Banning of Balerion

[Captain Kremmen]

Pictures of a Horse's head?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Even Kremmy has you pegged, Bells.

Now you are officially fooling no one.

Yeah. If you can't fool me, you can't fool anyone.

......................Hey, wait a minute.
What are you insinuating Donkey Brain?

 

[Bells]

I've got it now. The mist of confusion has disappeared.
It is alright to say that Balerion is as bad as Breivik, and like a member of the KKK,
because he IS as bad as Breivik or a member of the KKK.
But when GeoffP says that you are a bloodthirsty warmonger,
that is not alright, because you are NOT a bloodthirsty warmonger.
What's more, you get to decide who is what, because you are the moderator.

You are acting as a demagogue. A Putin.
The very thing you say you hate.

Then you clearly have a comprehension problem.

In that thread, I told Balerion that his bigoted ideology that led him to make the comment that Islam is poison is the same ideology that Breivik used to justify his crimes. Like it is the same ideology spouted by the Westboro Baptist Church that led Matthew Shepard's killers to do what they did and the only difference between the Westboro twats and Shepard's killers is that they murdered someone, while Westboro would never take such a step. There is a subtle difference there. It's actually not that hard to see it. He came into that thread specifically to whine about Islam, and then actually said 'well I'm not saying Muslims are bad', while ignoring the fact what makes a Muslim a Muslim is Islam and he does not think that it is an insult. In a thread about someone who went on a killing spree because he hated Muslims enough to want to kill people, after a whining manifesto and a string of youtube video's about Islam..

I gave the KKK reference as an example, again, a clear example that you have a reading comprehension. Another analogy would be if someone from the KKK stands there with a hood, saying that 'niggers are a poison to society'.. And another racist twat kills a black man for being black and because he thinks black people are a scourge or a poison to society. What do the two have in common?

And if I was like Putin, neither of you would be allowed to post here.

---

Again, accusation without evidence. I invite you once more to support your claim with something like a quote. Please quote me disparaging Muslims. By all means.

I think your comment about Islam being a poison to society would be one. Since you know, Islam is what makes a Muslim a Muslim. Then your comments about what Muslim women wear. I'm sure you remember? Something about large sacks or something along those lines?

Or are you going to deny you made those comments?

Another heinous lie. Where did I blame the victims? Show me even one example of it, and I'll leave the site forever.

You came into a thread about a man who murdered dozens of innocent children and teenagers because he did not support what he saw as the Islamification of Europe and you started to whine about Islam, disregarding that many of the victims were Muslim.

You can't have it both ways, liar. I'm either a bigot who unabashedly disparages Muslims, or I'm a coward who doesn't say what he really means.

I think the fact that you had others trying to desperately explain your initial comment, where you then changed it to fundamental Islam, because it was clear that it was as bad as it looked. Your initial comment was simply Islam.

This is one of those "I'm rubber, you're glue" moments. Sadly, it didn't work in Kindergarten, and it certainly won't work here.

I'm not the one who throws the word "bigot" around like it's going out of style. I'm not the one who has accused others of being akin to Hitler, or Stalin, or Anders Breivik. I've never done that. I've never lied to you or about you. I've never defamed you. I've never said anything about you that I couldn't support with quotes.

Ah, so your comment that you'd call me a slut, but you won't since you believe I'm not 'getting any' is what exactly? So in your opinion women who have sex are sluts? Or is that comment only reserved for the women you hate?

Are you saying that isn't slander?

Lets see, I say, in a thread about a mass murderer who did what he did because the underlying premise of his hatred is that he hates Islam and Muslims, you enter it and go on a terrific whine about how much you think Islam and then fundamental Islam is a poison to society, that you two share that ideology. I accused you of being like Stalin or Hitler?

No, it's a criticism of my person. You are disparaging me when you call me a bigot.

But you are a bigot...

You are bigoted against anyone who is a theist on this site, especially those who follow Islam.

Did you not read the passage you quote directly above this question?

Saying Islam is a poison to society is a comment about an ideology.

It's really not any more complicated than that, Bells. Much as you want to paint me as a bigot, you're not going to find any satisfaction here.

And my saying you are a bigot is my comment about your ideology. If your ideology is bigoted, would you rather I refer to you as something that does not describe your ideology?

Repeating my own barbs back to me isn't exactly an effective debate technique. It just shows that you don't have anything original to say.

Says he who is dragging things back from years ago, to try to prove just how much he is being hard done by by me. Poor baby.

If all you said was that I my beliefs were bigoted in nature, we wouldn't be here talking about this. Tiassa has said the same about me and countless other many times, and I'm not holding grudges over that. What you said, and what you implied and inferred, goes far beyond accusations of bigotry, and you know it.

I said that you share the same ideology towards Islam with Breivik after you used the Breivik thread to go on a ranting whine against Islam.

Which is what you did.

Or are you saying Breivik's hatred of Islam is not bigoted?

No you didn't. You said:

Yes.. And?

I'd say the same thing to the Westboro about their hatred and bigoted beliefs about gays. I would say their views about gays is shared by the men who murdered Matthew Shepard. And the only difference is that Westboro did not kill anyone, while Shepard's murderers did for their hatred and ideology.

Read it again, Bells. I said that in response to you accusing me of being mentally deranged. You think "slut" is worse than calling someone crazy? Really?

Mine was a joke, as denoted by the grinning face and then a further response to the joke by my posting something from Ikea.

But we shall get to your slut comment in a while.

No, I don't adhere to your "Shock, Awe, Then Pretend I Never Said It" strategy. I'm not naive enough to think that people won't just go back and find my words and throw them back in my face. That's why I even provided a link, so you'd have no excuses when you subsequently failed to support any of your accusations against me.

And no, the comment wasn't about Islam. The comment was about the generalizations being made about those who had negative opinions of Islam. The gist of it was that anyone who didn't like Islam was being thrown in with this Breivik monster, and I took issue with that. That's what my comment was about. Again, context. Try it some time.

So you were whining that people were comparing your ideology and philosophical beliefs about Islam to Breivik's beliefs and ideology about Islam, by going on a rant about Islam...? In a thread about the guy who murdered 77 people because of his ideology.

And you accuse me of being socially inept?

The behavior I'm talking about is the kind where you misrepresent people on your best days, and accuse them of being a party to mass murder on your worst. If you think I posted like a bigot in that thread, then I can only assume you don't know what the word means.

Oh, let me clarify. I don't think you simply posted like a bigot. I think you are a bigot.

You mean like you did to me in that Breivik thread?

Why is it okay when you do it, but Tiassa has his man-period when Geoff does it?

Oh, and that's not even what he said Geoff did. He said that Geoff had accused you of committing felonies. There's a difference between accusing you of wanting to do something, and accusing you of actually doing it. And I doubt Tiassa misspoke.

There is a difference between what Geoff said to me and what I said to you. I said you shared the same ideology with Breivik when it comes to Islam, an ideology which is the same which ultimately led him to do what he did and that the only difference between you and he is that he murdered people for his ideology, while you never would. I never said that you wanted to murder people. I said you shared the same ideology as someone who did murder people. Another example would be to tell a Nazi that he or she shared the same ideology that led Hitler to murder millions of people. Get it now?

Geoff accused me directly of wanting to murder people. Previously, he accused me of wanting to murder women and children.

It wasn't an accusation of my ideology or a shared ideology. It was an accusation that I wanted to murder people.

Didn't call you a slut. I said I could call you that, given your apparent disregard for the rules of the forum and libelous accusation about my mental health.

My comment about your mental health, which you have taken to heart and blown all out of proportion was a joke. So much so that I even linked pictures and linked ikea when you commented about my riding a broomstick. You know, I joked about that broomstick. Whereupon you tried to sneak the slut comment in and in this response, you doubled down on it. While mine was a joke, yours clearly is not. Getting to that one in a second. Fear not.

Wait...calling someone a slut automatically makes them a misogynist?

Maybe you really are simple.

No, inferring a woman is a slut if she is having sex (or 'getting any' as you put it) makes you a misogynist.

I did no such thing. I've provided context to all of my comments. I said that I went off on a rant (which was not abusive by any means, nor was it moderated as such), and that it was deleted prior to Tiassa's PM to me. I also provided my original comment that lead to your obscene accusations in the Breivik thread, as well as a link to that thread per your request.

He told you to shut up because it did not concern you and you did not know why he was moderating GeoffP. You have gone so far as to drag something from years ago to whine about how you are so hard done by, dismissing the fact that if it was as you say, then you would not be here at all to post.. No no, the moderators are all after you Balerion.

Again, you're lying.

This is the PM I received:

Knowing what your rants are like (this one is a prime example), you're saying you don't get abusive in your rants?

It's not. No more than saying war is immoral is a comment on the morality of the soldiers who fight them. It's a comment about a philosophy, and anyone who isn't a moron understands that someone's religion is rarely something freely chosen. I no more blame Muslims for adhering to their faith than I blame myself for being an atheist.

No, you said that Muslim's faith is a poison to society.

Now I'm a misogynist!

It's actually funny at this point. While the internet gives you anonymity and the bravery to make horrible comments about people with no consequence, it also prevents you from actually doing anything about it when someone calls you out on your bullshit. That you've now added misogyny to the list of libelous comments you've made about me is obviously your feeble attempt at scratching my eyes out through your computer monitor.

You said you'd call me a slut, but you don't believe I am getting any, so you won't call me a slut then. So if you felt or thought I was having sex, I would be a slut?

In short, you inferred that women who have sex are sluts. And as I asked, or is that just something you save for the women you hate?

It's beyond hysterical that you're actually offended now, after what you just said about my mental state.

Big girl doesn't like equality after all.

I made a clear joke about your sanity (how clearly it was meant as a joke is clearly seen in the response where I posted pictures to your initial comment about that joke - you know, doubling down that it was a joke), which you took so seriously that you have inferred that I am a slut if I am 'getting any'...

You used your real name on this site, and then gave me a warning when I linked to the post in which you did. It's public domain now. And no, I'm not denying using your name. I'm saying that nobody could possibly follow that link and side with you. Well, Tiassa could, but we know his motives.

Again, I never once gave you permission to use my real name on this forum and when I asked that you stop, you kept doing it, even against and without my consent.

Can you show me where I denied using your name? Didn't think so.

My comment to Kremmen was that you were the one who dragged all this out into this thread, not me. Your response was to deny that it was you.

Yes, but please start by attributing any comment at all I've made that fits into any of those descriptions. Please do that before you reply to this post, and do it in a separate post so I and everyone else can see. Thank you.

Since people have the ability to read, they can read it here. I am not adding to the ridiculous clutter that this thread already is because of your pathological need to be a drama queen to the point that you are dragging things out from years ago to whine about..

After you made the Islam is a poison to society, you then corrected yourself to this:

Specificity: Islam is not a poison to society. Islamic supremacism/reactionaries/conservativism/fundamentalism (whichever term) is. Much as you wouldn't want to see Pat Robertson ascend the pole to real political power in the US, you don't want the Ayatollah running domestic affairs. (Which, truth to be said, he kind of does, actually.)

Sorry for the OT but this thread is already teetering on the edge of a flame-out.

Yes, in this particular context I was referring to the Islam that puts their women in cloth bags, seeks to implement Sharia law in Western societies, perpetrates rapes and honor killings, calls for the heads of cartoonists and authors or anyone at all who criticizes Islam, etc..

Loathe as I am to defend a creep on the level of Pat Robertson, you've forced my hand: He is in no way analogous to the Ayatollah. No, I would not want Pat Robertson (or to provide a more cutting example, since it almost happened, Rick Santorum) rising to political power, but that society would be retarded far less by a man like that then it would be by some Mullah, or indeed the Ayatollah. There is simply no comparison.

The majority of Muslims who follow 'conservative Islam' do not perpetrate rapes and honor killings, nor do they call for the heads of cartoonists and authors or anyone at all who criticises Islam. The majority who are conservative do not seek to implement Sharia Law in Western societies.

What you did was to lump all conservative Muslims and stereotyped them as being exactly the same as the radical and fundamentalist Muslims who, for example, do call for crimes to be committed against anyone who disparages their religion.

You then seemed to claim that "some Mullah" would be bad for society, thereby lumping all Mullah's as being fundamentalist Islamists who are bad for society like the Ayatollah is bad for society.

Not all are. In fact, the majority are not as you describe. You generalised and stereotyped all into this mold after describing how they are a poison to society. No Balerion, not every Muslim who wears the burka or follows Sharia Law are fundamentalists or supremacists.

I've got several problems with this clumsy comment:

1. Bringing up your history is not flaming. You brought up Geoff's history, and so has Tiassa, so apparently there's nothing wrong with it at all.

2. I never alluded to you being a slut. In fact, I said you couldn't be because you're not very popular with men. From what I hear, anyway.

3. Why on earth would I believe your comment about my mental state was a joke, and what on earth makes you think it being a joke excuses it in any way whatsoever?

So if I have sex with men, I would be a slut?

We brought up GeoffP's history but do you see us demanding it be discussed yet again? No.

I would have thought my comment about your mental state being a joke would have been clear when I posted what I use to hold my laptop on my broomstick. But no, instead, you decide to infer that I am a slut if I have sex.

Another lie. I never called you a slut. And unlike me, you do go around calling people bigots for no reason, and accuse them of being no different than despots and mass murderers. How many times have you likened Geoff to Assad in the Syria thread? Should I go tally them up?

Not only are you no saint, you're the worst offender here. You constantly misrepresent people's comments for the sake of sounding righteous when you defame them. You're the worst kind of person on the internet. Look at what you've done here: I said that your claim that I was insane was so out of line and absurd that I might as well go ahead and call you a slut, and then "twisted the knife" by saying it wasn't possible to call someone a slut who doesn't get any. Again, if you weren't so eager to misrepresent me, you'd see that mine was an attempt to match your ludicrousness with ludicrousness of my own. I even said "I could call you a slut or something similarly asinine. But you'll breeze right over that, because it's easier to call me a misogynist than to read in full.

You inferred I would be a slut if I was 'getting any'.. In other words, if I am having sex, then I would be a slut. But because, in your opinion, I am not popular with men from what you hear, then I am not a slut. How exactly am I supposed to qualify that comment? If I was liked or popular, I would be a slut? But because I am not popular with men from what you hear, I am not? Tell me, do you often go around PM'ing men here to find out if I am popular with them or something?

You said you would call me a slut, or something similarly asinine, but you won't because you hear I am not popular with men and apparently not getting any.

So if I was popular, I would be a slut? If I am having sex with a man, I would be a slut?

What makes a woman a slut in your opinion?

Pretty sure it doesn't take a misogynist to mention when someone else isn't getting any.

And if I said I was having sex, I would be a slut - since you know, you said you would call me a slut, but in your opinion, I'm apparently not getting any. So tell me, do you save the slut insult for all women? Are all women who have sex with men sluts? Or do you only save that for the women you hate?

I'll let you figure out how that is misogynistic.

I'll give you a hint. It's pretty obvious.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Threatened with pictures? What does that mean?

Captain Kremmen, thought you caught the assorted Posts recently in another Thread on this Forum when Bells attempted to intimidate me.
She "vented" repeatedly by, what I have since come to realize is her "par for the course" or "S.O.P.", puerile name calling, inane accusations, amateur misdiagnosed psychological evaluations, completely biased perceptions and her apparently unlimited ability to imagine non-existent phenomena.

Bells, is the Poster that went out of her way to inform me of two words that I, dmoe, could - not "not"?!?! - use in future Posts.

Then she told me that she could not keep count of how many times she asked me to "stop", and that if I did not follow her directive to "stop", then something would evidently happen.

She finished one tirade with this : link
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ion-quot-A-Farce-from-Beginning-to-End/page36
...originally Posted by Bells - Post #702 posted on 09-06-13, 10:01 PM (bottom of long rambling Post)...
quote - "Have I made myself understood now? Or do you require pictures?" - unquote

So, Captain Kremmen, now you know the meaning of "Threatened with pictures".

So...even though I know it is wrong...well sometimes Bears just repeatedly beg and beg to be Poked...

 

[Bells]

Captain Kremmen, thought you caught the assorted Posts recently in another Thread on this Forum when Bells attempted to intimidate me.
She "vented" repeatedly by, what I have since come to realize is her "par for the course" or "S.O.P.", puerile name calling, inane accusations, amateur misdiagnosed psychological evaluations, completely biased perceptions and her apparently unlimited ability to imagine non-existent phenomena.

Bells, is the Poster that went out of her way to inform me of two words that I, dmoe, could - not "not"?!?! - use in future Posts.

Then she told me that she could not keep count of how many times she asked me to "stop", and that if I did not follow her directive to "stop", then something would evidently happen.

She finished one tirade with this : link
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ion-quot-A-Farce-from-Beginning-to-End/page36
...originally Posted by Bells - Post #702 posted on 09-06-13, 10:01 PM (bottom of long rambling Post)...
quote - "Have I made myself understood now? Or do you require pictures?" - unquote

So, Captain Kremmen, now you know the meaning of "Threatened with pictures".

So...even though I know it is wrong...well sometimes Bears just repeatedly beg and beg to be Poked...

Ah, so you are upset at the warning I issued you for posting anti-Semitic rantings about how the Jews dominate the media, blah blah blah, and then trying to back it up with links to holocaust deniers? Good luck with that.

But in this thread, where it is inferred that I am a slut if I apparently "get some", then I guess it's all open slather.

So knock yourselves out.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Ah, so you are upset at the warning I issued you for posting anti-Semitic rantings about how the Jews dominate the media, blah blah blah, and then trying to back it up with links to holocaust deniers? Good luck with that.

But in this thread, where it is inferred that I am a slut if I apparently "get some", then I guess it's all open slather.

So knock yourselves out.

Bells, did you actually "Issue me a Warning" - I did not know you were the Moderator in that thread.

I did get an "e-mail" from SciForums that my virus protection automatically "quarantined" it was disguised as a "Thank you PM" from another Poster (not you Bells). At any rate - I ran it in a virtual machine and it was an older Registry exploit that was used 7 or 8 years ago to "hit/mine/kill" and not a very good one at that.

Bells are you saying that was you who attempted that - I wondered why you failed to answer me after numerous attempts to "Poke the Bear" in the Syria thread.

Bells, if it was you behind it...and I do not think or believe it was...but on the very slightest chances it was...meh... try harder.

Back to this "warning you issued" - I Posted(with the link), PROOF of my statements - I'll bet you cannot Post PROOF of you "issuing a Moderator Warning" to me, dmoe.

There is no doubt that you can edit the Post I linked above, but that would really be useless since my home server has a running copy of all the, shall we say "surfing" I do.

And by Posting the ^^above^^ you have basically already admitted to it!

Anyway, Bells, just how upset do you think I really was or am?

Ask Captain Kremmen, I may be pushed into an over the top "Extreme Sarcasm" response - but I do not fly off the handle with name calling, false accusations and allegations...well you should know the puerile and inane intimidation tactics that you are fond of...you employ them often enough.

At any rate, nice to hear from you again, hope you are happy and healthy!

Hey, while I finally have gotten your attention again - just what were the pictures you would have supplied, if I had been in "need" of them?

Please do not tell me they were somehow related to the four letter word - that my respect for myself, and even more, my respect for women - will not allow me to type, that followed "...where it is inferred that I am a..." (quoted from ^^above^^ by Bells)!

Bells, so should I antici......................................pate you Posting PROOF of "THE ALLEGED WARNING YOU ISSUED" or was that just one more example of your puerile inane unlimited ability to imagine non-existent phenomena?

If you would prefer to save your self any further self-embarrassing responses to any "poking of the bear" by me in the future- you could always apologize - most real adults are able to do that.

Heck, ask Captain Kremmen, even I, dmoe, am at least adult enough to honestly and earnestly apologize when I have misconstrued a Posters meaning or intent - most adults do not have a problem with admitting when they are wrong.

Do you have a problem with admitting when you are wrong, Bells?

How many times will I have to ask you? Really. How many times?

Do you, Bells, understand? Do you? really. Do you?

Wiink, just "poking the bear"

 

[Balerion]

Then you clearly have a comprehension problem.

And the desperate get more desperate.

I think your comment about Islam being a poison to society would be one. Since you know, Islam is what makes a Muslim a Muslim.

So then when I say war is immoral, am I then saying that soldiers are immoral, since war is what makes a soldier a soldier?

Think about it, Bells.

Then your comments about what Muslim women wear. I'm sure you remember? Something about large sacks or something along those lines?

Cloth bags, yes. Some forms of Islam force women into covering themselves from head to toe when in public, since they considered property, not people. Yeah, I have a problem with a philosophy that treats women in such a way.

You came into a thread about a man who murdered dozens of innocent children and teenagers because he did not support what he saw as the Islamification of Europe

You keep saying that as if I jumped into the middle of thread unprompted to disparage Islam. This is a feeble and dishonest attempt to misrepresent me. Thankfully, the link to the thread I provided will demonstrate to anyone interested that my presence in the thread was not as you continuously portray it.

and you started to whine about Islam, disregarding that many of the victims were Muslim.

Exactly how did I disregard that many of the victims were Muslim? Please demonstrate that by quoting me.

I think the fact that you had others trying to desperately explain your initial comment, where you then changed it to fundamental Islam, because it was clear that it was as bad as it looked. Your initial comment was simply Islam.

I had others doing things? Really? That's news to me. I'm sure it's news to GeoffP, as well.

But yes, the comment required clarification. So I clarified.

Ah, so your comment that you'd call me a slut, but you won't since you believe I'm not 'getting any' is what exactly? So in your opinion women who have sex are sluts? Or is that comment only reserved for the women you hate?

Are you saying that isn't slander?

To answer in the reverse: Yes, I'm saying that isn't slander. Since slander is, you know, spoken. Saying you aren't getting any is merely an admittedly ridiculous response in kind to your ridiculous claim that I was insane.

And here we have a clear case of you not being able to take what you dish out. My suggestion, then, would be to stop dishing it out.

Lets see, I say, in a thread about a mass murderer who did what he did because the underlying premise of his hatred is that he hates Islam and Muslims, you enter it and go on a terrific whine about how much you think Islam and then fundamental Islam is a poison to society, that you two share that ideology. I accused you of being like Stalin or Hitler?

This is a misrepresentation, again. You're not smart enough to pull this off, Bells. You're simply not, and as evidenced by the overwhelmingly negative reaction to your words in this thread, it's apparent to everyone.

I was already participating in the thread. I didn't begin whining about Islam, I complained about generalizations being made about people who had a negative opinion of Islam. Then you went off on a hissy quite similar to the one you're on now, desperately clawing at everyone and anyone within reach, lying through your teeth about the character of the posters on the forum you're supposed to be moderating.

You're a joke. You're clown shoes.

But you are a bigot...

Compelling argument!

You are bigoted against anyone who is a theist on this site, especially those who follow Islam.

Perhaps I've been giving you too much credit. Perhaps the difference between despising an ideology and despising its adherents is beyond your ken. Maybe it's too nuanced for you. If this is the case, then I suggest you stay out of such discussions, because you're only going to make yourself look like a vindictive little worm, such as you've done here.

And my saying you are a bigot is my comment about your ideology. If your ideology is bigoted, would you rather I refer to you as something that does not describe your ideology?

It's this outrageous insistence upon equating me with a mass murderer that makes you so wrong. It begins with your idiotic insistence on boiling both of our beliefs down to "Islam is poison" and ends with you accusing me of being on his side. You called him "one of yours." That's more than a condemnation of a belief; that's an attack on my person, one utterly without merit, and born entirely from your simpleton rage.

Says he who is dragging things back from years ago, to try to prove just how much he is being hard done by by me. Poor baby.

Your misbehavior is at issue in this discussion. Your infamous rampage in the Breivik thread is a crystalline example of such.

I said that you share the same ideology towards Islam with Breivik after you used the Breivik thread to go on a ranting whine against Islam.

Which is what you did.

That's not at all what I did. Anyone who wishes to can view all of my posts from the thread in question, and decide for themselves if I'm a bigot or not:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...s-Per-Murder&p=2926880&viewfull=1#post2926880

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...s-Per-Murder&p=2926881&viewfull=1#post2926881

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...s-Per-Murder&p=2927268&viewfull=1#post2927268

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...s-Per-Murder&p=2927393&viewfull=1#post2927393

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...s-Per-Murder&p=2927477&viewfull=1#post2927477

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...s-Per-Murder&p=2928435&viewfull=1#post2928435

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...s-Per-Murder&p=2928505&viewfull=1#post2928505

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...s-Per-Murder&p=2928523&viewfull=1#post2928523

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...s-Per-Murder&p=2928529&viewfull=1#post2928529

Or are you saying Breivik's hatred of Islam is not bigoted?

Non-sequitur much?

Yes.. And?

I'd say the same thing to the Westboro about their hatred and bigoted beliefs about gays. I would say their views about gays is shared by the men who murdered Matthew Shepard. And the only difference is that Westboro did not kill anyone, while Shepard's murderers did for their hatred and ideology.

And you'd be wrong there, as well. But at least in that case your rage would be well-placed, as the Westboro scumbags have actually given an indication that they hate gays. With me, it's the conflating "I don't like fundamentalist Islam" with "I hate Muslims" that is at issue. Well, one of the issues, anyway.

Mine was a joke, as denoted by the grinning face and then a further response to the joke by my posting something from Ikea.

I don't believe you. We're not friends, we don't joke with each other.

But we shall get to your slut comment in a while.

I didn't call you a slut, and you're in no position to complain about any disparaging comments.

So you were whining that people were comparing your ideology and philosophical beliefs about Islam to Breivik's beliefs and ideology about Islam, by going on a rant about Islam...? In a thread about the guy who murdered 77 people because of his ideology.

The same thread where I said he was irredeemable? The same thread where I said he didn't deserve a chance to redeem himself? That's the thread you're talking about?

And you accuse me of being socially inept?

Yes. Because you are.

[quote\There is a difference between what Geoff said to me and what I said to you. I said you shared the same ideology with Breivik when it comes to Islam, an ideology which is the same which ultimately led him to do what he did and that the only difference between you and he is that he murdered people for his ideology, while you never would. I never said that you wanted to murder people. I said you shared the same ideology as someone who did murder people. Another example would be to tell a Nazi that he or she shared the same ideology that led Hitler to murder millions of people. Get it now?[/quote]

That's simply not true. The lines you draw between these comments are defined by who said them, not their content or context, and so they are invalid.

And the Nazi example is fallacious. Not all Nazis subscribed to Hitler's beliefs. Remember, there was a sizable group of them who attempted to kill him because they could not stand by and watch his atrocities any longer. But I'm not surprised that you have an oversimple view of history. It completely fits how you approach your assessment of the ideologies of others, as well as their comments.

Geoff accused me directly of wanting to murder people. Previously, he accused me of wanting to murder women and children.

And you accused me of wanting to kill teenagers and children. You also accused me of blaming them for their own demise. And of disregarding them, which is odd considering that you first said I was blaming them, and one can't both blame and disregard someone...but I digress.

It wasn't an accusation of my ideology or a shared ideology. It was an accusation that I wanted to murder people.

Much like your comments about me. Except that you accused me of both sharing a warped ideology and approving of the treatment of victims of a mass murderer. As well as saying that I was on his side.

My comment about your mental health, which you have taken to heart and blown all out of proportion was a joke. So much so that I even linked pictures and linked ikea when you commented about my riding a broomstick. You know, I joked about that broomstick. Whereupon you tried to sneak the slut comment in and in this response, you doubled down on it. While mine was a joke, yours clearly is not. Getting to that one in a second. Fear not.

So literally the gauge for which one was a joke and which one wasn't was literally who said it. Fantastic.

No, inferring a woman is a slut if she is having sex (or 'getting any' as you put it) makes you a misogynist.

That's not what I inferred. Read it again.

He told you to shut up because it did not concern you and you did not know why he was moderating GeoffP. You have gone so far as to drag something from years ago to whine about how you are so hard done by, dismissing the fact that if it was as you say, then you would not be here at all to post.. No no, the moderators are all after you Balerion.

I don't begrudge him telling me to shut up. If that's his prerogative, fine. I take issue with him then crying foul when I tell him to go fuck himself. The both of you have such thin skin considering you continuously cast such nasty aspersions on others. Maybe you should stop, if you don't like the negative attention.

And for the record, I know why he was moderating GeoffP. He's a sad, angry little wannabe who gets off on bullying people around who he disagrees with. You guys are a perfect match, actually.

Knowing what your rants are like (this one is a prime example), you're saying you don't get abusive in your rants?

I certainly did not get abuse. These were my exact words:

What a crock of shit. Bells gets away with whatever she bloody well wants, yet the second anyone gives her a bit of her own fucking medicine, here come the white hats to the fucking rescue.

Bullshit. Stay the fuck out of it.​

And let's not stray from the fact that you are being busted on yet another lie. I was not moderated for abusive posting for that post.

No, you said that Muslim's faith is a poison to society.

No, I said that fundamentalist Islam was a poison to society.

You said you'd call me a slut, but you don't believe I am getting any, so you won't call me a slut then. So if you felt or thought I was having sex, I would be a slut?

In short, you inferred that women who have sex are sluts. And as I asked, or is that just something you save for the women you hate?

Bzzzz. Wrong.

Try again.

I made a clear joke about your sanity (how clearly it was meant as a joke is clearly seen in the response where I posted pictures to your initial comment about that joke - you know, doubling down that it was a joke), which you took so seriously that you have inferred that I am a slut if I am 'getting any'...

What makes you think it being a joke makes it okay? I don't get that logic. We're not buddies, we're not friends, and we don't joke with each other. Was the joke at my expense? How is that better?

Again, I never once gave you permission to use my real name on this forum and when I asked that you stop, you kept doing it, even against and without my consent.

It doesn't matter. You posted your name on a public forum. I don't need Brad Pitt's permission to refer to him as Brad on the forum, because he put his name out there in the first place. So did you, so I don't require your permission.

My comment to Kremmen was that you were the one who dragged all this out into this thread, not me. Your response was to deny that it was you.

No, my response was to say that there's no way he could possibly construe you as being in the right on this issue. And you're not, regardless of who brought up what.

Since people have the ability to read, they can read it here. I am not adding to the ridiculous clutter that this thread already is because of your pathological need to be a drama queen to the point that you are dragging things out from years ago to whine about..

In other words, you can't support your lies.

I want an apology and your resignation, troll.

After you made the Islam is a poison to society, you then corrected yourself to this:

Yes, I did. What's wrong with that? I even went on to say I didn't intend to paint with such a broad brush, and that my comments needed to be clarified.

The majority of Muslims who follow 'conservative Islam' do not perpetrate rapes and honor killings, nor do they call for the heads of cartoonists and authors or anyone at all who criticises Islam. The majority who are conservative do not seek to implement Sharia Law in Western societies.

What you did was to lump all conservative Muslims and stereotyped them as being exactly the same as the radical and fundamentalist Muslims who, for example, do call for crimes to be committed against anyone who disparages their religion.

Incorrect. I didn't say anything about Muslims. I referred directly and explicitly to the ideology which breeds such behavior.

You then seemed to claim that "some Mullah" would be bad for society, thereby lumping all Mullah's as being fundamentalist Islamists who are bad for society like the Ayatollah is bad for society.

Not all are. In fact, the majority are not as you describe. You generalised and stereotyped all into this mold after describing how they are a poison to society. No Balerion, not every Muslim who wears the burka or follows Sharia Law are fundamentalists or supremacists.

Again, this is where context helps. We were discussing fundamentalism, and referencing exclusively fundamentalists.

So if I have sex with men, I would be a slut?

Keep clawing, Bells. Maybe you'll hit a vein eventually.

We brought up GeoffP's history but do you see us demanding it be discussed yet again? No.

That's because you'd come up looking as poorly as you do now that you've discussed your history with me. As evidenced by Tiassa's threatening moderation against me unless I shut up, and his insistence that Geoff was accusing you of actual felonies, neither of you are at all interested in the facts of the matter. You want loud accusations followed by submissive silence, so as not to shine light on your lies.

I would have thought my comment about your mental state being a joke would have been clear when I posted what I use to hold my laptop on my broomstick. But no, instead, you decide to infer that I am a slut if I have sex.

I inferred no such thing, liar, and you and me aren't friends. You don't get to joke with me, so this thin pretense is obviously a lie.

You inferred I would be a slut if I was 'getting any'..

No I didn't. Simple as that. I said calling you a slut would be as asinine as you calling me crazy, because it's an asinine comment that has no place in this discussion. Then I took a jab at the rumors that you aren't exactly someone that people find attractive. That's what I said. And can you blame me? The way you act here, you could be Giesele Bundchen in reality and I'd still vomit on your shoes if I ever had the displeasure of meeting your in person. You're a positively noxious human being. I can't imagine anyone finding your personality interesting or compelling.

 

[youreyes]

What a crock of shit. Bells gets away with whatever she bloody well wants, yet the second anyone gives her a bit of her own fucking medicine, here come the white hats to the fucking rescue.
​

so true...she gained so much control over moderators on here, they don't care what she says or does.​

 

[Bells]

[Whine removed because frankly, your pathological need to whine about something from years ago is your need alone]

No I didn't. Simple as that. I said calling you a slut would be as asinine as you calling me crazy, because it's an asinine comment that has no place in this discussion. Then I took a jab at the rumors that you aren't exactly someone that people find attractive. That's what I said. And can you blame me? The way you act here, you could be Giesele Bundchen in reality and I'd still vomit on your shoes if I ever had the displeasure of meeting your in person. You're a positively noxious human being. I can't imagine anyone finding your personality interesting or compelling.

Lets have a look at what you said, shall we?

So this is acceptable? Good to know. I'd call you a slut, or something similarly asinine in retort, but I've heard you're not exactly popular with the fellas, so...

In other words, because you heard I am not apparently getting any, then you cannot call me a slut. In other words, you would call me a slut, but you heard I was not popular with 'the fellas', so you infer that I would be a slut if I was popular, or as you later clarified, since you believe I am not getting any.

Your interest in people's sex lives aside, those were your words. And as I asked you, do you save this supposed insult for all women? Or just women you hate?

And don't worry Balerion. I don't associate with bigots who view women as sluts or even refer to people as sluts.

But carry on. I know you have more to say. After all, seeing you dragged a perceived insult from years ago, I am sure there is more to come. So please, don't let me stop you.. Let it all out.

 

[Bells]

so true...she gained so much control over moderators on here, they don't care what she says or does.

Yep. I'm like the evil spy that has infiltrated everything. Go go conspiracies!

 

[Balerion]

Lets have a look at what you said, shall we?


In other words, because you heard I am not apparently getting any, then you cannot call me a slut. In other words, you would call me a slut, but you heard I was not popular with 'the fellas', so you infer that I would be a slut if I was popular, or as you later clarified, since you believe I am not getting any.

Your interest in people's sex lives aside, those were your words. And as I asked you, do you save this supposed insult for all women? Or just women you hate?

And don't worry Balerion. I don't associate with bigots who view women as sluts or even refer to people as sluts.

But carry on. I know you have more to say. After all, seeing you dragged a perceived insult from years ago, I am sure there is more to come. So please, don't let me stop you.. Let it all out.

Your illogical gymnastics are truly at an Olympic level. Which Olympics I'm speaking of, I'll leave for you to decide.

Instead of trying to goad me, let's get back to you failing to support any of your accusations against me. And let's get back to you claiming that I was insane. Also, answer what I consider to be the most important question of my last reply: So when I say war is immoral, am I then saying that soldiers are immoral, since war is what makes a soldier a soldier?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Yep. I'm like the evil spy that has infiltrated everything. Go go conspiracies!

You are not Putin after all.
You are a reborn Rasputin. A new version called................................

Bellsputin.

 

[leopold]

she might have shaved after that picture was taken.

 

[Bells]

Your illogical gymnastics are truly at an Olympic level. Which Olympics I'm speaking of, I'll leave for you to decide.

Instead of trying to goad me, let's get back to you failing to support any of your accusations against me.

So you want to keep discussing and you want to keep whining about my calling you a bigot nearly 2 years ago, while trying to weasel out of you inferring that I am a slut?

And let's get back to you claiming that I was insane

At this rate, you're living up to that joke.

Also, answer what I consider to be the most important question of my last reply: So when I say war is immoral, am I then saying that soldiers are immoral, since war is what makes a soldier a soldier?

You tell me. Depends on the war and the circumstance.

War does not make a soldier a soldier. Soldiers become soldiers when they sign up to the armed forces, are trained, etc. Then you get wars which start as a cause, and people put their hands up to fight for that cause, such as the rebels in Syria at the present time.

To use an example, lets look at he Nazi's. Hitler's war was an immoral one, because not only was his desire and thirst for power and German domination insane, but he was also bigoted against Jews, Roma's, and anyone who was not Aryan. After the war ended, and the atrocities came to light, many of the soldiers who took part in those atrocities attempted to use the 'I was given orders' or 'I was acting under orders' as an excuse. Do you think that is a valid defense against an immoral war and immoral actions? I do not.

Or lets look at Rwanda and the genocide there. Genocide is immoral. There is no disagreement to be made on that front. It is immoral. However in the lead up to the genocide, the Government had managed to recruit volunteers (or soldiers, since they did most of the killing), through a very good propaganda scheme. Those people became soldiers, fighting in an immoral war. Were those soldiers immoral? Hell yes. Were the soldiers who used their position to help people escape the slaughter immoral? No.

But then, we look at other wars, such as the Vietnam war, where many soldiers defied orders and saved people, at great risk to their own lives. Are they immoral? No. Or Bradley Manning, who is, by definition a soldier. Is he immoral for telling the world about the atrocities a minority of American soldiers were committing? No, far from it.

Not all soldiers who go to war are immoral, nor do they act in a way that would be deemed immoral. If I were to generalise, and say that all soldiers are immoral if the war is immoral, then I would be lumping all into one box, when reality shows that there are mostly good, with a few bad.

In short, it makes sense to not lump them all under the same banner. You know, like saying that conservative Muslims belong to a religion that is a poison to society, when in reality conservative Muslims have done nothing wrong to have their religion that they practice in good faith branded that way.

 

[Balerion]

So you want to keep discussing and you want to keep whining about my calling you a bigot nearly 2 years ago, while trying to weasel out of you inferring that I am a slut?

Did I infer you were a slut or not? You can't seem to make up your mind on that count.

At this rate, you're living up to that joke.

This is the second time you've taken the opportunity to make your alleged "joke" a legitimate critique of my psyche.

You tell me. Depends on the war and the circumstance.

Come down off the fence, Bells.

War does not make a soldier a soldier.

Bullshit it doesn't. Soldiers only exist because war does. Without war, there is no soldier, and without the soldier, there is no war. In other words, war is what makes a soldier a soldier.

Soldiers become soldiers when they sign up to the armed forces, are trained, etc. Then you get wars which start as a cause, and people put their hands up to fight for that cause, such as the rebels in Syria at the present time.

And the only reason the armed forces exists is war.

To use an example, lets look at he Nazi's. Hitler's war was an immoral one, because not only was his desire and thirst for power and German domination insane, but he was also bigoted against Jews, Roma's, and anyone who was not Aryan. After the war ended, and the atrocities came to light, many of the soldiers who took part in those atrocities attempted to use the 'I was given orders' or 'I was acting under orders' as an excuse. Do you think that is a valid defense against an immoral war and immoral actions? I do not.

This is a desperate attempt to avoid the question. Soldiers only exist for the purpose of war; any ancillary duties they perform could and would be done by another group if war was not a reality. So the question is, again, are soldiers immoral simply because war is immoral?

As to your attempted diversion, the answer is obviously yes. A soldier's job is to serve, not to question.

Or lets look at Rwanda and the genocide there. Genocide is immoral. There is no disagreement to be made on that front. It is immoral. However in the lead up to the genocide, the Government had managed to recruit volunteers (or soldiers, since they did most of the killing), through a very good propaganda scheme. Those people became soldiers, fighting in an immoral war. Were those soldiers immoral? Hell yes. Were the soldiers who used their position to help people escape the slaughter immoral? No.

Propaganda is used in every recruitment, including that of the Nazis, who believed they were fighting for a greater good. If you forgive Rwandan soldiers, you must also forgive Nazi soldiers.

But then, we look at other wars, such as the Vietnam war, where many soldiers defied orders and saved people, at great risk to their own lives. Are they immoral? No. Or Bradley Manning, who is, by definition a soldier. Is he immoral for telling the world about the atrocities a minority of American soldiers were committing? No, far from it.

Not all soldiers who go to war are immoral, nor do they act in a way that would be deemed immoral. If I were to generalise, and say that all soldiers are immoral if the war is immoral, then I would be lumping all into one box, when reality shows that there are mostly good, with a few bad.

If you're capable of understanding that, why can't you understand that I wasn't making any disparaging comments about Muslims, but rather an ideology? It's like saying that war is immoral but understanding the good and the gray that exists among its practitioners. Now, if you say that the Iraq war is immoral, for instance, you might piss off quite a few servicemen and women who fought bravely and justly. Does that mean you intended to insult them? Does it mean that you were criticizing them, rather than their war? No, of course it doesn't.

Just like me saying that fundamentalist Islam is poison is not a reflection upon its practitioners. Except to say, perhaps, that they've been poisoned.

In short, it makes sense to not lump them all under the same banner. You know, like saying that conservative Muslims belong to a religion that is a poison to society, when in reality conservative Muslims have done nothing wrong to have their religion that they practice in good faith branded that way.

If my statement that fundamentalist (I didn't say conservative, notice; that's another lie of yours) Islam is a poison is "lumping them all under the same banner," then so is your comment that the Rwandan genocide was immoral. You can't have it both ways, Bells.

Obviously, you're only willing to see nuance when it suits you, and you completely ignore it when it suits you, as well.

And I guess broad generalizations are okay, so long as they're positive. :shrug:

 

[Bells]

Did I infer you were a slut or not? You can't seem to make up your mind on that count.

I do not believe you are so stupid as to not get what I meant.

This is the second time you've taken the opportunity to make your alleged "joke" a legitimate critique of my psyche.

Well considering you are pushing to discuss something from years ago, so you can whine about how you were mistreated, what else am I supposed to think?

Come down off the fence, Bells.

What fence?

Bullshit it doesn't. Soldiers only exist because war does. Without war, there is no soldier, and without the soldier, there is no war. In other words, war is what makes a soldier a soldier.

Tell that to Switzerland.

A soldier is someone who is a part of the military. If I were to use your definition, then when a country is not at war, it has no soldiers. Which would be silly.

And the only reason the armed forces exists is war.

Is it?

So what happens when there is no war? Or are you suggesting we live in a continuous state of war?

This is a desperate attempt to avoid the question. Soldiers only exist for the purpose of war; any ancillary duties they perform could and would be done by another group if war was not a reality. So the question is, again, are soldiers immoral simply because war is immoral?

I answered the question. What part of it did you not quite grasp? It depends on the war and the soldier's role in said war. It is not such a black and white answer. Perhaps that is solely how you operate, but life outside of this forum is not set in black and white. Not all soldiers are immoral. The greater majority are not.

As to your attempted diversion, the answer is obviously yes. A soldier's job is to serve, not to question.

And yet, many do question and act outside of their orders to do good or perform good acts to save people. If we were to take your stance, then those soldiers are not good soldiers.

Propaganda is used in every recruitment, including that of the Nazis, who believed they were fighting for a greater good. If you forgive Rwandan soldiers, you must also forgive Nazi soldiers.

Who says I have?

If you're capable of understanding that, why can't you understand that I wasn't making any disparaging comments about Muslims, but rather an ideology? It's like saying that war is immoral but understanding the good and the gray that exists among its practitioners. Now, if you say that the Iraq war is immoral, for instance, you might piss off quite a few servicemen and women who fought bravely and justly. Does that mean you intended to insult them? Does it mean that you were criticizing them, rather than their war? No, of course it doesn't.

That depends Balerion. If you go to a funeral of a dead soldier and say that war is immoral or soldiers are immoral for taking part in such an immoral war, then you could find yourself thrown out on your backside for lacking in sensitivity and the ability to understand that there is a time and a place for certain things, and walking into such a situation to vent your beliefs is not always the done thing.

If I were to apply your comment to this latest thing you have a need to discuss. I would come out and say that the armed services are a poison to society and then express shock when soldiers in said armed services found it insulting. I would then be like you and say 'well, that only applies to the ultra conservative ones because they are the bad ones', while disregarding the many conservative soldiers who are good soldiers. In other words, not every conservative Muslim is as you tried to portray them in that thread.

Just like me saying that fundamentalist Islam is poison is not a reflection upon its practitioners.

I dare you to walk into a Mosque and say that Fundamentalist Islam is a poison to society and tell me how well that pans out for you. Since what you say is not a reflection on the practitioners of Islam, then you should have nothing to worry about.

If my statement that fundamentalist (I didn't say conservative, notice; that's another lie of yours) Islam is a poison is "lumping them all under the same banner," then so is your comment that the Rwandan genocide was immoral. You can't have it both ways, Bells.

You are saying you didn't say conservative?

Specificity: Islam is not a poison to society. Islamic supremacism/reactionaries/conservativism/fundamentalism (whichever term) is. Much as you wouldn't want to see Pat Robertson ascend the pole to real political power in the US, you don't want the Ayatollah running domestic affairs. (Which, truth to be said, he kind of does, actually.)

[Emphasis mine]
​

As for the Rwandan genocide.. It was immoral. But not all the Hutu's were, as the majority saved a lot of people. If I were to use your style of commentary or your ideology, then I would say all Hutu's are immoral, but the reality is that the greater majority were not. The greater majority helped save countless of people by hiding them and sneaking them out of harm's way, usually to their own detriment.

In regards to Islam, you said that Islamic supremacism/reactionaries/conservativism/fundamentalism (whichever term) is - a poison to society. My response to you remains the same. The majority of Muslims who are conservatives are not reactionaries or fundamentalists. But you lumped them all under the one banner.

Obviously, you're only willing to see nuance when it suits you, and you completely ignore it when it suits you, as well.

I don't think you even know what the word means.

Because you view things as being very black and white, with no inbetween. Like your comment that war is what makes a soldier a soldier. There are countless of countries who have armed forces who have never seen 'war' or been to war. If we were to take you seriously, then those soldiers are no longer soldiers, because in your mind, they can only be soldiers if they go to war. Which frankly is downright stupid.

 

[youreyes]

Yep. I'm like the evil spy that has infiltrated everything. Go go conspiracies!

no more like the woman queen, men are starving for here. So they please her foolishness.

 

[quinnsong]

Hmmm, maybe we should change the title thread to Bashing of Bells instead of Banning Of Balerion. Carry on!

 

[wegs]

...

 

[dumbest man on earth]

@Bells

Bells, good day. Glad to see you are still happy and healthy enough to Post.l

In your previous Post, directed at me, dmoe, you stated : quote - "...then I guess it's all open slather." - unquote.

Bells, I ,dmoe, am somewhat bemused by that statement - I fully understand the definition of "slather" - but I was under the impression that you, Bells, were one of the Major Technicians that preferred to apply it so often and so "thickly".

Bells, would you deign to clarify that statement : quote - "...then I guess it's all open slather." - unquote, for me, please?

BTW, Will I, dmoe, always be waiting or antici.............pating, your Posting of "PROOF" OF A MODERATOR ISSUED WARNING TO ME or of an apology?

Just wondering, and please continue to have a wonderful day!