International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Visiting Morocco while being daft, nave European girls (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=334924)

dann 22nd February 2019 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12610806)
I got news for you. Plenty of Americans get dehydratation and Heat Exhaustion problems through their own Stupidity in Death Valley. And they are of both sexes.
I know. I work for the Federal Agency which manages most of Death Valley.


Are you seriously saying that the Trump Administration hasn't yet put a stop to "daft, nave" Americans taking no precautions before visiting Death Valley.

Quote:

And your post just reeks of sexism.

Yes, it does. And so does the OP. It reeks of both kinds of chauvinism, actually.

carlitos 22nd February 2019 12:45 PM

Just so we are all clear with carlitos' POV:



Quote:

Originally Posted by dann
It may read like that to you, but notice that that's not what I actually write. I don't say that it makes it legitimate for extremists to kill young Scandinavian women or anybody else, but it was their reason for beginning to target Danes. Until 2005 Danes could travel all around the world, and the Danish flag on a backpack more or less served as 'protection'. (Not that I ever did so myself: I'm not a nationalist!)
After Jyllands-Posten's drawings, however, that was no longer possible.

1 - If you think that wearing a cross on your backpack would be protection from muslim extremists, you are a bit naive, I think. Only the Canadians have this type of magical backpack protection. :rolleyes:

2 - Sounds like you are embarrassed about the situation; a Danish PR problem. If so, rest assured - the Danes got a lot of positive image from this too. Tuborg exports probably went up afterwards.



Quote:

Originally Posted by dann
When you hope that 'your' "free press provokes, offends, mocks and challenges any (!) and all (!) groups, especially nonsense like religion," I can't really take you seriously. Why would you mock the disabled, for instance? Or the poor? Sexual minorities?

If you can't take me seriously, that is fine. We wrote a constitution and founded a country on this stuff. Whether you can comprehend why I might defend the right to mock the disabled, or the poor, or minorities or sexual whatever, is completely irrelevant. I have the right to do so. My rights are not at all limited by your imagination.


Quote:

Originally Posted by dann
I don't really see the point of that.

You seeing the point of it isn't what press freedom is about. The offensive stuff is exactly what the First Amendment to the Constitution is there to protect.



Quote:

Originally Posted by dann
And I would like you to understand that Jyllands-Posten didn't mock religion. It mocked a minority religion Islam. (And it thought that it could do so with no adverse consequences for itself.)

I told, you, fine. I stipulate to this. So what? I might wish to mock Mormonism or Scientology or the Hindus. My local paper might run a cartoon offensive to Sikhs. That would be their right.



Quote:

Originally Posted by dann
Otherwise, do you think that the right-wingers in this thread would be as enthusiastic about Jyllands-Posten's drawings as they are?! If Jyllands-Posten had criticized Christianity instead?

This is completely irrelevant to me.


ETA - I'm sorry but the quotes aren't working again, so the above is cut / paste.

dann 22nd February 2019 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlitos (Post 12610862)
Just so we are all clear with carlitos' POV:


1 - If you think that wearing a cross on your backpack would be protection from muslim extremists, you are a bit naive, I think. Only the Canadians have this type of magical backpack protection. :rolleyes:


It's not a question of what I think. It actually worked as protection, people used it as such, and I don't think that anybody claimed that it was "magical". The Muslim extremists didn't really have any beef with Danes (or Norwegians) until the Muhammad drawings.

Quote:

2 - Sounds like you are embarrassed about the situation; a Danish PR problem. If so, rest assured - the Danes got a lot of positive image from this too. Tuborg exports probably went up afterwards.

Danish PR problems are no real concern of mine, but they were definitely a concern for Jyllands-Posten and they became a concern for Danish companies like Arla. I don't have any Arla stocks, however. And like I said: I would never make my nationality part of my 'uniform' since I'm an anti-nationalist.

Quote:

If you can't take me seriously, that is fine. We wrote a constitution and founded a country on this stuff. Whether you can comprehend why I might defend the right to mock the disabled, or the poor, or minorities or sexual whatever, is completely irrelevant. I have the right to do so. My rights are not at all limited by your imagination.

I don't know who you are when you claim that you wrote a constitution. I never wrote any. And notice that I was talking about the point of mocking the disabled, not the right to do so. I've never worried about my right to say the truth. I say it instead. But I've noticed that those who do obsess about their right to say what they mean always tend to mean what they are allowed and encouraged to say by their respective states.
And again, I'm not a nationalist so that's no real worry of mine.

Quote:

You seeing the point of it isn't what press freedom is about.

No, it obviously isn't. It's about criticizing the enemy! It always is. And since your state grants you the splendid right to have an opinion at all, you're not supposed to criticize it. You are supposed to be grateful for the privilege of being allowed to have an opinion at all, which you also appear to be.

Quote:

The offensive stuff is exactly what the First Amendment to the Constitution is there to protect.

Yes, like I said: The idea is to criticize everybody but the state that grants you the privilige of being able to have any opinion at all. So please criticize all the minorities suspected of unpatriotic behaviour that you can think of (like the Danish Muslims in 2005), then you can't go wrong!

Quote:

I told, you, fine. I stipulate to this. So what? I might wish to mock Mormonism or Scientology or the Hindus. My local paper might run a cartoon offensive to Sikhs. That would be their right.

Did anybody claim that it wasn't their right?! Did I claim that Jyllands-Posten didn't have the right to criticize the Muslim minority? It obviously did.

Quote:

This is completely irrelevant to me.

ETA - I'm sorry but the quotes aren't working again, so the above is cut / paste.
Don't really care.

dann 22nd February 2019 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baron (Post 12610903)
I don't much care under what circumstances he capitulates (I guess Islam is one - ho ho ho!) I was just trying to get him to respond to my long post where I argued against his point, but he'd rather play silly buggers because he's unable to debate me.


You mean this one? http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12610433

I just found it too uninteresting and irrelevant. Do you know how old Life of Brian is? Do you think that Jyllands-Posten would ever think of getting itself into the kind of trouble that the Monty Python boys got themselves into back then? Life of Brian is as good as it is despite the attitude of people like you, not because of it, and I wish that they'd make a more modern version of the People's-Front-of-Judea scene with Trumpists. That would be worth watching. :)

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

dudalb 22nd February 2019 01:37 PM

The idea that killing somebody becaused they dared to poke fun at a "minority relgion" is somehow justified is just plain sick.

baron 22nd February 2019 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12610934)
You mean this one? http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12610433

I just found it too uninteresting and irrelevant.

Very weak. I didn't want to address your argument because I found it booooooring.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12610934)
Do you know how old Life of Brian is?

Who gives a toss how old it is? The point is how it was received and how it's being received now. The intentions of the people who produced it are entirely irrelevant. I find it hard to believe you can so massively misconstrue the core issue of the debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12610934)
Do you think that Jyllands-Posten would ever think of getting itself into the kind of trouble that the Monty Python boys got themselves into back then? Life of Brian is as good as it is despite the attitude of people like you, not because of it...

<snip>

Oh boy... :boggled:

kellyb 22nd February 2019 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12610949)
The idea that killing somebody becaused they dared to poke fun at a "minority relgion" is somehow justified is just plain sick.

Nobody claimed it's justified at all.

baron 22nd February 2019 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kellyb (Post 12610972)
Nobody claimed it's justified at all.

As good as...

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12610284)
However, they might still have been alive if Jyllands-Posten hadn't posted its stupid Muhammad drawing

Imagine this:

A friend of yours says, "Christians are idiots." A Christian overhears this, goes out and cuts a girl's head off on the strength of it.

A self-proclaimed liberal says, "Oh, that girl might be alive if your friend hadn't called Christians idiots."

What would you make of that?

kellyb 22nd February 2019 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baron (Post 12610987)
As good as...



Imagine this:

A friend of yours says, "Christians are idiots." A Christian overhears this, goes out and cuts a girl's head off on the strength of it.

A self-proclaimed liberal says, "Oh, that girl might be alive if your friend hadn't called Christians idiots."

What would you make of that?

I would say the self-proclaimed liberal stated something which is true in objective reality.

It's not blaming the friend, or justifying the murder. The fault with crimes always lies with the criminals exclusively.

baron 22nd February 2019 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kellyb (Post 12610999)
I would say the self-proclaimed liberal stated something which is true in objective reality.

It's not blaming the friend, or justifying the murder.

Yes it is. It's the weasel way of saying that she's to blame.

If it were not it would be as futile as saying, "Oh, if he hadn't have stopped to pick up the mail he would never have been run over by that truck." Factually correct, yes, but also utterly moot.

In a world where people say things for reasons we must assume a motive, and that motive is to apportion blame,.

dann 22nd February 2019 02:31 PM

It is boring and irrelevant, but here goes:


Quote:

Originally Posted by baron (Post 12610433)
You missed the reference.


No, I didn't miss any reference. Your reference is boringly obvious.

Quote:

It is. It's your deference to Islam that prevents you from accepting it. If I insult you, will you slice off my head? If I insult something you hold dear would you throw me off a building? No, you likely wouldn't even bust my chops. Yet you apologise for those who are willing to commit mass murder in response to a perceived slight against their religion.

OK, so could you present us with an example where I apologize for them? I mean, one where I actually do so. Not one where you imagine it to be the case ...

Quote:

It's good that you yourself make the argument about trying to rile Christians, trying being the key word. What kind of criticism does it take to get Christians to murder a room full of office workers, or to behead a film maker on the streets? You don't know because it can't be done, as evidenced by the huge amount of mockery Christians get on a daily basis without retaliating in any significantly violent way. And I say that as someone who is not a Christian, has no personal association with Christians and who is not religious.

What do you want, exactly? This? Or this? Or this, maybe? This?
You seem to be so fond of your own fairy tale that you're in complete denial about Christian killers.

Quote:

The fact you don't understand why anybody would stoop to drawing a cartoon of Mohammed says a lot. You list numerous reasons why they might do so only to dismiss them, and rightly so because they are absurd. The sole point of doing it is to protect the freedom of expression that is the foundation of all other human rights. This can only be done by speaking out on contentious matters - "Oh it's a lovely day so let's be nice to each other," doesn't really cut it. It staggers me that anybody who considers themselves liberal doesn't comprehend this, so much so I can't see how they are deserving of the title.

So the freedom of expression is somehow threatened if I don't piss on Muslims and other minorities? What an absurd idea!


Quote:

You're correct. Even they underestimated the savagery inherent in most conservative interpretations of Islam.

No, they just didn't consider that there were other countries where the Muslims weren't a minority. And when they discovered their mistake, Flemming Rose apologized profusely.

Quote:

Don't Make the Muslims Angry.

Don't make strawman arguments - even when it's the only thing you seem to be able to come up with.

applecorped 22nd February 2019 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlitos (Post 12610748)
I can't quote because the stupid forum software is buggy again.


dann - I'll stipulate that every word you say is true. You wrote:
Even with your explanation, that reads to me as if you are giving the extremists an excuse. I hope that my free press provokes, offends, mocks and challenges any and all groups, especially nonsense like religion. If that makes citizens of my nation into targets of muslim extremists, I sure as hell am not going to blame the mocking press for it.

:thumbsup:

applecorped 22nd February 2019 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12610689)
I never surrender to stupid arguments!

Just Muslim extremists

dann 22nd February 2019 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baron (Post 12610956)
Oh boy... :boggled:


When Jyllands-Posten was asked to produce similar drawings about Christianity to prove the point of free speech, what do you think they did?!

kellyb 22nd February 2019 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baron (Post 12611042)
Yes it is. It's the weasel way of saying that she's to blame.

If it were not it would be as futile as saying, "Oh, if he hadn't have stopped to pick up the mail he would never have been run over by that truck." Factually correct, yes, but also utterly moot.

In a world where people say things for reasons we must assume a motive, and that motive is to apportion blame,.

Not necessarily. You can't always guess other people's motives with any degree of accuracy.

dann 22nd February 2019 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by applecorped (Post 12611060)
Just Muslim extremists


Just Muslim extremists what? Why not any other kind of extremists? Christian extremists, for instance. What are the circumstances you're talking about? Are they trying to take me hostage? Is it highjacking? Why is the religion of the extremists even an essential point?

dann 22nd February 2019 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baron (Post 12610987)
As good as...


Quote:

Originally Posted by baron (Post 12611042)
Yes it is. It's the weasel way of saying that she's to blame..


Yours is the weasel way of a strawman argument.

dann 22nd February 2019 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12610949)
The idea that killing somebody becaused they dared to poke fun at a "minority relgion" is somehow justified is just plain sick.


And can you find somebody who said so? I mean, that would make your comment interesting instead of irrelevant.

baron 22nd February 2019 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12611049)
It is boring and irrelevant, but here goes:

No, I didn't miss any reference. Your reference is boringly obvious.

You shouldn't have bothered. No, really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12611049)
OK, so could you present us with an example where I apologize for them? I mean, one where I actually do so. Not one where you imagine it to be the case ...

Yes, I explained above how you are apologising for Islamic murderers using weasel words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12611049)
What do you want, exactly? This? Or this? Or this, maybe?


No, why would you imagine any of that was relevant (and your reference to the Troubles is particularly hilarious - someone needs to read up on their history)?

In what way was I not clear? I asked a simple, straightforward question

"What kind of criticism does it take to get Christians to murder a room full of office workers, or to behead a film maker on the streets?"

And you pretended I'd asked for any situation in which a Christian had committed a violent crime. Like nobody would notice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12611049)
You seem to be so fond of your own fairy tale that you're in complete denial about Christian killers.

What is my fairy tale? Oh yes, I forgot, you believe Islam is the Religion of Peace and any suggestion that a Muslim could be violent without provocation from a white person is absurd.

Who believes in fairy tales again?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12611049)
So the freedom of expression is somehow threatened if I don't piss on Muslims and other minorities? What an absurd idea!

You really don't understand, do you? The reason Mohammed cartoons are an issue is because free speech has already been eroded in this area. The satirisation is a way of reclaiming what has been lost - that is, the ability to criticise Islam.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12611049)
Don't make strawman arguments

I've no intention of doing that.

baron 22nd February 2019 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12611061)
When Jyllands-Posten was asked to produce similar drawings about Christianity to prove the point of free speech, what do you think they did?!

Hopefully they laughed and said, "Why would we protest free speech in an area where we already have it, you fool?"

Captain_Swoop 22nd February 2019 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a_unique_person (Post 12610020)
Don't come to Australia if you are a woman. There has been a bad run of rapes and murders recently.

But not by muslims so they don't count apparently.

dann 22nd February 2019 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baron (Post 12611081)
You shouldn't have bothered. No, really.


I know I shouldn't have. I knew you wouldn't get it anyway.

Quote:

Yes, I explained above how you are apologising for Islamic murderers using weasel words.

You explained nothing. You made something up.

Quote:

No, why would you imagine any of that was relevant (and your reference to the Troubles is particularly hilarious - someone needs to read up on their history)?

I already know that you don't care about atrocities committed by Christians since your holy war is against Muslims. So instead of looking at atrocities committed by Christians, for instance, you come up with very specific atrocities committed only by Muslims (at least in recent years) to get to what is your actual point: Only Muslims would do that! (Your point being that they aren't Muslim extremists, they're Muslims!)

Quote:

In what way was I not clear? I asked a simple, straightforward question

"What kind of criticism does it take to get Christians to murder a room full of office workers, or to behead a film maker on the streets?"

And you pretended I'd asked for any situation in which a Christian had committed a violent crime. Like nobody would notice.

Yes, you asked a very specific question because you wanted a very specific answer: Crimes that only Muslim extremists have committed in recent years. So IRA bombs don't count, and Christian killings of Jews in a synagogue don't count.

Quote:

What is my fairy tale? Oh yes, I forgot, you believe Islam is the Religion of Peace and any suggestion that a Muslim could be violent without provocation from a white person is absurd.

In future, I would like to see a quotation whenever you make accusations like this: "you believe Islam is the Religion of Peace and any suggestion that a Muslim could be violent without provocation from a white person is absurd." Not that you're actually able to do so, of course!

Quote:

Who believes in fairy tales again?

You do!

Quote:

You really don't understand, do you? The reason Mohammed cartoons are an issue is because free speech has already been eroded in this area. The satirisation is a way of reclaiming what has been lost - that is, the ability to criticise Islam.

No 'free speech' had been lost, and if anybody is threatening (or eroding) free speech it's the current POTUS, not the Muslim minority.

Quote:

I've no intention of doing that.

You're making them deliberately, not unintentionally.

dann 22nd February 2019 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baron (Post 12611085)
Hopefully they laughed and said, "Why would we protest free speech in an area where we already have it would lose subscribers, you fool?"

FTFY.

baron 22nd February 2019 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12611112)
I already know that you don't care about atrocities committed by Christians since your holy war is against Muslims. So instead of looking at atrocities committed by Christians, for instance, you come up with very specific atrocities committed only by Muslims (at least in recent years) to get to what is your actual point: Only Muslims would do that! (Your point being that they aren't Muslim extremists, they're Muslims!)

Yes, you asked a very specific question because you wanted a very specific answer: Crimes that only Muslim extremists have committed in recent years. So IRA bombs don't count, and Christian killings of Jews in a synagogue don't count.

If I'd wanted to discuss crimes that Muslims had committed in recent years I would start a thread about the 20,000+ Islamic terrorism-related murders that occur annually plus the countless murders and atrocities committed by Muslims across the globe outside of war zones and invite you to compare those stats with any other group you care to mention.

But I won't, because that's not what the discussion point is about. It's about how free speech provokes barbarians into committing barbaric acts of violence, and thus instead of discussing any random crime that might occur, I focus on on those crimes provoked by.... say it with me.... free speech!

It's called 'being on topic'. Give it a go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12611112)
In future, I would like to see a quotation whenever you make accusations like this: "you believe Islam is the Religion of Peace and any suggestion that a Muslim could be violent without provocation from a white person is absurd." Not that you're actually able to do so, of course!

You're the one who provides the quotations, not me. You carry on using your weasel words, it's clear what you mean, you are apologising for Islamic murderers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12611112)
No 'free speech' had been lost, and if anybody is threatening (or eroding) free speech it's the current POTUS, not the Muslim minority.

FFS, what the heck has Trump got to do with this? And what 'Muslim minority'? I don't call 1.6 billion Muslims a minority.

Baylor 22nd February 2019 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12610686)
There are other rallies organized by ordinary Danes demonstrating for peace and reconciliation with the Muslim world with thousands of participants.

So cowardice is part of Danish culture.

And there's that religious euphoria I was talking about.

Baylor 22nd February 2019 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12611071)
Just Muslim extremists what?

You surrender and kowtow to.

dann 22nd February 2019 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baron (Post 12611133)
If I'd wanted to discuss crimes that Muslims had committed in recent years I would start a thread about the 20,000+ Islamic terrorism-related murders that occur annually plus the countless murders and atrocities committed by Muslims across the globe outside of war zones and invite you to compare those stats with any other group you care to mention.

But I won't, because that's not what the discussion point is about. It's about how free speech provokes barbarians into committing barbaric acts of violence, ...


Wow, you could have fooled me! I thought it was about visiting Morocco while being daft, nave European girls.

Quote:

... and thus instead of discussing any random crime that might occur, I focus on on those crimes provoked by.... say it with me.... free speech!

It's called 'being on topic'. Give it a go.

No, you focus on crimes committed by.... say it with me.... Muslims, for some reason. Any other crimes don't really count in your universe. Certainly not the crimes committed by devoted anti-Muslims like this fundamentalist terrorist, a Christian, but not even a particularly fanatical Christian, actually a very Scandinavian one as far as his own religious faith goes: Anders Behring Breivik: Religious and political views. Just to stay on topic, since that story could have had the headline Visiting Utya while being daft, nave young Scandinavians, girls as well as boys, right?!

Quote:

You're the one who provides the quotations, not me. You carry on using your weasel words, it's clear what you mean, you are apologising for Islamic murderers.

When you're right, you're right: I actually am the one who provides quotations, and you are the one who provide baseless accusations, so nobody will wonder why you're doing it again. Lying doesn't seem to be an infraction.

Quote:

FFS, what the heck has Trump got to do with this?

What has Trump got to do with your derail topic?
Donald Trump suggests he wants US law to limit free speech in the wake of publication of explosive new book
Donald Trump's war with the media has deadly implications
Donald Trump Thinks the Freedom of the Press Is 'Disgusting'

Quote:

And what 'Muslim minority'? I don't call 1.6 billion Muslims a minority.

I don't really care that you don't call Muslims a minority. In Denmark, they are a minority, and a rather non-violent and harmless one.

dann 22nd February 2019 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baylor (Post 12611415)
So cowardice is part of Danish culture.


A lot of the time it is, but not always: Rescue of the Danish Jews. And in the case you're referring to, you should consider that Scandinavians might have more reason to fear anti-Muslim terrorism than the terror of Muslim extremists. Rallying against Muslims takes just as much courage as wearing a MAGA hat to a Trump rally. (Or do you think that you're being brave when you do that? You do, don't you?)

Quote:

And there's that religious euphoria I was talking about.

Yes, so you claim, but could you provide us with an actual example and not just your baseless, repetitive accusations?

dann 22nd February 2019 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baylor (Post 12611423)
You surrender and kowtow to.


How exactly do I kowtow to them? By showing that anti-Muslim extremists have killed a considerable number of Scandinavians?

Roboramma 23rd February 2019 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12610908)
I don't know who you are when you claim that you wrote a constitution. I never wrote any. And notice that I was talking about the point of mocking the disabled, not the right to do so.

Yes, but you were talking about it in response to his talking about the right to do so.

The point being that if we are to have to right to free speech, we can expect some speech of which we don't approve.

Quote:

I've never worried about my right to say the truth.
Probably because you have that right, and you're lucky enough that no one (government or other) is intent on commiting violence to stop you from saying anything that you happen to want to say.

That's not true of everyone, however.

Quote:

I say it instead. But I've noticed that those who do obsess about their right to say what they mean always tend to mean what they are allowed and encouraged to say by their respective states.
You think free speech is a tool of the state?


Quote:

No, it obviously isn't. It's about criticizing the enemy! It always is. And since your state grants you the splendid right to have an opinion at all, you're not supposed to criticize it. You are supposed to be grateful for the privilege of being allowed to have an opinion at all, which you also appear to be.
Quote:

Yes, like I said: The idea is to criticize everybody but the state that grants you the privilige of being able to have any opinion at all. So please criticize all the minorities suspected of unpatriotic behaviour that you can think of (like the Danish Muslims in 2005), then you can't go wrong!
Can you back up this idea that free speech is a tool of oppression? Because from where I'm standing it looks ridiculous.

Baylor 23rd February 2019 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12611443)
. And in the case you're referring to, you should consider that Scandinavians might have more reason to fear anti-Muslim terrorism than the terror of Muslim extremists.

Another idiotic talking point. This is also something that is supposedly wonderful and suppose to induce religious euphoria (I bet you felt empowered when you did that hyperlink) if you say you're more likely to die at the hands of the native population than a small religious minority. Even if it is true; like, ok. So what? Do the Pakistani Muslims go around saying you're more likely to be killed by a Pakistani Muslim than a Danish atheist. And that means Danish atheists are wonderful and tolerant people and Pakistan should open their borders so millions Danish atheists can live there? Do the Japanese go around saying that more Japanese are killed by Japanese than Muslim extremists so Japanese should let more Muslim extremists into there country? No. Out of the nearly 8,000,000,000 people on the planet, does anyone but lonely bugmen make this stupid argument? No. Because it's stupid, and it's only self-loathing bugmen who make this stupid argument.
Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12611443)
Yes, so you claim, but could you provide us with an actual example and not just your baseless, repetitive accusations?

Self-evident.

Baylor 23rd February 2019 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12611445)
How exactly do I kowtow to them?

By displacing your loyalties. By saying a comic strip that was published 14 years ago was somehow responsible for the beheadings of two young European women when Muslim extremists are solely responsible. Seriously, there's nothing wonderful or "tolerant" about a knee jerk defense to a group of people who want you dead. And there's nothing wonderful or "tolerant" about hating people of your own ethnic heritage. It just makes you look like a coward and traitor. Tribalism by any other name is still tribalism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12611445)

A Norwegian guy killed a lot of Norwegians, and this is wonderful because it wasn't a Muslim. Wow, ok. Like the video in the OP you are curiously quiet about, that's an extremely bizarre interpretation of events. I know a Norwegian and not a Muslim killing Norwegians is a miracle according to your dogma, but I'm just not susceptible to this kind of religious thinking.

Or maybe it was a comic strip from 1997 that was responsible for the deaths of those 77 people.

#notallnorwegians

Baylor 23rd February 2019 01:13 AM

You're gullible if you believe this crap. This is fake news like:

Covington High School students surround and harass Native American while chanting "build the wall!"
Jussie Smollett was the victim of a racist attack by MAGA hat wearing Trump Supporters
White man murders little black girl in racially motivated killing
Trump pays Russian hookers to urinate on him
Black White House Staffer has recording of Trump saying the N Word
Supreme Court Justice Nominee has as history of sexual predation

I know you come from a country of gullible suckers but I suspect even you know those headlines are bull____. You're only doing it to satiate your tribal and religious instincts.

Baylor 23rd February 2019 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12610719)
Who has been exonerated? The trials against the IS terrorists who killed the two Scandinavian tourists in Morocco haven't even started yet.

Great. So you can tell the jury it was a comic strip from 14 years ago that is responsible for the girls deaths.

dann 23rd February 2019 01:47 AM

And why would I do that?
More hyperbole and strawman from Baylor: "responsible for".
Don't expect him back up this idea with any documentation.

kellyb 23rd February 2019 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baylor (Post 12611505)
And there's nothing wonderful or "tolerant" about hating people of your own ethnic heritage. It just makes you look like a coward and traitor.

Ha! "Race traitor!" :boggled:

Keep em' coming, Baylor. It's a sight to behold.

ProBonoShill 23rd February 2019 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12611533)
And why would I do that?
More hyperbole and strawman from Baylor: "responsible for".
Don't expect him back up this idea with any documentation.

:i:

Baylor 23rd February 2019 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill (Post 12611548)
Wow someone's lost the plot, I'm sure the radical Muslims who can't control themselves appreciate your support though! Good job!

It's not the Muslims fault they kill people, 14 years ago they saw a comic strip.

Baylor 23rd February 2019 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kellyb (Post 12611535)
Ha! "Race traitor!" :boggled:

Keep em' coming, Baylor. It's a sight to behold.

He puts the interests of a foreign people (who want him dead, mind you) above those of his own people. This is not cowardice and traitorous, but "tolerance" according to his piety.

dann 23rd February 2019 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baylor (Post 12611505)
By displacing your loyalties. By saying a comic strip that was published 14 years ago was somehow responsible for the beheadings of two young European women when Muslim extremists are solely responsible. Seriously, there's nothing wonderful or "tolerant" about a knee jerk defense to a group of people who want you dead. And there's nothing wonderful or "tolerant" about hating people of your own ethnic heritage. It just makes you look like a coward and traitor. Tribalism by any other name is still tribalism.


And there's the problem, right there! Apart from the hyperbole and strawman about the responsibility for beheadings, Baylor's problem seems to be white supremacy, pure and simple: You have to distinguish along race lines before you start hating anybody: "hating people of your own ethnic heritage" is racial treason. (Yes, it is, ... if you're a racist.) And for some reason, being anti-racist is considered to be "tribalism" ... of the very worst kind.
I don't worry much about looking "like a coward" to him. Going up against Baylor doesn't require much courage.

Quote:

A Norwegian guy killed a lot of Norwegians, and this is wonderful because it wasn't a Muslim.

Yes, I know that's they way you're thinking. It's an attitude you share with Breivik, which I guess you weren't unaware of. I guess that you'll be happy to hear that they weren't all Norwegians and that at least one of them, Modupe Ellen Awoyeme,, 15, wasn't white, and that another one, Karar Mustafa Qasim, 19, was from Iraq.

Quote:

Wow, ok. Like the video in the OP you are curiously quiet about, that's an extremely bizarre interpretation of events. I know a Norwegian and not a Muslim killing Norwegians is a miracle according to your dogma, but I'm just not susceptible to this kind of religious thinking.

This is so absurd that I think I'll have to ask Baylor's many friends to explain it to me:
What exactly is my dogma, and how is a Norwegian not killing Norwegians a miracle according to this dogma? (And what does it have to do with the claim that "I know a Norwegian"?
Is he just offended because of the fact that anti-Muslims have killed so many more Scandinavians, most of them white, probably, than Muslim extremists? Or is it because Breivik is a Christian? Does he take offence as a racist or as a Christian? I can't tell from this absurd statement.

Quote:

Or maybe it was a comic strip from 1997 that was responsible for the deaths of those 77 people.

#notallnorwegians

Yes, "responsible" yet again. Why am I not surprised?
(Well, I'm actually surprised that this kind of open racism is allowed on the ISF.)


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.