Muslim Ban Over Handshake. Whaddayareckon Liberals?

[pErvinalia]

Oops. That's what I thought he said, and he went nana on me. I checked this thread and couldn't find where he said that, so either we misremembered or it was in another thread somewhere.

[Exi5tentialist]

The holy books of Islam, like those of Christianity and Judaism, are misogynist and bigoted.

The holy books of Islam, like those of Christianity and Judaism, are irrelevant. They became irrelevant a fairly short time after their authors died. The authors of those books are long dead, they have no power, their writings have no power. They are dead and gone. Gone forever.

If you want to join forces with those muslims, christians and jews who say that millenia-old markings on bits of paper have some kind of power over anybody in 2016, you go ahead and stand shoulder to shoulder with those who believe in that woo. I'm an atheist. I don't believe that books have a God-like immortality.

When whatever interpretation of whatever religion puts some of that misogyny and bigotry into practice it is perfectly reasonably to criticise them for it.

You say "interpretation", I say "projection". Between those two words there is a sea of ideological difference.

As I said, most of us don't criticise the whole of Islam.

There you go again, defining Islam as ONE religion. It's not. There are many "islams". Besides which, I've never heard you say which bits of this thing you are calling "Islam" you like. Maybe you could take the opportunity to enlighten us?

We criticise the shit bits.

Have I said you can't criticise "shit" being peddled as islam or communism or anything? No, I haven't. What I say is that you lump this thing you call "the shit bits" as being "in Islam" - like the Koran. The words in the Koran will never ever change, and you say the Koran contains "shit bits". So in your world there can never, ever be any redemption for this thing you have christened "Islam". So islam will always be a thing for you to criticise. Even if an out lesbian democratic socialist muslim with uncovered hair were to appear in your field of vision you would feel justified in criticising "her religion" because to you her religion is static. To me, humans are changing all the time and so are their ideologies. Between our two positions there is a sea of ideological difference.

Same as most of us are easier on Anglicanism than Catholicism.

Well that just says it all doesn't it. The religions of white western origin you go easier on.

Your intolerance for reasonable free speech is what makes you authoritarian.

You're talking to the person who was given a warning for trolling when I launched a democratic campaign to get moderators here elected by members.

I can't actually remember what you proposed, but I'd bet my left nut you were totally intolerant to other people's views on the issue. That would be why you were done for trolling. You trolled the shit out of me and others in the Adam Johnson thread, so you have form.

How have I expressed my "intolerance for free speech"?

People making reasonable critiques of religion aren't racists, just the same as people making reasonable critiques of the Adam Johnson sentence aren't paedophiles. The fact that you can't handle reasonable free critique suggests you have authoritarian tendencies. Unless you are a female Muslim who was abused as a child and therefore can't remain objective in these types of discussions.

Perhaps you agree with me being sanctioned for being a troll. Who's the authoritarian now?

Accepting rules and laws on a private internet forum isn't being "authoritarian". You trolled. Take responsibility for your own actions.

Name the rule I broke. You can't, can you? You already said you can't remember.

And were these "rules" democratically agreed? No. So who is the authoritarian here? The person who says that rules should be democratically agreed and mods should be elected, or the person who says rules that were made up by one person, handed down from the mountain on a tablet, must be obeyed, and transgressors are trolls?

I think you might need to revisit your rationale for calling me authoritarian.

[Exi5tentialist]

Not to mention, oppression pre-dates capitalism.

So fucking what?

History seemed to matter to you when you mentioned that the oppression of women pre-dated the Islamic religion.

As above

[laklak]

The Holy Books certainly mattered to those dudes Jihidi John chopped. They matter to LBGT folks in North Carolina. Saying they "don't matter" because the authors are dead is like saying Das Capital has no meaning to Cubans or Venezuelans or Chinese. Of course they matter. Not in and of themselves, but to their followers, and their followers can matter one fuck of a lot if you happen to get on the wrong side of them. We could got all philosobabble on the meaning of meaning, but I already had my morning wank.

Does 'LBGT' offend anyone else's OCD? It should be BGLT.

[pErvinalia]

The holy books of Islam, like those of Christianity and Judaism, are misogynist and bigoted.

The holy books of Islam, like those of Christianity and Judaism, are irrelevant. They became irrelevant a fairly short time after their authors died. The authors of those books are long dead, they have no power, their writings have no power. They are dead and gone. Gone forever.

If you want to join forces with those muslims, christians and jews who say that millenia-old markings on bits of paper have some kind of power over anybody in 2016, you go ahead and stand shoulder to shoulder with those who believe in that woo. I'm an atheist. I don't believe that books have a God-like immortality.

When whatever interpretation of whatever religion puts some of that misogyny and bigotry into practice it is perfectly reasonably to criticise them for it.

You say "interpretation", I say "projection". Between those two words there is a sea of ideological difference.

This has gone beyond farcical. You now seriously maintain that religious people don't follow and interpret the religious texts? Really?

Good luck in your fantasy world. I'll leave you to it.

Same as most of us are easier on Anglicanism than Catholicism.

Well that just says it all doesn't it. The religions of white western origin you go easier on.

Man, you can find anything to get offended at, can't you? It says exactly what it says. Within any religion there are some sects/order/denominations/etc that are worse than others. And that goes for Islam. Shove your disingenuous quotemine up your arse.

Your intolerance for reasonable free speech is what makes you authoritarian.

You're talking to the person who was given a warning for trolling when I launched a democratic campaign to get moderators here elected by members.

I can't actually remember what you proposed, but I'd bet my left nut you were totally intolerant to other people's views on the issue. That would be why you were done for trolling. You trolled the shit out of me and others in the Adam Johnson thread, so you have form.

How have I expressed my "intolerance for free speech"?

People making reasonable critiques of religion aren't racists, just the same as people making reasonable critiques of the Adam Johnson sentence aren't paedophiles. The fact that you can't handle reasonable free critique suggests you have authoritarian tendencies. Unless you are a female Muslim who was abused as a child and therefore can't remain objective in these types of discussions.

Perhaps you agree with me being sanctioned for being a troll. Who's the authoritarian now?

Accepting rules and laws on a private internet forum isn't being "authoritarian". You trolled. Take responsibility for your own actions.

Name the rule I broke. You can't, can you? You already said you can't remember.

The "Play Nice" rule.

And were these "rules" democratically agreed? No. So who is the authoritarian here?

Wow, I literally just addressed this, and you totally don't get it. Again, private forums don't need to be democratic. I don't care about authoritarianism on internet forums, as it has zero effect on what authoritarianism is about - that is, political authoritarianism.

[Exi5tentialist]

I told you what I think. Restricting half the population from selling their labour makes zero sense in a capitalist system. Hence why your argument makes zero sense.

I agree it isn't rational to restrict half your population from selling their labour. But then it isn't rational to bomb several middle eastern countries to bits. It doesn't make sense, as you say. Just because it doesn't make sense doesn't mean that US capitalism or USSR state capitalism didn't take pursue policies that led to those irrational outcomes.

[tattuchu]

The Holy Books certainly mattered to those dudes Jihidi John chopped. They matter to LBGT folks in North Carolina. Saying they "don't matter" because the authors are dead is like saying Das Capital has no meaning to Cubans or Venezuelans or Chinese. Of course they matter. Not in and of themselves, but to their followers, and their followers can matter one fuck of a lot if you happen to get on the wrong side of them. We could got all philosobabble on the meaning of meaning, but I already had my morning wank.

Does 'LBGT' offend anyone else's OCD? It should be BGLT.

They should shorten it to BLT. Then everybody would love them

[pErvinalia]

I told you what I think. Restricting half the population from selling their labour makes zero sense in a capitalist system. Hence why your argument makes zero sense.

I agree it isn't rational to restrict half your population from selling their labour. But then it isn't rational to bomb several middle eastern countries to bits. It doesn't make sense, as you say. Just because it doesn't make sense doesn't mean that US capitalism or USSR state capitalism didn't take pursue policies that led to those irrational outcomes.

So if it doesn't make sense, then what the fuck is your basis for claiming it?!?

[Exi5tentialist]

Wow, I literally just addressed this, and you totally don't get it. Again, private forums don't need to be democratic. I don't care about authoritarianism on internet forums, as it has zero effect on what authoritarianism is about - that is, political authoritarianism.

So let me get this straight. You don't care about authoritarianism on internet forums. You don't think private forums need to be democratic. So you don't give a shit that I thought Rationalia's original constitution was democratic before Pappa replaced it with his own one, and call me an authoritarian, because I once took a stance on democracy here?

And you top that irrational shit off with a "Wow"?

[Exi5tentialist]

I told you what I think. Restricting half the population from selling their labour makes zero sense in a capitalist system. Hence why your argument makes zero sense.

I agree it isn't rational to restrict half your population from selling their labour. But then it isn't rational to bomb several middle eastern countries to bits. It doesn't make sense, as you say. Just because it doesn't make sense doesn't mean that US capitalism or USSR state capitalism didn't take pursue policies that led to those irrational outcomes.

So if it doesn't make sense, then what the fuck is your basis for claiming it?!?

Capitalism is irrational.

[pErvinalia]

Wow, I literally just addressed this, and you totally don't get it. Again, private forums don't need to be democratic. I don't care about authoritarianism on internet forums, as it has zero effect on what authoritarianism is about - that is, political authoritarianism.

So let me get this straight. You don't care about authoritarianism on internet forums. You don't think private forums need to be democratic. So you don't give a shit that I thought Rationalia's original constitution was democratic before Pappa replaced it with his own one, and call me an authoritarian, because I once took a stance on democracy here?

And you top that irrational shit off with a "Wow"?

WTF are you talking about? I didn't call you an authoritarian because you once took a stance on democracy here. What I've written is clear. It's not going to change no matter how you keep wilfully misinterpreting my words. Private forums can be as authoritarian as they like, just as private relationships can restrict free speech for the purposes of civility. Now stop erecting strawmen. If you can't, go and find something else to do.

[Tyrannical]

I decided to re-look at the definition of the word misogyny, it's from Greek misos ‘hatred’ + gunē ‘woman.’

Cicero reports that Greek philosophers considered misogyny to be caused by gynophobia, a fear of women.

So, clearly all misogynists are either Muslim or gay men, and most likely a combination of the two. Obviously in Afghanistan with their love of boys, their misogyny is caused at least partly by gynophobia.

[pErvinalia]

What kind of busted arse logic is that?! You're getting stranger and stranger lately. Is this the real you coming out, or are you just looking for attention?

[laklak]

All men hate all women, that's why we fuck them. Gender Studies 101. Do keep up, y'all.

[pErvinalia]

I told you what I think. Restricting half the population from selling their labour makes zero sense in a capitalist system. Hence why your argument makes zero sense.

I agree it isn't rational to restrict half your population from selling their labour. But then it isn't rational to bomb several middle eastern countries to bits. It doesn't make sense, as you say. Just because it doesn't make sense doesn't mean that US capitalism or USSR state capitalism didn't take pursue policies that led to those irrational outcomes.

So if it doesn't make sense, then what the fuck is your basis for claiming it?!?

Capitalism is irrational.

No, I'm asking how you can claim that A causes B when you agree the hypothesis is irrational. I'm not going to keep doing this with you. You are either being wilfully ignorant or just digging and digging to try and get yourself out of a hole. Either way, I'm not interested in debating under those conditions.