Religion Burning the Quran

[medusala]

You have no vaild points.

Racist ****.

If races do not exist then how can one be a racist? Even more so when a religion is being addressed.

These sorts of threads really do bring the apologists out of the woodwork

Not sure if this has been posted on here (not interested in wasting time re dribbled posted from Mickey Mouse hard left websites)


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...o-be-charged-with-inciting-racial-hatred.html

A gang of six men arrested on suspicion burning copies of the Koran on YouTube said yesterday that they expected to be charged with stirring racial hatred.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

The term "catchphrase" relates, not so surprisingly, to slogans repeated so often that they rapidly lose all meaning, if in fact such meaning ever existed.

For instance, that slogan at the end of your second-last post.

And then there's that superficial derogation directed at websites you don't consider to be right-wing enough, thus apparently justifying you disregarding any content which might contain any links to a web source not of the 'right' political branding

Come on, let's ditch the sloganeering and the superficiality, and get back to the more meaningful brand of discussion you and I were having on other topics recently.

Islam is not a race.

Well I think that animosity against people of Asian and Middle Eastern descent is also a factor in comments of that kind.

You might think that it is only religious bigotry at play, but I would take a different interpretation.

PS- That Telegraph article you just included would appear to support a similar interpretation to mine in this regard too.

 

[medusala]

And the arrogant derogatory language seemingly directed at any source you don't consider to be right-wing enough to give proper attention to its content

You attempt to criticise the Oz and then produced such links.

As absurd as it is hypocritical

Well I think that animosity against people of Asian and Middle Eastern descent is also a factor in comments of that kind.

You might think that it is only religious bigotry at play in that regard, but I would take a different interpretation.

Race and religion are most definitely not the same thing regardless of how much the Jewish lobby attempts to argue the case.

Bob Brown regularly attacks the Catholic church and the Christian lobby. By your logic that makes him a racist. I would disagree.

PS- That Telegraph article you just included would appear to support a similar interpretation to mine in this regard too.

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Leaving out reference to the second line and the 'Bob Brown' comment

You attempt to criticise the Oz and then produced such links.

When reportage from the Australian contains credible substantiation, and especially authoritative quotes from people with eminent connection to the subject matter, I'm certainly more inclined to take it seriously.

As opposed to the opinion pieces, which generally don't fit that description so much.

Again, I've sourced material from News Ltd publications - including the Australian - in posts before now. Just because I might discern an unhealthy political slant in a news outlet, that doesn't mean that I'll ignore serious reportage when it presents itself.

Race and religion are most definitely not the same thing regardless of how much the Jewish lobby attempts to argue the case.

I would agree with that point, as such.

However, the driving element in such discriminatory attitudes seems easily blurred (between bigotry and a racial animus) where Muslims are concerned, since Muslims are, as I said, predominantly of Asian and Middle Eastern descent.

 

[medusala]

I would agree with that point, as such.

However, the driving element in such discriminatory attitudes seems easily blurred (between bigotry and a racial animus) where Muslims are concerned, since Muslims are, as I said, predominantly of Asian and Middle Eastern descent.

Asians and those from the Middle East/North Africa/Sub Saharan Africa are hardly ethnically homogeneous.

Thus the logic re Bob Brown being racist holds.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Peculiar that you apparently consider this strange permutation of logic important enough that you would repeat it twice. Alright, I'll respond to it.

Catholicism encompasses a substantially wider spread of ethnicity, and has a substantial or significant presence across a wider area - i.e. about 25% of Europe, 64% of the Americas, 15% of Africa, 26% in Oceania, and 3-3.5% in Asia (but around 80%, for instance, in the Philippines), right?

So exactly how would Bob Brown be racist in criticising the Catholic Church, if you don't mind explaining? Or in criticising the influence of the Christian lobby, since Christianity as a whole has a still-wider spread of ethnicity and wider global presence.

In other words, explain the logic by which you might surmise anyone to be racist against Anglos, Africans, Europeans, Eurasians, Asians, Latinos, and South Pacific Islanders, simultaneously.

And "I hate Bob Brown sooooo much" wouldn't be a valid answer

Or is this just a form of reduction to absolute absurdity in order to assert, without supporting evidence, that there's no element of racial bias within attitudes towards Muslims around the world, or in Australia?

Mmmm I think it is, isn't it...

Come on, let's be serious.

Even as you said, the spread of Islam predominantly covers Asia, the Middle East, and parts of Africa (but primarily regions with an Arabic population, as far as I'm aware)

So in your mind, is it really so far-fetched to suggest that since Muslims are primarily of Asian, Arabic and (to a substantially lesser degree) African descent, that discrimination against Muslims in Western countries can also have racial elements to it?

 

[Malifice]

If races do not exist then how can one be a racist? Even more so when a religion is being addressed..

Biological race doesnt exist.

Its what makes racism so utterly stupid.

Prejudicing people for something that doesnt even exist.

 

[Paradigm]

Succinct enough?

Actually, no. Not nearly succint enough.
Just another rant.

Maybe this is what you mean.
"I am anti Australian, anti US and anti UN."

I don't know why you even live here!

Again, anything you can debunk, I can debunk better. I just choose not to inflict articles ten paragraphs long on everyone, when I can state my own opinion in a couple of sentences. We are all well aware, thank you , of the Middle East and it's violent and unstable history.

The topic here was about something that was happening a couple of weeks ago. Who invaded who in 42 BC has little relevance.
I was of the opinion these forums were for thoughts, ideas etc of our own. Your posts would be better suited to a history lecture.

 

[dugrene]

If you download this book then trash/delete/erase/burn or let a virus destroy and corrupt it, the same as buying the book then smoke it or cook with it ?

I dont want to offend any make believe enthusiasts that live in computer land.

 

[Paradigm]

If you download this book then trash/delete/erase/burn or let a virus destroy and corrupt it, the same as buying the book then smoke it or cook with it ?

I dont want to offend any make believe enthusiasts that live in computer land.

Don't know - but I think this particular publication could use a bit of the old "edited for accuracy" work!

Get Wonna onto it. Rewrite a bit of that there old history!

 

[Malifice]

Maybe this is what you mean.
"I am anti Australian, anti US and anti UN."

I don't know why you even live here!

Define 'anti Australian'.

 

[dugrene]

Don't know - but I think this particular publication could use a bit of the old "edited for accuracy" work!;)

Get Wonna onto it. Rewrite a bit of that there old history!

Now there's an idea!

Get a more accurate version with all the latest up dates, jihads, fatwa's etcon-line.
Some careful editing would do wonders for world safety.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Define 'anti Australian'.

As far as I can tell mate, in this context, that term means "anyone who disagrees with Paradigm". Ditto for 'anti US' and 'anti UN'.

There's no way to have a reasoned argument with someone who thinks substance & evidence in a debate are 'irrelevant', treats being unengaged as some sort of Zen-like thing, and seems to prefer it that way, and thinks the only form of valid interaction in a discussion is to post one/two-sentence assertions backed by nothing else than "because I say so".

So I figure taking the piss is really the only option here.

Just another rant.

Got to love that kind of irony

Crazy rant par excellence from you in that reply, by any standards. Complete with tears. Clearly the burn is deep, as is the posterior constriction...

Again, anything you can debunk, I can debunk better.

Sure, I believe you. I really do. Even when all I have to go on here is your say-so, which carries a great deal of weight with me, I can assure you.

We are all well aware, thank you, of the Middle East and it's violent and unstable history.

So why then do you seem to think that the coups in Iraq, Hussein's time in power, and the long-running conflict and other issues in Afghanistan that I was referring to, somehow all took place back before the birth of Christ?

Who invaded who in 42 BC has little relevance.

You're hardly showing yourself to be particularly well-informed so far

I don't know why you even live here!

That's right, let that anger and indignance out. Let that pain flow, it's the only way you'll ever heal again...

 

[TheBloods]

So why then do you seem to think that the coups in Iraq, Hussein's time in power, and the long-running conflict and other issues in Afghanistan that I was referring to, somehow all took place back before the birth of Christ?

You still failed to demonstrate the meaning and relevance of all your long postings. And you still can't work out his name was Saddam. His father's name was Hussein. It was not Saddam's surname.

 

[Paradigm]

As far as I can tell mate, in this context, that term means "anyone who disagrees with Paradigm". Ditto for 'anti US' and 'anti UN'.

There's no way to have a reasoned argument with someone who thinks substance & evidence in a debate are 'irrelevant', treats being unengaged as some sort of Zen-like thing, and seems to prefer it that way, and thinks the only form of valid interaction in a discussion is to post one/two-sentence assertions backed by nothing else than "because I say so".

So I figure taking the piss is really the only option here.



Got to love that kind of irony

Crazy rant par excellence from you in that reply, by any standards. Complete with tears. Clearly the burn is deep, as is the posterior constriction...



Sure, I believe you. I really do. Even when all I have to go on here is your say-so, which carries a great deal of weight with me, I can assure you.



So why then do you seem to think that the coups in Iraq, Hussein's time in power, and the long-running conflict and other issues in Afghanistan that I was referring to, somehow all took place back before the birth of Christ?



You're hardly showing yourself to be particularly well-informed so far

That's right, let that anger and indignance out. Let that pain flow, it's the only way you'll ever heal again...

Bolded - I was being facetious. Sorry - forgot to use this.

Anger ? Indignance? No, not at all. That's even quite a humourous suggestion.

You are entitled to your opinion. That is if it is YOUR opinion or whether or not you need opinions of others to form an opinion. Like I said , there are a million articles flying around the internet that claim to be right. To post them and have a discussion on them is one thing, but to post them and say " This is why I am right" is another.

None of the post above indicates any rebuttal of an argument, merely another rant. 'Taking the piss' does not consitute an argument either, btw. Otherwise I could easily spend ten minutes composing an equally, if not more, long winded speel.

 

[Paradigm]

You still failed to demonstrate the meaning and relevance of all your long postings. And you still can't work out his name was Saddam. His father's name was Hussein. It was not Saddam's surname.

- and why they apply to this topic.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

You still failed to demonstrate the meaning and relevance of all your long postings.

I figured you grasped the nature and relevance of the issues I was raising before, about the post-WW2 history of events in Iraq and Afghanistan, well before now, hence the way in which you were seeking to debate me on those issues in earlier pages.

It would be strange if you've now forgotten the meaning and relevance of that which you were originally arguing about.

 

[TheBloods]

I figured you grasped the nature and relevance of the issues I was raising before, about the post-WW2 history of events in Iraq and Afghanistan, well before now, hence the way in which you were seeking to debate me on those issues in earlier pages.

It would be strange if you've now forgotten the meaning and relevance of that which you were originally arguing about.

You raised it for no real reason but the opportunity for an anti-US rant, as you do with anti-Liberal rants in politics threads.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Bolded - I was being facetious

Well that was obvious - I mean, it wasn't exactly subtle, was it?

When faced with a reductio ad absurdum response, my first instinct is, as you would've guessed by now, to take the piss.

That's the way I play it.

Anger ? Indignance? No, not at all. That's even quite a humorous suggestion.

Not going by the content of that other post around 10 pm last night, from what I can see

You are entitled to your opinion.

Precisely. However, that certainly doesn't mean that the only form of valid response within a debate is unsourced, unbacked assertions which have no basis but personal opinion.

And it certainly doesn't justify the automatic dismissal of statements from people with clear authoritative knowledge in, and expertise on the subject matter, who were closely involved in the events I was referring to, as being "other people's opinions" and not somehow not worth bothering about.

Taking the piss' does not consitute an argument either, btw.

That is obvious. And blindly throwing all manner of accusations under the sun at someone who you disagree with on a topic does also, clearly, not constitute an argument.

When logical argument is not forthcoming, and when the nature of the reply is as diversionary and ridiculous as that, then yeah, I'm usually strongly inclined to ridicule that response.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

You raised it for no real reason but the opportunity for an anti-US rant, as you do with anti-Liberal rants in politics threads.

Yep, sure I did Slick. Such a meaningful contribution to the topic by you here. So intelligent and insightful. A lesser mind would've been incapable of it

Apart from the repetition of that first childish claim, which was ludicrous enough when you originally read it, your wild verballing of my posting record is so terribly accurate, not to mention tremendously relevant to the topic.

But there you go as usual, blindly attacking the man with unbacked hysterical claims as a substitute for proper argument.

Be nice if you actually returned to substantive and meaningful response again, but I suspect you're now entrenched in your original pattern of wild hyperbolic and diversionary accusations about people you disagree with, in order to subvert topics.

Then of course, hypocritically accusing those you abuse of diversionary tactics, hyperbole, etc. when they point out how stupid those claims and tactics of yours are.

PS- And mouthing off uncontrollably at the same time, while throwing lame slurs about ranting, midway through your own rant, and chucking hilarious throwaway barbs about "hypocrisy" at others, while demonstrating the concept so ably yourself.

 

[TheBloods]

Yep, sure I did Slick. And your wild verballing of my posting record is so terribly accurate as well, of course, not to mention tremendously relevant to the topic.

There you go as usual, blindly attacking the man with unbacked hysterical claims as a substitute for proper argument.

Be nice if you actually returned to substantive response of a meaningful kind again, but I suspect that now you've returned to your original pattern of making wild hyperbolic and diversionary accusations about people you disagree with in order to subvert topics.

Then of course, hypocritically accusing those you abuse of diversionary tactics, hyperbole, etc. when they point out how stupid those claims and tactics of yours are.

And mouthing off uncontrollably at the same time, while throwing lame slurs about ranting at others, midway through your own rant.

TLDR

Nice rant!

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Wow, five sentences too long for you to comprehend, is it diddums?

If I'm to believe your own claim here about the state of your literacy, then you're regressing to toddler stage even more rapidly than I thought, but somehow I find it hard to believe you're regressing that quickly.

Putting the blindfold on, sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA" isn't exactly a very effective response to anything, I'm afraid - and quoting my post in your own reply probably wasn't a good idea if you're trying to pretend you didn't read it...

 

[TheBloods]

Wow, five sentences too long for you to comprehend, is it diddums?

If I'm to believe your own claim about the state of your reading ability, then you're regressing to toddler stage even more rapidly than I thought.

Putting the blindfold on, sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA" isn't exactly a very effective response to anything, I'm afraid - and quoting my post in your own reply probably wasn't a good idea if you're trying to pretend you didn't read it...

TLDR

A reference to the quality of the post not the word count.

Skimmed to get an impression, rather than read - advanced readers can do that, obviously you're not familiar with it.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Oh yeah, your ability to comprehend information is so far in advance of the rest of us Bloods, I can see this

And that all sounds much more sophisticated than covering your eyes, jamming up your ears and singing to drown it out, which is of course what you really did...

 

[TheBloods]

Oh yeah, your ability to comprehend information is so far in advance of the rest of us Bloods, I can see this

And that all sounds much more sophisticated than covering your eyes, jamming up your ears and singing to drown it out, which is of course what you really did...

Only referring to you. Don't assume you are the centre of the universe.