The Regressive Left and Islam -- What is happening here?

[LoneLaugher]

Fortunately, I don't really care if you think I'm a "bigot" and will speak out about these delusional beliefs and the delusional people who practice them. Christianity, Islam, whatever. I don't cherry pick. IMO, both are scourge on society, outdated and based on ignorance and brainwashing. No, I'm not pleased about more of these types of people being invited into my country, whether you "assure" me that they are "different" than the other ones or not.

Welcome to the "bigot" zone.

If you do not champion Islam, voila! -- you are a bigot

Based on my posts in this thread, do you think I champion Islam?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

One of the problems, here, is that since Islam is called a religion, then people try to claim there are no differences between it and other religions. Heck, just among the Abrahamic religions, there is a WORLD of difference. Judaism does not proselytize and actually makes it extremely difficult to convert to Judaism. Most Jews are secular and represent an ethnicity, as much or more than a religion.

Christianity proselytizes, and actively seeks converts, but not by force.

Islam is still using the age-old methods of using force.

Judaism does come with a certain degree of talmudic law, but precious few practice it. Most Jews do not use it.

Christianity does not come with any legal system.

Law and Islam are inexorably intertwined and it is impossible to separate the two.

Judaism does not have a central prophet figure upon which the religion rests.

Christianity has the gospels of Jesus,but was started by Paul and Peter. THe recanting of Jesus's teachings are by others and emphasize humility, honesty, lack of hypocrisy and forming a direct relationship with God.

Islam was begun quite intentionally by a man whose very business involved invading land, killing the men, raping the women and taking what was theirs. It is chock full of instructions to the warriors to kill and rape.

Those are just a few of the differences, but these three religions simply do not function the same, ESPECIALLY in the way they seek to expand (or not, in the case of Judaism).

I swear, it's like looking at a butterfly, a frisbee and a jet fighter filled with warheads and declaring them the same thing simply because they all fly through the air.

Now THAT was awesome. Very high level stuff. You must have gone to an Ivy League school or something. Really impressive.

and yet, you are still too stupid to see any of these obvious differences.

 

[LoneLaugher]

That's nice. Would you like to name some names and cite some examples?

All you have to do is read posts on the board. Probably difficult for those of you who spend most of your time in the Flamer Zone! Happens ALL the time. They say things about Christianity but whenever someone says something about Islam, they accuse you of being a "bigot."

That's great. Who is they? And,..how about some examples?

Read this thread. Yiu will find two posts by me which directly address this question and put it to rest. Perhaps you are interested enough to invest ten minutes of your time.

There are plenty here who do. It's been done to me, and I'm not even a Christian. No, I'm not going to hunt down posts for you. You can take my word for it or not. Makes no difference to me. Other (honest) people know what I'm talking about.

Oh. I see. Now I'm not honest. Excellent.

You have made a claim and have not supported it. Maybe you can be like Mac and repeat the claim a hundred times without supporting it. Good luck.

Like I said . . . I don't care what you think about it. I and others know how it goes. You can speak ill of Christianity all you want, but if you say anything derogatory about Muslims or Islam, then you are a "bigot."

Let me try. Islam is nothing more than a way to control masses of people. There is no God. Allah is a work of fiction and is worth about as much as a good shit. The people who lead the idiots who follow this stupid religion are largely assholes who don't have the interests of their followers at heart

Now...tell me again how I am a supporter of Islam.

 

[LoneLaugher]

One of the problems, here, is that since Islam is called a religion, then people try to claim there are no differences between it and other religions. Heck, just among the Abrahamic religions, there is a WORLD of difference. Judaism does not proselytize and actually makes it extremely difficult to convert to Judaism. Most Jews are secular and represent an ethnicity, as much or more than a religion.

Christianity proselytizes, and actively seeks converts, but not by force.

Islam is still using the age-old methods of using force.

Judaism does come with a certain degree of talmudic law, but precious few practice it. Most Jews do not use it.

Christianity does not come with any legal system.

Law and Islam are inexorably intertwined and it is impossible to separate the two.

Judaism does not have a central prophet figure upon which the religion rests.

Christianity has the gospels of Jesus,but was started by Paul and Peter. THe recanting of Jesus's teachings are by others and emphasize humility, honesty, lack of hypocrisy and forming a direct relationship with God.

Islam was begun quite intentionally by a man whose very business involved invading land, killing the men, raping the women and taking what was theirs. It is chock full of instructions to the warriors to kill and rape.

Those are just a few of the differences, but these three religions simply do not function the same, ESPECIALLY in the way they seek to expand (or not, in the case of Judaism).

I swear, it's like looking at a butterfly, a frisbee and a jet fighter filled with warheads and declaring them the same thing simply because they all fly through the air.

Now THAT was awesome. Very high level stuff. You must have gone to an Ivy League school or something. Really impressive.

and yet, you are still too stupid to see any of these obvious differences.

Those are differences that you have made up. For you to say that no legal system accompanies Christianity is awesome Ivy League type stuff.

 

[Mac1958]

And, as yet another gentle reminder, and as a public service, here are some honest liberals, their description of the Regressive Left, and some helpful examples of the point of the thread. I wonder how many of the Regressive Lefties here will once again pretend they didn't see these?:

 

[Tilly]

Are you ABU alRahman Mustafa al-Qaduli?

I could have sworn he was a he.

People who have a problem with mocking should not be engaging in it themselves...just saying.

Whether it's mocking through "funny" or mocking through your posted words - it's the same thing.

This whole thread is a mockery - with it's accusations that members here support or excuse mysoginy, terrorism, domestic violence, rape, etc etc and not a single actual bit of evidence indicating it.

We all have national security interests at heart, we just don't all agree with how to balance freedom with security.

This is not the clean debate zone.

I realize your little internet Jihad is all that matters to you, but have you ever considered honesty instead of what you are actually doing?

All the time, but I am fully aware it's wasted on liars like you, who whine and cry about being mocked and while simultaneously mocking others.

You consider all Muslims to be child rapists or potential rapists, domestic abusers, potential terrorists and certainly less then human soley because of their faith - for no other reason. You pretend to be a liberal. National security issues are important, and I certainly agree with vetting refugees, but it's never been about that with you - it's about your claims that Britain "sells it's children" to Muslim rapists (as if all muslim immigrants did that regardless of culture) and rape jihad, with out ever once using your purported and much vaunted intelligence to question the veracity of the claims.

Oh the irony, first call someone a liar. And then completely lie about his position regarding the matter.

Unless you can produce a piece of evidence where he claimed that all muslims are child rapists, please shut up. Also, the muslims rape insanely more, that is a fact.

These people just lack the IQ.

Oh the irony of people who confuse opinion with fact and...that's a fact. If you and your cronies ever get around to actually examining your "facts", looking critically at data, looking for the misleading use of data instead of swallowing everything your spoon fed in your echo chambers....then maybe debate is possible. Otherwise, no, I won't shut up

Lol

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Words you use are insufficient to support the crap you tweet out. Like "based on sound advice". Think there is a huge contingency of military that mince words at work?? Think they use the term "man-caused disasters" ??

Come on, man, that is just so double plus ungood of you, I can't believe you said that!!

These brave individuals following in Mohammad's footsteps doing what they are doing all over the globe can't be called "Islamic Terrorists"!! What on Earth were you thinking, anyway, crazy man? You are supposed to refer to them as "Just a few really nice chaps out having a bit of fun with the locals".

You see -- the theory here is that if you don't call them just a few really nice chaps out having a bit of fun with the locals, you run the risk of having more really nice chaps just having a bit of fun with the locals.

Get with the program, already!!

 

[Tilly]

I think it is cute when the uneducated use the term "rwnj" to describe people who support the views of liberals like Sam Harris and Bill Maher. What's next in this little Orwellian world of the uneducated -- calling somebody who supports the work of George Will a Communist?

The shallow, simplistic, binary thinking of hardcore partisan ideologues.

If you're not a LWNJ, you must be a RWNJ. And vice versa.

But I am convinced they don't even see it.
.

I think some of them see it, and it might even make them vaguely uncomfortable. For example, when they find themselves making excuses for aspects of Islam that go against the principles of universal human rights and women's rights, the very rights they are supposed to champion.
However, remain in lockstep they must, so they can't/won't back down and therefore find themselves having to employ false equivalances and reductio ad absurdums galore, to both safe face, and to insinuate those in opposition are bigots, racists and islamophobes, who therefore they have an alterior motive, whos word is dirt, and who are (hopefully), discredited.
I suspect some wouldn't behave like this in RL if faced with someone attempting to discuss where Islam and women's rights, for example, diverge, at least I hope so. In fact, we have an example in this thread where coyote is amicable and even in agreement with flacc, but virulently disagrees and mock funnies other posters when they express exactly the same concerns. Go figure.

The irony is thick in your postings and massive "agree's" you throw onto your buddy's...just saying....but let's take this one statement and try to verify how truthful it is.

Who here has made EXCUSES for aspects of Islam that go against the principles of universal human rights and women's rights, the very rights they are supposed to champion?

Some specific examples would be helpful. Otherwise, I'll assume you and your buddies are just as childish as the ones you accuse.

Anyone who wants to see how you spin for Islam and it's utter lack of commitment to human and women rights need only visit the so called clean debate zone, and, particularly, your own thread where you end up supporting sharia law, even though it would take an imbecile (or an Islamist) to support its involvement in 'family law' outside of a sharia hell hole. Thanks

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Are you ABU alRahman Mustafa al-Qaduli?

I could have sworn he was a he.

People who have a problem with mocking should not be engaging in it themselves...just saying.

Whether it's mocking through "funny" or mocking through your posted words - it's the same thing.

This whole thread is a mockery - with it's accusations that members here support or excuse mysoginy, terrorism, domestic violence, rape, etc etc and not a single actual bit of evidence indicating it.

We all have national security interests at heart, we just don't all agree with how to balance freedom with security.

This is not the clean debate zone.

I realize your little internet Jihad is all that matters to you, but have you ever considered honesty instead of what you are actually doing?

All the time, but I am fully aware it's wasted on liars like you, who whine and cry about being mocked and while simultaneously mocking others.

You consider all Muslims to be child rapists or potential rapists, domestic abusers, potential terrorists and certainly less then human soley because of their faith - for no other reason. You pretend to be a liberal. National security issues are important, and I certainly agree with vetting refugees, but it's never been about that with you - it's about your claims that Britain "sells it's children" to Muslim rapists (as if all muslim immigrants did that regardless of culture) and rape jihad, with out ever once using your purported and much vaunted intelligence to question the veracity of the claims.

Oh the irony, first call someone a liar. And then completely lie about his position regarding the matter.

Unless you can produce a piece of evidence where he claimed that all muslims are child rapists, please shut up. Also, the muslims rape insanely more, that is a fact.

These people just lack the IQ.

I know I'm not supposed to say this, so I guess I'm happy to be banned for saying it, but it is utterly disgraceful to me that a mod is allowed to behave in this manner day in and day out. Lying about the views of posters who disagree with her. It's utterly disgusting and wrong.
Bye everyone. Lol.

I think it is cute when the uneducated use the term "rwnj" to describe people who support the views of liberals like Sam Harris and Bill Maher. What's next in this little Orwellian world of the uneducated -- calling somebody who supports the work of George Will a Communist?

The shallow, simplistic, binary thinking of hardcore partisan ideologues.

If you're not a LWNJ, you must be a RWNJ. And vice versa.

But I am convinced they don't even see it.
.

I think some of them see it, and it might even make them vaguely uncomfortable. For example, when they find themselves making excuses for aspects of Islam that go against the principles of universal human rights and women's rights, the very rights they are supposed to champion.
However, remain in lockstep they must, so they can't/won't back down and therefore find themselves having to employ false equivalances and reductio ad absurdums galore, to both safe face, and to insinuate those in opposition are bigots, racists and islamophobes, who therefore they have an alterior motive, whos word is dirt, and who are (hopefully), discredited.
I suspect some wouldn't behave like this in RL if faced with someone attempting to discuss where Islam and women's rights, for example, diverge, at least I hope so. In fact, we have an example in this thread where coyote is amicable and even in agreement with flacc, but virulently disagrees and mock funnies other posters when they express exactly the same concerns. Go figure.

The irony is thick in your postings and massive "agree's" you throw onto your buddy's...just saying....but let's take this one statement and try to verify how truthful it is.

Who here has made EXCUSES for aspects of Islam that go against the principles of universal human rights and women's rights, the very rights they are supposed to champion?

Some specific examples would be helpful. Otherwise, I'll assume you and your buddies are just as childish as the ones you accuse.

Anyone who wants to see how you spin for Islam and it's utter lack of commitment to human and women rights need only visit the so called clean debate zone, and, particularly, your own thread where you end up supporting sharia law, even though it would take an imbecile (or an Islamist) to support its involvement in 'family law' outside of a sharia hell hole. Thanks

I think "clean debate" means "clean debate for some".

If you do not support Islam, all bets are off.

 

[flacaltenn]

Thread closed for Moderation.

Getting a bit personal over the past 6 or 8 pages. Got about 10 posts marked with no topical content.

Shouldn't have to remind any of you that you can flame, but the post had better address the topic in some significant way.
Will reopen shortly..

Let's limit the touchdown celebration dances, the content free flame exchanges and the discussions of crap that OCCURRED in older threads.

This thread is NOT about YOU or me or him or her or zhee or zhem. That's not topical discussion. Folks getting too personal will be ejected.

 

[flacaltenn]

bump.. Read the Mod Message..

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Anyone who wants to see how you spin for Islam and it's utter lack of commitment to human and women rights need only visit the so called clean debate zone, and, particularly, your own thread where you end up supporting sharia law, even though it would take an imbecile (or an Islamist) to support its involvement in 'family law' outside of a sharia hell hole. Thanks

What those who support Sharia family law are saying is that as long as an Islamic man can threaten an Islamic women with enough violence that she claims she is using it "voluntarily", they are in full support of this system that denies her due process because she is a women.

Trying to claim this is a liberal position is so repugnant and vile as to be beneath contempt. Let's hear it for Chattel, eh!

Hip hip hooray! Hip hip Hooray! Hip hip Hooray!!

 

[Ravi]

Anyone who wants to see how you spin for Islam and it's utter lack of commitment to human and women rights need only visit the so called clean debate zone, and, particularly, your own thread where you end up supporting sharia law, even though it would take an imbecile (or an Islamist) to support its involvement in 'family law' outside of a sharia hell hole. Thanks

What those who support Sharia family law are saying is that as long as an Islamic man can threaten an Islamic women with enough violence that she claims she is using it "voluntarily", they are in full support of this system that denies her due process because she is a women.

Trying to claim this is a liberal position is so repugnant and vile as to be beneath contempt. Let's hear it for Chattel, eh!

Hip hip hooray! Hip hip Hooray! Hip hip Hooray!!

Most Muslim women in the Middle East are abused by men, if not outright killed.

It is illegal to act like that in the USA, no matter what your religion. It is unconstitutional to craft laws here based on religious beliefs. The only religion here that tries to do it are Fundy Christians.

But go right ahead and post your partisan dogma.

 

[Tilly]

I think it is cute when the uneducated use the term "rwnj" to describe people who support the views of liberals like Sam Harris and Bill Maher. What's next in this little Orwellian world of the uneducated -- calling somebody who supports the work of George Will a Communist?

The shallow, simplistic, binary thinking of hardcore partisan ideologues.

If you're not a LWNJ, you must be a RWNJ. And vice versa.

But I am convinced they don't even see it.
.

I think some of them see it, and it might even make them vaguely uncomfortable. For example, when they find themselves making excuses for aspects of Islam that go against the principles of universal human rights and women's rights, the very rights they are supposed to champion.
However, remain in lockstep they must, so they can't/won't back down and therefore find themselves having to employ false equivalances and reductio ad absurdums galore, to both safe face, and to insinuate those in opposition are bigots, racists and islamophobes, who therefore they have an alterior motive, whos word is dirt, and who are (hopefully), discredited.
I suspect some wouldn't behave like this in RL if faced with someone attempting to discuss where Islam and women's rights, for example, diverge, at least I hope so. In fact, we have an example in this thread where coyote is amicable and even in agreement with flacc, but virulently disagrees and mock funnies other posters when they express exactly the same concerns. Go figure.

The irony is thick in your postings and massive "agree's" you throw onto your buddy's...just saying....but let's take this one statement and try to verify how truthful it is.

Who here has made EXCUSES for aspects of Islam that go against the principles of universal human rights and women's rights, the very rights they are supposed to champion?

Some specific examples would be helpful. Otherwise, I'll assume you and your buddies are just as childish as the ones you accuse.

You argue for sharia law. Anyone who cared about human rights, and particularly women's rights, would not be ABLE to defend it in any way shape or form. In the UK we have thousands of Muslims fighting against the imposition of sharia law, for obvious reasons. The left messes up their cause no end. Also obvious.

 

[Tilly]

You have a problem with mocking....? Then....why do you, even in the CDZ? At least try to be consistent.

I brought up mocking in the CDZ in a thread of its own, and you were right there to support your use of it.

Are you Tilly? I could have sworn she was a she.

You set an example in the CDZ. Clean debate includes mocking. Thanks.

 

[Tilly]

I think it is cute when the uneducated use the term "rwnj" to describe people who support the views of liberals like Sam Harris and Bill Maher. What's next in this little Orwellian world of the uneducated -- calling somebody who supports the work of George Will a Communist?

The shallow, simplistic, binary thinking of hardcore partisan ideologues.

If you're not a LWNJ, you must be a RWNJ. And vice versa.

But I am convinced they don't even see it.
.

I suspect some wouldn't behave like this in RL if faced with someone attempting to discuss where Islam and women's rights, for example, diverge, at least I hope so. In fact, we have an example in this thread where coyote is amicable and even in agreement with flacc, but virulently disagrees and mock funnies other posters when they express exactly the same concerns. Go figure.

Might be, because unlike you and your cronies, he isn't condemning the entire religion and all Muslims. A nuance that makes all the difference between bigotry or xenophbia, and legitimate concern for terrorism.

You have a problem with mocking....? Then....why do you, even in the CDZ? At least try to be consistent.

Who are my 'cronies'? And please prove that I have EVER condemned an entire religion and ALL Muslims.
When you can't do that, and you can't, you can apologise.
I'll be waiting.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Most Muslim women in the Middle East are abused by men, if not outright killed.

.

Ah -- so that's why you wish to import the legal system that enables such.

Thanks for explaining that one.

 

[Tilly]

Anyone who wants to see how you spin for Islam and it's utter lack of commitment to human and women rights need only visit the so called clean debate zone, and, particularly, your own thread where you end up supporting sharia law, even though it would take an imbecile (or an Islamist) to support its involvement in 'family law' outside of a sharia hell hole. Thanks

What those who support Sharia family law are saying is that as long as an Islamic man can threaten an Islamic women with enough violence that she claims she is using it "voluntarily", they are in full support of this system that denies her due process because she is a women.

Trying to claim this is a liberal position is so repugnant and vile as to be beneath contempt. Let's hear it for Chattel, eh!

Hip hip hooray! Hip hip Hooray! Hip hip Hooray!!

Most Muslim women in the Middle East are abused by men, if not outright killed.

Most Muslim women in the ME are abused if not outright killed????
Ok, guess we need a link.
Lol.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Most Muslim women in the Middle East are abused by men, if not outright killed.

.

Ah -- so that's why you wish to import the legal system that enables such.

Thanks for explaining that one.

Nobody here has said that they want to import any legal system.

You have been a major disappointment. Back when you were dropping names of philosophers, I thought you might actually try hard here.

Not so much. You are as lazy as Mac.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Most Muslim women in the Middle East are abused by men, if not outright killed.

.

Ah -- so that's why you wish to import the legal system that enables such.

Thanks for explaining that one.

Nobody here has said that they want to import any legal system.

You have been a major disappointment. Back when you were dropping names of philosophers, I thought you might actually try hard here.

Not so much. You are as lazy as Mac.

So, you not only think sharia isn't a legal system, but you think those who support it's operation in the United States via the sharia family courts aren't wanting to import it.

What other idiotic denials do you want to engage in? The Flat Earth society is always looking for new members.