Obfuscation is Soren's middle name, Mothra.   

mothra wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 11:53pm:



He's worthy of special consideration.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 11:55pm:



Weeeeellll .. if you look at it like that ... 

Your opening gambit is always calling any criticism of Islam Islamophobic and always equating criticism of Islam with criticism of every Muslim. This is a knowingly dishonest tactic.

My opening gambit in this round was criticising this very tactic, the conflating of criticism of Islam with criticism and hatred for every single muslim. You, Gandy, Brain et al come up with this tactic every time.

If I say sharia and jihad are at the heart of Islam, the chorus will immediately say that not all Muslims believe in sharia and jihad, as if saying that they are at the heart of Islam meant that every Muslim believes them.

You make this category mistake consistently, every time, and it is not an innocent mistake, not a result of mere intellectual laziness or simple stupidity. You know precisely what you are doing.

And this is why I repeatedly have been asking you to show us what an objective reasonable criticism of Islam looks like if you think it is possible. Leave the Muslims to one side, just show jow an ideology, a religion can be objectively, reasonably criticised without you lot baying Islamophobia within seconds.

I am asking you a very simple thing and you have been doing everything to avoid facing it. And I am convinced that you will all continue to to do everything to avoid it and to carry on with the stupid Islamophobia mongering. 

I do not believe you can imagine an objective, reasonable criticism of Islam and a complete rejection of it on such grounds.




I posted the above a page an a half ago, yesterday. You numpties have done exactly what I predicted. You simply cannot "show us what an objective reasonable criticism of Islam looks like if you think it is possible" because to you EVEREY criticism of Islam by a non-Muslim is Islamophobia.

Soren wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 9:03pm:


It’s the old boy way, no? PBs, Brains, dirty little inverts...

Intelligence and integrity, innit.

Soren wrote on May 9^th, 2015 at 12:03pm:


That’s the spirit, old chap. But I have to ask - why don’t you just pretend to oppose porkie pies?

You could hold yourself up as a champion of truth. You know, where there was id there shall ego be, all that.

Ridiculous, I know, but it helps to play to the stalls every now and then. You don’t want these squishy bedwetters thinking you have no spine, shurely.

Intelligence and integrity, old boy, that’s the ticket.

Soren wrote on May 10^th, 2015 at 4:04pm:


I really did try and make it easy for you, but you absolutely insist on having it spelled out to you. Clearly it *DOESN'T* suffice to simply point out that it can be absolutely anything that is not based on lies - and not even re-emphasising the "ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING part  helps - evidently.

So here you go S - a sample of objective criticism that is acceptable (ie not based on lies):

- muslims are guilty of putting too much emphasis on the violent and intolerant interpretation of Islam - thus leading many non-muslims to not unreasonably equate Islam as a violent religion

- muslims are guilty of interpreting Islam as a religion that intrudes on personal rights and freedoms - attracting not unreasonable criticism from non-muslims

- muslims are guilty of interpreting Islam as a mysognistic religion - attracting acceptable criticism from non-muslims about the religion on this front.

Are you getting the gist of it yet Soren? These are all criticisms that are based on undeniable facts - ie how muslims present their religion to the world. There undeniably *ARE* muslims who promote violent, anti-freedom and mysognist (and many other) versions of Islam - and criticism of this is absolutely warranted - and I'll happily join in it.