MFPM wrote: » 'Some' of them - not all of them, then? What about the rest? I asked for instances but you haven't given any? What 'mosque' do they attend? Again you shift the goal posts - you stated in our original message that 'they treat their women' now it's 'their' religion - so is it some people you know or all?
Omackeral wrote: » I asked you a question. Not a big deal. You're very defensive. True. The conversation moved on though and people were talking about outside cultures coming into places. The discussion evolved. Ha ha ha. You are some baby! I'd say I've 20 times more posts about fighting for the 8th to be Repealed on behalf of sisters, mothers and daughters in this country. Don't mention them though. Sad attempt to discredit someone. Big crime that I posted a picture of a good looking woman in a thread named "hottest women in the world" by the way. Finding women attractive is now a bad thing is if? There's also a men version of the thread too which I posted in. I must hate men too, or is it love them? Your logic is hard to grasp. Good god almighty.
MFPM wrote: » Again you shift the goal posts
MFPM wrote: » It wasn't an attempt to discredit you - I was illustrating the hypocrisy in your post.
All Seeing Eye wrote: » There is a mosque in Balbriggan look it up on the internet. The religion treats women like crap and the men who practice the religion use it as a reason to treat women like crap. You know it and I know it. Your silence on the matter says it all.
The religion treats women like crap
men who practice the religion use it as a reason to treat women like crap.
Your silence on the matter says it all.
Omackeral wrote: » Finding someone attractive means you don't care about women? Ok!
Omackeral wrote: » Finding someone attractive means you don't care about women? Ok! You also disregarded every other solitary point I made in that reply to you. You accuse others of moving goal posts but you just cherry pick and do hit and run style posts. It's far from an honest debating style. You've also a serious attitudinal chip on your shoulder IMO
MFPM wrote: » No, but objectifying women is hardly appropriate. Tell you what ask the women in your local Together for Yes group their opinion on the matter.
MFPM wrote: » You didn't make any points.
Billy Mays wrote: » Duh
MFPM wrote: » Sometimes there are no words!! :eek: You'd have thought he'd at least check!
Omackeral wrote: » Seems the debate is being dragged further away from the topic, I'm sure that was never the intention :pac:
Omackeral wrote: » What are YOU babbling on about?! The thread is specifically for posting pictures of beautiful women. There's a men's one too. I've posted in both threads. Am I objectifying men too? I'm such an equalist pig!!!
What are YOU babbling on about?!
The thread is specifically for posting pictures of beautiful women.
There's a men's one too. I've posted in both threads. Am I objectifying men too? I'm such an equalist pig!!!
MFPM wrote: » I Well my friend I sincerely hope you don't need me to point out the difference between the relative positions of men and women in society when it comes to sexual objectification.
MFPM wrote: » How do you know their religion?
All Seeing Eye wrote: » MFPM you are welcome to come to Balbriggan and actually see things for yourself rather than theorising.
TeaBagMania wrote: » LOL and both of you are as gullible as i thought you'd be. Edit: one more thing, these people believed what they read so now you know how fake news gets proliferated. i read it on the internetz so it must be true. Come on guys use some logic and common sense
_Kaiser_ wrote: » The entire basis of the virtue-seeking argument is theoretical. This is why uncomfortable facts and realities are dismissed as "-ist" or "-phobic" or "fake news", or deflected with irrelevant drivel.
_Kaiser_ wrote: » That's not very likely I'd imagine. The entire basis of the virtue-seeking argument is theoretical. This is why uncomfortable facts and realities are dismissed as "-ist" or "-phobic" or "fake news", or deflected with irrelevant drivel. Because it's more about being seen to be on the "right side" of an issue than objectively considering it and making up their own minds, anything that goes against that position is a threat to be attacked. That's why not one of them have been able to answer the simple questions put to them on this issue without a torrent of personal abuse, strawmanning, whataboutery, or just ignoring it outright. I'm not sure who they think they're fooling to be honest. The days of reasonable people being shouted down/at by this minority thankfully seem to be coming to an end.
This is why uncomfortable facts and realities are dismissed as "-ist" or "-phobic" or "fake news", or deflected with irrelevant drivel.
Because it's more about being seen to be on the "right side" of an issue than objectively considering it and making up their own minds, anything that goes against that position is a threat to be attacked.
That's why not one of them have been able to answer the simple questions put to them on this issue without a torrent of personal abuse, strawmanning, whataboutery, or just ignoring it outright.
The days of reasonable people being shouted down/at
this minority thankfully seem to be coming to an end.
Omackeral wrote: » Amen!!!(Or whatever the acceptable non-denominational equivalent is)
MFPM wrote: » You ignoring of my contributions didn't last too long even if your reply is by proxy! :) Funny how when uncomfortable facts are pointed out to you are your type how you resort to idiotic and meaningless phrases such as 'virtue signalling'. Hypocrisy much? Isn't it also interesting the lack of any actual content in that paragraph, no specifics just rather vaccuous sloganeering. Utter nonsense, any cursory glance at this thread would indeed reveal a lack of objectivity but it's primarly from those propogating anti migrant sentiment - those who argue that 'paddys don't use knives', only 'black men mug 85 year old women' only 'muslim men mistreat women' - just some of the garbage that has been posted here in the last few days. Given you had nothing to say on them perhaps you (conveniently) missed them! And now you're just lying. I answered each question you posed in some detail, you replied and I also took the trouble to reply again despite the fact that you selectively responded to my points and were disingenious at best with others, you then ran away. The only people shouting down is you and your type. Do explain how you've arrived at this conclusion?
MFPM wrote: » you resort to idiotic and meaningless phrases such as 'virtue signalling'. Hypocrisy much? no specifics just rather vaccuous sloganeering.
CinemaGuy45 wrote: » I am under no obligation to explain anything but I believe you fully understand. In this thread alone you have ducked and dived from answering the simplest of questions.
I am under no obligation to explain anything but I believe you fully understand.
In this thread alone you have ducked and dived from answering the simplest of questions.
Omackeral wrote: » .
MFPM wrote: » Are things that bad for you that you're repeating my posts?
MFPM wrote: » I see you got a like from the guy who thinks Pakistan is in Africa!!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4c2f272c464d99a9eee64a80fbe71a0c.svg)
