly wane.

Quote:

Why isn't there, and never has been anything resembling a serious public debate on this issue in Malaysia - since the majority of the Malay population supposedly want these punishments?

Quote:

Thats ridiculous. You don't have to trust my word for it, even though I follow Malaysian politics closely and know for a fact you are so far off the mark its not funny - you just need to produce some evidence that it is happening. Its not called "public debate" for nothing. If there was a public debate going on, you would be able to find some record of it happening.

Quote:

When we hear hoofbeats, we can either scratch our heads and wonder where all the zebras are, or we can go with the obvious and put it down to horses. When there is no sign of a public debate going on about a particular issue, it generally means that it is not a hot issue that people particularly care about.

People can act all principled on an issue they know only from stories, and know will never have any chance of becoming implemented in their society. But like all these things, if and when a serious debate actually arises, and the issue changes from abstract to "actual possibility", public opinion will change dramatically.

Quote:

Not at all. No one takes PAS seriously when they say these things, and everyone - especially PAS - knows they don't have a dogs chance in hell of ever implementing death for apostasy. Which is why they have considerably toned down their rhetoric in recent years (your quote was from 2000). Note my key words serious debate. This is not a serious debate.

Apparently, one of the states in Malaysia managed to pass the stoning of apostates into law without even discussing it.... just one of the many ways Gandalf has tried to spin this issue out of existence.

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 #71 - Jan 25^th, 2014 at 8:13am

freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2014 at 9:37pm:

The survey you trotted out...

...has nothing to do with the point you are doing well to avoid.

You are deflecting from the inconvenient fact that asking people their opinion on hudud apostasy laws without even mentioning the words "hudud" and "apostasy" is completely misleading and dishonest.

The point about the survey that you so spectacularly miss, is that it is literally the only evidence we have of the Malaysian non-muslim community's opinions on anything hudud.

But its irrelevant to this particular issue - and once again it needs to be pointed out to you that I am not the one making blind assumptions about what people (ie non-muslims in this case) think on a particular question. You assume - baselessly - that 2/3rds of the entire Malaysian non-muslim population "oppose ... passionately" hudud apostasy laws. And without a shred of evidence to support this, you attempt to portray this is a "no-brainer" by framing it in the most misleading way you can - ie by not even mentioning the words 'hudud' and 'apostasy'. Thats the fantasy you need to address, and mocking me for "trotting out a bs survey" that neither confirms or rejects that fantasy of yours is a complete red-herring.

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: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #72 - Jan 25^th, 2014 at 9:17am

You are the only one insisting that we can read people's opinions about execution for apostasy from a survey that does not mention execution for apostasy. Why do you feel the need to explain to me that it would be completely misleading?

Quote:

But its irrelevant to this particular issue - and once again it needs to be pointed out to you that I am not the one making blind assumptions about what people (ie non-muslims in this case) think on a particular question. You assume - baselessly - that 2/3rds of the entire Malaysian non-muslim population "oppose ... passionately" hudud apostasy laws.

Well done Gandalf. You quoted two of the words I used, and built a senstence around them with your own meaning. I guess it is one step closer to quoting what I actually said.

No idea where you get 2/3 of the non-Muslim population from. You always seem to struggle with the maths.

Quote:

And without a shred of evidence to support this, you attempt to portray this is a "no-brainer" by framing it in the most misleading way you can - ie by not even mentioning the words 'hudud' and 'apostasy'.

I framed it many ways, including "death penalty for apostasy". It is not at all misleading to describe it as killing in the name of Islam. I have never suggested, as you appear to imply, that it would be a good idea to frame a survey question about a specific law so vaguely.

Not sure why you think it might appear more benign because you fill out the paperwork before chopping someone's head off. It is still killing people in the name of Islam, and only a Muslim would even think of insisting that non-Muslims appreciate that they have the right to do it and demand proof otherwise. You refuse to have an actual opinion on the issue because you realise how stupid it would be to actually claim that, yet you still try to get mileage out of demanding I prove the obvious.

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 #73 - Jan 25^th, 2014 at 2:57pm

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 9:17am:

No idea where you get 2/3 of the non-Muslim population from.

Sorry I meant 2/3 of the entire Malaysian population. But obviously your case relies on a lot more than 2/3rds of the non-muslim population "opposing".

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 9:17am:

I framed it many ways, including "death penalty for apostasy".

You always avoid answering directly the very obvious point that asking respondents "do you oppose muslims killing in the name of islam" will result in vastly different responses to "do you oppose muslims introducing hudud apostasy laws".

You cannot deny this, so you just avoid it like the plague. Thats the only way you can keep framing it that way.

In short you are just being dishonest.

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: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Gandalf's version of human rights
Reply #74 - Jan 26^th, 2014 at 10:53pm

Quote:

You always avoid answering directly the very obvious point that asking respondents "do you oppose muslims killing in the name of islam"

Because it is a stupid point to make. No-one is suggesting this. You are the only one suggesting we should read into a survey result something that the survey never even mentioned. You went to absurd lengths to justify doing so.

Quote:

You cannot deny this, so you just avoid it like the plague.

I avoid it like an idiotic question.

Back to top

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

IP Logged