Man deported for blasphemy

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

ok so we know blasphemy laws are not uncommon but this one has hit the web so its more public. Hamza Kashgari, a journalist is being deported from malysia to saudi arabia for comments he made on twitter about the prophet muhammad. various groups have called for his execution, and it is a real possibility, either way he is very likely to face criminal charges.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/world/asia/malaysia-detains-saudi-over-twitter-posts-on-prophet.html

so, apostasy for blasphemy, a great religion of peace, or so we are told. i would love to see the islam defenders have a go at this one.

An Australian man was recently whipped a few hundred times in Saudi Arabia for blasphemy while on a pilgrimage there. This is why free speech must be protected because dangerous precedents could be set by even the littlest changes. Though this is the worst case scenario that could happen in a country, all because a few people got offended by a tweet from a person on the other side of the world. It's madness!

Also, inb4 "Offended" video.

Considering some people have been targeted to be killed for similar things (one British author basically hasn't left his well guarded house for DECADES), this is hardly surprising.

reonhato:
i would love to see the islam defenders have a go at this one.

Who in their right mind would defend a blasphemy law?

reonhato:

so, apostasy for blasphemy, a great religion of peace, or so we are told. i would love to see the islam defenders have a go at this one.

So your entire thread is an invitation to start a flame war over Islam?

I feel for the bugger but that's what happens in countries that don't try to keep religion and law separated.

Things like this make me wonder - were it not for the fact that the middle east is sitting on incredibly large oil reserves, would any modern country even want to deal with their bullshit?

reonhato:

so, apostasy for blasphemy, a great religion of peace, or so we are told. i would love to see the islam defenders have a go at this one.

Ah, so this is a hate thread, got it! Good going painting all of a religion with the brush of one country's beliefs!

My impression of Saudi Arabia's leadership is that they never really mind these flareups of fanaticism as long as they continue to distract people from the problems with their leadership. Rather the same way the Religious Right candidates in the US will throw out gaybashing comments to gin up rage from their base to distract people from their policies, which will make their already economically difficult lives that much more untenable.

Kendarik:

reonhato:

so, apostasy for blasphemy, a great religion of peace, or so we are told. i would love to see the islam defenders have a go at this one.

Ah, so this is a hate thread, got it! Good going painting all of a religion with the brush of one country's beliefs!

ignoring that blasphemy laws are not uncommon in muslim countries, with death a very publicised punishment of apostasy that cannot be denied is a teaching of islam. i do not hate islamic people, i dislike religion fullstop, but what i do hate the most out of all of them are those who feel the need to defend islam when they are not a follower of said religion. those who defend their own religion have the disadvantage of having been brainwashed, they can claim ignorance, but those who have not and have knowledge of islam but still defend it cannot claim ignorance.

The Dutch minister of foreign affairs and the human rights ambassador we have are lobbying for Kashgari, but I doubt it will help.

Kendarik:
Ah, so this is a hate thread, got it! Good going painting all of a religion with the brush of one country's beliefs!

So pointing out that religious apologists don't touch this even though it's an inevitable consequence of their beliefs makes someone a hater? Strange logic you have there.

It's just confronting those people with what they want, to combat the mechanism that people first support a religion and mixing of church and state, and then pretend to be stupid and not know the consequences of that support.

It's the same reason why I ask everybody who's against abortion if they think rape victims are dirty sluts who needs to be punished; their point of view says yes, but they never dare admit it because being anti-abortion is immoral, and they'd rather pass judgement about others without seeing the consequences of their own actions.

reonhato:

Kendarik:

reonhato:

so, apostasy for blasphemy, a great religion of peace, or so we are told. i would love to see the islam defenders have a go at this one.

Ah, so this is a hate thread, got it! Good going painting all of a religion with the brush of one country's beliefs!

ignoring that blasphemy laws are not uncommon in muslim countries, with death a very publicised punishment of apostasy that cannot be denied is a teaching of islam. i do not hate islamic people, i dislike religion fullstop, but what i do hate the most out of all of them are those who feel the need to defend islam when they are not a follower of said religion. those who defend their own religion have the disadvantage of having been brainwashed, they can claim ignorance, but those who have not and have knowledge of islam but still defend it cannot claim ignorance.

Blasphemy laws have been common in many countries from many religions over time. Similar laws have protected against speech against the government in many secular countries. While I don't support any of these laws, its a human issue, not a muslim one. Humans can be control freaks.

And what I hate are bigots.

Blablahb:
The Dutch minister of foreign affairs and the human rights ambassador we have are lobbying for Kashgari, but I doubt it will help.

Kendarik:
Ah, so this is a hate thread, got it! Good going painting all of a religion with the brush of one country's beliefs!

So pointing out that religious apologists don't touch this even though it's an inevitable consequence of their beliefs makes someone a hater? Strange logic you have there.

No, I just expect someone to address the issue, not apply one situation to a broader group to try and self justify their own hatred (which the OP does admit to have above).

If the question was, "should the Saudi government be allowed to impose their speech laws on people outside their country" that would have been a very valid question and I would be on the OP's side. (And would also be applicable to other countries, like the US at times)

Instead the sentence I quoted and his statements later in this thread pretty clearly was an attack on religion when religion didn't do it, a totalitarian monarchy with its own flavor of Islam did.

Kendarik:
No, I just expect someone to address the issue, not apply one situation to a broader group to try and self justify their own hatred

Own hatred is your personal assumption mate. It says more about you than about someone else. And applying it to a wider group is justified, because this is a consequence of their beliefs. Much like racist ideas lead to racist violence.

Can't first preach that all other races are inferior and then go "Ooh, racist violence? Who could've thought that? I never knew that would happen. Ich habe es nicht gewusst". Much in the same way you can't first promote a religion, want to have it enforced on everyone and then deny all responsibility for that religion being enforced on everyone.

Trying to paint adressing that hypocrisy as an attack on people is just a cheap attempt to censor religious critics. Ironically enough, the Saudi clerics who are now chopping off people's heads once started like you're arguing here: that religion should be above criticism and doesn't have to answer for it's actions. Silencing the critics and creating a double standard for religion is the first stage of becoming a theocracy.

Blablahb:

Kendarik:
No, I just expect someone to address the issue, not apply one situation to a broader group to try and self justify their own hatred

Own hatred is your personal assumption mate.

Nope, not my assumption. He actually says in a post in this thread that he hates religion in general and that one in particular. Nice try though.

And applying it to a wider group is justified, because this is a consequence of their beliefs. Much like racist ideas lead to racist violence.

And what he is suggesting is a bigoted idea. It's much the same as "the [black dominated gangname] in <city> just murdered 10 people. So much for black people being civilized!"

Can't first preach that all other races are inferior and then go "Ooh, racist violence?

What racist violence are you referring to here?

Ironically enough, the Saudi clerics who are now chopping off people's heads once started like you're arguing here: that religion should be above criticism and doesn't have to answer for it's actions.

I didn't say that at all.

I can only assume you are deliberately cherry picking quotes that support your preconceived notions and ignoring the facts since I already addressed both of these issues in the part of my previous reply that you decided not to quote (or not to read). You, like the OP, seem to start with a conclusion and then looking for any supporting scrap you might call a fact.

Knight Templar:
Who in their right mind would defend a blasphemy law?

A lot of religious people who aren't in their right mind. Sort of a modern day Dark Ages this.

Kendarik:
ope, not my assumption. He actually says in a post in this thread that he hates religion in general and that one in particular. Nice try though.

Okay, and now the bit where you prove that saying that being part of and promoting creates religious inspired crimes is something that has nothing to do with fact? That's essential proof for what you're saying, because otherwise reonhato is merely stating facts that some find inconvenient.

Kendarik:
And what he is suggesting is a bigoted idea. It's much the same as "the [black dominated gangname] in <city> just murdered 10 people. So much for black people being civilized!"

Bad comparison. There's no types of crimes specific to and caused by race. There are types of criminal and anti-social behaviour caused by religiousness. Besides, religion is a choice, race is not.

Kendarik:
What racist violence are you referring to here?

Anything from a race-inspirec pub brawl to concious planned racist murders.

Much like people preaching racism helps that occur, people spreading religion help stuff like is going to befall Kashgari to occur. Noting that relation between cause and effect is not hate, and trying to present it as that is an attempt to silence religious critics.

Blablahb:

Kendarik:
ope, not my assumption. He actually says in a post in this thread that he hates religion in general and that one in particular. Nice try though.

Okay, and now the bit where you prove that saying that being part of and promoting creates religious inspired crimes is something that has nothing to do with fact? That's essential proof for what you're saying, because otherwise reonhato is merely stating facts that some find inconvenient.

I've read that three times and I can't figure out what you are trying to say.

Kendarik:
And what he is suggesting is a bigoted idea. It's much the same as "the [black dominated gangname] in <city> just murdered 10 people. So much for black people being civilized!"

Bad comparison. There's no types of crimes specific to and caused by race. There are types of criminal and anti-social behaviour caused by religiousness. Besides, religion is a choice, race is not.

And has already been demonstrated, speech restrictions against the powers-that-be are also not specific to religion. Thus, the comparison is dead one. I'm sorry that I'm "merely stating facts that [you] find inconvenient".

Kendarik:
What racist violence are you referring to here?

Anything from a race-inspirec pub brawl to concious planned racist murders.

Ah, I understand, so you are talking about stuff that has nothing to do with this case. As I said, just promoting your preexisting feelings.

Much like people preaching racism helps that occur, people spreading religion help stuff like is going to befall Kashgari to occur. Noting that relation between cause and effect is not hate, and trying to present it as that is an attempt to silence religious critics

More bigoted statements against religion in general, got it.

Kendarik:
I've read that three times and I can't figure out what you are trying to say.

1 - Religion promotes certain forms of criminal and anti-social behaviour.
2 - Reonhato affirmed something like this.
3 - You said not true.

Now you try prove 1 is not true, or 3 fails. Considering there's official laws regarding homophobia and such of which the existance is very hard to deny, and the whole topic was about an example of 1, I wish you good luck.

Kendarik:
More bigoted statements against religion in general, got it.

Look, if you don't want to acknowledge the reality, that's alright. Just don't call other people names and belittle them just because they dare criticise your religion.

Blablahb:

Kendarik:
I've read that three times and I can't figure out what you are trying to say.

1 - Religion promotes certain forms of criminal and anti-social behaviour.
2 - Reonhato affirmed something like this.
3 - You said not true.

Now you try prove 1 is not true, or 3 fails.

Considering it is only his feeling that is true then let him prove it.

Considering there's official laws regarding homophobia and such of which the existance is very hard to deny, and the whole topic was about an example of 1, I wish you good luck.

All of religion is not homophobic. Even if they are, that doesn't mean they promote criminal and anti-social behavior.

Kendarik:
More bigoted statements against religion in general, got it.

Look, if you don't want to acknowledge the reality, that's alright. Just don't call other people names and belittle them just because they dare criticise your religion.

[/quote]

No one in this thread had criticized my religion. See how you once again fall back to your preconceived notions?

And yes, the Klan also is big on accusing people of ignoring reality when they give out their hate statements about blacks, Jews, Catholics, etc, so I'm not real impressed with your argument.

reonhato:
so, apostasy for blasphemy, a great religion of peace, or so we are told. i would love to see the islam defenders have a go at this one.

*sigh* Oh here we go again. Look, there's a big goddamn difference between defending Islam and defending Muslims. Does this still need explaining?

reonhato:
ignoring that blasphemy laws are not uncommon in muslim countries, with death a very publicised punishment of apostasy that cannot be denied is a teaching of islam.

This is a very misleadingly written comment. While it can't be denied that some Muslims do claim the punishment for apostasy is death, it is clearly not a universal understanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy#Islam

wikipedia:
According to some scholars, if a Muslim consciously and without coercion declares their rejection of Islam and does not change their mind after the time allocated by a judge for research, then the penalty for male apostates is death, and for women life imprisonment. However, this view has been rejected by modern Muslim scholars (e.g. Hasan al-Turabi), who argue that the hadith in question should be taken to apply only to political betrayal of the Muslim community, rather than to apostasy in general.[42] These scholars regard apostasy as a serious crime, but argue for the freedom to convert to and from Islam without legal penalty, and consider the aforementioned Hadith quote as insufficient justification for capital punishment. Today apostasy is illegal in most Muslim countries, and subject in some to the death penalty. Executions for apostasy are rare, but allowed in some Muslim countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. Apostasy is legal in secular Muslim countries such as Turkey.[43]

Your post makes it appear that the death penalty for apostasy is a universal Muslim belief, which it clearly is not. It's posts like yours that have convinced me that whenever someone on this board uses the words "It can't be denied..." in reference to religion 9 times out of 10 what they mean is, "It can be denied and I haven't done my homework so I'd prefer if you did not deny it, please."

reonhato:
ok so we know blasphemy laws are not uncommon but this one has hit the web so its more public. Hamza Kashgari, a journalist is being deported from malysia to saudi arabia for comments he made on twitter about the prophet muhammad. various groups have called for his execution, and it is a real possibility, either way he is very likely to face criminal charges.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/world/asia/malaysia-detains-saudi-over-twitter-posts-on-prophet.html

so, apostasy for blasphemy, a great religion of peace, or so we are told. i would love to see the islam defenders have a go at this one.

Doesn't surprise me that this happened, I would expect the same thing to happen in Indonesia because between Indonesia and Malaysia, they are a very religious society.

Katatori-kun:

reonhato:
ignoring that blasphemy laws are not uncommon in muslim countries, with death a very publicised punishment of apostasy that cannot be denied is a teaching of islam.

This is a very misleadingly written comment. While it can't be denied that some Muslims do claim the punishment for apostasy is death, it is clearly not a universal understanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy#Islam

wikipedia:
According to some scholars, if a Muslim consciously and without coercion declares their rejection of Islam and does not change their mind after the time allocated by a judge for research, then the penalty for male apostates is death, and for women life imprisonment. However, this view has been rejected by modern Muslim scholars (e.g. Hasan al-Turabi), who argue that the hadith in question should be taken to apply only to political betrayal of the Muslim community, rather than to apostasy in general.[42] These scholars regard apostasy as a serious crime, but argue for the freedom to convert to and from Islam without legal penalty, and consider the aforementioned Hadith quote as insufficient justification for capital punishment. Today apostasy is illegal in most Muslim countries, and subject in some to the death penalty. Executions for apostasy are rare, but allowed in some Muslim countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. Apostasy is legal in secular Muslim countries such as Turkey.[43]

Your post makes it appear that the death penalty for apostasy is a universal Muslim belief, which it clearly is not. It's posts like yours that have convinced me that whenever someone on this board uses the words "It can't be denied..." in reference to religion 9 times out of 10 what they mean is, "It can be denied and I haven't done my homework so I'd prefer if you did not deny it, please."

So are you saying that since they only kill people for blasphemy and giving up their faith in some countries it is perfectly fine?

Christianity is bad because it has lead to some retarded beliefs, but at least they let you have a choice. They might suppress some rights but compared to Islam it is nothing.

Whenever you defend Islam you are defending a religion that stones women to death for being raped, you are defending a religion that gives a women no rights. You are defending a religion that calls for the execution of those that speak against it. You are defending a religion that executes its members for leaving.

It does not matter that in some countries these events do not occur, the fact is they do occur in others under the name of Islam. If half of the US states had laws that allowed Christians to be executed for blasphemy would you defend Christianity?

pyrate:

So are you saying that since they only kill people for blasphemy and giving up their faith in some countries it is perfectly fine?

Christianity is bad because it has lead to some retarded beliefs, but at least they let you have a choice. They might suppress some rights but compared to Islam it is nothing.

So, when did we make the leap of logic fom "it happens in some countries" and "compared to (the entirety of, as trhe sentence is worded) Islam"?

Whenever you defend Islam you are defending a religion that stones women to death for being raped, you are defending a religion that gives a women no rights. You are defending a religion that calls for the execution of those that speak against it. You are defending a religion that executes its members for leaving.

It's not as much about defending Islam as it is about telling people to quit making blanket statements.

It does not matter that in some countries these events do not occur, the fact is they do occur in others under the name of Islam. If half of the US states had laws that allowed Christians to be executed for blasphemy would you defend Christianity?

Would you say that the entirety of the US legislation is an evil establishment? Cause that's what you have been doing the entire post so far.

And, note, I do not have a religious preference, I hate all of them the same, but I need to say: there is nothing that pisses me off more than bad arguments for something I agree with. And yes, I know I'm ripping off someone with that quote, I just forgot his name.

Katatori-kun:

reonhato:
ignoring that blasphemy laws are not uncommon in muslim countries, with death a very publicised punishment of apostasy that cannot be denied is a teaching of islam.

This is a very misleadingly written comment. While it can't be denied that some Muslims do claim the punishment for apostasy is death, it is clearly not a universal understanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy#Islam

wikipedia:
According to some scholars, if a Muslim consciously and without coercion declares their rejection of Islam and does not change their mind after the time allocated by a judge for research, then the penalty for male apostates is death, and for women life imprisonment. However, this view has been rejected by modern Muslim scholars (e.g. Hasan al-Turabi), who argue that the hadith in question should be taken to apply only to political betrayal of the Muslim community, rather than to apostasy in general.[42] These scholars regard apostasy as a serious crime, but argue for the freedom to convert to and from Islam without legal penalty, and consider the aforementioned Hadith quote as insufficient justification for capital punishment. Today apostasy is illegal in most Muslim countries, and subject in some to the death penalty. Executions for apostasy are rare, but allowed in some Muslim countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. Apostasy is legal in secular Muslim countries such as Turkey.[43]

Your post makes it appear that the death penalty for apostasy is a universal Muslim belief, which it clearly is not. It's posts like yours that have convinced me that whenever someone on this board uses the words "It can't be denied..." in reference to religion 9 times out of 10 what they mean is, "It can be denied and I haven't done my homework so I'd prefer if you did not deny it, please."

and this is exactly something that is wrong with religion. death for apostasy was an islamic teaching and still is. the koran and hadiths allow for such interpretations and it is still a mainstream idea today..... yet people like you can simply say not all muslims believe this so its a non issue, because some muslims want to try and stop the negative view of islam from outsiders they have changed the interpretations and began nitpicking what they believe.... exactly what the christian religions started to do 150 years ago

if a religion allows for a certain interpretation it must take responsibility for those who believe. islam allows for extremists, you can follow a very clear line from the teachings of islam to violence against others, islam should have to take responsibility for this, it should not be allowed to say that because other people choose to interpret it a more peaceful way it is not responsible, it is responsible, the same way christianity is responsible for all the hate its fringe followers spout.

religion can change its interpretations whenever something is considered to be not wanted any more, it can teach for hundreds or even thousands of years some things that are pure evil and hate-filled, yet it can then deny any wrong doing when fringe aspects take these teachings and apply them in the modern world because " others do not believe in that any more". if a company used slave labour to makes its product and the police found out those responsible would go to jail and face scrutiny, they would not be allowed to simply say, ok we will not do that any more. why should religion be any different.

pyrate:
So are you saying that since they only kill people for blasphemy and giving up their faith in some countries it is perfectly fine?

No, of course I'm not. I am saying what I said, not whatever whackadoodle nonsense you would like me have said to make up an absurd strawman.

Whenever you defend Islam you are defending a religion that stones women to death for being raped,

Rookie mistake. Religions don't stone anyone. People stone people.

I'm not defending anything either. I'm presenting facts. Making up stuff about Islam just to make it scarier is unacceptable bigotry.

reonhato:
because some muslims want to try and stop the negative view of islam from outsiders they have changed the interpretations and began nitpicking what they believe....

LOL, "How dare those Muslims stop doing the thing I'm trying to bash them for doing when they don't even all do it in the first place!? Why can't they be proper menaces to society so I have to know what I'm talking about when I make up rants about them?!!!"

if a religion allows for a certain interpretation it must take responsibility for those who believe.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why the Beatles got the death penalty for Helter Skelter.

islam allows for extremists

Everything allows for extremists. There is no mode of human thought that some nutjob can't run with to an absurd conclusion.

Really, your indignancy at being called out for not knowing what you were talking about is kind of absurd.

Katatori-kun:

pyrate:
So are you saying that since they only kill people for blasphemy and giving up their faith in some countries it is perfectly fine?

No, of course I'm not. I am saying what I said, not whatever whackadoodle nonsense you would like me have said to make up an absurd strawman.

Whenever you defend Islam you are defending a religion that stones women to death for being raped,

Rookie mistake. Religions don't stone anyone. People stone people.

I'm not defending anything either. I'm presenting facts. Making up stuff about Islam just to make it scarier is unacceptable bigotry.

Islam is the root cause for the stoning. Take away Islam and you take away the stoning. People do not act for no reason at all, they act because they can justify their actions. Actions such as stoning a women to death for being raped are justifiably to many followers of Islam.

Since you are not ok with people being stoned to death for being raped, or executed for blasphemy why would you defend the religious practice that allows these things to take place? It makes zero sense to me. Do you defend the Catholic Church because not all of them fiddle the kiddies, or do you lambaste them for allowing the practice and not doing enough to stop it?

pyrate:

Since you are not ok with people being stoned to death for being raped, or executed for blasphemy why would you defend the religious practice that allows these things to take place? It makes zero sense to me. Do you defend the Catholic Church because not all of them fiddle the kiddies, or do you lambaste them for allowing the practice and not doing enough to stop it?

Yes yes, I'm sure that you either defend or lambaste something, there's no way something like "lambasting those who deserve it and telling people to quit trying to burn those who don't" can exist.

pyrate:
Islam is the root cause for the stoning. Take away Islam and you take away the stoning.

"The Beatles are the root cause for Helter Skelter. Take away Helter Skelter and Charles Manson would never have killed those people."

Since you are not ok with people being stoned to death for being raped, or executed for blasphemy why would you defend the religious practice that allows these things to take place?

Quit talking rubbish. I'm not defending any religious practice. I'm opposing false and misleading claims about a huge group of people made by outsiders with an axe to grind against them.

Do you defend the Catholic Church because not all of them fiddle the kiddies, or do you lambaste them for allowing the practice and not doing enough to stop it?

Personally I think the notion that every Catholic must be held accountable for what a small number of people who happen to be in the same club has done to be absurd. I have this radical philosophy where people are guilty of the things they actually do, not the things that people who kinda sorta look like them did. That's why American foreign policy decisions didn't justify 9/11 and why we shouldn't scorn all nerds everywhere just because a couple in Columbine shot up their school. I guess that's why I'm the crazy one here.

Katatori-kun:

pyrate:
Islam is the root cause for the stoning. Take away Islam and you take away the stoning.

"The Beatles are the root cause for Helter Skelter. Take away Helter Skelter and Charles Manson would never have killed those people."

Since you are not ok with people being stoned to death for being raped, or executed for blasphemy why would you defend the religious practice that allows these things to take place?

Quit talking rubbish. I'm not defending any religious practice. I'm opposing false and misleading claims about a huge group of people made by outsiders with an axe to grind against them.

Do you defend the Catholic Church because not all of them fiddle the kiddies, or do you lambaste them for allowing the practice and not doing enough to stop it?

Personally I think the notion that every Catholic must be held accountable for what a small number of people who happen to be in the same club has done to be absurd. I have this radical philosophy where people are guilty of the things they actually do, not the things that people who kinda sorta look like them did. That's why American foreign policy decisions didn't justify 9/11 and why we shouldn't scorn all nerds everywhere just because a couple in Columbine shot up their school. I guess that's why I'm the crazy one here.

except no one is saying all catholics or all muslims should be held accountable, the catholic church and islam should be held accountable, the religious organisation itself has to be accountable, not the millions of blind followers

i have made it pretty clear i do not hate someone just because they are religious, i think they are ignorant fools and i feel sorry for them, but i do not hate someone just because they have been indoctrinated, i do not hate a muslim just because he is a muslim, most people have very little choice over their religion. what i do hate is the religion itself, those who actively push children into religion and those who defend religion against all logic

pyrate:
Islam is the root cause for the stoning. Take away Islam and you take away the stoning. People do not act for no reason at all, they act because they can justify their actions. Actions such as stoning a women to death for being raped are justifiably to many followers of Islam.

Religion is a useful excuse for that sort of thing, yes, but there's always some excuse. Take away the excuse and they'll go find themselves another one.

reonhato:
except no one is saying all catholics or all muslims should be held accountable, the catholic church and islam should be held accountable, the religious organisation itself

What do you think makes up the organization? Words on paper do not assemble on weekly schedules.

i have made it pretty clear i do not hate someone just because they are religious, i think they are ignorant fools and i feel sorry for them

Yeah, not very convincing, mate.

pyrate:
Do you defend the Catholic Church because not all of them fiddle the kiddies, or do you lambaste them for allowing the practice and not doing enough to stop it?

Do you defend white men because not all of them fiddle with kiddies?

Kendarik:

pyrate:
Do you defend the Catholic Church because not all of them fiddle the kiddies, or do you lambaste them for allowing the practice and not doing enough to stop it?

Do you defend white men because not all of them fiddle with kiddies?

White men aren't an organization, OTHER THAN WALL STREET DO HO HO.

But yeah, he asked a question and you answered with a question that's funny but not really comparable.

Why not make your point by saying something like "I defend the Catholic Church in this instance, because I don't believe in condemning everyone for the actions of a few" and then snidely ask "Do you?"

That'll learn him.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked