Update: Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Want some water?

Actually, it was a description of what you actually did. Perhaps it was something you demanded of yourself.

Well, that explains the host of other religious nutter threads he started up.

Let's examine why not, okay?

You wouldn't, because you suspect the man might carry disease; it happens to those at the economic and social fringes of our societies, and everyone else's. There's not much other reason you'd decline. (Bad breath?) So you'd refuse because you think 'Stinky' over there might have something contagious.

However, you're now trying to draw a parallel with refusing to share your water because you think this guy might carry some horrifying disease with Chi refusing to share his water with Westerners because he thinks they're inherently filthy, because he doesn't discriminate among kinds of Westerners. I mean, he could have said "Westerners that are filthy", or "homeless Westerners", but he said "most Westerners". In your argument, Westerners are equivalent to a guy you think is carrying a nasty disease. Sooo...

- thanks for backing up Chi's religious extremism sarcasm with...uh, actually defending his supposedly fallacious argument.

That worked out well.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Say on, if you can't say no

:shrug: You've been wrong before.

James, I imagine. You probably know best who you were warned by for ad hominem.

Oh good! That explains his oblique confirmations of the same. Maybe you can find that " type of language you use to address Muslims on this forum". You know: like Zak, for example, even.

Who's complaining? If you're committed to making a fool of yourself, it certainly doesn't bother me.

 

Indeed. Muslims need to get with the program. Its not one woman sentenced for blasphemy. Its one terrorist renditioned for national security. And why stop at one? Why bother sentencing? Skip the whole due process and just mow 'em down with guns!

Once you kill a whole lot of them, call them collateral damages, then sit back and refuse to count them.

Then Islam can catch up, maybe not with Christianity, which has wiped out entire continents and civilisations, but surely with secularism. This one person sentenced here and there is such chickenfeed.

 

The filthy truth

Don't be absurd. You came to that idiotic conclusion long before, and you cycle it up at intervals to make me feel indifferent, apparently.

Well, he did shut down that thread. I thought it was implicit. No matter; I'll drop a dime on it.

Oh, god. You actually forgot what you wrote a couple posts back already? Or is this just more disingenuousness?

Actually, that was just a sharp shot in the ribs to you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Proof of concept, let's call it. I was sorry to hear about all your troubles, mind; but I didn't know about all that other stuff before I fired that PM over.

Then you have several problems. First, his comparison was "people he deems unclean", not "someone you did not know", so that fails from the get-go, as these aren't the same things. Earlier, you described a "homeless person":

And why would you make that specification? Why would you not share your water with them? You brought up a homeless person, not any old Joe walking by. Clearly - and since the argument stems from this in the first place - you consider your example one of "filth". So, you're backing up his argument: equating an example of someone you consider "filthy" with Westerners, really. Before you deny it, let's examine the proof of same:

But your implicit parallel is that Westerners are also "filthy", which is not my parallel. So what is it EFC thinks you can catch from Westerners? Is it the samAnd dogs. And rats. Pigs. Things like that. Unclean things. If you share water with them, well: who knows what you might catch?

So, again, you're referring to disease, from filth, presumably: we can safely ignore your comments about "possible" filthiness, since that wasn't part of EFC's original post. To say nothing of the case that the Christian woman in question - Ms. Bibi - was well known to the people of her village. So now you're obfuscating also. Is there no end, Bells?

A lie. I laid out the parameters of your own argument. I think it unlikely that I would share my water with the homeless person of your example - thought I would certainly give my water to him or her - for the same reason you wouldn't: some vague fear of disease.

To say nothing of the point that Ms. Bibi of the OP wasn't swishing around water and spitting it back in the village bucket, but rather sharing water from a communal source. Do these things equate to you? I would hope not.

Actually, he posted a vague allusion to something. And meanwhile here you are, defending this point that you say he didn't make. So that argument won't wash. Sorry, Bells.

OK, lemme give it a thunk...waitaminute: you do realize that bigots some in all shapes and sizes, right? Didn't ol' Brian Foley post that he had an Indonesian daughter-in-law or something? Shall I presume you naturally took this as proof of his good moral standing?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or should I not presume same?

And he considers himself such a staunch Westerner that he's off to Egypt to help out in the Revolution and so on and so forth. Right. No, that makes perfect sense. Not that it really helps him or you.

Wow. This is really the basis of your own defense now? Good call.

 

Cleverly constructed arguments

Few do, when they go not far afield.

That's great, but not too relevant to me.

Whom you took to task...not at all.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The hero resplendent

I love the lawyerese here: "a littany of abuse from [me]" about - what? Muslims? Their religion? A person? What was the abuse directed at? You don't say. Curious.

In respond to scifes' assertion that Islamic law permitted handy persecution. If so, then Islamic law - much like your arguments - is indeed constructed of cleverly constructed shit. Sowwy. I hold the same position on similar arguments from other faiths, and I make no apology.

Actually, I consider any religious values that inform humanitarianism good. I consider any religious values that inform non-humanitarianism bad. Where Islam does the former, I am in agreement. Where it does the latter, I am not in agreement. It could honestly not be simpler. I am required to take no faith nor belief at complete parcel, unless those who disagree with me do so; and even then, I do not.

In a reciprocal, how much do you value my religion? Not at all. Whose else do you hold valueless?

It is from the same kind of ignorance that such evil springs, Bells. This should be obvious.

You have just deceptively highlighted the last text ([he must obviously] speak for all Muslims) so as to give the impression that was the point of my post. It wasn't, and those that read the post you fallaciously linked can see that. So that was pretty dishonest.

Demonstrate immediately where I slandered Muslims. This matter has already been reported to the admins, because enough is enough.

Wow. First, not only have you actually demonstrated no hypocrisy, you have now attempted to take this lack of evidence as a beating-stick, forgetting again that this a case revolving around an actual human being, and not one of your argumentative fantasies.

Two responses: total bollocks and too late for that party now, Bells. His statements later in the thread confirm this; they are not of humour, but of repressed hubris. Done.

Bells: it's impossible to follow exactly where you get off from this. Your arguments are spastic and libelous; your usage is corrupt and actually absurdly disingenuous, and your bias irredeemable. I have attempted, as I do, to be as fair with you as possible. I have pointed out your errors fairly, and without undue slamming of your character. However, it appears an unavoidable and continuing conclusion that you have gone more or less demented. Your libel has pushed past the tolerance point; there's really no need to put up with it.

 

Aside from the apparent feud brewing between you and Geoff, I'd like to ask something.

Although it's apparent that you would not willingly share your water with a complete stranger, I'd like clarification on a few things...

• Would you not share with anyone, regardless of religion? Or is your reluctance primarily based on which sky fairy one worships, and how one goes about said worship?
• Are there exceptions to your reluctance to "share"? Such as if the homeless, perhaps disease ridden beggar is dying of thirst? Would you not share then? (Note: there is no requirement here that you in turn continue to drink from the same water cup / bottle.)
• Finally, and most importantly, regardless of your reasoning as to why, do you believe that if a stranger (of whatever faith) touches your water and then blasphemes your "God", that they deserve death in retribution?

See, this last point is what really gets me. I think (only an opinion at this point, no research done) that most people have an aversion to sharing "intimate" substances with strangers / others. Perhaps some sort of genetic influence...

In any event, this aversion seems to be exacerbated by the degree of observable "otherness". I.e. color of skin, socioeconomic differences, and, yes, religious variance. I say all of this is irrelevant.

I am willing to go on record affirming that I will avoid sharing water (or food, or bodily fluids, or even living space) with "strangers". Barring extremities, of course, such as dieing of thirst, starving or exposure to elements due to lack of shelter - in these cases I would share.

Mostly though, and the main point of my post, is:
Do you condone imposing the death penalty on someone who "touched" your water? E.g. are you going to whip out a sword and slice the beggar's head off for committing such an atrocity? You know, the one who took a swig from your water bottle? As opposed to, say, just giving away the remainder of the bottle? This seems to be the position that you are advocating, regardless of the fact that your support is only through proxy - the "law", the "government" and the enforcement arms thereof.


This position does not seem in line with the Bells that I have come to know over the last three years or therebouts.

Please tell me it ain't so, Bells?

 

Wicked women

If I may...actually it's hard to say. I considered it in more detail and I have no idea. She says not, but still defends a point that she says EFC never made, which is bizarre.

Sorry to jump in Randwolf.

Second report coming up. Enough of this bullshit. Hype told me a while back that if I think I'm being wronged, I should shoot back. I'm trying to make a decent discussion here, and you're slamming away. So: bang.

Wrong. It's still there. Care to try my challenge now?

And I apologized, and asked how I could help, and you came back with more of the same. Which is fine - you're allowed to hate me as much as you like, and I'm fine with that, but you're not allowed to libel the hell out of me.

Rather, I excavated your actual point, which Randwolf has also touched on.

?? In comparison to everyone else? I find it - no. It's simply unbelievable that you would single out Westerners for this nonsense and call it Bhudda, especially with every other point on the thread.

...You're asking me whether I have asked EFC what diseases he thinks he might catch from Westerners.

Impressive.

Oh, that bad woman: telling off a bunch of assholes who insulted her for her religion. Oh, she should be ashamed! And then having her arrested for that comment and put in death row. And all those people in the village agreeing with the sentence, including the imam. Oh, what a wicked woman.

Funny how often my terms involve justice and fairness, isn't it? That must be enraging for you.

The disingenuousness just keeps piling up. Oh, don't worry about that, Geoff, cause...uh, secularists don't mind dirt so much. So what exactly if they don't? You're equating hygienic habits with discrimination based on religious intolerance. You touched briefly on a right argument when you mentioned their ignorance...although I suppose you could just as easily double back and demand to know what I mean by calling ignorants ignorant. Silly me for mentioning it.

As for the "tit-for-tat" argument: you missed his follow-ups:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2685046&postcount=169
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2685988&postcount=177
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2686023&postcount=179
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2686606&postcount=205
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2686621&postcount=207

- none of which are written in that manner. So that line of inquiry is also gone, as well as the "it were all a big joke!" try.

Epic misconception. Bravo.

I have found far more terrifying items on this thread, frankly.

 

Excuse me very much for jumping in - yes, again: sorry - but I thought it would help if I cleared things up.

Because Westerners are dirty.

Which it was.

Oh, god, it's the attestation now, isn't it? "No, no, I'm not saying it was religious, but if - if it was, I would torch you allll". You're also selectively critical.

Correction: I sent you a PM giving you a link to something I didn't think you'd slam so quickly as "bigoted" (your favorite word). And you didn't.

Proving that the greatest sin of man must be poor perception.

Sorry - and no lawyerese this time: who was doing this? And why isn't you don't mind dumping wholesale on other religions?

And called me a bigot several times.

With my commiserations, and indeed a reminder not to keep harassing me about that nonsense when she takes no notice of real religious bigotry - which she did.

That is one of your stranger memes, this transpossession.

Erroneous linking and libel certainly are. I asked you - several times - not to do this, and you did anyway.

Which you stay on for almost an entire paragraph before deflecting in a manner that would make Sam do a double-take:

But (that pesky word again) you don't mind trying to "make poor Geoffy see!" with an analogy equally as vicious. And you don't blast Chi at all, but rather powder his little bum, give him a hug and say "there, there, little fascist: everything will be all right. You didn't mean all those horrible things you said about dirty unbelievers, did you?"

Actually, no. It sounds as though he doesn't want to eat meat butchered in a horribly inhumane manner. I mean, do you even read these things?

Under which you would presumably charge him?

You do? For God's sake, why?

Actually, I said that in the event of scifes' assertion, Islamic law is composed of cleverly sculpted shit.

 

IMHO, you only "made it quite clear" in the post immediately following mine - perhaps I did not read your other posts carefully enough...

Bells, I was already aware of most of this from your previous writings. Although I don't often post much anymore (I get too emotionally involved - my addictive personality rearing its ugly head again), I am "here" almost every day. And I mean almost "every" - I don't miss much...

I gathered that there was a PM involved here...

This is new information to me - appreciate the enlightenment. I would like to point out that most "new" posters (seems to be the majority these days) may not be aware of all the history gone by. If one were to judge Muslims only by this particular incident, it would be easy to see how one might arrive at the conclusion that "Islam was described as being [is] a 'shit' religion". This thread was started to create dissent, and it succeeded. What we need is more appreciation for the differences inherent in other cultures (right or wrong) rather than an increase in divisiveness and dissension. And, IMO, all parties here are guilty.

On the other hand, understanding the reasons behind some poor girl being put to death for touching someone's water does not change the fact that advocating "freedom" to practice certain aspects of a given religion puts some culpability on you, as well. What about the newbies here that haven't been exposed to the varieties of evil promulgated under the guise of "religious expression"? At least some of them must draw the conclusion that "freedom of religion" equates to "freedom to behead" those of a different faith. Not good, right?

I know, and you know, this was not your intent. However, I imagine that is, in fact, the impression left upon some. Think... (Again, regardless of any personal feud between you and another member.) Just try to make your position a little clearer for the "unwashed masses". Obviously, that is only a suggestion, I normally respect your POV with little reticence. Again, with the exponential proliferation of new members, I often choose the threads that I read based upon who is involved. If you're there, I'm going to read it. Same with Geoff, PJ, SAM, James, Plazma, etc.

Fine - but, again, seems that your focus is on disagreement of a particular member, rather than addressing the issue as a whole.

Thank you. Although I believe it does need saying, in 20pt caps. This IS the core of thread, and so many side issues have been drug in that it seems like the focus has been lost.

In fact, it seems so central to the topic, that it bears repeating: (emphasis mine)

Maybe so - but the only way to address this vitriol is with a calm attitude, lest you antagonize the issue further...

Agreed. However, let us not aid and abet those that indulge in this sort of behavior, eh?

 

my unread post cookies keep screwing up..

they either keep telling me i have not read what i have just read, or they tell me i have read what i did not read..

i think it missed more than 3 pages on this thread ( it says i read them)
when it does this i miss out on ALOT of discussion..this is getting seriously annoying..anyone have any clues??

 

Wait, did you really just compare people to dogs and pigs and then say peace?? Is this hypocrisy part of the "muslims are more honorable" thingy you posted earlier? Oh the irony

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What I am gathering from the last several posts between Geoff and Bells is that this whole thread was meant to incite and now that it has,well now that it has I am sensing intellectual remorse:bawl:

 

The irony is that I have eaten with people from all over the world and it was only in the US that people refused to share food between friends because it's considered "unsanitary". This is a good notion for a poll, I think. How many people are willing to swap spit on a sandwich? Or a drink?