Author Topic: Islam is a dangerous, fanatical religion  (Read 9713 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Teh Stupid
  • *****
  • Posts: 96389
  • Karma: 4048
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
I know, I know, it's just that I don't know what should be there. :GA:
Could put some awesome Jack quote in there.

Offline FourAceDeal

  • Constant Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 350
  • Karma: 36
  • Gender: Male
Re: Islam is a dangerous, fanatical religion
« Reply #391 on: Today at 01:56:03 PM »
He's just demanded that we take a part of the Kuran as the literal truth in an effort to discredit the Kuran.  Words yet again fail me at his attempt at logical argument.

Offline Jack

  • Reiterative Utterance of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Insane Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 12132
  • Karma: 0
  • You don't know Jack.
Re: Islam is a dangerous, fanatical religion
« Reply #392 on: Today at 02:33:31 PM »
But why limit this to Islam? http://www.nairaland.com/450419/age-marriage-medieval-times-paedophilia
While consent ages were low, it seems to be a misconception that such young marriages were commonplace. Young marriages were more likely to occur for women of high social status, but even then it wasn't the norm. The average age of first marriage for women in the US during the early 1700s was 19-22, and that hasn't changed much since then.

Offline FourAceDeal

  • Constant Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 350
  • Karma: 36
  • Gender: Male
Re: Islam is a dangerous, fanatical religion
« Reply #393 on: Today at 02:39:24 PM »
I can't see the mileage gained from using something that may or may not have happened over a thousand years ago to make moral judgement on a billion men, women and children alive today.  But then again, I'm not a racist so I'm not likely to understand.


Offline Al Swearengen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16570
  • Karma: 2075
  • Friendly bastard
Re: Islam is a dangerous, fanatical religion
« Reply #394 on: Today at 03:07:04 PM »
I can't see the mileage gained from using something that may or may not have happened over a thousand years ago to make moral judgement on a billion men, women and children alive today.  But then again, I'm not a racist so I'm not likely to understand.

There we go, like clockwork:

"I made a big claim about a girl getting married as a child and then having sex with her middle-aged husband before she hit puberty as wrong and how silly others were to believe this but then when someone pointed out that it was correct I shrink from this and call them racist to make myself look morally superior and thus discredit the factual underpinnings of what they said"

I get it.

The fact is I make NO argument in this about Islam at all (notwithstanding that Islam is not a race - ie is a Turkish Muslim the same race as a Filipino Muslim and the same race as a Muslim from Gambia and the same race as a Muslim from Iran?) I DO make an argument about whether you are trying to do som e history revisionism in this case and for whatever reasons of your own to green light the marrying of  little girl and then having sex with her at 9.

Me? I think it is wrong no matter where it happens. I do not much care the culture or whether it was "in". In exactly the same way I do not think that brothers and sisters or close relative marrying and having sex with each other is cool. You may also with that say "It happened every or well the royal families practiced it a bit". Yes! It was bad then and bad now and every time it happened.

Was pedophilia okay if it happened a lot in Europe too? No. Was it better in Europe than in Middle Eastern countries? No. It history something to take into account? Not really.

Yet you call al of this racist. OKay if that is the definition of racist I earn it. You have earned the title of an apologist. We can both live with our titles and how we earned them, huh?
I don't want to hear it. Save your complaints to Odeon. Yes, we had decided to drop hostilities. No, I didnt expect that Odeon would do other than start shit again like he always does
You're not going to stick to "a handful people", are you? That would be stupid.
Damned if I won't respond.
So it's on again & you can lay the blame squarely at his feet. Little passive-aggressive bitch

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Teh Stupid
  • *****
  • Posts: 96389
  • Karma: 4048
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: Islam is a dangerous, fanatical religion
« Reply #395 on: Today at 04:36:52 PM »
But why limit this to Islam? http://www.nairaland.com/450419/age-marriage-medieval-times-paedophilia
While consent ages were low, it seems to be a misconception that such young marriages were commonplace. Young marriages were more likely to occur for women of high social status, but even then it wasn't the norm. The average age of first marriage for women in the US during the early 1700s was 19-22, and that hasn't changed much since then.

Early 1700s was much later. This was way before there was a US.
I know, I know, it's just that I don't know what should be there. :GA:
Could put some awesome Jack quote in there.

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Teh Stupid
  • *****
  • Posts: 96389
  • Karma: 4048
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: Islam is a dangerous, fanatical religion
« Reply #396 on: Today at 04:40:31 PM »
Al's right about one thing. It's not racism.

It's bigotry. Completely different.
« Last Edit: Today at 04:43:28 PM by odeon »
I know, I know, it's just that I don't know what should be there. :GA:
Could put some awesome Jack quote in there.

Offline FourAceDeal

  • Constant Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 350
  • Karma: 36
  • Gender: Male
Re: Islam is a dangerous, fanatical religion
« Reply #397 on: Today at 04:44:35 PM »
I can't see the mileage gained from using something that may or may not have happened over a thousand years ago to make moral judgement on a billion men, women and children alive today.  But then again, I'm not a racist so I'm not likely to understand.

There we go, like clockwork:

"I made a big claim about a girl getting married as a child and then having sex with her middle-aged husband before she hit puberty as wrong and how silly others were to believe this but then when someone pointed out that it was correct I shrink from this and call them racist to make myself look morally superior and thus discredit the factual underpinnings of what they said"

I get it.

The fact is I make NO argument in this about Islam at all (notwithstanding that Islam is not a race - ie is a Turkish Muslim the same race as a Filipino Muslim and the same race as a Muslim from Gambia and the same race as a Muslim from Iran?) I DO make an argument about whether you are trying to do som e history revisionism in this case and for whatever reasons of your own to green light the marrying of  little girl and then having sex with her at 9.

Me? I think it is wrong no matter where it happens. I do not much care the culture or whether it was "in". In exactly the same way I do not think that brothers and sisters or close relative marrying and having sex with each other is cool. You may also with that say "It happened every or well the royal families practiced it a bit". Yes! It was bad then and bad now and every time it happened.

Was pedophilia okay if it happened a lot in Europe too? No. Was it better in Europe than in Middle Eastern countries? No. It history something to take into account? Not really.

Yet you call al of this racist. OKay if that is the definition of racist I earn it. You have earned the title of an apologist. We can both live with our titles and how we earned them, huh?

Al.  You completely failed to get the point of my rather short post. 

I'll try again.

"I can't see the mileage gained from using something that may or may not have happened over a thousand years ago to make moral judgement on a billion men, women and children alive today."

Do you see how I used the quotes there?

At no time did I say it was OK.  I said "I can't see the mileage gained from using something that may or may not have happened over a thousand years ago to make moral judgement on a billion men, women and children alive today."

None of the words are particularly long so I'm not sure how you managed to read some other meaning into it.

But as I'said before, I'm not a racist so I sometimes don't quite follow the logic of racists.

Offline Jack

  • Reiterative Utterance of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Insane Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 12132
  • Karma: 0
  • You don't know Jack.
Re: Islam is a dangerous, fanatical religion
« Reply #398 on: Today at 04:53:13 PM »
But why limit this to Islam? http://www.nairaland.com/450419/age-marriage-medieval-times-paedophilia
While consent ages were low, it seems to be a misconception that such young marriages were commonplace. Young marriages were more likely to occur for women of high social status, but even then it wasn't the norm. The average age of first marriage for women in the US during the early 1700s was 19-22, and that hasn't changed much since then.

Early 1700s was much later. This was way before there was a US.
Good point, but was it really that common? Not really liking this source. The source provided for the middle ages is specifically about noble women, there's no source for the claims about the 12 being commonplace before 1200, and the 1600s section only discusses ages of consent.