How to beat your wife without leaving incriminating marks ? Ask the Muslim cleric.

[Cleopatra]

A Muslim cleric wrote a book that gave advices to husbands on this subject and has been sentenced by a Spanish Court. How nice. I am so glad BBC has suspended Kilroy-Smith in he mean time. Can you imagine what racist comments he would made against the muslim tradition? Just in time!

Enjoy the article from BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3396597.stm


A Muslim cleric who wrote a book that advised men how to beat up their wives without leaving incriminating marks has been sentenced by a Spanish court.
Mohamed Kamal Mustafa was given 15 months in jail, which he will not serve as Spanish law suspends sentences of under two years for first offences.

Mustafa's book, Women in Islam, sparked outrage among women's groups when it was published three years ago.

In his defence, the imam said he was interpreting passages from the Koran.

A jury in Barcelona found Mustafa guilty of inciting violence against women, lawyer Jose Luis Bravo told reporters.

He was also fined euros 2,160 ($2,735).

Removed

In his book, Mustafa wrote that in disciplining a disobedient wife: "The blows should be concentrated on the hands and feet using a rod that is thin and light so that it does not leave scars or bruises on the body."

Mustafa - imam at the mosque in the southern Spanish town of Fuengirola - said he was opposed to violence against women and had been simply interpreting the Koran.

The book incensed women's groups and, in July 2000, around 90 groups filed a lawsuit in a Barcelona court to have the book withdrawn.


The book - some 3,000 copies of which had already been distributed - was removed from Islamic cultural centres around Spain.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
A Muslim cleric wrote a book that gave advices to husbands on this subject and has been sentenced by a Spanish Court. How nice. I am so glad BBC has suspended Kilroy-Smith in he mean time. Can you imagine what racist comments he would made against the muslim tradition? Just in time!

Enjoy the article from BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3396597.stm


Kilroy-Silk's already claimed that all Arabs are "women repressors", so I guess that must mean all Arab women must be self-beating muslims?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Kilroy-Silk's already claimed that all Arabs are "women repressors", so I guess that must mean all Arab women must be self-beating muslims?


What "repressors" mean? I checked this dictionary and the term was not found http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?searchword=repressor

How Arab women are self-beating muslims? I don't understand what you mean.

[Mr Manifesto]

He's saying you are tarring all Muslims with the same brush. All Jews bulldoze houses. The comment you have made is racist.

[Morwen]

That guy has been a pain in the *ss since he first got ahold of a journalist. It was about time that someone told him in no uncertain terms that his nonsense is not welcome.

This said, I find the sentence irritatingly light. But maybe I'm just having a touch of the ol' religion...

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
He's saying you are tarring all Muslims with the same brush. All Jews bulldoze houses. The comment you have made is racist.

I see. Where did I say that?

In the thread title I was careful to use the definite article "the". I didn't say "Ask Muslim clerics how to beat your wives" but I said " Ask THE Muslim cleric how to beat your wives".

Point to me please the racist comment I made.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


I see. Where did I say that?

In the thread title I was careful to use the definite article "the". I didn't say "Ask Muslim clerics how to beat your wives" but I said " Ask THE Muslim cleric how to beat your wives".

Point to me please the racist comment I made.

Right here:

Can you imagine what racist comments he would made against the muslim tradition?

One Muslim cleric does not speak for the entire Muslim tradition.

Compare with this (http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/politics/articles/pol_0015.htm).

Jordanian businessman Tawfik Azab has posted a million dinar prize for anyone who assassinates Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the spiritual leader of the Shas party. The prize, reported in the Jordanian newspaper Al Dustur, was one of many severe reactions in the Arab world, and in Israel as well, to Rabbi Yosef's comment during a sermon last week that the "Arabs should be destroyed."

To say that all Jews think that "Arabs should be destroyed" because of what Rabbi Yosef said is also racist.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

One Muslim cleric does not speak for the entire Muslim tradition.


Oh you mean that! According to BBC's article the Muslim cleric and author of the book claims that he just interpreted passages from the Koran, he didn't invented his own tradition. I choose to believe what BBC says, it's so impartial!!! :)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Right here:



One Muslim cleric does not speak for the entire Muslim tradition.

Compare with this (http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/politics/articles/pol_0015.htm).



To say that all Jews think that "Arabs should be destroyed" because of what Rabbi Yosef said is also racist.

Firstly let me say that I do not mean a 100% of the group(s) I am about to mention...

This is very interesting double standard that is going on here, there are almost countless Islamic groups that want to Destroy America, Israel and pretty much everyone who is not Muslim in this world and yet as soon as someone says something negative about Muslim they scream they are being oppressed. They all seem to be holding unlimited supply of victim cards that they pull whenever someone tries to criticize them but they are silent when someone on their "team" is doing the same thing with words or explosions.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Anyone want to defend this as a "free speech" issue?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Morwen

This said, I find the sentence irritatingly light. But maybe I'm just having a touch of the ol' religion...


Maybe the cleric's defense proved to the court that the cleric was interpreting the Koran indeed and all he did was his job. I am just speculating here.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



Maybe the cleric's defense proved to the court that the cleric was interpreting the Koran indeed and all he did was his job. I am just speculating here.

So, there's nothing in the Talmud that would be seen as less than progressive today?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


So, there's nothing in the Talmud that would be seen as less than progressive today?

Get over it Mr. Manifesto. Historically speaking Muslims had their serious issues with the Christians not with the Jews.

If I can say it, the opposite of the Muslim is not Jew but Christian!

Our topic here is this idiot who wrote that book.

Get over with your love for the Jews. As we say in Greece there are two things you can't hide: Your being in love with somebody and your cough ;)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
He's saying you are tarring all Muslims with the same brush. All Jews bulldoze houses. The comment you have made is racist.


Yet again, another austraian who cant tell the difference between race and religion.

[Skeptic]

He's saying you are tarring all Muslims with the same brush. All Jews bulldoze houses.

It's funny you'd use that example.

As you know, "A Unique Person" actually DID accuse me of bulldozing houses (or knowingly asisting in it). Not only was there no protest from you about this false accusation, but you were on his side.

Apparently, from your point of view, all jews DO bulldoze houses.

[Tmy]

Cleopatra,


Pulleeez! Its obvious you posedthsi article because you wantto place muslims in a negative light. Just cause your not shouting "Im a bogot" at the top of your lungs does not mean we cant see what your doing. To use your article: Just cause a women doesnt have marks on her doesnt mean she aint abuse.

What are the odds that you wouldve posted this if it was a rabi who wrote the book? Im guessing zero.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Tmy
Cleopatra,


Pulleeez! Its obvious you posedthsi article because you wantto place muslims in a negative light. Just cause your not shouting "Im a bogot" at the top of your lungs does not mean we cant see what your doing. To use your article: Just cause a women doesnt have marks on her doesnt mean she aint abuse.

What are the odds that you wouldve posted this if it was a rabi who wrote the book? Im guessing zero.


Do you have to say anything about the topic?

[Skeptic]

Pulleeez! Its obvious you posedthsi article because you wantto place muslims in a negative light.

Imagine that: all you do is publish a book telling the faithful how to beat up your wife without consequences, like the Koran said they could, and the NEXT THING YOU KNOW, it makes Islam look primitive!

I'm shocked, SHOCKED!, I tell you.

Just cause your not shouting "Im a bogot" at the top of your lungs does not mean we cant see what your doing.

So, on your view, it's not the Imam in question who is a bigot for advocating wife-beating, but Cleopatra, for noting this is the case.

Great logic, Tmy.

What are the odds that you wouldve posted this if it was a rabi who wrote the book? Im guessing zero.

That might have something to do with the fact that Rabbis DON'T write books like that, while Imams do.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Anyone want to defend this as a "free speech" issue?


I will, as sick as this is. I think such a book should be allowed to be published. Its no different than the book that teach people how to make bombs or kill people.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Tony

I will, as sick as this is. I think such a book should be allowed to be published. Its no different than the book that teach people how to make bombs or kill people. Agreed. This kind of thought-control is counter-productive. It'll just force the practice underground, and potential perpetrators will not hear reasoned arguments against this practice.

I'm glad to live in America.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[

That might have something to do with the fact that Rabbis DON'T write books like that, while Imams do.

Are you saying that Rabis dont beat there wives either?

Wife beating knows no religious, class, or racial boundries. Sure theres probably no Rabi thats written a how to book but Im surethere are some Rabis who are cool with wife beating. You get sects in ever religion that have outdated beliefs. And maybe there are more muslims who are still old school but the implication is that muslims are backwards and bad.

My thoughts on the subject. Wife beating is disgusting and so is the book. But i think under free speech you could write such things.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Tony



I will, as sick as this is. I think such a book should be allowed to be published. Its no different than the book that teach people how to make bombs or kill people.

Seconded. Of course, I also support Cleopatra's right to expose it. (Despite the fact that it was, as Tmy just showed, done out of evil, disgusting motives to make Muslims look bad, as opposed to the poor Imam's honest, noble motives of merely beating up women).

[DaChew]

I think this highlights a broader issue in terms of what is acceptable in different cultures. The old testament of the Bible has some fairly unpleasant things to say about how the male head of the household should deal with different situations regarding his wife and children. There is absolutely no interpretation required either. This is pretty specific and ugly stuff.
If a fundamentalist Christian cleric wrote a book advocating the use of those techniques he'd be derided and condemned into almost complete obscurity even by most Christians. Our society would simply not tolerate those ideas. He could still publish and say whatever he wanted but it would be social death and probably the end of his career.

Contrast this with what will probably happen in the Muslim community. Mustafa will probably be lauded by many (especially now that he is a victim of "political" oppression). He will certainly not be condemned, generally, by the Muslim community, the vast majority of whom could not even bring themselves to condemn the 9/11 attack.

[dsm]

Originally posted by hgc
Agreed. This kind of thought-control is counter-productive. It'll just force the practice underground, and potential perpetrators will not hear reasoned arguments against this practice.


What's your view on the person who shouts "fire" in a crowded theatre? If the Pope advocated unprotected sex to the Catholic masses, should he bear (some) responsibility for the subsequent increase in AIDS?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by dsm


What's your view on the person who shouts "fire" in a crowded theatre?

Im fine with it.........if the theatre is on fire.

Ya know the "ask the muslim cleric" part of the title isnt neccesary. Its proof of Cleos bias.

[demon]

FROM A DISTANCE: A deadly silence
By Naomi Ragen


(March 10) Many halachic authorities have actually condoned wife beating, spelling out conditions in which it is not only permissible, but a mitzva.

A few months ago, I attended a prayer meeting at Jerusalem's Yeshurun Synagogue to mark the annual international day protesting violence against women. Attendance was sparse. The men's section was empty.

A young rabbi got up and said this embarrassed him. He said that if the meeting had been about Israel's special mission in the world, the shul would have been packed. He went on to say what a terrible thing domestic abuse was, etc. etc., making all the right noises.

At the end of his - I have no doubt heartfelt - lecture, a lone woman raised her hand timidly. What does the halacha say about wife-beating? she asked him.

"It's a non-issue," he replied, insulted. "I won't dignify it by getting into a halachic discussion."

The woman, mortified, sat down.

"It was a valid question," I comforted her afterwards.

But only after reading Prof. Naomi Graetz's compelling book Silence is Deadly: Judaism Confronts Wifebeating, did I realize how valid.

The case Graetz makes, based on sources in the Talmud, the Mishna and centuries of responsa of rabbinic authorities, is that, indeed, many halachic authorities have not only done nothing to punish wife-beaters, but have actually condoned it, spelling out conditions in which it is not only permissible, but a mitzva.

Moreover, in our own day, halachic thinking makes it extremely difficult for an abused wife to get out of her husband's clutches if he refuses her a divorce.

The pioneering rabbi who opened the first battered women's shelters for haredi women in Jerusalem once told me of a conversation he had with a well-respected Sephardi rabbi: "What are you Ashkenazim making a big deal about?" the rabbi complained to him, "Almost every Sephardi husband beats his wife."

I have no idea if this is true. But what can't be denied is that Maimonides has said in his colossal work, the Mishna Torah: "A woman who refuses to perform any kind of work that she is obligated to do, may be compelled to perform it, even by scourging her with a rod." (Ishut 21:10).

While this is certainly not halacha, the religious atmosphere created by such an unchallenged statement may explain the callous attitude exhibited by many religious authorities towards domestic abuse.

Whenever I am asked if there is more domestic abuse in the religious world, I answer no. I think there is exactly the same as in every other society.

What is worse is that the religious world finds it difficult to acknowledge the problem and deal effectively with it.

OVER A decade ago, upon the publication of my first novel, Jepthe's Daughter, in which I depicted a Talmud scholar as a wife-beater, many in the religious world were ready to tar and feather me. I was called a liar during lectures, usually by bewigged matrons. I was vilified in haredi publications, denounced by friends, and snubbed by former rabbinical mentors.

I couldn't understand why.

After all, the story was based on that of my neighbor, a haredi woman who committed suicide following severe sexual and physical abuse from her Talmud-scholar husband.

For many years I assumed that the underlying cause of this response was simple embarrassment. After reading Naomi Graetz's book, though, I'm not so sure.

As an Orthodox woman, committed to Jewish law, I have always believed that the halacha was the closest thing we were going to get to God's own word. As such, despite appearances, halacha had to be absolutely just, wise, compassionate, and most of all, unbiased, based on a true interpretation of biblical law.

In that light, I found it shocking - and it would not be an exaggeration to say heartbreaking - to read the many almost heartless, anti-feminine decrees by some of the most respected halachic authorities of all time.

What is one to make of the Hatam Sofer's responsa, that we do not force a wife-beater to grant a divorce because "it is better to live as two (tan du) than to dwell alone (armalu)"? And how can we accept that it is this ruling that is the basis for rulings in our rabbinical courts, and not the liberal one of Maimonides, who states: "Woman is not captive. She should get a divorce if her husband is not pleasing to her"?

Thankfully, Graetz points out other rabbinic voices, such as Rabbi Meir of Rotenberg, who wrote concerning a habitual wife-beater: "If he persists in striking her, he should be excommunicated, lashed - even to the extent of amputating his arm. If his wife is willing to accept a divorce, he must divorce her and pay her ketuba."

Silence is Deadly is an important book, the kind that insists we examine the sources for some of the most blatant of social problems and why, until now, there has been no outcry from the rabbinical establishment.

Its cumulative evidence cries out for just change within the halachic framework that today gives abusive husbands almost absolute power over their wives.

http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2000/03/10/Columns/Columns.3835.html
__________________________________________________ ________________________

Kettles calling pots black comes to mind.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tmy


Im fine with it.........if the theatre is on fire.

Ya know the "ask the muslim cleric" part of the title isnt neccesary. Its proof of Cleos bias.

It would be if she just stated it as is, however there was some context to that quote, like the fact there is a BOOK out by a MUSLIM CLERIC on how to beat your wife. That and she clarified that she doesn't mean ALL of them, yet you clearly ignored that. Maybe you are the one with a bias that is against everything she says.

[Tmy]

Well I am familar wh Cleos other posts. thats why I think theres a bias.

Imagine a title like "How to have sex with your minor step daughter without going to jail? Ask the Jewish Filmaker"

Im talking about Woody Allen of course. But woudlnt my title not imply some bias against jews?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tmy
Well I am familar wh Cleos other posts. thats why I think theres a bias.

Imagine a title like "How to have sex with your minor step daughter without going to jail? Ask the Jewish Filmaker"

Im talking about Woody Allen of course. But woudlnt my title not imply some bias against jews?

Not a correct analogy because Woody does not have a book out on that subject that is also written from a Jewish point of view, thus you would be stating a very biased opinion.

[hgc]

Originally posted by dsm


What's your view on the person who shouts "fire" in a crowded theatre? If the Pope advocated unprotected sex to the Catholic masses, should he bear (some) responsibility for the subsequent increase in AIDS? I was referring to the power of the state to prosecute and imprison people for expressing their views, no matter how repulsive (that's my opinion about my country, not someone else's country).

Yes, the pope should bear some responsibility, but not officially speaking. Remember, il Papa is not personally spreading AIDS. The people who listen to and believe him are responsible for their gullibility.

[c0rbin]

Aren't we all just agreeing that doing something because the Bible or your preist says to is dumb and not skeptical?

Edited to add: Manifesto is a dork.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Seconded. Of course, I also support Cleopatra's right to expose it.

I think that some of you have a problematic view as to what freedom of speech is but we will have the opportunity to discuss about it in another thread.

In this thread I haven't expressed any opinion. I just quoted an article trying to use BBC's language.

Some people though have such a tempest in their heads that whatever the topic of a discussion might be they start talking about the Jews.

Get over it people. The world is not divided between the Jews and the others, stop comparing everything to the Jews.

[DanishDynamite]

The Queen:Some people though have such a tempest in their heads that whatever the topic of a discussion might be they start talking about the Jews.:i: :id:

;)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Oh you mean that! According to BBC's article the Muslim cleric and author of the book claims that he just interpreted passages from the Koran, he didn't invented his own tradition. I choose to believe what BBC says, it's so impartial!!! :)

Sorry, Cleopatra, but you have been caught out, time to admit it. He may claim to speak for the Muslim tradition, but that does not mean he does.

I am sure there are many Muslims who would agree with his point of view, but also many who would not. I think you would also find there are some xians who believe in 'disciplining' their wives.

[Cleopatra]

Danish Dynamite

Be kind enough to link a post of mine that is about the Jews in an irrelevant discussion!!

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Danish Dynamite

Be kind enough to link a post of mine that is about the Jews in an irrelevant discussion!! They abound, my Queen. To find them, though, may take a bit of clever searching. I'm on the job....

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Sorry, Cleopatra, but you have been caught out, time to admit it. He may claim to speak for the Muslim tradition, but that does not mean he does.

He is a muslim cleric Unique, he is not just anybody who claims to speak of this tradition. When it comes to Koran whose interpretations you'd take more seriously mine or a muslim cleric's.

I am sure there are many Muslims who would agree with his point of view, but also many who would not. I think you would also find there are some xians who believe in 'disciplining' their wives.
You are stating the obvious here. The fact that many people beat their wives doesn't mean that this muslim cleric didn't write a book interpreting--according to his claims--the Koran.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
They abound, my Queen. To find them, though, may take a bit of clever searching. I'm on the job....

Please do because I am interested in correcting myself :)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
He's saying you are tarring all Muslims with the same brush. All Jews bulldoze houses.

It's funny you'd use that example.

As you know, "A Unique Person" actually DID accuse me of bulldozing houses (or knowingly asisting in it). Not only was there no protest from you about this false accusation, but you were on his side.

Apparently, from your point of view, all jews DO bulldoze houses.

You implied you had some good knowledge of the workings of the bulldozers in the IDF. I asked you to expand on that knowledge, which you have refused to do.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by demon
FROM A DISTANCE: A deadly silence
By Naomi Ragen


(March 10) Many halachic authorities have actually condoned wife beating, spelling out conditions in which it is not only permissible, but a mitzva.

/snip/

Its cumulative evidence cries out for just change within the halachic framework that today gives abusive husbands almost absolute power over their wives.

http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2000/03/10/Columns/Columns.3835.html
__________________________________________________ ________________________

Kettles calling pots black comes to mind.

Nice to see Judaism and Islam finding common ground in condoning barbarism. :D

[Hutch]

.....but she does have an agenda and she can "spin" with the best of the Whirling Dervishes.

Note that her header begins with a question on beating your wife and then provides the answer without giving us a chance to read the article and draw our own conclusions. Also in her remarks prior to quoting the story, she mentions "...what racist comments he would have made against the MUSLIM TRADITION" (caps mine), allowing one to draw the inference thatall Muslims thought this way. Again, not in my mind proof of the bigotry as Mr. M claims, but the type of writing that a good political writer might use against their opponents....come to the US, Cleo, and you could easily get a job with the Republican or Democratic National Committees. ;)

Note that no one has replied to Demon's writing....if I wasn't so busy looking up feelthy pictures on Yahoo, I look into the Promise Keepers..not sure about wife beating, but it seems to this old mind they had a lot about wives being 'submissive' to their husbands.

All in all, a temptest in a teapot--all religions have their share of crackpots who interpert their particular Holy Book to meet their own personal view of how the world should be. They spin and Cleo spins back at them and soon we are all dizzy from doing all that spinning:confused:

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Please do because I am interested in correcting myself :) Here's my first hit. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870248590&highlight=jews#post1870248590)

It isn't one of the one's I remember, though. The clever searching continues....

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by DaChew
I think this highlights a broader issue in terms of what is acceptable in different cultures. The old testament of the Bible has some fairly unpleasant things to say about how the male head of the household should deal with different situations regarding his wife and children. There is absolutely no interpretation required either. This is pretty specific and ugly stuff.
If a fundamentalist Christian cleric wrote a book advocating the use of those techniques he'd be derided and condemned into almost complete obscurity even by most Christians. Our society would simply not tolerate those ideas. He could still publish and say whatever he wanted but it would be social death and probably the end of his career.

According to my wife, Dr. Arlan Horton, president and founder of Pensacola Christian College, gives sermons on how sometimes he has to spank his wife to punish her. This was 20 years ago and he is still there. Fundamental christians are just as hateful and narrowminded as those dessert religions.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Nikk


Nice to see Judaism and Islam finding common ground in condoning barbarism. :D


Really Nikk I didn't expect you to get in the logic of irrelevant comparisons.

First of all, dear demon found this article in a Israeli newspaper. He would have many difficulties to find a similar article in an Arabic newspaper.

Second, the issue of domestic violence is really serious.

What alarmed the Spanish authorities was the fact that a cleric wrote a book that was giving advices for the most efficient way to commit a crime.
edited to correct a linguistic vandalism....

[Skeptic]

As usual, "demon" doesn't get it.

1). Sure, the talmudic authorities and others, including Miamonedes, didn't consider wife beating a problem. There is only one problem... the Talmudic sages live ca. 300 AD, and Miamonedes ca. 1100 AD (don't remember exact dates); the latest authority who actually wrote, not actually in favor of wife-beating, but merely that it's better to endure it than to divorce, hardly a radical opibion until the 1950s even in the west, is the Hatam Sofer... 1762-1839.

Yes, indeed, real contemporaries here.

2). Of all the modern Rabbis involved here, not one of them advocated let alone wrote a book, advocated wife-beating. Clearly, the Rabbi who was asked the question and didn't want to talk about it was if anything embarrased about the halacha's stand in the matter!

3). At most, the jewish orthodox community performs a sin of ommission: because it is theoretically allowed by the halacha to beat one's wife, it is "covered up", or perhaps not prosecuted, in the orthodox community. This is something completely different than the Imam, who PUBLISHES A BOOK THAT PROMOTES wife beating, including instructions on HOW TO DO IT IN THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY.

No Rabbi quoted in this article, even if they don't consider wife-beating a problem themselves, which is a sin of ommission, would dream of writing such an "insturction manual" as this modern Imam. I'll bet that even the Talmudic sages from 1700 years ago weren't crude enough (by modern standards) to do that. You might as well look for a jewish book by rabbis about "how to perform kosher murder and not get caught".

4). Above all, look at what is going on to address the problem: with jewish wife-beating, orthodox jewish women fight against it and call to improve the situation. With muslim wife-beating, Imams write books to promote it. You can easily imagine what happens to islamic women who would try to fight against wife-beating.

See the difference, demon?

No, of course not...

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Hutch
.....but she does have an agenda and she can "spin" with the best of the Whirling Dervishes.

Note that her header begins with a question on beating your wife and then provides the answer without giving us a chance to read the article and draw our own conclusions. Also in her remarks prior to quoting the story, she mentions "...what racist comments he would have made against the MUSLIM TRADITION" (caps mine), allowing one to draw the inference thatall Muslims thought this way. Again, not in my mind proof of the bigotry as Mr. M claims, but the type of writing that a good political writer might use against their opponents....come to the US, Cleo, and you could easily get a job with the Republican or Democratic National Committees. ;)

Note that no one has replied to Demon's writing....if I wasn't so busy looking up feelthy pictures on Yahoo, I look into the Promise Keepers..not sure about wife beating, but it seems to this old mind they had a lot about wives being 'submissive' to their husbands.

All in all, a temptest in a teapot--all religions have their share of crackpots who interpert their particular Holy Book to meet their own personal view of how the world should be. They spin and Cleo spins back at them and soon we are all dizzy from doing all that spinning:confused:

Welcome to the forum Hutch.

I am not the issue here but a muslim cleric, an official authority to have an opinion about the muslim tradition that in the year 2003 AD wrote a book giving advices on how to beat your wife without leaving incriminating marks.

Do you question that? What is your opinion about that. Your vague references to other religions doesn't address the issue and doesn't constitute an opinion.

Danish Dynamite you picked the most relevant of all my posts ??? I am surprized!

[DanishDynamite]

Here's another one, Cleo. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870232782&highlight=jew%2A#post1870232782)

Once again though, this isn't one of the ones I remember. Searching is hard....

[Ed]

Originally posted by Dragonrock


According to my wife, Dr. Arlan Horton, president and founder of Pensacola Christian College, gives sermons on how sometimes he has to spank his wife to punish her. This was 20 years ago and he is still there. Fundamental christians are just as hateful and narrowminded as those dessert religions.

Umm. Am I the only one to draw a purient meaning from this?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Here's another one, Cleo. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870232782&highlight=jew%2A#post1870232782)

Once again though, this isn't one of the ones I remember. Searching is hard....

Errrr Danish Dynamite a big part of Chomsky's work is about Middle East, you know, it's an issue that he accepts a lot of criticism because he is Jewish and he exercises severe criticism on Israel, the way I do, of course I cannot be compared to him to the slightest :)

I am telling you DD you got involved in a very difficult task :)

Please let me remind you that you didn't post your opinion about the muslim cleric who wrote a book giving advices as to how to commit a crime.

When you finish with me you might want to post your opinion on that!

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
[B]

Errrr Danish Dynamite a big part of Chomsky's work is about Middle East, you know, it's an issue that he accepts a lot of criticism because he is Jewish and he exercises severe criticism on Israel, the way I do, of course I cannot be compared to him to the slightest :)

I am telling you DD you got involved in a very difficult task :)Cleo, my sweet, the task is only difficult because of my poor memory in regard to thread titles and the infinitely slow search function of JREF on my dial-up.
Please let me remind you that you didn't post your opinion about the muslim cleric who wrote a book giving advices as to how to commit a crime.

When you finish with me you might want to post your opinion on that! Eh? "Remind me"? I have no idea what you are talking about, my lovely.

[Edited to insert "in regard to thread titles"]

[epepke]

Originally posted by Grammatron
This is very interesting double standard that is going on here, there are almost countless Islamic groups that want to Destroy America, Israel and pretty much everyone who is not Muslim in this world and yet as soon as someone says something negative about Muslim they scream they are being oppressed. They all seem to be holding unlimited supply of victim cards that they pull whenever someone tries to criticize them but they are silent when someone on their "team" is doing the same thing with words or explosions.

:con2: In the mid-1980s, Muslims and Islam and Arabic things in general became trendy in the American left. Edward Said's Orientalism had something to do with it. Things got so silly in Tallahassee that the women who cheered Andrea Dworkin when she came to speak (I was there) started taking up belly dancing almost en masse, but renaming it as Ritual Feminist Dancing (I am not making this up.) I can remember one gushing to me about how the harem wasn't really bad for women at all; it was just womanspace. In any event, the camel got all the way into the tent of academia and intellectual thought, and there it remains today.

I've even noticed it on some of the left-leaning atheist boards I frequent. People can and do regularly say the most insulting things about Christians, Jews, and various others. But say something that even insinuates that Muslims might not be perfect etherial creatures who never go to the toilet and couldn't possibly ever do anything bad, and fifteen people will jump on you.

[Troll]

You know, I'm starting to get an ego and thinking I'm one of the very few here that actually thinks even while drunk.

This thread was not about racism. It was not about bigotry. It sure as hell wasn't about the jews but that took like 4 seconds to change.

One guy wants to be an idiot and one person called them on it and brought it to your limited attention span. Your, the collective group of idiots whose posts I've read.

Jesus freaking Cripes. Half of you braindead idiots feel Falwell speaks for all and try to get away with quoting him as some weird afront to all on the right. The other half feel that mentioning a mistake by someone like Clinton is an afront to all on the left and you gotta knock that down by hitting on the right.

One idiot made a comment. One poster made a thread about it. Several idiots turned it into a racism/jew thing.

If this is the think tank of skeptics, then feel free to ban me for calling peopel that are being idiots, idiots.

To me, the first post showed nothing more than an example of how an extremist works. the rest was about defending an extremist point of view or diverting from that post to point out other extremist views.

Either way, you've all gone so far off topic that you'd need a gps, Army Green Berets, Marine Corps Recon and Navy Seals to find your way halfway back to the freaking topic at hand.

I'm quite disgusted at what this has become. And yes, I'm the same about other posts that tend to slant the other way. This was just the last I could bear to see without voicing my opinion about the behavior and lack of substance by some.

A guy, who happens to be muslim wrote a book that tells how to beat a woman without leaving marks. That's the freaking topic. Don't divert, respond to that alone.

[Hutch]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Welcome to the forum Hutch.

Thank you. Been sticking a few comments in here and there.


I am not the issue here but a muslim cleric, an official authority to have an opinion about the muslim tradition that in the year 2003 AD wrote a book giving advices on how to beat your wife without leaving incriminating marks.

Dear lady, If you had presented a topic header saying "another woo-woo religious nut shows how to treat women" and let it go at that, I would, as my Dutch Uncle says, have no leg to stand on. But when you use the techniques my post notes (answering your own questions and speaking of "Muslim Tradition" as if this was the concensus of 1 billion people, then my dear, I must needs feel you have made yourself part of the issue.


Do you question that? What is your opinion about that. Your vague references to other religions doesn't address the issue and doesn't constitute an opinion.

My opinion is given in my original post. He is a crackpot. There are a lot of crackpots in a lot of religions. Why this particular crackpot was searched out and brought to our attention is of some interest.


Danish Dynamite you picked the most relevant of all my posts ??? I am surprized!

[epepke]

Originally posted by Skeptic
You might as well look for a jewish book by rabbis about "how to perform kosher murder and not get caught".

The mind scampers. How would this work? People are treyf. They don't have parted hooves, nor do they chew their cud. Except in certain parts of Kentucky and West Virginia, of course.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Cleo, my sweet, the task is only difficult because of my poor memory in regard to thread titles and the infinitely slow search function of JREF on my dial-up.

Come-on DD. You can accuse me of many things. I have even trolled but I think that I haven't posted about Jews in irrelevant discussion topics. If in my 4500 posts you will find a couple ( I doubt it but I am willing to fake this one in order not to upset you :p ) of irrelevant posts I don't think that you can accuse me of being obsessed, can you? :)

I have my obsessions there is no doubt about that but I try to demonstrate them on topic!

Eh? "Remind me"? I have no idea what you are talking about, my lovely.

[Edited to insert "in regard to thread titles"]

LOL. I am talking about this thread!!!

As Troll said I haven't posted any opinion in this thread and some people jumped into the thread starting making comparisons as if I have claimed that only muslims do extreme things.

I have clear opinions about certain issues but although I am Israeli I am more reasonable and moderate than other people in this forum.

I am not the one who wrote the book. The Muslim cleric did, so why don't we all discuss about him?

Now gentlemen you will allow me to withdraw to the inner chambers...It's very late down here.

Don't turn the thread into a worse mess please :)

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



Really Nikk I didn't expect you to get in the logic of irrelevant comparisons.

First of all, dear demon found this article in a Israeli newspaper. He would have many difficulties to find a similar article in an Arabic newspaper.

Second, the issue of domestic violence is really serious.

What alarmed the Spanish authorities was the fact that a cleric wrote a book that was giving advices for the most efficient way to commit a crime.
edited to correct a linguistic vandalism....

It is hardly irrelevant to compare how two related religions treat the same subject. I would however accept that over the centuries Judaism has developed an element of humanistic tolerance lacking in Islam. Personally I ascribe this to millennia of picking fights with major cultures and losing them rather than than an inherent virtue in the religion.

As regards the book, if the cleric was encouraging believers to ignore Spanish law and follow Koranic principles re domestic violence i.e. inciting violent crime then I have no real problem with the decision of the Spanish court. If the cleric was merely stating what he thought was the meaning of the Koran then surely the beliefs of both Jews and Christians are a problem as there is no reason to treat the original sacred work differently from commentaries. It would be interesting to know more and find out if the decision is coherent.

[Skeptic]

I've even noticed it on some of the left-leaning atheist boards I frequent. People can and do regularly say the most insulting things about Christians, Jews, and various others. But say something that even insinuates that Muslims might not be perfect etherial creatures who never go to the toilet and couldn't possibly ever do anything bad, and fifteen people will jump on you.

The expression "methinks the lady protest too much" applies here.

[Mycroft]

In his book, Mustafa wrote that in disciplining a disobedient wife: "The blows should be concentrated on the hands and feet using a rod that is thin and light so that it does not leave scars or bruises on the body."

Mustafa - imam at the mosque in the southern Spanish town of Fuengirola - said he was opposed to violence against women and had been simply interpreting the Koran.

The Spanish Court seems to assume that the only reason to advise concentrating the blows on the hands and feet while using a thin rod would be to avoid detection and prosecution, but it occures to me that in a culture where wife-beating is acceptable, doing that could be considered merciful. By limiting the blows to the extremeties, a beating is far less likely to be fatal, even if it's likely to be more painful. Avoiding permanent marks would limit the humiliation to just the beating while a scar on the face would be humiliating for the rest of the womans life.

Is the book really advising violence against women? Or is it a commentary on Islamic attitudes towards women?

I haven't read the book, but since the title is Women in Islam and the author says he's opposed to violence against women, I'd need to see the context of the statements befor I could determine if the book really was meant to teach violence against women.


One off topic comment: Troll, you're dead on with your post!:clap:

[demon]

Troll:
__________________________________________________ _______________________
"One idiot made a comment. One poster made a thread about it. Several idiots turned it into a racism/jew thing.

If this is the think tank of skeptics, then feel free to ban me for calling peopel that are being idiots, idiots.

To me, the first post showed nothing more than an example of how an extremist works. the rest was about defending an extremist point of view or diverting from that post to point out other extremist views."
__________________________________________________ _________________________

You might get away with that kind of crap if all of the posters here had joined the JREF forums ten minutes ago.
As it stands we didn`t and we all know Cleo`s agenda in bringing this up and we all know yours for supporting it.

"feel free to ban me for calling peopel that are being idiots, idiots." Brilliant irony.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by demon

You might get away with that kind of crap if all of the posters here had joined the JREF forums ten minutes ago.
As it stands we didn`t and we all know Cleo`s agenda in bringing this up and we all know yours for supporting it.

"feel free to ban me for calling peopel that are being idiots, idiots." Brilliant irony.

And what exactly is Cleo's agenda? Is it the fact that she is a woman and doesn't like people who write books about how to beat up women and get away with it? Are you in support of those types of books or is there some psychic work involved here that I was not blessed to sense.

[Cleopatra]

Hutch's remarks would have some substance if he managed to demonstrate that I posted a lie in this thread. A Muslim cleric represents the Muslim Tradition to his environment the same way clerics of every religion do. He was not another religious woo-woo, he was a muslim cleric why should I post the thread in a different manner?


You'd be justified demon to claim that I pull an agenda if my posts were promoting a certain opinion in this forum or if I tried to justify whatever the Israeli side in the Middle Eastern conflict does.

I don't do anything of the above. I quoted something that was published that I found interesting in relation to other discussions. I avoided to post my opinion and people came in this thread to remind me what the Talmud said 2000 years ago.

But now that I am thinking of it yes I do have an agenda. I lobby for the Geneva Initiative but I haven't observed a particular interest in this forum about the subject.

And one last thing. I come from a country that is implicated in this fierce conflict ( which is not our subject here ) and yet I have never asked for people to die, I have never said that Palestinians deserve what they get as other people in this forum have said about the Israelis and yet some of you dare to imply that I do not show the impartiality most of you who don't have any particular connection with Middle East fail to demonstrate.

IF I am not impartial I have a good reason, what's yours?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
What "repressors" mean? I checked this dictionary and the term was not found http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?searchword=repressor
Strike one up for Kilroy-Silk's command of the English language; I suspect he's confusing represser with oppressor. Anyway, from the OED: Repress:
1. subdue by force.
2. restrain, prevent, or inhibit. →suppress (a thought, feeling, or desire) in oneself so that it becomes or remains unconscious.

How Arab women are self-beating muslims? I don't understand what you mean.
It's a tortuous pun on the "self-hating liberal"/"self-hating Jew" style of epithet; Kilroy-Silk claims that all Arabs are women-repressors (sic), so as some Arabs are women, and in reference to your opening post about wife beating, that must make Arab women self-beating Muslims.

Somehow the humour gets lost when you start to analyse it...

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by demon You might get away with that kind of crap if all of the posters here had joined the JREF forums ten minutes ago.
As it stands we didn`t and we all know Cleo`s agenda in bringing this up and we all know yours for supporting it.

"feel free to ban me for calling peopel that are being idiots, idiots." Brilliant irony.

I guess since we're not going to discuss the topic, I'll comment on Demon's reading skills.

Troll didn't say anything in support of Cleopatra's opinion, which would be hard to do as Cleopatra didn't express much of an opinion except to remind us of a BBC broadcaster who's the subject of controversy right now. What he did do is point out how fast the thread went off topic as a handful of people decided to level charges of racism and divert the topic. If there is any evidence of an agenda here, that's it.

[karl]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Errrr Danish Dynamite a big part of Chomsky's work is about Middle East, you know, it's an issue that he accepts a lot of criticism because he is Jewish and he exercises severe criticism on Israel [...]

Cleo, if you want to play "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon", let me save you some time.

This is a JREF forum.
The JREF was founded by James Randi.
Randi's arch-nemesis is Uri Geller.
Geller is from Israel.
Therefore it is relevant to bring up Israel.

Now you have a rationalization you can use in every single thread. ;)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
A Muslim cleric wrote a book that gave advices to husbands on this subject and has been sentenced by a Spanish Court. How nice. I am so glad BBC has suspended Kilroy-Smith in he mean time. Can you imagine what racist comments he would made against the muslim tradition? Just in time!

Enjoy the article from BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3396597.stm



I'm not too sure what your point is. Are you saying that this helps provide evidence that Kilroy-Smith's comments weren't racist but just factual? (One of the reasons I'm not too sure is if that was your point surely this would then have been better placed in the Kilroy-Silk thread?)

Or was your point just to illustrate how sick and perverted one particular Muslim cleric is? If so thanks for the example – its another great example to use when people ask “What’s the harm of religion?”.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Darat


I'm not too sure what your point is. Are you saying that this helps provide evidence that Kilroy-Smith's comments weren't racist but just factual? (One of the reasons I'm not too sure is if that was your point surely this would then have been better placed in the Kilroy-Silk thread?)

Or was your point just to illustrate how sick and perverted one particular Muslim cleric is? If so thanks for the example – its another great example to use when people ask “What’s the harm of religion?”.
Just for the sake of being provocative, Cleopatra's use of the term "Muslim Tradition" would indicate she's talking about Islam as a whole, and therefore Kilroy-Silk's words are factual, even though he's already, um... clarified them.

All of this will come as a relief to my Muslim friend—look, to qualify as a Euro-lefty, you've got to have at least one Muslim friend; collecting the ethnic rainbow set promotes you to Grand Poobah Euro-lefty—who will be able to cast off her hair shirt, throw out that 2x4 and start using garden canes instead.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Mycroft
The Spanish Court seems to assume that the only reason to advise concentrating the blows on the hands and feet while using a thin rod would be to avoid detection and prosecution,
How do you arrive at this conclusion? That Mohamed Kamal Mustafa was found guilty of inciting violence against women would suggest that the Spanish court considers advising how to beat women to be inciting violence against women.
but it occures to me that in a culture where wife-beating is acceptable,
In Spain? Oh, hold on, from the article:
The BBC's Katya Adler in Madrid says domestic violence is an issue of growing public concern in Spain, where until just over 25 years ago it was not considered a criminal offence.
Sorry, my mistake!
doing that could be considered merciful. By limiting the blows to the extremeties, a beating is far less likely to be fatal, even if it's likely to be more painful. Avoiding permanent marks would limit the humiliation to just the beating while a scar on the face would be humiliating for the rest of the womans life.
A previous article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/849029.stm) reports that:
The husband's aim, he said, should be to cause psychological suffering and not to humiliate or physically abuse his wife.
I don't see how psychological suffering could be considered any more merciful, or less humiliating, than physical violence, especially as it's the threat of physical violence which is used to cause the psychological suffering. We're not looking for some kind of 12-step programme here for giving up domestic violence.

Is the book really advising violence against women? Or is it a commentary on Islamic attitudes towards women?

I haven't read the book, but since the title is Women in Islam and the author says he's opposed to violence against women, I'd need to see the context of the statements befor I could determine if the book really was meant to teach violence against women.
I haven't read the book either, but the article I've linked to suggests that it's less a commentary on, or critique of Islam, than a DIY manual:
Under the heading Abuse, the author discusses whether a husband has the right to beat his wife.

He recommends verbal correction followed by a period of sexual abstinence as the best punishment for a wife, but does not rule out a beating as long as it is kept within strict guidelines.
<gratuitous sarcasm>I'm opposed to violence against women as well; as long as they do as I say, there's no need for violence.
</gratuitous sarcasm>

[Troll]

Originally posted by demon
Troll:
__________________________________________________ __
You might get away with that kind of crap if all of the posters here had joined the JREF forums ten minutes ago.
As it stands we didn`t and we all know Cleo`s agenda in bringing this up and we all know yours for supporting it.

"feel free to ban me for calling peopel that are being idiots, idiots." Brilliant irony.

Oh great defense. State my agenda. I mean you have to be able to clarify and argue it right? surely you ain't making things up to sound good as you go along. So what's my agenda little man? you do have an answer, don't you? I mean, surely you couldn't have posted this claim because of your own agenda.

The freaking thread turned way off topic because someone (an idiot) tried to make it a jew thing. Plain and simple, no agenda required to notice it.

[Skeptic]

The Spanish Court seems to assume that the only reason to advise concentrating the blows on the hands and feet while using a thin rod would be to avoid detection and prosecution, but it occures to me that in a culture where wife-beating is acceptable, doing that could be considered merciful. By limiting the blows to the extremeties, a beating is far less likely to be fatal, even if it's likely to be more painful. Avoiding permanent marks would limit the humiliation to just the beating while a scar on the face would be humiliating for the rest of the womans life.

This occured to me as well--and, in fact, I'll bet it's probably true. However, "we are merciful--we only beat a woman in a way that will not disfigure her permenantly!" is a bit like "we only kill infidels who have long hair!".

Granted it's better than the alternative, but this is a "false dlilemma": the point is that beating women in ANY way is unacceptable, so that discussing how to do it "best"--even if "best" is to the "benefit" of the woman--is hardly legitimate.

[Q-Source]

I find quite difficult to sympathise with muslims wifes that accept being abused by their husbands because of religion. I cannot see those women as victims because they do believe that their men have the right to beat them.

They raise their children with the same close minded belief that a woman should be obedient and subjugated to men. So, why should I protest against those muslim traditions if they do not give a damn about it?????
why those women don't protest in their arab countries?
why a Spanish judge had to condemn a muslim in Spain?

Q-S

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Q-Source
I find quite difficult to sympathise with muslims wifes that accept being abused by their husbands because of religion. I cannot see those women as victims because they do believe that their men have the right to beat them.

They raise their children with the same close minded belief that a woman should be obedient and subjugated to men. So, why should I protest against those muslim traditions if they do not give a damn about it?????
why those women don't protest in their arab countries?
I'd suggest we have to tread very cautiously down this path, and be careful about assuming that all Muslim husbands oppress their wives, but mostly about awssuming that because Muslim women don't (appear to) protest their condition, that they deserve those conditions.

I think it's important to bear in mind that in states like Iran and Saudi Arabia, any kind of progressive protest is ruthlessly repressed. There are progressive campaigns, including emancipation for Muslim women, but as a matter of survival these have to be kept secret.

why a Spanish judge had to condemn a muslim in Spain?

Q-S
Because the book was published in Spain :)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Q-Source
I find quite difficult to sympathise with muslims wifes that accept being abused by their husbands because of religion. I cannot see those women as victims because they do believe that their men have the right to beat them.


Good, but harsh point.

They raise their children with the same close minded belief that a woman should be obedient and subjugated to men. So, why should I protest against those muslim traditions if they do not give a damn about it?????

How about a little something called equal rights? Women's rights? Free-thought? Ohh yeah I forgot, you apologize for Castro's murderous regime, those ideals are practically foreign to you.

why those women don't protest in their arab countries?

Because the have no rights, no voice and are oppressed.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by BillyTK

I'd suggest we have to tread very cautiously down this path, and be careful about assuming that all Muslim husbands oppress their wives,

Sorry, I should have said most of Muslims male oppress women. Not only physically but politically.

I cannot prove that at home all of them abuse their wifes, but I can say that their religious dogmas do not condemn beating women and children as a discipline measure.



but mostly about awssuming that because Muslim women don't (appear to) protest their condition, that they deserve those conditions.

I never mentioned the word "deserve", I said that I do not see these women as victims because they are responsible of what kind of husbands they have and what kind of treatment they want to receive from them. Those abusive men had mothers, and I am sure that those mothers were as subjugated as their wifes are. Who are mostly responsible of raising children in Muslim countries?.



I think it's important to bear in mind that in states like Iran and Saudi Arabia, any kind of progressive protest is ruthlessly repressed. There are progressive campaigns, including emancipation for Muslim women, but as a matter of survival these have to be kept secret.



I have had the chance to hear the opinion of Muslim women living in England. They do accept that their husbands should have the last word is the house, they do accept that they must preserve their oppresive traditions.

All the noise about muslims abusing their women usually comes from non-muslims who cannot stand this behaviour. The changes begin at home.

Q-S

[Skeptic]

Why those women don't protest in their arab countries?

Because they would be brutally murdered by their own male family members for "hurting the honor of the family", silly!

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Tony

How about a little something called equal rights? Women's rights? Free-thought? Ohh yeah I forgot, you apologize for Castro's murderous regime, those ideals are practically foreign to you.



I am a feminist and I fight for women's right to get equal opportunities. But as I said before, why am I going to defend someone who wants to preserve the Muslim traditions and religious dogma that consider acceptable to subjugate women?

Feminists cannot make their work, they can only support women who have decided to change the establishment. Muslim women are not ready to do this. They have been indoctrinated into not fighting for their rights.

Oh!, I forgot who you are, the person who usually says crap. :rolleyes:

Q-S

[demon]

Troll:
"So what's my agenda little man?"
Oooh, as a sceptic forum I hope no one takes Freud seriously anymore...just think what they would make of that! hahahaha

As to Cleo:
quote:
"And one last thing. I come from a country that is implicated in this fierce conflict ( which is not our subject here ) and yet I have never asked for people to die, I have never said that Palestinians deserve what they get as other people in this forum have said about the Israelis and yet some of you dare to imply that I do not show the impartiality most of you who don't have any particular connection with Middle East fail to demonstrate.

IF I am not impartial I have a good reason, what's yours?"

Oh stop it...I come from a country that is more involved than your own in this sorry saga and I`m personally involved too.
Remember the Balfour Declaration and the British advance in Eretz-Israel?
Britian`s selling of arms to Israel?
Stop treating us like fvcking idiots ok? Not everyone gets their info from "Honest Reporting".
We all know by now you are the Prima Donna of the Jews and the scourge of the evil Muslims, the very Maria Callas of the cause...are you sure you are a lawyer and not some karaoke Aida?
I`m only asking...I know it has been asked before.
What a crock of crocodiles.

http://www.vanunu.freeserve.co.uk/

Sceptic, you are still still suffering from Bulldozer fumes(you got a good case for compensation, there are plenty of guys here willing to say they affected you), poor old Mycroft though gets nothing, he is only guilty of passive smoking...poor guy.

[Flo]

Originally posted by Q-Source


I am a feminist and I fight for women's right to get equal opportunities. But as I said before, why am I going to defend someone who wants to preserve the Muslim traditions and religious dogma that consider acceptable to subjugate women?




By this argument, there was not reason for feminist association to fight for the protection and rights of any beaten christian women who wanted to preserve their traditions and religious dogma that considered acceptable to subjugate them. There is also no reason for feminists to keep fighting for Asian (Japanese and Chinese, for example) women, who accept discrimination as a cultural fact ...

I'm afraid that singling out muslims is hardly a sound argument.

[Troll]

Originally posted by demon
Troll:
"So what's my agenda little man?"
Oooh, as a sceptic forum I hope no one takes Freud seriously anymore...just think what they would make of that! hahahaha

As to Cleo:
quote:
"And one last thing. I come from a country that is implicated in this fierce conflict ( which is not our subject here ) and yet I have never asked for people to die, I have never said that Palestinians deserve what they get as other people in this forum have said about the Israelis and yet some of you dare to imply that I do not show the impartiality most of you who don't have any particular connection with Middle East fail to demonstrate.

IF I am not impartial I have a good reason, what's yours?"

Oh stop it...I come from a country that is more involved than your own in this sorry saga and I`m personally involved too.
Remember the Balfour Declaration and the British advance in Eretz-Israel?
Britian`s selling of arms to Israel?
Stop treating us like fvcking idiots ok? Not everyone gets their info from "Honest Reporting".
We all know by now you are the Prima Donna of the Jews and the scourge of the evil Muslims, the very Maria Callas of the cause...are you sure you are a lawyer and not some karaoke Aida?
I`m only asking...I know it has been asked before.
What a crock of crocodiles.

http://www.vanunu.freeserve.co.uk/

Sceptic, you are still still suffering from Bulldozer fumes(you got a good case for compensation, there are plenty of guys here willing to say they affected you), poor old Mycroft though gets nothing, he is only guilty of passive smoking...poor guy.

dude, what's my agenda? You claimed to know it so why avoid the question? And Freud was an idiot. He'd be claiming that your avoidance of the actual question about your claim was because of your masturbatory thoughts about your mom. That's why he's been tossed aside for more contemporary thinkers like Adler, and Horney (now what would you and Freud think of the last lady's name?)

Just answer the freaking question. You claimed I have an agenda and it's known and shown. So tell me what it is? Prove your claim. And by "little man" I merely mean small and tiny in stature as it pertains to your assertions here. If you're feeling otherwise inadequate, that is for you deal with alone, I'm not speaking on that subject.:p

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Sorry, I should have said most of Muslims male oppress women. Not only physically but politically.

I cannot prove that at home all of them abuse their wifes, but I can say that their religious dogmas do not condemn beating women and children as a discipline measure.
I agree about religious dogma, except to note I know of some Muslim women he would happily beat their husbands over the head with a copy of the Khoran if they tried anything like that, and also to note that, in the article Cleopatra linked to, two Muslim groups came forward to distance themselves from the author of the book in question.

I never mentioned the word "deserve", I said that I do not see these women as victims because they are responsible of what kind of husbands they have and what kind of treatment they want to receive from them. Those abusive men had mothers, and I am sure that those mothers were as subjugated as their wifes are. Who are mostly responsible of raising children in Muslim countries?.
Let me clarify, I'm not suggesting that you did claim that Muslim women deserve their status, but rather it's a conclusion that could be arrived at from departing from the position that these women (appear) to collaborate in their own oppression.

For instance, in the UK, whilst the protests of the first feminists led to political representation for women, there were just as many women, if not more, who were against female emancipation; when Elizabeth Blackwell became the first woman to study medicine, she receieved as much prejudice from women as she did from men. But neither of these instances should lead us to assume that women were anymore culpable for their lot than anyone else; it can be very difficult to overcome cultural morés, especially when they contain such "obvious truths" about "how things are".

I have had the chance to hear the opinion of Muslim women living in England. They do accept that their husbands should have the last word is the house, they do accept that they must preserve their oppresive traditions.

All the noise about muslims abusing their women usually comes from non-muslims who cannot stand this behaviour. The changes begin at home.

Q-S
In the UK we've also seen a resurgence of stricter and even fundamentalist adherence to Islam; it's almost as if the second and third generations of Muslims don't want the freedoms that their parents and grandparents enjoy; and the reasons for that are many and complex, but part of it is the feeling that their religion is under attack. As long as people feel defensive, they're not going to respond to criticisms, however well-meaning, from the people they're defending themselves against.

NB Sorry for the lecture! :)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Q-Source


I am a feminist and I fight for women's right to get equal opportunities. But as I said before, why am I going to defend someone who wants to preserve the Muslim traditions and religious dogma that consider acceptable to subjugate women?

Feminists cannot make their work, they can only support women who have decided to change the establishment. Muslim women are not ready to do this. They have been indoctrinated into not fighting for their rights.



Well, as a "feminist" isn’t it incumbent on you to speak out against and fight inferior cultures which oppressive and brutalize women?

Oh!, I forgot who you are, the person who usually says crap. :rolleyes:

Hmm, would a highly intelligent person like you give ear time and respond to a person who says crap?

[demon]

Troll:
"dude, what's my agenda? You claimed to know it so why avoid the question? And Freud was an idiot. He'd be claiming that your avoidance of the actual question about your claim was because of your masturbatory thoughts about your mom. That's why he's been tossed aside for more contemporary thinkers like Adler, and Horney (now what would you and Freud think of the last lady's name?)

Just answer the freaking question. You claimed I have an agenda and it's known and shown. So tell me what it is? Prove your claim. And by "little man" I merely mean small and tiny in stature as it pertains to your assertions here. If you're feeling otherwise inadequate, that is for you deal with alone, I'm not speaking on that subject.

So you did "o" Level Psychology...impressive.
OoohhGet her...oh sorry, I mean "him".
When you are worth a reply I`ll give you one.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Troll
[...]That's why he's been tossed aside for more contemporary thinkers like Adler, and Horney (now what would you and Freud think of the last lady's name?)[...]
<div id="off topic" class="point & laugh">Adler? Contemporary? Sorry, but haven't you even got to Watson and the Behaviorists yet?</div>

[Charles Livingston]

Originally posted by Hutch
.....Also in her remarks prior to quoting the story, she mentions "...what racist comments he would have made against the MUSLIM TRADITION" (caps mine), allowing one to draw the inference thatall Muslims thought this way.

I think some of you are misinterpreting what Cleo means here, and this quote above is only one example of this. Now, I could be wrong but to jump to Cleo's defense here:

What you said above is your interpretation. I think what Cleo meant was that based on this tv host guy's past comments, that HE would take this article as being representative of the muslim traditions, not that CLEO thinks that the story is representative of the muslim traditions. To me, this was obvious. I dont want to make any assumptions but i'm going to anyway and say that those that interpreted it the other way, as stated in the quote above, were doing so because it was Cleo who posted it. Shame on you.

[Charles Livingston]

Originally posted by Hutch
.....Also in her remarks prior to quoting the story, she mentions "...what racist comments he would have made against the MUSLIM TRADITION" (caps mine), allowing one to draw the inference thatall Muslims thought this way.

I think some of you are misinterpreting what Cleo means here, and this quote above is only one example of this. Now, I could be wrong but to jump to Cleo's defense here:

What you said above is your interpretation. I think what Cleo meant was that based on this tv host guy's past comments, that HE would take this article as being representative of the muslim traditions, not that CLEO thinks that the story is representative of the muslim traditions. To me, this was obvious. I dont want to make any assumptions but i'm going to anyway and say that those that interpreted it the other way, as stated in the quote above, were doing so because it was Cleo who posted it. Shame on you.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by demon
Oh stop it...I come from a country that is more involved than your own in this sorry saga and I`m personally involved too.
Remember the Balfour Declaration and the British advance in Eretz-Israel?
Britian`s selling of arms to Israel?
Stop treating us like fvcking idiots ok? Not everyone gets their info from "Honest Reporting".
We all know by now you are the Prima Donna of the Jews and the scourge of the evil Muslims, the very Maria Callas of the cause...are you sure you are a lawyer and not some karaoke Aida?
I`m only asking...I know it has been asked before.
What a crock of crocodiles.

http://www.vanunu.freeserve.co.uk/

Sceptic, you are still still suffering from Bulldozer fumes(you got a good case for compensation, there are plenty of guys here willing to say they affected you), poor old Mycroft though gets nothing, he is only guilty of passive smoking...poor guy.

I don't use the word F****** for every idiot I meet and certainly not for you demon.

I wasn't refering only to you, maybe you were the last I was refering to because you were introduced as a person of arab origin. I think that you have said that your uncle is a Palestinian and unique has said that you are of Palestinian origin.

But since you talk about the conflict only as a British person I suggest you shut up.

After all we the Jews of Europe won the war for you and this is the reason why you signed the Balfour declaration didn't you? .....:rolleyes:

Do you have anything to say about the topic? Do you have to link another article as the one you found in Jerusalem Post but from an Arab newspaper? If not do you have any explanation about that?

[Skeptic]

Sceptic, you are still still suffering from Bulldozer fumes

Typical "demon"-level "argument".

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Sceptic, you are still still suffering from Bulldozer fumes

Typical "demon"-level "argument".

Demon as described in his native tongue:
"Ebn el Metanaka "

Elif air ab dinich, Demon.

-z

[demon]

Demon as described in his native tongue:
"Ebn el Metanaka "

Elif air ab dinich, Demon.

Hey Rik!!!!!
I iuv ya. Happy New Year to you and Yours.
Unlike you I`m not familiar with kissing ass in any lingo.

[Troll]

Originally posted by BillyTK

<div id="off topic" class="point & laugh">Adler? Contemporary? Sorry, but haven't you even got to Watson and the Behaviorists yet?</div>

Been there and beyond, but demon mentioned what Freud would say, all the while never answering my question. I've noticed you made little to no attempt to answer either

[Troll]

Originally posted by demon
Troll:
"dude, what's my agenda? You claimed to know it so why avoid the question? And Freud was an idiot. He'd be claiming that your avoidance of the actual question about your claim was because of your masturbatory thoughts about your mom. That's why he's been tossed aside for more contemporary thinkers like Adler, and Horney (now what would you and Freud think of the last lady's name?)

Just answer the freaking question. You claimed I have an agenda and it's known and shown. So tell me what it is? Prove your claim. And by "little man" I merely mean small and tiny in stature as it pertains to your assertions here. If you're feeling otherwise inadequate, that is for you deal with alone, I'm not speaking on that subject.

So you did "o" Level Psychology...impressive.
OoohhGet her...oh sorry, I mean "him".
When you are worth a reply I`ll give you one.


Answer the question dude. What is my "agenda"? You made a claim, I asked about it. That's more than worthy of a reply. Now the question is can you answer it or were you just trying to show your ass?

[demon]

Troll, still stands:
"When you are worth a reply I`ll give you one. "
Carry on talking about asses...bet you are good at that.

[Troll]

Originally posted by demon
Troll, still stands:
"When you are worth a reply I`ll give you one. "
Carry on talking about asses...bet you are good at that.

so I can say you're a child molesting wife beater and when you ask for proof I can say "when you are worthy of a reply I'll give you one" and you'll be happy and content, right? Is that how it works on your home planet?

You made a bs claim and got squat to support it. That's all there is to it.

[demon]

"so I can say you're a child molesting wife beater and when you ask for proof I can say "when you are worthy of a reply I'll give you one" and you'll be and you'll be happy and content, right? Is that how it works on your home planet?"


Yep, go for it

[Troll]

Originally posted by demon
"so I can say you're a child molesting wife beater and when you ask for proof I can say "when you are worthy of a reply I'll give you one" and you'll be and you'll be happy and content, right? Is that how it works on your home planet?"


Yep, go for it

Nah. I won't go for it. I was just asking a native of Planet Anus about their customs. I'll stick with earth's methods of wanting to see facts in support of claims. Let me know when you relocate to here and adjust to our strange customs

[The Fool]

I just love these threads where all the bigots can get out and play together.

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool
I just love these threads where all the bigots can get out and play together.

Because without them, your life would be meaningless.

[Troll]

Originally posted by The Fool
I just love these threads where all the bigots can get out and play together.

Well since you're in the know, can you identify all the bigots in the thread? And if so, do it.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by BillyTK
How do you arrive at this conclusion? That Mohamed Kamal Mustafa was found guilty of inciting violence against women would suggest that the Spanish court considers advising how to beat women to be inciting violence against women.

It wasn’t so much a conclusion as it was speculation based on the information available. The article you quote provides additional information I wasn’t aware of.

Originally posted by BillyTK
In Spain? Oh, hold on, from the article:

The culture I was thinking of is Islamic culture from the time the Koran was written, and possibly parts of Islamic culture today. I’m sure there are Spaniards who beat their wives too, but the only indication of Spanish culture we have in this thread implies that they frown on such behavior, although your information indicates that’s a recent bit of progressiveness.

Originally posted by BillyTK
I don't see how psychological suffering could be considered any more merciful, or less humiliating, than physical violence, especially as it's the threat of physical violence which is used to cause the psychological suffering. We're not looking for some kind of 12-step programme here for giving up domestic violence.

The only distinction I can think of is that it’s over faster, or at least better hidden. Maybe.

To repeat your quote from your article:

He recommends verbal correction followed by a period of sexual abstinence as the best punishment for a wife, but does not rule out a beating as long as it is kept within strict guidelines.

So in essence, beating should not be the first thing you try, and when you do advance to beating, there should be limits on how bad it is. It seems my speculation was in part correct, the author does believe beating is acceptable, but recommends that it be done in ways that are not as bad as they could be.

Hopefully the judgment of the Spanish court will send a message that even “merciful” wife-beating is not acceptable.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by hgc


Yes, the pope should bear some responsibility, but not officially speaking. Remember, il Papa is not personally spreading AIDS. The people who listen to and believe him are responsible for their gullibility.

Big time clarification, gentlemen. The Pope also advocates saving sex for marriage, fidelity within marriage, and not to partake in homosexual activity. That seems like a pretty clear acquittal of the Pope's culpability on the AIDS issue.

If the Pope says, "condoms are bad, but casual sex is good," THEN the analogy would be proper. As it is, you're taking one piece of dogma out of context in a pretty serious way.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by BillyTK
[QUOTE]
Kilroy-Silk claims that all Arabs are women-repressors (sic), so as some Arabs are women, and in reference to your opening post about wife beating, that must make Arab women self-beating Muslims.


Unless they beat each other... maybe it's time the west introduced the concept of pudding wrestling to our mutual-flagellating female friends in the middle east?

[CapelDodger]

from Troll:
This thread was not about racism. It was not about bigotry. It sure as hell wasn't about the jews but that took like 4 seconds to
It is, of course, about sexism. Replace "Muslim cleric" with simply "cleric" and the point is obvious. Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu or what-all else (I've generally been too smashed when around Buddhists to really get the hang of that one), they all belittle women. "Dog Bites Man" is not a story. Try "scientist" instead of "cleric" and you've got "Man Bites Dog" - a real story.

from Nikk:
I would however accept that over the centuries Judaism has developed an element of humanistic tolerance lacking in Islam.
Only in the West, where it has existed within an increasingly humanistic society. Even Christians lost their powers of corporal punishment. There's a story from the days of the Raj, when the immolation of widows was banned. A delgation of Hindus told the Viceroy that this was a very important tradition. He replied (more or less) "In Britain we have a tradition - if you burn a woman to death you get hung. So build your pyre and we'll build a gallows next to it." The importance of the matter faded ...

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger


It is, of course, about sexism. Replace "Muslim cleric" with simply "cleric" and the point is obvious. Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu or what-all else (I've generally been too smashed when around Buddhists to really get the hang of that one), they all belittle women. "Dog Bites Man" is not a story. Try "scientist" instead of "cleric" and you've got "Man Bites Dog" - a real story.

Do you have to point to me any books published lately by any Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Zoroastrian etc cleric as the one the cleric in question published in the year 2003?

Are all clerics guilty by association? Clerics of every religion are not exactly the most progressive group in every society but being retarded is one thing and writing books as the one we are talking about is quite different.

Only in the West, where it has existed within an increasingly humanistic society. Even Christians lost their powers of corporal punishment. There's a story from the days of the Raj, when the immolation of widows was banned. A delgation of Hindus told the Viceroy that this was a very important tradition. He replied (more or less) "In Britain we have a tradition - if you burn a woman to death you get hung. So build your pyre and we'll build a gallows next to it." The importance of the matter faded ...

What do you mean? That in the East Jews( since Nikk's message was refering to the Jews) practice archaic rituals and which are those if I may ask?

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
Do you have to point to me any books published lately by any Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Zoroastrian etc cleric as the one the cleric in question published in the year 2003?

Are all clerics guilty by association? Clerics of every religion are not exactly the most progressive group in every society but being retarded is one thing and writing books as the one we are talking about is quite different.
I can't see why publishing a book is such an important matter. The ideas remain within the more fundamentalist manifestations of religion. I see no reason to believe that any of these religions would have dropped their burnings, stonings and lashings at any point if they hadn't been obliged to by the rule of (secular) law. And no reason they wouldn't pretty quickly take them up again if they had the chance. The chance happens to have come for Islam most recently, but let's wait and see what the next century brings in the US ...

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by BillyTK

...that must make Arab women self-beating Muslims.

And only some Taxqueños (http://www.singularjourney.com/semana_santa/semana_santa_in_taxco004.htm) too.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger

I can't see why publishing a book is such an important matter.
It's not so much the publishing of a book that makes it an important matter but the time this books is published. One should expect that in the year 2003 and in a western country such books wouldn't be published.
The ideas remain within the more fundamentalist manifestations of religion. I see no reason to believe that any of these religions would have dropped their burnings, stonings and lashings at any point if they hadn't been obliged to by the rule of (secular) law.
Basically I agree with you but there are a few things that pop-up to my mind while I am thinking about this.

The concept of Law was totally connected to the religious feeling in fact the idea of law and order srpung from religions and even in our days in legislations you can trace concepts that are strongly related to a morality that springs directly from religions.

What you call "secular law" isn't such a new concept. The West started talking about a non-religious legislation after the Enlightment but... enlightened minds though tried to deal with this notion very early.

If you read "Eumenides"--the third part of "Oresteia" that was written around 460 B.C ( I think) you will see that Aescylus clearly rejects the idea of the revenge that springs from the devine "Furies" and he brings on stage for the first time in the western culture the first court of law that its jury is comprised by mortals . In this very play Aeschylus expresses very revolutionnary ideas even for our days. On the hill of Athens that is called Areus Pagus, during the trial of Orestes, he seriously questions the idea of the vindictive deities and put the burden of Justice on the shoulders of the people.

So, my point is that the secularization of law isn't quite an invention of Modernity and it isn't necessarily placed on the opposite side of Religion.

And no reason they wouldn't pretty quickly take them up again if they had the chance.

I have said before that organized Religions are about power and the National states and nationalism is nothing but our new religions (from this point of view I admit Capel Dodger that you are the only real atheist I have met in my life since you oppose to the secularized religious feeling that is called nationalism... ).

So, what we witness in ourdays is not so much the revival of religions or their methods in administrating power but a struggle between nations and religions. The King wants to Return , Capel Dodger.:)

If western countries attempt to treat the raise of Islam with the way they'd treat the raise of Catholicism ( just an example), they will do a great mistake.

What Islam seems to be doing is to take advantage of certain privileges that exist in Western societies--in our example is the freedom to publish and circulate a book. Allow me to say in a rather simplistic way that Islam is trying to undermine "the enemy" from within! :)

And there is the dilema for a free thinker: From the one hand I do want every group to have the right to publish its opinions but on the other hand I do wish to keep my lifestyle that has nothing to do with Islamism. How western societies should react without losing an essential of their characteristics that is called freedom?

May I reply to that ? :)

The chance happens to have come for Islam most recently, but let's wait and see what the next century brings in the US ...

Yes but this is another story and you know why? Because USA is governed by organized groups--the idea of a society is totally different than ours. Let us not forget that the Founding Fathers however Europeans they were in their mentality they were Americans.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra If western countries attempt to treat the raise of Islam with the way they'd treat the raise of Catholicism ( just an example), they will do a great mistake.

What Islam seems to be doing is to take advantage of certain privileges that exist in Western societies--in our example is the freedom to publish and circulate a book. Allow me to say in a rather simplistic way that Islam is trying to undermine "the enemy" from within!


Not just Islam, I've also noticed that hate groups also have been phrasing their propaganda in terms that appeal to liberals, even though their views are anything but liberal.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Not just Islam, I've also noticed that hate groups also have been phrasing their propaganda in terms that appeal to liberals, even though their views are anything but liberal.


Yes I agree with you. This is an issue that Western societies must address as soon as possible: how to leave room for everybody without getting destroyed.

Mycroft, I want to ask you for some time now, is your avatar Lord Byron?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Yes I agree with you. This is an issue that Western societies must address as soon as possible: how to leave room for everybody without getting destroyed.

It is a fundamental flaw of democracy is that it can be voted away by undemocratic people, and a fundamental flaw of multi-culturalism that it doesn't permit criticism of cultures that reject multi-culturalism but do embrace discrimination of various types.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Mycroft, I want to ask you for some time now, is your avatar Lord Byron?

Yes, it is. My previous avatar was some random image pulled from Fox news chosen mostly for the fact that the image was exactly 100 by 100 pixels. I like this avatar much better. :)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Mycroft

It is a fundamental flaw of democracy is that it can be voted away by undemocratic people, and a fundamental flaw of multi-culturalism that it doesn't permit criticism of cultures that reject multi-culturalism but do embrace discrimination of various types.

And yet this needs to be addressed. From what I know the Strausseans that so many people criticize severely attempted to address exactly this issue, how to prevent Democracy's enemies to take advantage of its privileges. I am ranting now but I have followed a long discussion in Open Democracy's forum only to witness the left avoiding the subject and rumbling about the evil neo-cons. Oh well. I thought that only in Europe we had such phaenomena:endless ramblings I mean :)

Yes, it is. My previous avatar was some random image pulled from Fox news chosen mostly for the fact that the image was exactly 100 by 100 pixels. I like this avatar much better. :)

Lord Byron, one of the most beloved figures in Greece that with his poems tried to raise the sympathy in the West for the Greek War of Independance against the Ottoman Turks. He died in Greece actually and he has carved his name on the temple of Poseidon in Sounion, just 10 min away from the place I am typing right now.

Be careful Mycroft, you wouldn't want to be accused of hellenization :p ( I am teasing you).

Away with your fictions of flimsy romance,
Those tissues of falsehood which Folly has wove;
Give me the mild beam of the soul-breathing glance,
Or the rapture which dwells on the first kiss of love.

He was an expert in love poems. Strange for a Brit.

[charley_bigtime]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


He was an expert in love poems. Strange for a Brit.


Hey diddle diddle, the cat and the fiddle,
The cow jumped over the mink,
Oh cleopatra, you are so bloody lush,
You make my earlobes stink.


See, when it really matters - we can make you lot putty in our hands......

[Skeptic]

You got to love "the fool" here, though. His entire "argument" was nothing but a long string of ad hominem attacks on Cleo--namely, the usual leftist accusation of "racist!" (which mean, in English, roughly something like "I disagree with you on that").

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Be careful Mycroft, you wouldn't want to be accused of hellenization :p ( I am teasing you).

Away with your fictions of flimsy romance,
Those tissues of falsehood which Folly has wove;
Give me the mild beam of the soul-breathing glance,
Or the rapture which dwells on the first kiss of love.

He was an expert in love poems. Strange for a Brit.

Be carful Cleopatra, you're quoting love poetry at me and my wife is in the other room. :)

[Cleopatra]

Skeptic , charlie is new here, let's give him the benefit of the doubt :)

Mycroft, oh come-on " my wife is in the next room"? That's so typically American.

Queen Cleopatra doesn't recite poetry to men it's usually the vice-verca that happens.:cool:

I was introducing you to the art that is called British Love Poetry, it's mostly a version of twisted Art something like British Food :p

[joking of course because when it comes to love poetry it can be nothing but British.]

[charley_bigtime]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
charlie is new here,

I'll only tell you once...

;)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
You got to love "the fool" here, though. His entire "argument" was nothing but a long string of ad hominem attacks on Cleo--namely, the usual leftist accusation of "racist!" (which mean, in English, roughly something like "I disagree with you on that").
Actually all I do is point out the racism inherant in your usual rants about arabs and muslims.... You are just a post and run troll when you post your racist rants, you normally leave it to your band of cheerleaders to put forward the apologist spin.

The "ad hominems" you talk about, I admit that is true....when I accuse you of racism I am very specific about what you have said...That bag of wind cleopatra makes conclusions that i am "ok with racism" based on her "feelings" These feelings are based on Things I don't say...yep, you read it here first folks. You can be accused of things based on what you DON'T post...so take some advice from me, be careful what you DON'T say around the windbag. Anti-semitism is the only form of Racism she can see.
The reason our debate never left the gutter was because she persistantly refused to offer one single example to back up her slurs....I am always happy to quote what people have typed when I accuse them of racism...Cleo just has these "feelings".

[Mycroft]

Mycroft, oh come-on " my wife is in the next room"? That's so typically American.

You've been told this a lot by Americans?

Queen Cleopatra doesn't recite poetry to men it's usually the vice-verca that happens.:cool:

I think the word usually is the operative word in that sentence. I'm honored you made an exception in my case.

I was introducing you to the art that is called British Love Poetry, it's mostly a version of twisted Art something like British Food :p

Kindly remember which of us chose Byron for his avatar.

joking of course because when it comes to love poetry it can be nothing but British.

In centuries past, certainly, but something in your tone compels me to remind you of some American contributions to the field.

Flower of Love

THE perfume of your body dulls my sense.
I want nor wine nor weed; your breath alone
Suffices. In this moment rare and tense
I worship at your breast. The flower is blown,
The saffron petals tempt my amorous mouth,
The yellow heart is radiant now with dew
Soft-scented, redolent of my loved South;
O flower of love! I give myself to you.
Uncovered on your couch of figured green,
Here let us linger indivisible.
The portals of your sanctuary unseen
Receive my offering, yielding unto me.
Oh, with our love the night is warm and deep!
The air is sweet, my flower, and sweet the flute
Whose music lulls our burning brain to sleep,
While we lie loving, passionate and mute.

-Claude McKay

He may not be Byron, but you don’t have to go back two hundred years to find him either. :)

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
Actually all I do is point out the racism inherant in your usual rants about arabs and muslims....

Actually, all you do is derail all his threads so that nobody actually discusses anything he brings up. Personally, I think a football team named Intifada is something worth discussing while a rant about your interpretation of something he said months ago is not.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
What you call "secular law" isn't such a new concept. The West started talking about a non-religious legislation after the Enlightment but... enlightened minds though tried to deal with this notion very early.
We know this about the classical Greeks, of course. The Greek religion, as I understand it, had little to do with morality or the structure of a society (The Egyptian religion was the same, I think). Many Greek philosophers were attempting to define a working, just society on the basis of logic and reason, and that forms the basis of modern Western secular politics. It could also be argued that ideas such as the Mosaic Covenant derived from similar thinking but had superstition slapped on for the sake of the plebs.

So much philosophising is necessary because creating a free society is a very difficult task. "Society" and "freedom" are incompatible at a fundamental level. Restrictions are necessary, the problem is which ones. Some are obvious - wives should be protected from assault by their spouses - and others are a little more divisive - children should be protected from assault by their parents. The society that is formed must also be protected from subversion by an elite (something the US Constitution, for instance, takes great trouble over). None of this is simple, whereas most people are simple, so clearly universal suffrage is not compatible with a free and just society. Liberal democracy cannot be the way to go, and can't survive in the long term. When it's in the ascendant it allows its enemies - religious or secular - to survive, but when fascists or fanatics are on top they slaughter the liberals. A middle way has to be found, and I see that as being a Benevolent Dictatorship. Run by me.
The King wants to Return , Capel Dodger
Well, he'll find me waiting.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Actually, all you do is derail all his threads so that nobody actually discusses anything he brings up. Personally, I think a football team named Intifada is something worth discussing while a rant about your interpretation of something he said months ago is not.

There may be as many as 4 people left on these boards who don't yet know that Fool thinks that Skeptic is a racist and have not yet been exposed to Fool's arguments supporting that proposition, though.

Have you considered those people?

[DanishDynamite]

Cleo,

Just to finish off our little inter-thread discussion, here are the links I managed to find regarding your propensity to introduce Jews and/or Israel into an unrelated discussion:

Link 3 (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870258851&highlight=antisemitic#post1870258851)

Link 4 (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870274327&highlight=jewish#post1870274327)

I admit four threads aren't much. In fact, given your prodigious contributions to this board, it may be too little for me properly defend my point.

"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei, 1633 ;)

[DanishDynamite]

Oh, and in regard to the published book, I find it despicable fundamentalist crap.

I don't think it should be banned, though.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

There may be as many as 4 people left on these boards who don't yet know that Fool thinks that Skeptic is a racist and have not yet been exposed to Fool's arguments supporting that proposition, though.

Have you considered those people?

It's not just those four people, it's also the new people who sign on. We need to have a notice that's shown to every new member saying that Fool thinks Skeptic is a racist and why. After all, it wouldn't do to trust people to form their own opinions on that issue, they might disagree with Fool and become racists themselves.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CapelDodger So much philosophising is necessary because creating a free society is a very difficult task. "Society" and "freedom" are incompatible at a fundamental level. ...Liberal democracy cannot be the way to go, and can't survive in the long term. When it's in the ascendant it allows its enemies - religious or secular - to survive, but when fascists or fanatics are on top they slaughter the liberals. A middle way has to be found, and I see that as being a Benevolent Dictatorship. Run by me.


Your benevolent dictatorship aside, is there a form of government that is proof against idiocy in its leaders?

[charley_bigtime]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Flower of Love

THE perfume of your body dulls my sense.
I want nor wine nor weed; your breath alone
Suffices. In this moment rare and tense
I worship at your breast. The flower is blown,
The saffron petals tempt my amorous mouth,
The yellow heart is radiant now with dew
Soft-scented, redolent of my loved South;
O flower of love! I give myself to you.
Uncovered on your couch of figured green,
Here let us linger indivisible.
The portals of your sanctuary unseen
Receive my offering, yielding unto me.
Oh, with our love the night is warm and deep!
The air is sweet, my flower, and sweet the flute
Whose music lulls our burning brain to sleep,
While we lie loving, passionate and mute.

-Claude McKay

[/B]


I think my effort had a bit more "punch" actually.

[charley_bigtime]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


There may be as many as 4 people left on these boards who don't yet know that Fool thinks that Skeptic is a racist and have not yet been exposed to Fool's arguments supporting that proposition, though.




3

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by charley_bigtime

I think my effort had a bit more "punch" actually.

The part about stinking earlobes was especially vivid. :)

[charley_bigtime]

Er...Mr. Mycroft , Sir!

A question if you please.

When can I get one of them nifty little picture things next to my name and stuff.

I somehow feel a little naked.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mycroft


It's not just those four people, it's also the new people who sign on. We need to have a notice that's shown to every new member saying that Fool thinks Skeptic is a racist and why.

Which is why Fool manages to find some half-assed way of crowbarring it into EVERY SINGLE THREAD ON THE BOARD. Can't take any chances on some newbie being exposed to - GASP - independent thought that isn't in line with the Australian literati.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - Skeptic is biased, and often too emotional to let his intelligence keep the spotlight (which is a shame, since his posts are informative)... but he is not a racist, and more importantly, he is AWARE of and OPEN about his bias, which is more than I could say for certain PC nazis who "speak for a generation" when they're really just parroting their social sciences professors.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by charley_bigtime
Er...Mr. Mycroft , Sir!

A question if you please.

When can I get one of them nifty little picture things next to my name and stuff.

I somehow feel a little naked.

Always happy to help.

First, you need a picture you want as an avatar. It must not be more than 100 pixels tall or 100 pixels wide. If you don't have one in mind, Google image search can be very helpful. Use the advanced search feature, and select small size if you don't want to edit for size.

Second, across the top of the screen is a series of blue buttons. Click the one marked "User CP" and then click "edit options". At the very bottom of that page is where you add/change your avatar.

Hope that helps. If you get stuck, ask again.

[Darat]

Originally posted by charley_bigtime
Er...Mr. Mycroft , Sir!

A question if you please.

When can I get one of them nifty little picture things next to my name and stuff.

I somehow feel a little naked.

See http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9204 for comprehensive help.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko


Which is why Fool manages to find some half-assed way of crowbarring it into EVERY SINGLE THREAD ON THE BOARD. Can't take any chances on some newbie being exposed to - GASP - independent thought that isn't in line with the Australian literati.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - Skeptic is biased, and often too emotional to let his intelligence keep the spotlight (which is a shame, since his posts are informative)... but he is not a racist, and more importantly, he is AWARE of and OPEN about his bias, which is more than I could say for certain PC nazis who "speak for a generation" when they're really just parroting their social sciences professors.

Fool Australian Literati? Don't make me laugh. He must be at least a Ph D.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jocko


Which is why Fool manages to find some half-assed way of crowbarring it into EVERY SINGLE THREAD ON THE BOARD. Can't take any chances on some newbie being exposed to - GASP - independent thought that isn't in line with the Australian literati.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - Skeptic is biased, and often too emotional to let his intelligence keep the spotlight (which is a shame, since his posts are informative)... but he is not a racist, and more importantly, he is AWARE of and OPEN about his bias, which is more than I could say for certain PC nazis who "speak for a generation" when they're really just parroting their social sciences professors.

My main concern is that newbies will, like you, think nobody cares and conclude racism is acceptable on this forum.

Its good to see the cheersquad coming around, tell us, in what way do you think Skeptic is biased and what was it that caused you to form this conclusion?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Actually, all you do is derail all his threads so that nobody actually discusses anything he brings up. Personally, I think a football team named Intifada is something worth discussing while a rant about your interpretation of something he said months ago is not.
I'm quite happy to discuss football team names. Btw, thats in another thread. The reason he gets the reaction he does is because its the reaction he wants. Every statement he makes has the compulsory footnote slurring those he hates...have you not noticed this?

The reason I bring up his past statements is because he denies them, then makes them, then denies them, then makes them etc, etc, etc. If the material annoys you ask him to stop providing an endless supply of the stuff. He could at least make my task slightly difficult.

Anyway...I could not care less if people challenging racism annoys you...cry me a river.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by The Fool


My main concern is that newbies will, like you, think nobody cares and conclude racism is acceptable on this forum.

And my main concern is that newbies will come here and find independednt thought bowing to the right-thinking, right-speaking PC patrol of which you are a member. Tough tits, Fool, have you even noticed you haven't made a non-race related or non-defensive post in months? Ever wonder why everyone thinks you're a complete loop?

Its good to see the cheersquad coming around, tell us, in what way do you think Skeptic is biased and what was it that caused you to form this conclusion?

Ah, when the back's against the wall, your type always goes for the favorite weapon, the trite label. So much easier than thinking, eh, Fool?

Listen up, you would-be jackbooted thought cop - when Skeptic calls me on it, I'll provide examples. You'll notice I also mentioned that Skeptic is aware of his bias, so if I've read him correctly, he won't challenge it and you'll have to do your own reading for a change.

Besides, you still owe me examples of racist comments, so how about you cough up first, Fool?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
A middle way has to be found, and I see that as being a Benevolent Dictatorship. Run by me.


I am your supporter if you promise me that first we will hung the Eurocommunists and then the vegetarians, then the people of the Media. Also, you have to promise me that you will forbid tourists to come to Santorini et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...

Tell me when you will be ready and I will order the slaves to light the fires and erect the gallows.

BTW Capel Dodger, you didn't tell me how you would accomodate Islamists in the liberal democracies?

Danish Dynamite, from the four posts you linked I admit that I could have avoided the first one. Maybe you have this idea about me because usually I participate in discussions about this subject. I want to point to you a couple of things though, I rather want to rant right now.

I find it... strange( this is not the right word but I cannot find a better one right now) when from all the forum members you expect me to be unbiased towards the Middle Eastern issue or the Muslims or the Palestinians.

Do you think that it's easy not to let yourself be driven by passion? :) Do you think that it's easy for me to be a calm observant? Do you think that it's easy for me to listen to the news without reacting to what I am hearing? Do you expect me from all the people of the forum to show sympathy to Hamas' terrorists or to Yasser Arafat? Do you believe that I don't feel angry or that I don't have the right to feel angry and frustrated or don't I have the right even to be unreasonable some times?
Why do you expect me to be reasonable that I am an Israeli and the Australians of the forum have the right to BS the forum?

Why is it expected from me to listen to all the Israel bashing and from the moment I post a word I have an army of idiots start bashing me instead of my argument and trying to interpret what I wanted to say instead of reading what I am actually saying?

We discuss a specific topic and in the middle of the thread you raise an issue if I am obsessed or not and you perform a whole search to support that I am obsessed while you address the topic of the thread in one and half line. I am not against you now and of course I am not mad at you.You can not listen to my voice or see me but I am in a great mood that's why I write these things. Also, I have given up with some people here. There is no way for us ( me and them I mean) to discuss rationally. They behave as if they are Palestinian refugees and I have just demolished their house.


As to the topic.

It's a serious question whether in Western countries we must allow the publication of the books that advocate crimes. Because in the country this Muslim chose to publish his ideas, beating your wife is considered a crime.

[Flo]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

... in the country this Muslim chose to publish his ideas, beating your wife is considered a crime.


but is "enjoyed" on a rather wide scale by the Spaniards themselves, who are overjoyed by this occasion to blow the story out of proportion and to deflect the attention from the problem of domestic violence by joining the general anti-muslim bandwagon.

It's a serious question whether in Western countries we must allow the publication of the books that advocate crimes.

This is a general issue that you could have raised without mentionning any particular ethnic/cultural/religious group. That would have spared you most of the "unpleasant" personnal remarks you deplore ...

[DanishDynamite]

Cleo,

Firstly, let me say that my initial post with exploding ironymeters and the winking smilie was meant to be nothing more than a bit of friendly ribbing. Your subsequent responses seemed to indicate that you realized this.

Secondly, the reason for my big search of threads was due entirely to your (commendably skeptical) request for evidence.

Thirdly, I find that you are generally quite level-headed in regard to the issue of Israel/Palestine, especially given your background. No one can be (or even should be) completely free of bias when discussing the well-being of their homeland.

I will now let you have the last word in this matter (if you wish).

BTW, did the book which this thread is about actually advocate the commiting of crimes? Or did it, as the author claims, just interpret a holy book's verses?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Flo

This is a general issue that you could have raised without mentionning any particular ethnic/cultural/religious group. That would have spared you most of the "unpleasant" personnal remarks you deplore ...


The post of the individual above shows with the best possible way the prejudice and hatred some people feel. I shouldn't have mentioned the group that the cleric belonged to in order not to accept personal attacks, as if I am the one who wrote the book.

I will say it only once the way I told Fool. I won't reply to any of your posts in the future.

[Flo]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



The post of the individual above shows with the best possible way the prejudice and hatred some people feel. I shouldn't have mentioned the group that the cleric belonged to in order not to accept personal attacks, as if I am the one who wrote the book.

I will say it only once the way I told Fool. I won't reply to any of your posts in the future.


I hesitate between surprise and hilarity at how ridiculous your answer is ...

[TillEulenspiegel]

I believe in the free expression of ideas no matter how absurd or injurious to someone's ego. That view is tempered by the fact that different societies have different views of what is acceptable under the law and by common assent.

This medium of mediums tho, allows a far greater latitude of expression by peoples who would normally be persecuted or prosecuted for thier outlook. I believe in that freedom with a few reservations.. Outright criminal intent, abuse, child porn, threatening behavior. Most are fairly self evident and meet the definition of non-acceptable behavior universally ( at least in declaration ) . This is a public board owned privately so there are SOME standards of behavior . This is a board of "adults" who express themselves in stark terms sometimes, including racism and other less savory ways.

In my estimation the best disinfectant for this kind of abhorrent view is not censorship...but exposure. The most effective means of making people see a foolish idea as exactly that is the bright light of public exposure. When everyone SEES that the Emperor has no clothes , the lie dies. There are stupid people here who are racists and smart people who are racist, the former are easy to spot , the latter more subtle , but after reading one or two tracts you will divine the immuteable position of thier beliefs.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Flo
but is "enjoyed" on a rather wide scale by the Spaniards themselves, who are overjoyed by this occasion to blow the story out of proportion and to deflect the attention from the problem of domestic violence by joining the general anti-muslim bandwagon.

This is a general issue that you could have raised without mentionning any particular ethnic/cultural/religious group. That would have spared you most of the "unpleasant" personnal remarks you deplore ...

Help me understand something:

Why should Cleopatra avoid mentioning Muslims when talking about wife-abuse when you had no problem mentioning Spaniards?

[Flo]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Help me understand something:

Why should Cleopatra avoid mentioning Muslims when talking about wife-abuse when you had no problem mentioning Spaniards?


I don't have problems mentionning muslims per se (I'm not a great fan of islam as a basis for social law, to say the least). I see one when the mention is so transparently a way to put one's agenda forward and then to complain about how people are mean with poor innocent Cleo.

I've been reading a few European newspapers (French, Swiss, Spanish) the other day on the subject of this cleric and his book, and there were some statistics showing that the bulk of domestic violence in Spain is the fact of Spaniards and not Spanish muslims, who in their majority were condemning the cleric and his opinions. Most papers were pointing out the fact that this story was a godsend to those who try to deny the amplitude of the problem, since it was deflecting the attention towards the muslim community, a common theme nowaday.

Edited to add

I've no doubt that had the book been published in France or Switzerland, the attitude would have been the same, or even worse: point at "islam the religion that advocates beating women" and deny that the problem exists here.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
... you didn't tell me how you would accomodate Islamists in the liberal democracies?
I wouldn't. Remember, I'm not carrying a flag for liberal democracy. I don't think liberal democracy can work, and I would ban the book that prompted this thread. I would also have the state actively campaign against the attitudes that create such a book which, as Flo points out, are not confined to any one religion or culture.
I am your supporter if you promise me that first we will hung the Eurocommunists and then the vegetarians, then the people of the Media.
When I say "run by me" I mean I draw up the list. You're welcome to join the Cabinet, though, in a capacity to be decided. Attorney-General, perhaps?

[Cleopatra]

Danish Dynamite I know that your reference to my posts was without any malice that's why I discussed it with you. I wouldn't discuss it otherwise. I try to be level headed it's not easy but I try. You wouldn't want to be aroung when I see Arafat on TV though :p

Capel Dodger I don't want to be the Attorney General but the Minister of Culture I have so many pairs of fancy shoes, they must be of some use some day... The essence of the Propaganda hides in Arts and Culture. Allow me to serve your regime from this humble position....

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra Capel Dodger I don't want to be the Attorney General but the Minister of Culture I have so many pairs of fancy shoes, they must be of some use some day... The essence of the Propaganda hides in Arts and Culture. Allow me to serve your regime from this humble position....

I don't see why culture can't be influenced from the Attorney General's office, haven't you ever heard of fashion police? Having a keen eye for beauty and a law degree are both assets; why not combine them into one function?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Mycroft


I don't see why culture can't be influenced from the Attorney General's office, haven't you ever heard of fashion police? Having a keen eye for beauty and a law degree are both assets; why not combine them into one function?


LOL! To tell you the truth many times while walking on the steets of Athens I wish I was the chief of the Fashion Police. I'd be quite busy :D

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jocko


And my main concern is that newbies will come here and find independednt thought bowing to the right-thinking, right-speaking PC patrol of which you are a member. Tough tits, Fool, have you even noticed you haven't made a non-race related or non-defensive post in months? Ever wonder why everyone thinks you're a complete loop?



Lol...Everyone thinks I'm a complete loop...I'm sure there must be at least one person that thinks I'm half a loop. And yes, I have made a lot of posts about racism.....Have you heard of the chicken and the egg Jocko? What would need to be present for me to be able to critisize racist statements? I decided that the Racists had got to the stage where they felt that thier constant drivel was considered acceptable on this forum and did something about it. Waving the garbage back in the face of the racists and thier apologists and watching them try to rationalise the blatant statements...until even the most loyal apologists were forced to admit the stuff smells bad......Cry me a river if that annoyed you.

Ah, when the back's against the wall, your type always goes for the favorite weapon, the trite label. So much easier than thinking, eh, Fool?

My type? Do you mean young and handsome?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by The Fool
My type? Do you mean young and handsome?


No, I mean the clueless would-be nazi who "knows nothing." You have the perfect avatar for an aspiring thought-cop who can't even get his definitions straight. Your endless crying about "racism" has already been debunked in several other current threads, so I don't see the need to explain it to you again.

After all, repeating oneself ad nauseam is more your thing.

You may now carry on with your trite labels and pretend you've won an argument, but everyone north of the equator sees you for the PC slave you are.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jocko


No, I mean the clueless would-be nazi who "knows nothing." You have the perfect avatar for an aspiring thought-cop who can't even get his definitions straight. Your endless crying about "racism" has already been debunked in several other current threads, so I don't see the need to explain it to you again.

After all, repeating oneself ad nauseam is more your thing.

You may now carry on with your trite labels and pretend you've won an argument, but everyone north of the equator sees you for the PC slave you are.

Lol.... reduced to picking on my avatar now? given up on my arguments?

If you want to claim my arguments have been debunked, that is your business......Can I try it? ........here goes...... Jocko, your Arguments have been debunked in several other current threads.

That was fun...maybe I could say it twice and make it even more true?

[RPG Advocate]

A jury in Barcelona found Mustafa guilty of inciting violence against women, lawyer Jose Luis Bravo told reporters.

He was also fined [€]2,160 ($2,735).

In America, a book like that would be considered protected speech. It's disheartening to see that Spain sees fit to trample on the rights of dissenting voices. Of course, later in the article, it becomes clear what Spanish authorities are really up to here...

Spanish concerns

The BBC's Katya Adler in Madrid says domestic violence is an issue of growing public concern in Spain, where until just over 25 years ago it was not considered a criminal offence.

Women's groups across the country were celebrating the sentence, she added.

And here is the meat of the story, folks. Spain is trying to engineer large-scale social change through the blunt instrument of criminal prosecution for merely giving voice to a repugnant ideal. The correct way to fight repugnant speech is with more speech, and in this case, prosecute people who actually take the advice to heart and beat their wives. Prosecuting dissenters may actually engender solidarity among Spanish Muslim groups, since they may see themselves as unfairly under attack by the Spanish government, which may in turn lead to the aforementioned "good speech" being disregarded as a "tool of the establishment against oppressed Muslims".

On an unrelated note, I don't post here much, but I've been reading this board for over a year, and it is my subjective judgement that Skeptic is racist, also.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by The Fool


Lol.... reduced to picking on my avatar now? given up on my arguments?

If you want to claim my arguments have been debunked, that is your business......Can I try it? ........here goes...... Jocko, your Arguments have been debunked in several other current threads.

That was fun...maybe I could say it twice and make it even more true?

You phenomonenally dense twit. Nikk did you the favor, and you even responded to it:

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

A dictionary definition is merely opinion of course but the essence of that definition is that a genuine racist believes in genetic differences in human abilities between "races"........ whatever they are.

As even a rabid Palestinian apologist like me would not claim that the Palestinians are a race (and arguably not even an ethnic group) then, if the above definition is accepted, Skeptic's beliefs do not make him a racist.

All of which explains the very, very obvious that one cannot be racist when not discussing a race. You, in your infinite PC wisdom, have deigned to save us from ourselves by trying to explain what the word REALLY means.

Debunked. You're full of it. And you won't even need to repeat it a thousand times before it "becomes" true. What's next on your re-definition list? I'd check into "hypocrite," you goose-steppin' wannabe.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jocko


You phenomonenally dense twit. Nikk did you the favor, and you even responded to it:

[B]

All of which explains the very, very obvious that one cannot be racist when not discussing a race. You, in your infinite PC wisdom, have deigned to save us from ourselves by trying to explain what the word REALLY means.

Debunked. You're full of it. And you won't even need to repeat it a thousand times before it "becomes" true. What's next on your re-definition list? I'd check into "hypocrite," you goose-steppin' wannabe.
listen up doofus...read my reply to that statement or any other of my many replies to the "they are not a race" line, I'm not repeating it to you....

And can I at least have one of my quotes in your sig?...I feel so left out....

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by RPG Advocate
And here is the meat of the story, folks. Spain is trying to engineer large-scale social change through the blunt instrument of criminal prosecution for merely giving voice to a repugnant ideal. The correct way to fight repugnant speech is with more speech, and in this case, prosecute people who actually take the advice to heart and beat their wives.

Even in the United States the freedom of speech is not without limitations. Even if it were, does every other nation in the world have to do things the way we do?

[Flo]

Originally posted by RPG Advocate


In America, a book like that would be considered protected speech. It's disheartening to see that Spain sees fit to trample on the rights of dissenting voices.

The comparison is inadequate. Current American practice of free speech has been arrived at on the basis of a completely different history and circumstances. Spain's current situation is a vast improvement from what it was 30 years ago under Franco, for example. The rest of Europe is still somehow recovering from the sad episode of the antisemitic and nazi propaganda. It'll take time until some middle ground is reached between the American attitude ("everything can be said, anywhere, anytime, more speech is the remedy") and the European one ("Don't give [too much] freedom to the ennemies of freedom").

Furhermore, he hasn't been condemned for "dissenting", but for giving explicit "how to" advice, which is considered in most European countries as an incitation to commit a crime. As far as I know, much more inflammatory books justifying sharia in its most abhorrent aspects toward women (or towards Western institutions) are available all over Europe without their authors being prosecuted anywhere in Europe, as long as they remain strictly theoretical.


Prosecuting dissenters may actually engender solidarity among Spanish Muslim groups, since they may see themselves as unfairly under attack by the Spanish government, which may in turn lead to the aforementioned "good speech" being disregarded as a "tool of the establishment against oppressed Muslims".

It doesn't look to be the case, most muslims in Europe being quite opposed to the fundamentalists who are making most of the noise and pretend to speak for the majority.

As I wrote earlier, the main problem of this particular case is that it serves, to many groups and individuals with a more or less hidden agenda, as a nice way to deflect the attention from the widespread violence against women by trying to pretend it is becoming a "muslim" problem and less a Western one.

[charley_bigtime]

Mycroft, Darat....

Thanks.