The Mob of Ignorance.

[Marocc]

50 minutes ago, Goddess said:

That's why a whole bunch of young girls were allowed to burn to death - because they couldn't be rescued without their hijabs on.

Never heard of it. Except from you.

[Marocc]

2 hours ago, scribblet said:

Pretty hard to make a charge of rape in a Muslim country because it  requires the testimony of four male eyewitnesses,

Do you believe that?

[Marocc]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

What is the meaning of this?

[scribblet]

9 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Do you believe that?

Are u saying it isn't true. 

[Marocc]

Just now, scribblet said:

Are u saying it isn't true. 

Yes.

I was only pondering if I need to say it.

[WestCanMan]

24 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Nobody here gives Islam a pass for rape and misogyny; that's just a strawman thrown up by bigots when they are called out on their bigotry.

Who are you calling a bigot dialamah?

If you can find something here that's inaccurate here then go for it. But right now all the inaccuracy is coming from the apologist side.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Marocc said:

Muslim women who take care to cover themselves outside, do not go by the windows without covering either if there is a chance someone will be able to see them. This is reasonable and common sense. It has nothing to do with the Taliban.

More alarm bells.

[Marocc]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

If you can find something here that's inaccurate here then go for it.

The inaccuracies have already been mentioned.

From the link I posted before:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/how-canadas-sex-assault-laws-violate-rape-victims/article14705289/

(article 6 years old)

according to the best estimates, roughly 90 per cent of sexual assaults, even those referred to crisis lines, are never brought to the attention of the authorities

...........

Ottawa's force, for example, dismissed about one-third of complaints from 2005 to 2009 as unfounded and laid charges in only about 16 per cent of cases.

Tell me about how irrelevant this is, @WestCanMan

 

[dialamah]

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

From your article:

19.5% of rapes are committed by strangers

39% by acquaintances

I assume Date Rape would be included in the "acquaintances"

That's 58.5% of rapes NOT committed in a relationship or marriage.  

Are you trying to say that people don't have relationships with 'acquaintances'?   That a father doesn't have a relationship to his daughter, a mother to her son, an uncle or aunt to their niece and nephew, friends don't have relationships with friends?   

Quote

 

So according to your own information, this statement is not true:  

Quote

I have to also inform you that the majority of all rapes happen within a relationship or a marriage.

 

So are you limiting the word 'relationship' to mean only a marriage-like relationship, and all other ..... interpersonal connections to some other word?  Such as?  

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Why don't you address the lie you told above about the majority of rape being between relationships and marriages? 

So, claiming I posted something entirely different than what I actually posted is the same, in your mind, as disagreeing about what 'relationship rape' means?     

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

The way you twist things is pathological.

 

[dialamah]

59 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Never heard of it. Except from you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Mecca_girls'_school_fire

Fifteen girls died; some people claimed that the Mutaween wouldn't let girls out or pushed them back into the building because they weren't appropriately covered.  An inquiry was held, and while the inquiry didn't agree with the claims that the Mutaween prevented girls from leaving the building, it did find that the religious authority who ran the school were negligent.  As a result of the criticism, girls' schools were removed from the special authority they were under, and were put under the same authority as boys schools.

The part of this story that will escape Goddess' notice is that the actions of the religious police in preventing the girls from leaving was condemned by Muslims.  Instead, in her mind, these are the ones who are representative of all Muslims - the thousands who objected to such extremism are not.  

[Marocc]

Most articles say they died in a stampede. It was separately mentioned somewhere no one was burned to death.

Quite impossible to tell what happened, but the impression I get from the articles compared to the version of@Goddess

Is that they may not have been the same 14-15 girls who were bothered outside that died. But rather that with almost 800 people getting out, the disturbance slowing people down could have contributed to the casualties.

[Argus]

15 hours ago, dialamah said:

Some people on this thread are essentially claiming that Muslims are rapists and are using questionnable sources, sensationalist media stories and flawed logic to support their claim. 

That's the bigotry.

No. Men from all religions are rapists. The claim is that Islam, having a violently misogynistic value system which looks down on women and does little or nothing to protect them has made the men who grow up in that system more likely to abuse women. An entirely reasonable and logical assumption which is supported by things like the new  years even attacks in Germany, the huge rise in rapes in Sweden, and the large groups of Muslim men arrested for attacking young, non-Muslim girls.

[Argus]

So more evidence of how shrill and extreme these cancel culture types are is the firing of a CTV reporter over an innocuous attempt at levity in a tweet.

Peter Akman got a haircut from a Chinese barber who was wearing one of those masks (why?). Then he tweeted a picture of the both of them together saying "Hopefully all I got today was a haircut."

This is somehow construed as 'racism', which only goes to show that the airheads of the Left don't even know what racism is, even as they fling it around at anyone who displeases them. The tweet might be in slightly poor taste, but given the guy was wearing a mask it's understandable anyone seeing him would think of the coronavirus.

But we've seen these absurd accusations a lot of late, from all sorts of idiot do-gooders from the prime minister on down, 'cautioning' us rabble not to stigmatize Chinese people. The only such incident anyone seems to reference is a petition at a Toronto area school which asked that children returning from China be kept out of school for two weeks. Since the Chinese embassy itself has made a similar suggestion I really don't see how this constitutes racism. But when you're a progressive, you see racism in everything.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/breaking-ctv-fires-journalist-for-coronavirus-joke/

[scribblet]

11 hours ago, Marocc said:

Most articles say they died in a stampede. It was separately mentioned somewhere no one was burned to death.

Quite impossible to tell what happened, but the impression I get from the articles compared to the version of@Goddess

Is that they may not have been the same 14-15 girls who were bothered outside that died. But rather that with almost 800 people getting out, the disturbance slowing people down could have contributed to the casualties.

This one from the BBC which got it from the Saudi News,  some did die from a stampede but: 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1874471.stm

Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress, according to Saudi newspapers. ...

The father of one of the dead girls said that the school watchman even refused to open the gates to let the girls out.

[Goddess]

13 hours ago, dialamah said:

The part of this story that will escape Goddess' notice is that the actions of the religious police in preventing the girls from leaving was condemned by Muslims. 

I'm sure that was a comfort to the girls as they burned alive and that their families are also comforted by that.

[dialamah]

36 minutes ago, Argus said:

Men from all religions are rapists. The claim is that Islam, having a violently misogynistic value system

I've always agreed that Islam supports patriarcy and patriarchy is misogynistic.  Same for Christianity, and in fact, studies have demonstrated that there are higher rates of domestic and sexual violence among Christian families than the general population.  (Coupla links below.)  And the more fundamentalist and closed a sect is, the more prevalent is sexual and physical abuse of women and girls.  

However, domestic and sexual abuse is more complicated than "religion".  Income levels, education and cultural practices all have an impact.  Distilling it down to "Muslims are violently misigynistic because Islam" is far too simplistic.  

51 minutes ago, Argus said:

which is supported by things like the new  years even attacks in Germany, the huge rise in rapes in Sweden, and the large groups of Muslim men arrested for attacking young, non-Muslim girls.

The New Years attacks in Germany have not been repeated, so perhaps there was something else going on there.

Your other claims are derived from sensationalist, biased media sources and are not supported by factual, unbiased and objective studies and reports.  I won't bother repeating the links to those reports and studies because you'll dismiss them as a conspiracy to keep us in the dark about "the Muslim threat."  

Link 1.

Link 2.

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I've always agreed that Islam supports patriarcy and patriarchy is misogynistic.  Same for Christianity, and in fact, studies have demonstrated that there are higher rates of domestic and sexual violence among Christian families than the general population. 

This is why everyone calls you an Islamic apologist. You simply CAN NOT accept the slightest criticism of Islam without instantly deflecting by trying to pretend Christianity is just as bad.  Well, Christianity never mandated death by stoning, nor that women cover themselves with bedsheets, nor that a woman's word was worth one quarter of a man's. Nor a hundred other things. Nor do Christian societies treat women - universally - as second class citizens valued only for their breeding and purity.

 

[scribblet]

 Exactly, there is no comparison.   

Women's rights in the mostly Arab countries the worst in the world has become so endemic to Arab societies that it really is a war  on women as abuse  of women in the Islamic world is socially acceptable in many countries. 

22 minutes ago, Argus said:

This is why everyone calls you an Islamic apologist. You simply CAN NOT accept the slightest criticism of Islam without instantly deflecting by trying to pretend Christianity is just as bad.  Well, Christianity never mandated death by stoning, nor that women cover themselves with bedsheets, nor that a woman's word was worth one quarter of a man's. Nor a hundred other things. Nor do Christian societies treat women - universally - as second class citizens valued only for their breeding and purity.

 

 

[WestCanMan]

15 hours ago, Marocc said:

The inaccuracies have already been mentioned.

From the link I posted before:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/how-canadas-sex-assault-laws-violate-rape-victims/article14705289/

(article 6 years old)

according to the best estimates, roughly 90 per cent of sexual assaults, even those referred to crisis lines, are never brought to the attention of the authorities

...........

Ottawa's force, for example, dismissed about one-third of complaints from 2005 to 2009 as unfounded and laid charges in only about 16 per cent of cases.

Tell me about how irrelevant this is, @WestCanMan

 

It's irrelevant in that you're talking about a situation where, if women here don't take a minimal amount of care, they are still extremely unlikely to be the subject of a violent rape, or sexual assault.

Contrast that with places where women need to adhere to strict religious codes or they will definitely be raped and the government won't do anything at all about it. 

So - definitely raped with no penalty to the attacker whatsoever vs might be kinda raped, but in instances where the attackers can be caught they will definitely go to jail. Regardless of religious affiliations or the type of clothing worn, period.

Your stat just says that some people get raped here. Big deal.

Edited January 31, 2020 by WestCanMan

[dialamah]

55 minutes ago, Argus said:

 Well, Christianity never mandated death by stoning, 

Stoning is a method of execution during which a group of people, usually peers of the guilty party, throws stones at the condemned person until he or she dies. Death by stoning was prescribed in the Old Testament Law as a punishment for various sins. Both animals and people could be the subjects of stoning (Exodus 21:28), and stoning seems to have been associated with sins that caused irreparable damage to the spiritual or ceremonial purity of a person or an animal.

Some sins that resulted in stoning in the Old Testament were murder (Leviticus 24:17), idolatry (Deuteronomy 17:2–5), approaching near to Mount Sinai while the presence of God was there (Exodus 19:12–13), practicing necromancy or the occult (Leviticus 20:27), and blaspheming the name of the Lord (Leviticus 24:16). Stoning was probably the punishment for various types of sexual sin, as well (Deuteronomy 22:24); the related passages in Leviticus 20 do not specify the method of execution, only that the guilty party was to be “put to death.”

The Torah and Talmud also prescribed death by stoning; the Koran never did, but nontheless, Muslims picked it up from the Christians and Jews in their region.  

Anyway, your ignorance about religion is profound.  No religion is free from supporting barbarity to maintain its power; Christianity isn't "better than Islam" because it's Christianity, but because in Western countries, education and scientific knowledge has reduced peoples reliance on some sky fairy to tell them the "rules".  

56 minutes ago, Argus said:

This is why everyone calls you an Islamic apologist.

If your goal in discussing Islam/Muslims was to really determine why their regimes tend to be so harsh and discuss ways to perhaps help them leave those practices behind, we'd be having a different conversation.

But your "conversation" goes like this:  "Here's a news story about a Muslim person behaving badly!  Muslims behave like this because Islam."  If I (or anyone) points out that most Muslims don't do  the behavior featured in your news story, you react with scorn and name-calling and declare that such people are a small minority.  

You use pictures of dark-skinned men to "prove" the criminality of millions of people not associated with those men - other than the assumptions that exist in your head.

You use a study to "prove" that 2nd generation Muslims are becoming more fanatical (read anti-Western and dangerous) because they attend Misque more, and reject the parts of the same study, and any other study, that demonstrates just the opposite - 2nd generation Muslims (and all immigrants) become more compatible with Western values.

You collect all this "ammunition" to push the idea that only or primarily "white European" types should be allowed to immigrate to Canada and fan fears of cultural annihilation and harm to "White women" to support that argument.  Your white nationalist agenda is as clear as Taxme's, though somewhat more coherent.  Being called an apologist by folks like you is about the same as being called a "race traiter" by the neighbor who had to sell and move because the court deemed his speech an overt threat to his brown neighbors.

[Goddess]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Stoning is a method of execution during which a group of people, usually peers of the guilty party, throws stones at the condemned person until he or she dies. Death by stoning was prescribed in the Old Testament Law as a punishment for various sins. Both animals and people could be the subjects of stoning (Exodus 21:28), and stoning seems to have been associated with sins that caused irreparable damage to the spiritual or ceremonial purity of a person or an animal.

Some sins that resulted in stoning in the Old Testament were murder (Leviticus 24:17), idolatry (Deuteronomy 17:2–5), approaching near to Mount Sinai while the presence of God was there (Exodus 19:12–13), practicing necromancy or the occult (Leviticus 20:27), and blaspheming the name of the Lord (Leviticus 24:16). Stoning was probably the punishment for various types of sexual sin, as well (Deuteronomy 22:24); the related passages in Leviticus 20 do not specify the method of execution, only that the guilty party was to be “put to death.”

  

Everything you just quoted is pre-Christianity.

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Anyway, your ignorance about religion is profound.

**cough cough**

"Pre-Christianity" means BEFORE Christianity, BEFORE Jesus Christ.  So Argus is correct:

Quote

Christianity never mandated death by stoning, 

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Goddess

[DogOnPorch]

5 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Everything you just quoted is pre-Christianity.

**cough cough**

"Pre-Christianity" means BEFORE Christianity, BEFORE Jesus Christ.  So Argus is correct:

 

 

Go and do thou likewise.

It was a revolutionary statement for the times when things were solved via eye for eye...tooth for tooth.

Believe in God or not...it was a game changer...and a message everybody could get behind.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Stoning is a method of execution during which a group of people, usually peers of the guilty party, throws stones at the condemned person until he or she dies. Death by stoning was prescribed in the Old Testament Law as a punishment for various sins. Both animals and people could be the subjects of stoning (Exodus 21:28), and stoning seems to have been associated with sins that caused irreparable damage to the spiritual or ceremonial purity of a person or an animal.

Some sins that resulted in stoning in the Old Testament w

Bullshit. Don't give me that old testament stuff. No Christian church has ever used that. Not even in medieval times. And you have been told again and again that Christianity derives from the New Testament, which is the story of Jesus. And when people brought an adulterous woman to Jesus suggesting she be stoned his reply was "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." It's bloody clear even to a decades long lapsed Catholic like me that Christianity has no place for this barbarism. So you're continually bringing up the Old Testament is nothing but dishonesty.

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

If your goal in discussing Islam/Muslims was to really determine why their regimes tend to be so harsh and discuss ways to perhaps help them leave those practices behind, we'd be having a different conversation.

No, we wouldn't. Because your own extremist religious beliefs - which is what anti-racism is to the far left - means you cannot accept ANY criticism of another religion or people without immediately deflecting it.

The rest of your bullshit deleted. You've been spewing it for years because it's all you know.

 

[WestCanMan]

41 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Stoning is a method of execution during which a group of people, usually peers of the guilty party, throws stones at the condemned person until he or she dies. Death by stoning was prescribed in the Old Testament Law as a punishment for various sins. Both animals and people could be the subjects of stoning (Exodus 21:28), and stoning seems to have been associated with sins that caused irreparable damage to the spiritual or ceremonial purity of a person or an animal.

Have you ever heard of a thing called progress? When was the last stoning that you are aware of in a western nation? Was it in the year 2020? Nope, you have to go the the ME to see that kind of thing in 2020. You're talking about something that our grandparents grandparents grandparents grandparents grandparents grandparents grandparents grandparents grandparents grandparents grandparents grandparents grandparents grandparents grandparents grandparents did and you're comparing that what people are still doing in 2020. 

Dialamah we're all aware that zealots & religious bigotry were a problem in most of the ME and most of Europe from pre-history up until 1,000 years ago. Some people changed a lot, some not so much, and in some countries the majority of people still live like it's 1,495 - they have no consideration whatsoever for the lives of humans who don't share their religion and they answer only to the god that's inside their own head. 

Western nations exorcized that type of radical bigotry and religious stupidity hundreds of years ago. It's enshrined in our constitution, it has 100% grassroots support, and it's upheld by modern-day law enforcement and has been for generations. There were only small pockets of resistance in the last 100 years which have finally been snuffed out. The ME is like a time machine, and the dial is set to the year shithole. 

I get that there are a lot of great people there. Truly great, decent people who are very altruistic and care far more about their families and friends and peace than they do about human scum like Suleimani or al-Baghdadi. Is that honestly what's preached in 100% of mosques? 50%?

If you talk to people from Pakistan how many of them consider the actions of their Pakistani forefathers to be righteous and the actions of the Israelis to be evil? Every single person who holds those opinions is just an ignorant, evil, religious bigot.

[taxme]

On 11/1/2019 at 10:30 AM, Teena said:

Meghan Murphy Talk In Vancouver Cancelled Following Toronto Protests

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/meghan-murphy-vancouver-simon-fraser-university_ca_5dbb4352e4b00d83f7252c34?utm_hp_ref=ca-homepage

 

Free speech going out the window

We all should be allowed to be heard and be able to get the other side of the story. It's not all just about transgenders here. Maybe this talk would have been able in some way to help transgenders with their sex gender problems. But we will never know if freedom of speech talks are getting cancelled all the time. What happened to the good old days when one could have a talk without someone or some groups wanting to start a riot? Maybe these transgenders should have their talks cancelled due to security reasons. Give them a taste of their own medicine. Just saying.