Whats the point?

[billy the kid]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-08/ ... s/11483392

How dare anyone critize islam...what a disgrace....
The problem is Bridget Gabriel is correct.....one hundred percent correct....
BTW I always thought that university students made up their own minds about topics....
It seems that anything islamic cannot become a subject of any lecture.....
BUT doesnt a Sydney university offer a course which pushes for the recognition of sharia law,
polygamy and young marriage in Australia...
So let me get this straight....
We cant criticize islam as its islamophobic to the extent that the Melbourne lecturers are suspended
for doing so, yet Sydney Uni teaches a course which wants to recognize sharia law etc...
\Looks to me as though all our bureacrats are suffering from dhimmitude......
BUT thats pretty normal in Australia...
OUR ex PM said we all have to embrace islam....
I think that means pander to islam....kiss arse.....turn the other cheek.....etc etc....

[Nicole]

From your link Billy:

In the video, which has been widely shared online, Ms Gabriel claimed that intelligence services around the world estimated "radical" Muslims to be between 15 to 25 per cent.

"That leaves 75 per cent of them [Muslims] peaceful people," Ms Gabriel says in the video.

"But when you look at 15 to 25 per cent of the world Muslim population, you're looking at 180 million to 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western

This is correct.

[Black Orchid]

There are 1.8 billion muslims in the world and 25% of that is more than 400 million violent nutcases wanting to kill and maim us.

The smug little cow is afraid muslims are being "shut down" from having their views discussed but what is she doing?

The teachers have been suspended and we are footing the bill, all for saying "most muslims are peaceful". Well we know what the answer to that should be.

Australia was once the "lucky country". Certainly not anymore. We are an absolute joke.

[billy the kid]

https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news ... a-law.html

"Units on Islamic law and legal systems are a commonplace and legitimate part of any comparative legal systems curriculum and are designed to equip our students to function effectively in many international contexts and appreciate many of the different legal traditions that might be relevant as part of functioning in a global context."

The above is an extract from the reply from the University to the DT article.....

WHY then...if islamic law is taught.....why cant islam...the basis upon which islamic law is created....
..be criticized.....all sounds a bit hypocritical to me...
I know Im talking about two different universities...but Im sure islamic law would also be offered in the
Melbourne University where the lecturers were suspended for the content of their lecture being islamophobic..
In an interesting tangent...the Australian government is ensuring Australian universities comply with FITS amendments...

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... iversities

It seems that chinese "involvement" in our universities is under the spotlight........but islam is quite ok....
Oh...I forgot...we have to kiss islamic arse...as well as US arse.....but we dont kiss chinese arse....
I thought we kissed everyones arse.....

[billy the kid]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-11/ ... n/11498974

This is how islam treats women in Iran.....cant even go to a football match....

[billy the kid]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9898973/a ... ves-heads/

AND of course...theres this.....quick..where do I sign up...….

[Black Orchid]

[Bogan]

Billy the Kid wrote

I came onto this forum to enter into sensible debate about various issues, one of which was islam.
I see that, from the replies on this topic, that its a total waste of time debating islam, when no-one is prepared
to answer any simple questions about islam, mohammed or any other news worthy of discussion.
All Ive received from this forum from islamic apologists has been relativism which displays a total inability to
debate at any level.

As a long term debater, I know exactly what you mean and I think I may be able to give you some insights into the sorts of people who will oppose you on sites like this.

The worst offenders are those who have no intention of wanting to debate an issue because they know their own position is entirely ideological, and they know that their ideology will not stand the scrutiny of objective reasoning. Their tactics therefore are to pretend they want to debate while doing their utmost to stifle debate.

Their tactics are numerous and varied. One is to argue endlessly over definitions of specific words crucial to your arguments. An example would be if you began a topic like "are the sexes equal", and your opponent told you that you can not frame your debate about two sexes because as far as they,are concerned, there are 72 sexes. There is not much you can do about that except to insist on your opponent accepting the commonplace definitions that can be found in any dictionary. Of course, I have encountered opponents who then object to the definitions of certain words within the definition itself. When they get to that level of obstruction all you can do is to not respond them at all.

Another is the guy who when faced with a topic like "Are the sexes equal" refuses to submit any argument in favour of their contention, that sexes are equal. Instead, they simply imply their position. They attack your side of the argument while submitting nothing in the form of an argument supporting their implied position that the sexes are equal. This means that they can attack your logic but you can never attack theirs. The trick here is to keep them talking. Even though they refuse to give an argument themselves. It is impossible for them to attack your position without at least eventually revealing their own position and why they support it. Every time the dishonest bastard makes a statement while attacking you, which is a declaration of his or her position, write it down in a "clangers" file. You can even lead the fool into making these unconscious declarations of his own implied position, by framing your replies in such a way that you know he will have to respond by declaring a particular position that you can record.

After a while you will have enough quotes from the fool which reveals the position he wants to avoid defending.

Next come the cut and paste artists. They are too lazy to debate and they just throw cut and pastes at you instead of formulating a reasoned argument. The best way to deal with them is just to refuse to accept cut and paste's as an argument. If they wish to summarise the cut and paste in their own words, then fair enough. But by doing so they can not avoid taking responsibility for those words if you catch them out submitting logic that is obviously wrong. Another aspect of cut and paste artists, is that they do not want to summarise the article that they cut and paste for you to read, because they can barely understand them themselves.

Next come total trolls. These are people who get their rocks off opposing every single premise you submit, to the most ridiculous extent. They have no wish to debate at all they just like frustrating debaters because amuses their tiny minds, The Moderators usually sort these cretins out and they are usually banned very quickly.

Next come the sneery one liners. These people usually can't debate for nuts but they can always seize upon something you wrote to make a sneery reply. They equate to hecklers, and whereas some heckling can be considered witty and funny if done with some aplomb. everybody does it to some extent, but some hecklers never do anything except sneer from the sidelines. They are not taken seriously by anyone, and are not worth responding to at all.

Then there are the "debaters" who simply refuse to make the most obvious connection when you submit an argument that proves a point.

With the last one, my position is to recognise that the opposing person is entirely committed to stifling the debate by acting like an idiot. So, all you can do is to remember that there are probably people following the debate, and your opponents tactics will hardly impress any impartial observer who really does want to see who has the better argument, on a topic he or she is interested in. The more your opponent plays sillybuggers, the more he may think he is winning by frustrating you. But it would also convince an impartial observer that he or she really is an idiot.

[billy the kid]

Billy the Kid wrote

I came onto this forum to enter into sensible debate about various issues, one of which was islam.
I see that, from the replies on this topic, that its a total waste of time debating islam, when no-one is prepared
to answer any simple questions about islam, mohammed or any other news worthy of discussion.
All Ive received from this forum from islamic apologists has been relativism which displays a total inability to
debate at any level.

As a long term debater, I know exactly what you mean and I think I may be able to give you some insights into the sorts of people who will oppose you on sites like this.

The worst offenders are those who have no intention of wanting to debate an issue because they know their own position is entirely ideological, and they know that their ideology will not stand the scrutiny of objective reasoning. Their tactics therefore are to pretend they want to debate while doing their utmost to stifle debate.

Their tactics are numerous and varied. One is to argue endlessly over definitions of specific words crucial to your arguments. An example would be if you began a topic like "are the sexes equal", and your opponent told you that you can not frame your debate about two sexes because as far as they,are concerned, there are 72 sexes. There is not much you can do about that except to insist on your opponent accepting the commonplace definitions that can be found in any dictionary. Of course, I have encountered opponents who then object to the definitions of certain words within the definition itself. When they get to that level of obstruction all you can do is to not respond them at all.

Another is the guy who when faced with a topic like "Are the sexes equal" refuses to submit any argument in favour of their contention, that sexes are equal. Instead, they simply imply their position. They attack your side of the argument while submitting nothing in the form of an argument supporting their implied position that the sexes are equal. This means that they can attack your logic but you can never attack theirs. The trick here is to keep them talking. Even though they refuse to give an argument themselves. It is impossible for them to attack your position without at least eventually revealing their own position and why they support it. Every time the dishonest bastard makes a statement while attacking you, which is a declaration of his or her position, write it down in a "clangers" file. You can even lead the fool into making these unconscious declarations of his own implied position, by framing your replies in such a way that you know he will have to respond by declaring a particular position that you can record.

After a while you will have enough quotes from the fool which reveals the position he wants to avoid defending.

Next come the cut and paste artists. They are too lazy to debate and they just throw cut and pastes at you instead of formulating a reasoned argument. The best way to deal with them is just to refuse to accept cut and paste's as an argument. If they wish to summarise the cut and paste in their own words, then fair enough. But by doing so they can not avoid taking responsibility for those words if you catch them out submitting logic that is obviously wrong. Another aspect of cut and paste artists, is that they do not want to summarise the article that they cut and paste for you to read, because they can barely understand them themselves.

Next come total trolls. These are people who get their rocks off opposing every single premise you submit, to the most ridiculous extent. They have no wish to debate at all they just like frustrating debaters because amuses their tiny minds, The Moderators usually sort these cretins out and they are usually banned very quickly.

Next come the sneery one liners. These people usually can't debate for nuts but they can always seize upon something you wrote to make a sneery reply. They equate to hecklers, and whereas some heckling can be considered witty and funny if done with some aplomb. everybody does it to some extent, but some hecklers never do anything except sneer from the sidelines. They are not taken seriously by anyone, and are not worth responding to at all.

Then there are the "debaters" who simply refuse to make the most obvious connection when you submit an argument that proves a point.

With the last one, my position is to recognise that the opposing person is entirely committed to stifling the debate by acting like an idiot. So, all you can do is to remember that there are probably people following the debate, and your opponents tactics will hardly impress any impartial observer who really does want to see who has the better argument, on a topic he or she is interested in. The more your opponent plays sillybuggers, the more he may think he is winning by frustrating you. But it would also convince an impartial observer that he or she really is an idiot.

Many thanx for your response and also for your contributions to this forum overall.
Ufortunately, I havent got the time, nor the inclination to argue the toss with the resident
moron over islam or any other issue.
It means nought to me that he has his opinions and I have mine...never the twain shall meet...
I only hope that anyone who cares to read my posts on the subject of islam or any other topic for that matter,
will simply form their own opinions and draw their own conclusions.

[Bogan]

The way to box in Brian is to understand that his ideology is full of contradictions and double standards. He already knows that but he does not care, so it makes you wonder what his real agenda is?

If you have a shot at Muslims, Brian will pop up and say how wrong it is to judge individuals by their group associations. He has almost certainly thrown that one at you a dozen times already, right? It is important for you to cut and paste any declaration by Briney which states his position. So, when he makes a statement like that, you cut it out and paste it in a "clangers" file.

For example.

Brian Ross quotes

I don't try and judge people on their membership of a group.

I suggest that people should not be prejudged.

I suggest that people should not be judged by their group associations

OK, so Brian is declaring that individual people must not be prejudged by their group associations. But does Brian abide by his own moral boundary which he insists that his opponents must abide by? Of course not. Here is Brian doing what he insists is utterly wrong.

Brian Ross quotes

There were no good Nazis. Satisfied, John? Its a meaningless comment when it has no context. Of course there were Nazis of varying commitment to the cause, just as in any political movement. Those that moved on the fringes, were members of the Party for reasons of expediency, such as Werner von Braun and so on. Speer was the only member of the Nazi leadership to admit his guilt. Von Stauffenberg while not a member of the Party, did initially support Hitler's rise to power. However he then attempted to assassinate Hitler. So, it appears my comment that "as soon as someone became a "good Nazi", they ceased to be a Nazi." is perhaps correct - so literally, there could be by definition, no "good Nazis".

We have proof that there were no good Nazis

I have so many quotes from Brian where he prejudges and negatively stereotyped groups of people that he detests that I don't need any more. The two examples above were for Nazis. Now, remember that Brian claims that judging individuals (stereotyping) by their group associations' is wrong. But this is a rule he never applies to Nazis, the KKK, or any other group he does not like. This has been pointed out to him dozens of times, but he never acknowledges the clear contradiction or ever stops doing it himself. A few times he has come up with some lame excuse to try and excuse his exceptionalism to his own stated moral principle, but then he runs afoul of another one of his principles, his declared opposition to "exceptionalism."

Brian Ross quote

As usual, FE you appear to believe in US exceptionalism. The US can never be judged as harshly as it judges others. Sorry, I apply the same rules to all.

That has to take the cake when it comes to hypocrisy, because if there is one thing that characterises Brian's debating style, it is his declarations of moral principles he insists his opponents must abide by, which he has no intention of doing himself. In summary, Brian Ross is a thoroughly dishonest debater more concerned with stifling debate than engaging in debate. That is why you find it so frustrating to "debate" against him.

To summarise, if you do not have time to take the trouble to keep a "clangers" file on Brian then you may as well give up and not even try to "debate" against him. But if you do have the time and inclination to beat him, then keeping a clangers file is absolutely necessary so that you can keep track of his hypocrisy.

The things to look for is any statement by Brian which declares his position.

For example Brian Ross quote

Racism, no matter what its motivation or reason, still stinks like the turd it is, Herbie. No matter how you rationalise it, the end result is that people are judged not for who they are or what they can do but rather by the colour of their skin or the shape of their eyes or their nose or some other superficial matter. It was the ultimate justification for imperialism, the Holocaust and numerous attempts and even some successes at genocide. You should hang your head in shame and stand in the corner, Herbie, attempting to justify the unjustifiable.

OK, so Brian has declared that he is against racism. So how does he justify his own racist positions?

So? Are you claiming that Australians weren't Xenophobic, John?

You put three Jews in a room and you'll get four opinions. You put three Muslims in a room and you'll have a schism followed by a civil war. You put three Christians in a room and they'll be playing "pass the parcel" faster than you can blink an eye.

I don't detest Americans. In fact I quite like them. They provide me with endless hours of amusement and I actually believe they have considerable potential, once they shed their arrogance to be sensible people.

Many Americans have insufferable hubris and almost completely lack empathy for any point of view other than their own. Their ignorance about any other society is another annoying feature. Their belief in exceptionalism of course is rather annoying as well. Oh, and their propensity for electing fools to lead them but perhaps that's a symptom of the previous points?

Ever been to India, John-boy (to continue in your vein of southern redneckism)?

OK, so look for racist statements from Brian Ross and you just knocked him right off his virtue signalling, moral posturing, anti racist position. Same with any statements by Brian stereotyping anybody. This may be difficult for you to do, because people think by stereotyping concepts so it is quite natural to think that way. So if Brian stereotypes anybody you might not even recognise it because it is completely natural and everybody does it. But Brian has declared stereotyping wrong, so when he does it, recognise it for what it is. Then cut and paste it and chuck it back in his face the next time he gets up on his soapbox and tells his opponents how stereotyping is wrong.

Examples Brian Ross quotes

Erik so you're obviously one of the so called "sporting shooters" and demonstrating the typical hot headedness.

All boys are little ****s, John,

Ignorance is always attractive to Conservatives because it allows them to maintain their rule over society.

By stereotyping, Brian is breaking another of his self declared moral principles, that of judging individuals by their group associations.

if you take the time to do this, Brian can never intimidate or frustrate you again. It becomes quite fun to show what a hypocrite he is, and it sticks a pin in his overly inflated ego.