Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

The “Innocence of Muslims” And The Hypocrisy of Non-Muslims

124»

Comments

  • #92
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    fitz0 wrote: »
    Posting relevant content in the appropriate fora is in no way analogous to racial segregation, to make a comparison like that is silly in the extreme. So to reiterate - relevant content, appropriate fora.
    Dear me. How many times do you need this explained to you? Read back over my posts for the explanation.
    fitz0 wrote: »
    Nice rebuttal. I'm completely convinced now. How could I have been such a fool? The industry must have fooled me.
    Well somebody has.
    fitz0 wrote: »
    A chart that is based on facts that "points to a conspiracy" is less valid because cherry picked facts and dubious connections made to support a preconceived notion of a Zionist anti-Islam 'industry' make for shaky foundations.
    I've removed the falsehoods from your statement to highlight the foolishness of it in reality.
    fitz0 wrote: »
    Why would I detach myself from my views and expectations?
    So you can reach rational unbiased conclusions.
    fitz0 wrote: »
    If you want me to take what you post on face value, you're going to be disappointed.
    Ultimately if you stick your head in the sand to deny reality you are the one who will be dissapointed. Unless you actually choose to be ignorant.
    fitz0 wrote: »
    If you really wanted to discuss this, you wouldn't have reposted the exact wording from (unless I'm mistaken) your own blog. You would have posited a question on the content or asked for discussion. That's a fine quote and all but it is a statement that doesn't warrant much engagement.
    You don't "ask for discussion" in a discussion forum FFS it is obviously implied.

    In my very first response to you I asked you a question. Which you still haven't answered - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81006276&postcount=9
    fitz0 wrote: »
    Is this thread all about these 'gatekeepers' and their stranglehold on the media? Bring it to the CT forum.
    :confused: It's clearly not about that.
    fitz0 wrote: »
    'Spate of racist anti-Muslim/pro-Israel ads'
    It is a single run of ads. They appeared in San Fran before. Two occurances do not make a spate. Hyperbole for impressions sake.
    "spate" was referring to the number of individual ads not the number of runs.

    So how did you get a "clear anti-Jewish" agenda from the use of the word spate?
    fitz0 wrote: »
    The tenuous connection between ads and the film.
    There is no connection made between the ads and the film.

    Obviously your shortcomings don't support a "clear anti-Jewish agenda".
    fitz0 wrote: »
    Maurice Sinet won €40,000 in a wrongful termination lawsuit against Charlie Hebdo. Is that the sound of the law being on his side I hear?
    Which has nothing to do with hypocrisy of Charlie Hebdo and obviously has nothing to with your false claims of a "clear anti-Jewish agenda".
    fitz0 wrote: »
    Overall - Jews get preferential media cover, Muslims don't. There's nothing else to say since it's all just quotes of things that happened put beside each other to reinforce this message. What do you want me to say in my capacity as an athiest & agnostic?
    I want you to apologise for your slander against me which you have offered nothing to support.

    Also if you would submit a long overdue answer to this question:

    "I have pointed out instances of hypocrisy by the gatekeepers of freedom of speech. Do you dispute any of the examples?"


  • #93
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Einhard wrote: »
    Somewhat surprised by the reaction to the OP's post, especially on the A&A forum where I would have thought reaction would have been more considered and based on the OP's points, rather than ad hominem attacks on him based on his previous record.

    ........

    ...some messengers have such a train of baggage with them, it tends to taint any message they bring.


  • #94
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,733 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    And extremist Jews, and extremists Christians etc.

    This point of this thread is distinct from whereever you stand on the freedom of speech debate. I'm sure that all would agree that on moral and ethical grounds it should be applied to all groups evenly.

    I have shown that this is not the case with recent examples. Corkfeen said "hypocrisy doesn't matter" concerning freedom of speech. I find that POV incredible - what do you think?
    And my point was that you would not find many on boards who would agree that it's OK to ban an anti-Israeli ad while allowing the Innocence of Muslims or other "Islamophobic" free speech.

    In any case, your comparison was different in that it was a local court in Seattle that banned ads running in that city/county versus presumably other fora that have dealt with the Innocence of Muslims mess.

    So your OP title "The Hypocrisy of Non-Muslims" is simply not applicable to a lot of "Non-Muslims" including I would guess a majority of atheists & agnostics who would agree that King Co. court made an error, and would not stand over that decision at all.


  • #95
    The Bishop!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭The Bishop!


    Einhard wrote: »
    Somewhat surprised by the reaction to the OP's post, especially on the A&A forum where I would have thought reaction would have been more considered and based on the OP's points, rather than ad hominem attacks on him based on his previous record.

    The fact is that BB, regardless of how one might percieve him, has a point: namely that there are xtensive curbs on freedom of expression both in America, and in Europe. One cannot make statements defamatory to Jews or homosexuals or even question the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide in many parts of Europe. People are routinely prosecuted for offending the sensibilities of others in countries who pride themselves on their allaged commitment to freedom of expression. As BB has pointed out, that commitment is actually a fraud. Anti-Islam films and ads are permitted in America, yet anti-Israel ones are not. Anti-Islam cartoons are allowed in France, yet allegedly anti-semitic ones are not. In Britain, free speech is celebrated, yet people can be prosecuted for offending British soliders.

    I mean, the hypocrisy is pretty staggering. And I would have though that atheists would be concerned by it. I'm an atheist and I believe everyone has the right to insult and offend. Obviously though, my beliefs aren't reflected in the laws of many liberal nations, and I think BB is correct to point that out.

    Agree with these points especially.

    How this is not considered to be a valid thread for A+A is confusing.

    'We believe and advocate for freedom of speech and frank discussion of religious issues.'
    Just..er...not in A+A. ???:confused:

    Really, the comments and ad homs on here display a very cliquish attitude i'm afraid. And the refusal to acknowledge the points in the OP along with the well known issue of organised Islamophobia is puzzling.

    I think it's a worthy discussion for this forum. It's a tad hypocritical to attempt to demean it by saying 'off to the CT' forum with you'. Going by that logic, there are plenty of other threads here that should be moved there too as they're theories or contentions about conspiracies of one sort or another.


  • #96
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    The OP has a history of marching into threads, any and all threads, and derailing them with complete nonsense until everyone leaves or they get locked.
    So yeah, OP is getting their thread derailed with nonsense in return. I don't think that's "cliquish", I think that's a bunch of fed-up people.

    I'm happy to post on a serious thread on free speech & hypocrisy, and have read the one in Politics with interest. Not more of OP's nonsense.

    It's true that if something has merit, it should have merit on its own grounds regardless of who says it.
    Unfortunately, boy who cried wolf is also well known...


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Seriously, BB.

    What is your obsession with attacking Israel and defending Muslims? So here's all I'm going to say.

    F*ck Israel.
    F*ck Islam.

    Both are equally full of sh*te.


  • #98
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Einhard wrote: »
    Somewhat surprised by the reaction to the OP's post, especially on the A&A forum where I would have thought reaction would have been more considered and based on the OP's points, rather than ad hominem attacks on him based on his previous record.

    The fact is that BB, regardless of how one might percieve him, has a point: namely that there are xtensive curbs on freedom of expression both in America, and in Europe. One cannot make statements defamatory to Jews or homosexuals or even question the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide in many parts of Europe. People are routinely prosecuted for offending the sensibilities of others in countries who pride themselves on their allaged commitment to freedom of expression. As BB has pointed out, that commitment is actually a fraud. Anti-Islam films and ads are permitted in America, yet anti-Israel ones are not. Anti-Islam cartoons are allowed in France, yet allegedly anti-semitic ones are not. In Britain, free speech is celebrated, yet people can be prosecuted for offending British soliders.

    I mean, the hypocrisy is pretty staggering. And I would have though that atheists would be concerned by it. I'm an atheist and I believe everyone has the right to insult and offend. Obviously though, my beliefs aren't reflected in the laws of many liberal nations, and I think BB is correct to point that out.

    It's a bit hypocritical all right. But, sometimes context is key. BB spawned this thread from another thread in which he was basically, as is almost the norm now, assuming we're all biased in favour of Jews and won't deride them. Posters were responding to his points and each time, every time, he just kept moving the goal posts changing his position, contradicting himself. It just went on and on, until he actually decided to create a stand alone thread.
    So even if his point does have substance it's more the fact that everyone is exasperated by the time he makes it that it tends to fall on irritated ears.

    We've all heard the story of the boy who cried wolf. But, yes, you're spot on the response was hypocritical. Muslim scholars on the radio and web have been using this hypocrisy as a means to somehow argue their case for the restriction of free speech. The interesting thing about hypocrisy though is that if you're right about one thing but wrong about the other then you're still right about the first thing. Pointing out hypocrisy is great if you want to make a political argument to the masses, but if you want to explain why Islam should be allowed better protections then you need to explain why.

    For what it's worth though America is probably the only country with "Free Speech". You can hold racial views, you can also deny the holocaust or whatever else you want. But it does vary a little from state to state. Europe is far more stricter, Germany wanted to ban the offending video. The contrast between the French President's UN Speech and the U.S one probably best illustrates just how backward Europe still is in some regards.


  • #99
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Dear me. How many times do you need this explained to you? Read back over my posts for the explanation.

    Well somebody has.

    I've removed the falsehoods from your statement to highlight the foolishness of it in reality.

    So you can reach rational unbiased conclusions.

    Ultimately if you stick your head in the sand to deny reality you are the one who will be dissapointed. Unless you actually choose to be ignorant.
    :rolleyes:
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    :confused: It's clearly not about that.

    Well, in that case you're going to have to actually explain your intention. If it's not about the media bias of these 'gatekeeper' what is it about?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    "spate" was referring to the number of individual ads not the number of runs.

    So how did you get a "clear anti-Jewish" agenda from the use of the word spate?

    There is no connection made between the ads and the film.
    Why mention them in the same sentence then? Why conflate the two by drawing a link between people involved?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Obviously your shortcomings don't support a "clear anti-Jewish agenda".

    Which has nothing to do with hypocrisy of Charlie Hebdo and obviously has nothing to with your false claims of a "clear anti-Jewish agenda".

    "I have pointed out instances of hypocrisy by the gatekeepers of freedom of speech. Do you dispute any of the examples?"

    Why would I dispute the examples? I'm disputing the point of the post. You say there is one, I disagree.
    The Bishop! wrote: »
    Really, the comments and ad homs on here display a very cliquish attitude i'm afraid. And the refusal to acknowledge the points in the OP along with the well known issue of organised Islamophobia is puzzling.

    I think it's a worthy discussion for this forum. It's a tad hypocritical to attempt to demean it by saying 'off to the CT' forum with you'. Going by that logic, there are plenty of other threads here that should be moved there too as they're theories or contentions about conspiracies of one sort or another.

    BB has a rich history of derailing perfectly decent threads with his ridiculous offence taking. The Islam forum didn't even recognise the validity of his offence when he tried to stir the sh*t a few months back.

    The only element of clique behaviour is a collective groan when he takes offence to something, I know I'm just fed up with his derailing antics. When he comes on here posting about media conspiracies against Muslims and in favour of Jews, of course we're going to tell him that CT is the place. That's not a disparagement of CT, it's the appropriate forum for such a thread. When he posts it here, damn right I'm going to make light of it.


  • #100
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    [...] the well known issue of organised Islamophobia is puzzling. I think it's a worthy discussion for this forum.
    As bluewolf says, yes, it is -- feel free to open a thread on the topic if you like. Just be aware though, that posters are likely to condemn unfair criticism of islamic religious belief as they are to condemn unfair criticism of christian, buddhist, shamanic, pastafarian or any other religious belief.
    The Bishop! wrote: »
    It's a tad hypocritical to attempt to demean it by saying 'off to the CT' forum with you'.
    Not really. Around 3,000 of Brown Bombers ~4,400 posts on boards have been made in the conspiracy forum and his/her general posting style suits there much more than it suits A+A -- hence the suggestion.


  • #101
    B9K9
    Registered Users Posts: 77 ✭✭B9K9


    eh, surely not equally full?


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    B9K9
    Registered Users Posts: 77 ✭✭B9K9


    Jernal wrote: »
    Seriously, BB.

    What is your obsession with attacking Israel and defending Muslims? So here's all I'm going to say.

    F*ck Israel.
    F*ck Islam.

    Both are equally full of sh*te.
    omitted quotation fix


  • #103
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,733 ✭✭✭SeanW


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    Agree with these points especially.

    How this is not considered to be a valid thread for A+A is confusing.
    I can't speak for anyone else but BB got my proverbial goat up by using "Non-Muslims" as a blanket term for ... everyone who isn't a Muslim and all standing accused of hypocrisy over free speech.

    My problem with that is that (as for me) I couldn't be more of a non-Muslim but I do not agree with the ban on the anti-Israel ads, or of European laws making it illegal to deny the holocaust etc.

    So I reject "The Hypocrisy of Non-Muslims" as a scurrilous, unfounded accusation levelled at 5/6ths of the worlds population, that has no basis in fact.

    The difference between me as an agnostic and many Muslims is that if someone post a badly edited, unwatchable, low budget video calling agnostics emissaries of satan or something, I'm not going to demand "blasphemy" laws at the U.N. for my "hurt feelings" and I'm pretty sure no-one is going to want to murder that person because of the "offence."

    But for me to even learn of such a video would pronbably require me to be in contact with a religious authority such as an Imam, and that person would have to be looking for an excuse to go ****-stirring, which is how a lot of these things start. Again, not an issue with agnosticism, but an issue perhaps solely for the so-called "Religion of peace."


  • #104
    decimatio
    Registered Users Posts: 179 ✭✭decimatio


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    She was guilty of identity fraud.

    Even ignoring the circumstances surrounding this fraud, so what?
    Okay, but in my examples they are from the same states or the same publications.

    Ok. And? So some magazine is less anti-jewish than they are anti-islam.

    Some states in the US allow pro israel stuff but not pro jihad. Etc.

    What's your point?


  • #105
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    decimatio wrote: »
    Even ignoring the circumstances surrounding this fraud, so what?
    What do you mean "so what"? I said she was a proven liar - you asked why - I told you - and now you ask me "so what"?
    decimatio wrote: »
    Ok. And? So some magazine is less anti-jewish than they are anti-islam.

    Some states in the US allow pro israel stuff but not pro jihad. Etc.

    What's your point?
    This has gone way over your head. It's not a case of whether a magazine is "anti-Jewish" or "anti-Islam". It's that freedom of speech should be enforced equally and I have given pertinent examples where it is not.


  • #106
    barney4001
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭barney4001


    "The militant Muslim is the person who beheads the infidel, while the moderate Muslim holds the feet of the victim." - Marco Polo, 1254-1324. Eight hundred years after Marco Polo wrote this, the murder, mayhem, death and destruction from the Cult-of-Satan is still with us


  • #107
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    barney4001 wrote: »
    "The militant Muslim is the person who beheads the infidel, while the moderate Muslim holds the feet of the victim." - Marco Polo, 1254-1324.

    Yes, those 13th century terms really have stood the test of time, haven't they.

    Thanks for digging up a two year old thread to share that.
    barney4001 wrote: »
    "
    Eight hundred years after Marco Polo wrote this, the murder, mayhem, death and destruction from the Cult-of-Satan is still with us

    *yawn


  • #108
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    barney4001 wrote: »
    "The militant Muslim is the person who beheads the infidel, while the moderate Muslim holds the feet of the victim." - Marco Polo, 1254-1324. Eight hundred years after Marco Polo wrote this, the murder, mayhem, death and destruction from the Cult-of-Satan is still with us

    The same Marco Polo who was subservient to Genghis Khan's family and an servant of the Mongol empire.


Advertisement