Oh I guess that means until someone brings out a poll asking “Would you, generic Pakistani Muslim, personally cave this guy’s head in for leaving Islam?” we can’t tell anything one way or another about how religiously tolerant Pakistani Muslims are. Gimme a break!
No! Because you said “vast majority of Pakistani Muslims wouldn’t kill someone for holding the wrong religious view”. The fact that 62% of them WANT the state to do it for them directly disproves that. The fact that the state doesn’t currently have death for apostasy on the books doesn’t disprove my point that violent religious intolerance is common in Pakistan. If you still don’t get how you’re being dishonest then I don’t know how I can break it down any simpler.
Well, on that we certainly agree. Of course, nothing I said actually contradicted that. But I apologize if what I said gave the impression that I was contradicting that.
As you can see from my Der Spiegel link above, nobody at all is claiming that there aren’t any instances of Muslim immigrants sexually assaulting women.
The fact that you can’t refute anti-Islamophobic arguments except by replacing them with strawman assertions that nobody’s actually making does not speak well for the strength of your position.
By the way, did you read as far as this sentence in your linked article by the female victim of that Muslim gang?
Have you seen me endorse the Bible? It’s pretty clear that the current Israeli ruling coalition includes people who are inclined toward the genocidal policies prescribed in Deuteronomy (recall that I specifically said I think Sam Harris is wrong on Israel). She endorses ex-Muslim freethinkers; so do Sam and I. She is apprehensive about fascists like Tommy Thompson: so are Sam and I.
She (that is, the article author “Ella Hill”) also condemns anti-Islamic hate and the denigrating of an entire religion based on vicious interpretations of some of its scriptures by some of its followers. Which you and Sam Harris definitely do not condemn.
Your Islamophobic attitudes are exactly what she warns against as exacerbating the problems of radical-Islamist extremism rather than remedying them.
Her specific political positions ought either to have no bearing on this, or—if anything—to make her story more credible. Right? And then I’m allowed to have my own feelings about Muslim immigrant rape gangs operating in the West, even if she might not agree with all of them.
I wonder what you and others here would say if the accounts were from women in the Middle East who had been raped by white Mormons who were in those countries under the cover of being missionaries (you have to suspend disbelief there that those countries would even allow this to begin with). “That’s too bad, but let’s not disparage the whole LDS religion based on a few bad apples”? Something like that? Yeah, right. :dubious:
Although I suppose Dibble might have his own take: that the rape gangs in the U.K. deserve hearty claps on the back for not being “wimpy” but getting revenge on these young women who are descended from the cousins of colonizers, or something like that. :rolleyes: Or maybe that’s too far. Maybe he draws the line at rape gangs. He only applauds them when they crash planes into buildings, leaving mothers with young children at home to live their last minutes in desperate fear as the flames approach, until they can’t take it any more and jump out of a 100th-floor window.
Yes, of course. If the rapists were advocating some kind of violent radical-extremist Mormon ideology to justify their rapes, I would definitely also condemn that particular ideology. But I wouldn’t blame the entire Mormon faith or all Mormons as a group for the atrocities. That would just be stupid.
You’re going to have to provide a cite to specific remarks of Mr Dibble that you describe as “applauding” acts of murderous terrorism if you want other people to consider these remarks of yours as anything other than mere frothy-lipped raving.
It’s pretty fucking obvious to anyone who is not being willfully blind (honestly, if your reading comprehension is that poor, you’re not going to be able to even post here). It’s ridiculous to even ask me to spell it out, for chrissakes:
—I had asked why only in Muslim countries they have been plotting attacks against the West for decades, when there are many non-Muslim countries that were also exploited by the West under colonialism.
—Dibble’s answer: “Non-Muslims are wimps?”
“Wimp”, as we all know, is not a compliment. Therefore, Muslims here are being implicitly complimented for plotting attacks against the West in revenge for colonialism, unlike all those wimpy non-Muslims in former colonies. If you want to argue some other convoluted explanation for what’s plain as day, go right ahead; but I’m not going to address such silliness any further (again, it’s absurd that I should even have to do this much explication).
I never knew stupidity was contagious, but I’m pretty sure my IQ dropped a couple dozen points reading that idiocy. You’re a fucking moron, and I award you zero points. Have you possibly tried NOT being dumber than dogshit? I can’t give titles, but yours would be “Quasi-Functional Idiot” from now on, based solely on that drivel.
Yeah, I’m all about being on the side of rapists, me. Wanting to get the bastards would naturally override any empathy I might feel for these fellow rape victims because “fuck wypipo”, amiright?
What an utter little worthless shit you are.
I did?
Wait, you actually think I think “not a wimp” is a good thing? Maybe do a search for my posts on what constitutes acceptable violence even in self defence, sometime. I’m an absolute pacifist, you addle-pated buffoon. “Wimp” is a badge of honour.
I said that might be too far even for you, and I meant it. My most charitable interpretation is that when I talked about formerly colonized people in the Muslim world planning and carrying out attacks against the West “for decades” while other formerly colonized people were not doing so, you—well established as the most strident anticolonialist on this board, AINEC—thought of things like the truck bombing of the US Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon in the early ‘80s. Which one could argue is a legitimate military operation, at least in guerilla warfare terms. Same for the attack on the Pentagon, except for using a civilian airliner, of course.
Under that charitable interpretation, you certainly weren’t thinking of rape gangs, but you also didn’t stop to think of the innocent men, women, and children killed on 9/11 and in other attacks on “soft targets”. Once this was pointed out, you wished you could take back what you said but feared saying so would make you lose face. So instead you dug yourself in deeper, and I’m finding myself slightly ashamed of how much I’m relishing watching you twist in the wind.
Slightly.
Okay, fun. Let’s unpack this a bit. You are claiming you used “wimp” in a way that virtually no one uses it, without making any declaration of your special usage. Uh huh. Cool story, bro. (If we Google “wimp” or “wimpy”, how many pages of results do we have to scroll through before we get to an instance of someone using the term in an admiring way? I don’t want to even attempt to find out, because life is too short.)
But you know, I’m inclined to take you at your word here, because that just moves you from the proverbial frying pan to the fire. Apparently your true beliefs are that non-Muslims are much more worthy of praise for their “wimpiness” than Muslims are. You’re comfortable disparaging Muslims that way, en masse? If so, I guess you, as an “absolute pacifist”, would prefer we preferentially admit “wimpy” non-Muslims as immigrants. Right? Wow, who knew you were on the opposite side of this issue from Kimstu et al? Fascinating.
No, wait, the other thing - no one fucking believes you, you pathetic shit.
Dude, don’t even try and guess what I’m thinking. You have enough trouble working out what the voices in your own head are saying, an actual coherent mind would be too much of a shock for you.
What on earth makes you think Sep 11 wasn’t the very first thing that came to mind? Do you think I’d be afraid to say what I said in reference to the Twin Towers? Really? Me?
Err, no, still terrible at this. I have no problem with what I said. Of course, it was facetious, but still pretty true. I could have phrased it as “Non-muslims don’t still have the same violent factions, duh, Braniac” but where’s the fun in that?
Oh, you’re a terrible liar.
We all know you don’t have a sense of shame, Mr “I’m A Proud Racist”
We also know you have no idea when *you’re *the object of pity in a thread, but you do keep reminding us.
Sorry, I made the mistake of assuming someone as obviously stalkerish as you’ve proven yourself to be, would know all about my stance on violence.
Oh, this should prove amusing…
You might want to revise basic logic, there, mate. “Non-Muslims are Wimps” is not the same as “All Muslims are tot Wimps”.
You’re comfortable being a black hole for all logic and reason?
Take a guess, Kreskin.
Your comedian career would do about as well as your mentalist and logician careers, Sparky.
