Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[Doubtdispelled]

How so? You mean the zen trollmeister needs it spelling out for him?

Jesus wept.

[Seth]

What a fascinating discussion. I'm so glad I dropped by to see if Rationalia was any more lively than Ratskep.

It's reminded me of this post in the thread about the Rochdale grooming trial.

And by the way the selection of victims was clearly racially, socially and religiously motivated. And the identification of the suspects wasn't "profiling' it was "suspect identification." If a group of exclusively Asian Muslims are sexually assaulting some other racially-identified person or persons it's reasonable police procedure to look at other associated Asian Muslims rather than looking pointlessly at Caucasian Anglicans. Which is not to say that Caucasian Anglicans cannot be dicking little Muslim girls for the same general reasons the Asian Muslims were dicking Caucasian children, it's just that when investigating a crime occurring within a specific ethnic, cultural and/or religious group it's wasting resources to go casting a wide net in a vain attempt not to appear to be "profiling" people of those ethnic, cultural and religious groups who might reside in the same area or have the same associations because of their ethnic, cultural and/or religious commonalities in the absence of evidence that some other ethnic, cultural or religious individuals were also involved.

Refusing to acknowledge that group participation in a crime (or anything else for that matter) can, and very often is based on ethnic, cultural and/or religious identity and social interactions is just politically correct cultural Islamism that is being imposed by Muslims to immunize them from criticism of behaviors that are, or may be endemic to their particular ethnic culture and religious beliefs.

The fact is that Islam considers anyone not a Muslim to be an infidel and therefore without rights or dignity, as a matter of official policy and regardless of whether any particular Muslim or group of Muslims may decide not to participate in those particular commandments of Islam, and so it is certainly possible for those who identify with Islamic culture and religion to behave inappropriately with little girl infidels if they are predisposed by either their cultural or religious beliefs to believe that dicking young girls is okay in the first place, as is the case in many Muslim cultural groups, who advocate "marriage" to Muslim girls of 12 years, and that therefore dicking non-Muslim white girls is a lesser sin than dicking a camel, because in some Muslim cultures camels are worth more than women and raping someone else's camel is a graver offense than raping a woman.

So is it appropriate to "profile" Muslims on the basis that because of their cultural and/or religious beliefs they are perhaps more likely to bugger little girls than some other cultural/religious group? Of course it is, if you have evidence that such things are happening within that ethnic, cultural and religious community, as is the case here.

The guilty are screaming that the court is "racist" not because it's actually racist or that the guilty think it's racist, they are doing it because "racist" is a loaded term that inherently turns the public against those accused of racism, whether they are guilty of it or not, and shifts the burden (and the condemnation) from the Asian Muslim girl-child rapists to the "racist" legal system. But it's neither the legal system nor the jurors who are "racist" because while the investigation, trial and convictions were based on activities that the defendants may have been predisposed to commit, neither Islamic religion nor Islamic cultural practices have anything to do with race. They are religious and cultural beliefs that can be held by anyone of any race and it's simply an entirely irrelevant fact that all the defendants happened to be Asian Muslims.

The key is that they are Muslims and that the religious, social, cultural and legal aspects of Islam do in fact predispose some Muslims to such behaviors because they explicitly command or excuse such activities, and therefore scrutinizing Muslims for signs of such unlawful behavior when evidence of such unlawful behavior occurring comes to the attention of the police is absolutely "profiling" them, and there's not a damned thing wrong with the police doing so because that is their job. Police profiler groups in different ways and to varying extents every single day, and they have to do so in order to do their jobs.

If you regularly lie down with pigs the police have a perfect right and duty to take note of the stench you carry with you as evidence of pig-lying-down-with and focus their inquiries on you when allegations of illegal pig-fucking come to light.

Which aphorism should of course not be in any way viewed as suggesting that Muslims are pigs...even though many Muslims say exactly that about people who are not Muslims. I wouldn't want to be thought to be culturally insensitive or that I'm "profiling" Muslims...even though many Muslims do exactly that to any non-Muslim.

[Seth]

How so? You mean the zen trollmeister needs it spelling out for him?

Jesus wept.

That you think so demonstrates my mastery of the forum.

[pErvinalia]

There's a limit to how much hate and filth I want to actively retain the details of.

So the situation remains unchanged.

Yes. I'm not interested in trawling through 10+ years of threads only covering half his rubbish (as much of it is in the feedback forum which neither you nor I can access) to revisit his hate, lying, persecution complex and utterly ridiculous hyperbole. That you are unaware of context isn't really my problem. You'll learn it soon enough, if not from the mouth of horse himself then from Beatsong when he eventually turns up again.

[pErvinalia]

What a fascinating discussion. I'm so glad I dropped by to see if Rationalia was any more lively than Ratskep.

It's reminded me of this post in the thread about the Rochdale grooming trial.

Yep, that's one of the generalised ones I remember. But SD was only "joking". Anytime he says anything repugnant or contradictory, he's "joking".

[pErvinalia]

Here's one from a random Google search in the top couple of hits:

It was just a joke, though. Totally coincidental that your jokes and political/economic ideology almost exclusively focus on the disadvantaged and less powerful in society.

[Hermit]

There's a limit to how much hate and filth I want to actively retain the details of.

So the situation remains unchanged.

Yes. I'm not interested in trawling through 10+ years of threads only covering half his rubbish (as much of it is in the feedback forum which neither you nor I can access) to revisit his hate and filth. That you are unaware of context isn't really my problem. You'll learn it soon enough, if not from the mouth of horse himself then from Beatsong when he eventually turns up again.

In that case your (and Surr's) maledictions remain unsubstantiated, and I'm sure you know the value of unsubstantiated stuff, don't you? Also, you need not trawl through ten years' worth of SD's posts. Just one or three clear and incontrovertible examples of his racism or whatever it is you accuse him of will do.

By the way. I have read plenty of SD's posts at ratskep and at RDF before then. That is how I formed my opinion that his style is abrasive and his views are reprehensible. Which reminds me again: Would you please explain how you get from me saying "SD's posting style is too often abrasive and his views reprehensible" to your interpretation of what I think about SD? To be specific, what is it I posted that gave you the impression that I think the winter snow wouldn't melt on on SD's arse? Shouldn't be hard to find if support for your interpretation exists. You only have to use the search box at the bottom of the page, look for my posts in this thread and go through last twelve of them. They cover everything I have written about SD.

[Seth]

There's a limit to how much hate and filth I want to actively retain the details of.

So the situation remains unchanged.

Yes. I'm not interested in trawling through 10+ years of threads only covering half his rubbish

Then you should just shut the fuck up about it.

[pErvinalia]

What a fascinating discussion. I'm so glad I dropped by to see if Rationalia was any more lively than Ratskep.

It's reminded me of this post in the thread about the Rochdale grooming trial.

Yep, that's one of the generalised ones I remember. But SD was only "joking". Anytime he says anything repugnant or contradictory, he's "joking".

Fuck, I had to stop reading that thread, not just because of SDs disgusting rape apologetics and victim blaiming, but also out of head on wall banging embarrassment at SDs "reasoning" and persecution complex. I feel uncomfortable reading such utter retardation from a literate adult. I genuinely feel sorry for the guy. There's got to be retardation involved.

[pErvinalia]

There's a limit to how much hate and filth I want to actively retain the details of.

So the situation remains unchanged.

Yes. I'm not interested in trawling through 10+ years of threads only covering half his rubbish (as much of it is in the feedback forum which neither you nor I can access) to revisit his hate and filth. That you are unaware of context isn't really my problem. You'll learn it soon enough, if not from the mouth of horse himself then from Beatsong when he eventually turns up again.

In that case your (and Surr's) maledictions remain unsubstantiated, and I'm sure you know the value of unsubstantiated stuff, don't you? Also, you need not trawl through ten years' worth of SD's posts. Just one or three clear and incontrovertible examples of his racism or whatever it is you accuse him of will do.

By the way. I have read plenty of SD's posts at ratskep and at RDF before then. That is how I formed my opinion that his style is abrasive and his views are reprehensible. Which reminds me again: Would you please explain how you get from me saying "SD's posting style is too often abrasive and his views reprehensible" to your interpretation of what I think about SD? To be specific, what is it I posted that gave you the impression that I think the winter snow wouldn't melt on on SD's arse? Shouldn't be hard to find if support for your interpretation exists. You only have to use the search box at the bottom of the page, look for my posts in this thread and go through last twelve of them. They cover everything I have written about SD.

You've essentially said you'd prefer a gross bigot on the site than someone with a long history of contextual interaction making the point that the bigot is a bigot. Think about that for a minute.

Edit: but I do owe you an apology. I was misattributing JimCs view of SD to you.

[pErvinalia]

... "one or three examples". TWO examples have been posted already. Does two count?

[Hermit]

You've essentially said you'd prefer a gross bigot on the site than someone with a long history of contextual interaction making the point that the bigot is a bigot.

To make a point stick substantiation is required. Surr has tried that one single time and failed abysmally. And yes, I prefer a discussion with an abrasive poster with reprehensible views than with an evasive, handwaving, forelock tugging slimeball.

... "one or three examples". TWO examples have been posted already. Does two count?

I see one, the one supplied by Scott. Turns out SD's sig did not relate to never being wrong about freedom, though he attempted to squirm out of being caught out on that. Is the screen capture you posted supposed to be another? What of? Racism? Sexism? Something else?

[pErvinalia]

Bigotry against disadvantaged people. And you clearly missed DDs link to SDs disgusting rape apologetics. Go back and find it.

[pErvinalia]

You've essentially said you'd prefer a gross bigot on the site than someone with a long history of contextual interaction making the point that the bigot is a bigot.

To make a point stick substantiation is required. Surr has tried that one single time and failed abysmally. And yes, I prefer a discussion with an abrasive poster with reprehensible views than with an evasive, handwaving, forelock tugging slimeball.

I'd prefer bigots hung out at bigotrycentral.com so the rest of us didn't have to deal with their sick shit. If you think an opinion formed from context you are unaware of is worse or less worthy than rape apologetics, then I've got ask, are you fucking kidding?!

[surreptitious57]

The guilty are screaming that the court is racist not because it is actually racist or that the guilty think it is racist they are doing it because racist is a loaded term that inherently turns the public against those accused of racism whether they are guilty of it or not and shifts the burden (and the condemnation) from the Asian Muslim girl
child rapists to the racist legal system. But it is neither the legal system nor the jurors who are racist because while the investigation trial and convictions were based
on activities that the defendants may have been predisposed to commit neither Islamic religion nor Islamic cultural practices have anything to do with race. They are religious and cultural beliefs that can be held by anyone of any race and it is simply an entirely irrelevant fact that all the defendants happened to be Asian Muslims

I am not sure what was worse : the politically correct who were too afraid to condemn it only because it was Muslims perpetrating it or those with a racist agenda
who seemed to be more against men with brown skin raping white children than men with white skin raping white children. I take the view that raping children of
any colour skin is equally wrong regardless of the colour of the skin of the men doing it. Islamophobia is entirely wrong but that does not extend to being afraid to
condemn rape perpetrated by Muslim men. That is so ridiculous and it makes a complete mockery of the very good intention originally behind political correctness