An apologist of death penalty for apostates

Ironclad · **#81** by **Ironclad** » Aug 16, 2014 2:12 pm

Oeditor wrote:
azeed wrote:
james1v wrote:Yes.

Thanks. It's always easier to spot racists when they're not trying to hide.
Yeah? It's even easier to spot morons when they think Islam is a race. Unless they're pretending to be faux-politicians.

!	GENERAL MODNOTE All, Please watch the personalisations, address the argument. do not discuss this moderation within this thread, PM if you need advice.

hackenslash · **#82** by **hackenslash** » Aug 16, 2014 5:38 pm

azeed wrote:Maybe we'll meet sometime and you can swear at me to my face.

And that would make a difference because..?

If you're going to attempt fuckwitted threats like this, a) you've already lost and b) it only works when you're scary and when you're dealing with the sort of person easily cowed by such bollocks. Trust me, you're not scary and I don't fucking scare.

So much mindless pedantry and bigotry - and you're not the only one.

I already fucked both of these assertions over. Re-asserting them won't make them any less fucking stupid than the were the first time.

You can't criticise islam without criticising people who identify as muslim.

Fatuous arse-gravy. I do it all the time.

What you should say to get anywhere near the mark is that you can't criticise such fuckwittery without its adherents feeling criticised, a statement I would agree with, but which brings upon them the genuine criticism of them that they should learn to think properly, and then they would be able to separate themselves from the moronic drivel of their paedophile prophet. Of course, if they could think properly, they wouldn't believe such horse(trader)shit in the first place.

Maybe you're some kind of nihilist and don't understand what it means to believe in something.

Ah, so you don't know what a nihilist is either then. Perhaps you're not aware that nihilism is a belief.

Anyhoo, I'm fully aware of what it means to be credulous.

You can't make unreasonable generalisations about muslims or any large group of people. That's the definition of racism.

It's a good job I've done no such fucking thing then, not least because I've said fuck all about muslims, unreasonable or otherwise. I've criticised an idea, and a fucking stupid one at that.

surreptitious57 · **#83** by **surreptitious57** » Aug 16, 2014 5:58 pm

You did call them fuckwits though
so what you said there is not true

Fallible · **#84** by **Fallible** » Aug 16, 2014 6:03 pm

azeed wrote:
Onyx8 wrote:No it isn't.

Good argument.

To be fair, just asserting something with no evidence whatsoever is nothing like an argument either.

hackenslash · **#85** by **hackenslash** » Aug 16, 2014 6:32 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:You did call them fuckwits though
so what you said there is not true

Islam fucks wits. That's a criticism of Islam, not muslims.

hackenslash · **#86** by **hackenslash** » Aug 16, 2014 7:08 pm

I should also point out that I didn't say that all muslins were fuckwits. Those who think they are their fuckwitted beliefs are. This is not a generalisation about muslims, but a factually correct statement about a particular subset

Shrunk · **#87** by **Shrunk** » Aug 16, 2014 10:29 pm

azeed wrote:For believers, Islam is a defining idea. You can't separate the person and the idea when that idea is central to their identity and culture. You think you can criticise Islam as if it was a theory written down in a book but Islam doesn't exist in a book. It exists in hearts and minds.

So what do you do about the undeniable fact that, for many people, racism is also an "idea is central to their identity and culture", and which "doesn't exist in a book. It exists in hearts and minds."

Well done! You've just committed yourself to the position that criticizing racism is racist. :rofl:

Oeditor · **#88** by **Oeditor** » Aug 17, 2014 8:56 pm

Shrunk wrote:So what do you do about the undeniable fact that, for many people, racism is also an "idea is central to their identity and culture", and which "doesn't exist in a book. It exists in hearts and minds."

Well done! You've just committed yourself to the position that criticizing racism is racist.

Unfortunately, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has just about convinced the United Nations that that is in fact the case. Newspeak, of course - but then, there's a lot of it about.

surreptitious57 · **#89** by **surreptitious57** » Aug 18, 2014 12:49 am

hackenslash wrote:
I should also point out that I didn't say that all muslims were fuckwits. Those who think they are their fuckwitted
beliefs are. This is not a generalisation about muslims, but a factually correct statement about a particular subset

Just to clear this up because of the confusion : anyone who believes in Islam is by definition a Muslim. So to call believers fuckwits explicitly implies all of them and not just a sub set of them. You may not have intended to generalise but that is
what you did with your original comment in post 61. And I love the rather imaginative way in how you moved the goalposts from implying that all Muslims are fuckwits actually means Islam fucks wits. Talking about believers and talking about the
belief system are not the same thing however as you know and so your cleverness in trying to equate the two is just wrong

Shrunk · **#90** by **Shrunk** » Aug 18, 2014 2:00 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
I should also point out that I didn't say that all muslims were fuckwits. Those who think they are their fuckwitted
beliefs are. This is not a generalisation about muslims, but a factually correct statement about a particular subset

Just to clear this up because of the confusion : anyone who believes in Islam is by definition a Muslim. So to call believers fuckwits explicitly implies all of them and not just a sub set of them. You may not have intended to generalise but that is
what you did with your original comment in post 61. And I love the rather imaginative way in how you moved the goalposts from implying that all Muslims are fuckwits actually means Islam fucks wits. Talking about believers and talking about the
belief system are not the same thing however as you know and so your cleverness in trying to equate the two is just wrong

There are people who would consider themselves "Muslims" but who do not actually follow Islam. I know a number of them myself.

Scot Dutchy · **#91** by **Scot Dutchy** » Aug 18, 2014 5:17 am

Well once born a muslim you cannot reject it. To do so could cost you your life. What a freedom.

Islam is the most evil belief system that has ever crawled across the face of the earth.

It should be destroyed at all cost IMHO.

hackenslash · **#92** by **hackenslash** » Aug 18, 2014 7:26 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
I should also point out that I didn't say that all muslims were fuckwits. Those who think they are their fuckwitted
beliefs are. This is not a generalisation about muslims, but a factually correct statement about a particular subset

Just to clear this up because of the confusion : anyone who believes in Islam is by definition a Muslim. So to call believers fuckwits explicitly implies all of them and not just a sub set of them. You may not have intended to generalise but that is
what you did with your original comment in post 61. And I love the rather imaginative way in how you moved the goalposts from implying that all Muslims are fuckwits actually means Islam fucks wits. Talking about believers and talking about the
belief system are not the same thing however as you know and so your cleverness in trying to equate the two is just wrong

Dude, two things: Massively off topic and singularly unhelpful (not to mention not remotely interesting), and still wrong. The original comment was directed at those who think their belief system defines them, which only our interlocutor here suggests is all of them. I made no such insistence.

You've got it wrong, and should cease the derail in any event. If you want to discuss furthet, turn uour PMs on.

tsig · **#93** by **tsig** » Aug 19, 2014 1:34 pm

azeed wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:In the meantime ...

azeed wrote:You can't separate the person and the idea when that idea is central to their identity and culture.

Congratulations on demonstrating in spades, a classic supernaturalist failure. Quite simply, the above assertion is plain, flat, wrong. The reason it is plain, flat, wrong, is because you are not your ideas. Because, wait for it, it's possible for people to change the ideas they maintain. Indeed, the business of changing ideas is central not only to science, but to the entire conduct of proper discourse, which requires us to discard ideas whenever those ideas fail relevant tests.

But of course, supernaturalists are all too frequently brought up to treat certain ideas as "special" or "sacred", never to be abandoned, and to be protected from any form of scrutiny at all costs. Quite simply, those of us who paid attention, when the principles of proper discourse were outlined in the relevant classes, jettison the notion of privileged status for any idea full stop. To those of us who understand how proper discourse works, as opposed to the bastardised caricature thereof all too often peddled by supernaturalists, the entirely proper scientific principle that is in operation, is that ideas are disposable entities. The decision to dispose of a given idea being taken when the idea in question fails an appropriate test. As a direct corollary of this principle, ideas are a free fire zone, and may be subject to as much of the relevant discoursive artillery as one can deploy. The ideas that survive this treatment, are the ones that have earned our retention.

This of course, leads to a consideration of what constitutes a proper test of an idea, and what constitutes genuine evidence in support thereof. More frequently, those of us applying rigour to the matter, ask ourselves the question "what data, if alighted upon, would make this idea wrong?", then set out to see if such data exists. If that data does exist, it's game over - the idea goes in the bin. If that data does not exist, and instead, we find a large body of data that the idea is in agreement with, then this increases our confidence in the idea, and increases our willingness to retain it.

This is how it's done. Do learn this for the future, so that you don't post embarrassingly fatuous assertions such as the one I've covered above.

The really terrifying thing is that you think you're clever. Narrow-minded pedantry and painfully long-winded explanations are not clever (I get it: you think ideas should be evidence-led).

You may not approve of religious belief but still it exists despite your disapproval and it exists in more shades of grey than you seem to realise. Many muslims are perfectly peaceful, respectable people who would feel extremely offended by some of the comments in this thread.

Sounds like you're trying to slip in a threat there.

What are these extremely offended perfectly peaceful, respectable people going to do about being extremely offended?

You are aware that being offended is the price of freedom?

Shrunk · **#94** by **Shrunk** » Aug 19, 2014 3:06 pm

tsig wrote:
azeed wrote: You may not approve of religious belief but still it exists despite your disapproval and it exists in more shades of grey than you seem to realise. Many muslims are perfectly peaceful, respectable people who would feel extremely offended by some of the comments in this thread.

Sounds like you're trying to slip in a threat there.

What are these extremely offended perfectly peaceful, respectable people going to do about being extremely offended?

You are aware that being offended is the price of freedom?

And what really hurts is how indifferent azeed is to the suffering of those who are "extremely offended" by Islam. It's just not fair. :waah:

tolman · **#95** by **tolman** » Aug 19, 2014 6:54 pm

azeed wrote:
hackenslash wrote:How can it be bigotry? Islam is not a person, it's an idea. It isn't possible to be bigoted toward an idea. As for ignorance, I don't actually see any problem with the assessment

People have ideas. You are targetting people: every muslim on the planet all looks the same to you.

Certainly not to me.

For example, I'd make a real distinction between the Muslims who actually take the religion 'literally' and who therefore approve of murdering people who choose to leave it even if those people have been forced into making assertions of belief while young or otherwise vulnerable, and the Muslims who take a more grown-up approach and who therefore don't take the Koran to be the actual word of an infallible deity even if they would like to pretend that they do.

It's exactly the same distinction I'd make with Christians.
There are some actual literal believers (allowing for internal inconsistencies in the supposed perfect texts), and there are people who are rather more sane, even if some of the latter feel the need to pretend to be somewhat more literal than they actually are.

In both cases, the literal believers are of dubious sanity and are a potential danger to more-sane people, believers or non-believers.
It just seems to be the case at the moment that Islam is burdened with a rather greater proportion of believers who are of the insane dangerous supposedly-literal variety. The reasons for that may well include various influences outside actual religion.

Taken literally, aspects of most pre-medieval religions are against what are now considered civilised norms, but many people ignore such aspects while still calling themselves believers.
The fewer adherents of a particular brand of religion still try to cling to the backward traditions, the less retarded the religion in general is likely to look.

azeed wrote:Of course that's not racist in any way.

No, it isn't.

tolman · **#96** by **tolman** » Aug 19, 2014 7:14 pm

azeed wrote:I can understand how from a western perspective the muslim world often looks like it's stuck in a time warp. There are fundamentalists. There are extremists. So criticise extremism and fundamentalism not Islam and remember that not everyone is an extremist or a fundamentalist.

If the holy text of a religion actually says that people leaving it should be killed, then that religion is backward.

The issue of how many people are stupid enough to literally believe in the book and how many people lie and pretend to believe in it while actually not being stupid enough to take it seriously is another matter.

If the latter, more sane people have decided that bits of the religion are backward and wrong and can be ignored and yet still identify with it to the extent that they cry 'racist!' when someone criticises what the religion actually says, that's their fucking problem, not mine.

Pretty obviously, the huge advantage of a civilised legal system over a theocracy is that in a civilised legal system, if people come to see things that were once done (slavery, restrictions on voting, sexism, homophobia) as wrong, they just change the laws.
They don't have to lie and pretend that they're sticking to some ancient system when they're clearly not, they don't have any need to get at all defensive when someone says the old system was wrong, and unlike 'moderate believers' they have no split loyalties between humanity and tradition when it comes to retards who actually are sticking more closely to the letter of the Old Law.

CarlPierce · **#97** by **CarlPierce** » Sep 30, 2014 4:24 pm

One of the many problems with religion is that it is unable to adapt as the world changes.

It is no longer considered very civilised to kill people over religion but this religion has to stuck with their 7th century rules of killing people who leave their cult with no possibility of changing the rules.
So we have to reject 'true Islam' as barbarous.

Clive Durdle · **#98** by **Clive Durdle** » Sep 30, 2014 4:45 pm

Ah! The soul murderer argument! Just think how many helpless souls we are consigning to the flames! (What happened to the black helicopters and the kitten sandwiches?)

Clive Durdle · **#99** by **Clive Durdle** » Sep 30, 2014 4:48 pm

that religion is backward.

I understand this is more about we all carry around huge suitcases of ideas and beliefs, and some people have had more opportunity than others to tidy things up!

Clive Durdle · **#100** by **Clive Durdle** » Sep 30, 2014 4:52 pm

I think we need to squarely face all the issues in this!

Take up the White Man's burden -
And reap his old reward,
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard -
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah slowly !) towards the light:-
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
"Our loved Egyptian night ?"

See notes page in this link.

http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_burden.htm

An apologist of death penalty for apostates

Re: An apologist of death penalty for apostates

Re: An apologist of death penalty for apostates

Re: An apologist of death penalty for apostates

Re: An apologist of death penalty for apostates

Re: An apologist of death penalty for apostates

Re: An apologist of death penalty for apostates

Re: An apologist of death penalty for apostates

Re: An apologist of death penalty for apostates

Re: An apologist of death penalty for apostates

Re: An apologist of death penalty for apostates

Re: An apologist of death penalty for apostates

Re: An apologist of death penalty for apostates

Re: An apologist of death penalty for apostates

Re: An apologist of death penalty for apostates

Re: An apologist of death penalty for apostates

Re: An apologist of death penalty for apostates

Re: An apologist of death penalty for apostates

Re: An apologist of death penalty for apostates

Re: An apologist of death penalty for apostates

Re: An apologist of death penalty for apostates

Who is online