Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Butternuts96)
    What's your point? 1.57 billion muslims were offended. Noone's butthurt. We were genuinely offended.
    Spoke to them all have you?

    But FYI this is an example of argumentum ad populum
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skip_Snip)
    That's just the thing. Something or someone being "sacred" is just a matter of opinion, of interpretation. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if people are offended when the subject matter is a morally repugment man who's been dead for centuries.
    Morally repugnant? This is what I mean by Islamophobic to all those wondering.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    FAR too many more important things going on in the world than that **** Charlie Hebdo illustrate.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Butternuts96;
    Asks for a debate and is surprised when the whole world doesn't agree with him. When you consider his position he should really have expected this.

    He talks about Islamophobia but doesn't realise that people don't have a phobia (an irrational fear) of Islam. They have seen its values, its desire to follow Shariah and the Koran to the letter, its hatred of democracy (since it deviates from the word of God) and civil rights for women and Kuffars for the same reason, and their hatred of free speech. All mentioned in the Charlie Hebdo situation. Completely false use of the term.

    He starts insulting in a crass manner anyone who puts a sensible argument to him, showing that he didn't want to debate at all.

    He also is launching a defence of Islam by talking about the Hebdo attacks (and this will remind many of the other beheadings and the like France has seen as well as the cultural tensions) and how a Muslim group brought down a plane (again). If looking to defend Islam, perhaps choose better topics to start with? Trying to paint Islam as the victim as in the OP, after such atrocities, is hardly convincing.

    And Russia is allowed to condemn Hebdo-they aren't going to kill anyone. That is how things work-when civilised people don't like something they say so, but don't resort to violence. When Muslims get offended they murder. So the original point itself was fundamentally flawed anyway-the OP doesn't seem to realise that condemnation is fine and is part of free speech, but violence not.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Butternuts96)
    Morally repugnant? This is what I mean by Islamophobic to all those wondering.
    Then you need to get a new dictionary

    Thinking or stating old mo was no better than a pedophile camel thief (and he was by the way) is not 'Islamophobic' by any accepted definition of the term.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSR Mustafa)
    Charlie Hebdo made jokes about that toddler that drowned a while back , **** them.
    Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't they going from Turkey (after being there for three years)?

    Hardly feeling persecution, just benefit seekers if that is true. I mean the family were in Turkey for three years, in a safe country, and still went to sea? Only reason is greed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Then you need to get a new dictionary

    Thinking or stating old mo was no better than a pedophile camel thief (and he was by the way) is not 'Islamophobic' by any accepted definition of the term.
    Explain how.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Butternuts96)
    Explain how.
    Easy he slept with a nine year old girl and was happy raiding caravans for booty

    hence 'Pedo Camel Thief' is a rather apt description (and one an awful lot of non-muslims have about the man)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't they going from Turkey (after being there for three years)?

    Hardly feeling persecution, just benefit seekers if that is true. I mean the family were in Turkey for three years, in a safe country, and still went to sea? Only reason is greed.
    Yes they were.

    They were benefit tourists and the fathers greed killed his own

    Most of us wont waste a tear over idiots like him.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Yes they were.

    They were benefit tourists and the fathers greed killed his own

    Most of us wont waste a tear over idiots like him.
    Exactly. People ask us to shed a tear for them? No. I am sorry that the father murdered his family. The kids just did as they were told.

    It is an excellent case to show how the left will twist facts into outrageous lies to try and get us to agree with their PC lies. The guilt trip only works on the fools.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Easy he slept with a nine year old girl and was happy raiding caravans for booty

    hence 'Pedo Camel Thief' is a rather apt description (and one an awful lot of non-muslims have about the man)
    That's so horribly disrespectful and partly innacurate.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Butternuts96)
    That's so horribly disrespectful and partly innacurate.
    Tough. I can't disrespect you as I don't respect you in the first place (respect is something you earn you don't demand it and cry when it's not given)

    You need to learn people do not like your prophet and have valid reasons to do so. And if you find the truth disrespectful then not sure what I can say to you apart from get used to being disrespected

    But this is why we mock him in cartoons and will continue to do so

    (and I note you only say partly so is he a 'pedo and not a camel thief' or 'not a pedo but is a camel thief'?)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Butternuts96)
    That's so horribly disrespectful and partly innacurate.
    Which part is inaccurate?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skip_Snip)
    Which part is inaccurate?
    That did make me chuckle
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Reread what you just wrote lol.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skip_Snip)
    Which part is inaccurate?
    Funny how you didn't contest me on calling you disrespectful. And with this, I'm not replying to you anymore as you're an islamophobe so anything I say will carry no benefit or change of perspective for you Bye.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skip_Snip)
    Which part is inaccurate?
    Sorry, the previous reply was for the other islamophobe above,
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Butternuts96)
    Sorry, the previous reply was for the other islamophobe above,
    I asked the same question so do tell which bit was inaccurate the 'pedo' or the 'camel thief'?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Butternuts96)
    That's so horribly disrespectful and partly innacurate.
    Prophet Mohammed was a 'pattern' sent by Allah to be followed for all times?

    Do you believe the Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim or the Sunan Abu Dawud?
    All or nothing?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Butternuts96)
    Sorry, the previous reply was for the other islamophobe above,
    Funny how you can't answer his question though.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.