Ibrahim Halawa acquited(mod warning in op-Heed it)

Billy86

Hitman3000 wrote: »

That's the thing about context, you have removed context to my post about alcohol and to whom it was addressed to. You seem to be intent on making all your comments about me that's fine. It also highlights your complete inability to contradict anything M Humphries has claimed.

Nope, I linked to that post in full. All I've been asking for here is a credible link to back up your statement, it's kind of telling by how defensive you are getting over this.

With no credible link, it's about as credible than me saying he and his family kidnapped children from the largely Jewish Statford school in Rathgar and burned them alive behind the mosque in Clonskeagh; e.g. not credible at all.

david75

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Have you got a link for where you got this very specific percentage? You wouldn't have made it up now would you ? I think you have.

Sad that I need to explain it but I was referring to the marriage equality referendum. Which was won with 62% of the vote. 38% voted no. That no vote was based in a religious prejudice and we heard the no campaign rattle on about their ‘sincerely held beliefs’ and warping it to make it about children needing mothers and fathers. Spurious religious nonsense. Which we’re already seeing again with the abortion debate.
Don’t try suggest Ireland is somehhow more enlighten than any Muslim nation. The thankfully dying hardcore catholic body is as extremely retarded as any sharia law but dying off and the abortion debate will be its death rattle.

Here’s a detailed breakdown of those numbers for you

http://mcimaps.com/the-numbers-behind-irelands-historic-vote-on-same-sex-marriage/

Billy86

gozunda wrote: »

I think this is what was referred to ...


http://markhumphrys.com/Facebook/35.png

Thank you for finally providing the link.

Hitman3000

Billy86 wrote:

Nope, I linked to that post in full. All I've been asking for here is a credible link to back up your statement, it's kind of telling by how defensive you are getting over this.

I have addressed your request several times, not good enough for you tough. Now again I asked dav to back up his claims of Humphries telling fairy tales you decided to stick your oar in so I'm addressing the same question to you.

gozunda

Billy86 wrote: »

Thank you for finally providing the link.

No problem - not that hard to find and to be honest a little bit of Google goes a long way ..

Hitman3000

Billy86 wrote:

With no credible link, it's about as credible than me saying he and his family kidnapped children from the largely Jewish Statford school in Rathgar and burned them alive behind the mosque in Clonskeagh; e.g. not credible at all.

Ah the last refuge of someone unable to answer a question, whataboutery. Off you toddle. I'm not getting carded for the likes of this nonsense.

Billy86

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I have addressed your request several times, not good enough for you tough. Now again I asked dav to back up his claims of Humphries telling fairy tales you decided to stick your oar in so I'm addressing the same question to you.

Again, at no point was I agreeing with or disputing any claims from Humphry's website, so you can stop hiding behind that like a coward.

Literally all I was asking for was a link to the claims you were making, which you were unable to provide. Gozunda did and credit to them for it, because it's kind of an important part of an argument to be able to cite what you're talking about. I'm not sure why it's got to be like pulling teeth with you, but as I said right from the get go I was never denying this to be the case, just that I had not heard of it.

Billy86

gozunda wrote: »

No problem - not that hard to find and to be honest a little bit of Google goes a long way ..

Cheers, and I'm usually decent at finding what I'm looking for on Google - I'[m guessing it's because he was just back the other day buy anything related to 'Halawa Egypt home lives in Dublin' was just flooding me with endless stories about his return back and the court finding. It really is amazing how much coverage this story has been getting given how little impact it has on Ireland in general, but I guess if it sells it sells...

Also apologies if the 'finally' comment in the last post came over wrong, I had mistakenly thought the other poster had finally backed up their own claim and only noticed after that it was you. Appreciated, again!

Hitman3000

Billy86 wrote:

Literally all I was asking for was a link to the claims you were making, which you were unable to provide. Gozunda did and credit to them for it, because it's kind of an important part of an argument to be able to cite what you're talking about. I'm not sure why it's got to be like pulling teeth with you, but as I said right from the get go I was never denying this to be the case, just that I had not heard of it.

Again what claims, I made reference to where he feels is home and where he lives. One claim not claims. If you are so willing to lie you have zero right to question my credibility or anyone else's. Now as I said not worth a card goodbye you're now on ignore. ; )

Omackeral

RustyNut wrote: »

The intellectual argument seems to be an Irish version of this..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE2OzGfIDLQ

Could be wrong but does he not say Muslamic (sic, Islamic) rape gangs rather than ray guns? Which kinda turned out to be true...

ricero

A wolf in sheeps clothing has returned to ireland

WinnyThePoo

ricero wrote: »

A wolf in sheeps clothing has returned to ireland

And his name is Jon snow!

Roger Hassenforder

Omackeral wrote: »

Could be wrong but does he not say Muslamic (sic, Islamic) rape gangs rather than ray guns? Which kinda turned out to be true...

He does.
"muslamic rape gangs nowdays...there's fcuking 15 yr olds getttin raped and everything.."

givyjoe

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

But you called someone else a bigot for not liking the views of Islam, they never said they weren’t entitled to those beliefs.
You’re either a hypocritical bigot by your own definition or you know, people are allowed to not like things they don’t agree with.

I think you need to double check the more prescriptive definition I posted, which makes a lot more sense in this context. If you really believe I'm a bigot, based on anything that I've posted, you've got some serious issues.

Actually, I'll just post it again for you.. save you the trouble: a person who has very strong, unreasonable beliefs or opinions about race, religion or politics.

Will I Am Not

givyjoe wrote: »

I think you need to double check the more prescriptive definition I posted, which makes a lot more sense in this context. If you really believe I'm a bigot, based on anything that I've posted, you've got some serious issues.

Actually, I'll just post it again for you.. save you the trouble: a person who has very strong, unreasonable beliefs or opinions about race, religion or politics.

I don’t believe you’re a bigot. You called someone a bigot for saying they don’t like Islam. That’s not a bigot.
If it is then you are also a bigot for not liking the views of Islam and Christianity... but it’s not so it’s fine. You just shouldn’t have called the other guy a bigot for it.

givyjoe

gozunda wrote: »

Oh give over 'givyjoe'!

You by your words defined yourself as bigoted.

I have posted your replies where were caught with your pants down around your proverbial ankles calling other posters bigots and your reply to my post earlier where you had clearly showed that your views on others opinions and religious beliefs were bigoted

You see there's a very basic difference between you and me

I recognise that others have different views and opinions.

I respect that. I may not agree with them. That is how it is. That is why there is debate. Not personal diatribes against others.

My exception to that is the spoutings and actions of proscribed organisations.

You show evident hate and hypocrisy to those that disagree with your narrow world view

I doubt you know you are even doing it tbh ...

But yes you not only called someone out - you called them a bigot ...

It must only be in your universe is everything 'simples'

Ps - you're not Aleksandr Orlov by any chance?

My lord you are talking some absolute twaddle. It's literally mind boggling that you keep referring to me as a bigot.. like.. earth is flat mind boggling.

Of the two of us, you think that you are the one that recognises that people have different opinions and respects it..?! I can't believe what I'm reading at this stage. You've shown zero evidence of this, and have literally taken what I have said is to be precisely my point of view and claimed that you in fact do this yourself, but not me. Mind.. blown..

Not LIKING someone else's point of view is not bigoted.. christ on a bike. Also pathetic that you are now twisting my, quite clear words that I 'hate'. I have given you zero reason to suggest 'hate' in any of my posts. Quite disgusting that you are making that unjustifiable leap, self evident my absolute swiss.

Let me make it REALLY simple as to what my 'narrow world view is' in the context of this thread. I don't believe folks should be discriminated based on race, religion, ethnic origin (of any of the 9 grounds (i.e. race, gender etc.. and I don't believe someone should be locked up for 4 years without having committed a crime. I believe you and others are entitled to your views, no matter how unpleasant I view them to be. I can also think certain aspects of someone's religion may be undesirable, while still at the same time recognising their right to those beliefs (So long as they don't break the law of the land). So yeah, really narrow view. :rolleyes:

givyjoe

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

I don’t believe you’re a bigot. You called someone a bigot for saying they don’t like Islam. That’s not a bigot.
If it is then you are also a bigot for not liking the views of Islam and Christianity... but it’s not so it’s fine. You just shouldn’t have called the other guy a bigot for it.

Em, except there is an absolutely massive difference between simply not liking an entire religious belief and dismissing as it 'wrong' or the like, compared to disliking certain aspects of it. Can you not see the difference between the two?

gozunda

givyjoe wrote: »

My lord you are talking some absolute twaddle. It's literally mind boggling that you keep referring to me as a bigot.. like.. earth is flat mind boggling.

Of the two of us, you think that you are the one that recognises that people have different opinions and respects it..?! I can't believe what I'm reading at this stage. You've shown zero evidence of this, and have literally taken what I have said is to be precisely my point of view and claimed that you in fact do this yourself, but not me. Mind.. blown. Not LIKING someone else's point of view is not bigoted.. christ on a bike. Also pathetic that you are now twisting my, quite clear words that I 'hate'. I have given you zero reason to suggest 'hate' in any of my posts. Quite disgusting that you are making that unjustifiable leap, self evident my absolute swiss. Let me make it REALLY simple as to what my 'narrow world view is' in the context of this thread. I don't believe folks should be discriminated based on race, religion, ethnic origin (of any of the 9 grounds (i.e. race gender etc.. and I don't believe someone should be locked up for 4 years without having committed a crime. I believe you and others are entitled to your views, no matter how unpleasant I view them to be. I can also think certain aspects of someone's religion may be undesirable, while still at the same time recognising their right to those beliefs (So long as they don't break the law of the land). So yeah, really narrow view. :rolleyes:

Resorting to insult and blasphemy as well - my my you really are a shinning beacon

You can't get out of the fact you are calling other posters bigots- while all the time having that very attitude :rolleyes:

The problem is that you are so blinded by your own ideas that you cannot see clearly

Omackeral

You can dislike entire religious beliefs without being a bigot. I dislike pretty much all organised religions, feel they're preposterous in 2017. However, I wouldn't treat a fella or girl different just because they're Sikh, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, whatever.

I'm entitled to my thoughts and they're entitled to theirs. If nobody treads on anybody els, what of if?

givyjoe

gozunda wrote: »

Resorting to insult and blasphemy as well my my you really are a shinning beacon

You can't get out of the fact you are calling other posters bigots- while all the time having that very attitude :rolleyes:

The problem is that you are so blinded by your own ideas that you cannot see clearly

Insult?! I've seen you aim this at other posters too.. where do you feel you've been insulted?! Someone (on this thread of all places) who cares about blasphemy... your points of view make a little more 'sense' to me now.

I think it's fairly clear at this point that you still don't understand what to be bigoted means. Oh well.

Omackeral wrote: »

You can dislike entire religious beliefs without being a bigot. I dislike pretty much all organised religions, feel they're preposterous in 2017. However, I wouldn't treat a fella or girl different just because they're Sikh, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, whatever.

I'm entitled to my thoughts and they're entitled to theirs. If nobody treads on anybody els, what of if?

That's a perfectly find and reasonable point of view. Do you honestly believe that all of the posters here, would believe/practice that? i.e. the bolded text on equal treatment?

Will I Am Not

givyjoe wrote: »

Em, except there is an absolutely massive difference between simply not liking an entire religious belief and dismissing as it 'wrong' or the like, compared to disliking certain aspects of it. Can you not see the difference between the two?

Well you said you didn’t like the views of Islam. The other guy said he didn’t like Islam. Not Muslims. Just Islam.
So tell me, bearing in mind we are talking about a religious ideology, what is the difference?

Omackeral

I said I dislike an entire religion. I dislike loads of entire religions. To which you responded;

givyjoe wrote: »

That's a perfectly fine and reasonable point of view.

But you've just this said half an hour ago;

givyjoe wrote: »

Em, except there is an absolutely massive difference between simply not liking an entire religious belief and dismissing as it 'wrong' or the like, compared to disliking certain aspects of it. Can you not see the difference between the two?

So which is it? Am I reasonable as you said or am I bigoted for disliking entire religions, which you also said? Remember, there's a massive difference between not liking aspects of a religion and not liking entire religions.

gozunda

givyjoe wrote: »

I think you need to double check the more prescriptive definition I posted, which makes a lot more sense in this context. If you really believe I'm a bigot, based on anything that I've posted, you've got some serious issues.

Actually, I'll just post it again for you.. save you the trouble: a person who has very strong, unreasonable beliefs or opinions about race, religion or politics.

What happened to the first definition of bigot you posted this morning ie

oxforddictionary wrote:

bigot

noun

a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

That version not suit the mess you've got yourself into ?

givyjoe

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

Well you said you didn’t like the views of Islam. The other guy said he didn’t like Islam. Not Muslims. Just Islam.
So tell me, what is the difference?

I said I didn't like certain aspects without specifying any. Such aspects would include attitudes to gay folks.. but then again, I don't like the 'similar' (but obviously not as extreme) attitudes of the Catholic Church towards gay folks.

The difference is, I have said I don't like certain aspects of the beliefs (example above), which I contend is a fairly reasonable point of view. What I would argue to be unreasonable, is simply saying I don't like Islam... the entire religion. Simply stating that you don't like an entire religion (which most here don't know that much about - I include myself in that), based on probably only some of the extreme beliefs is unreasonable in my view. Would it be reasonable for jewish folks to dislike our religious beliefs (the whole lot) based on our (Catholic) religious views around abortion for example?

When someone says they dislike Islam, are they not also saying they don't like Muslims..? You know, the folks who practice the beliefs they don't like.

That's my point around bigotry, simply saying I don't like XXX religion (by proxy those who practice it) is unreasonable and bigoted IMO.

gozunda wrote: »

What happened to the first definition of bigot you posted this morning ie



That version not suit the mess you've got yourself into ?

It's an overly simplistic one that I lazily used as the first result. I specifically noted in the same post, that as soon as I finished my post.. I realised some people would immediately make the argument.. oh well that makes you a bigit too.. simply for disagreeing with your points of view. The key word you keep missing even from the first definition.. is 'intolerant'. I specifically said, multiple times after that you were entitled your views, i.e. I tolerate them!, but that I didn't agree with them.

The second is a far more specific and oddly enough it neatly puts you into that bucket.

Omackeral wrote: »

I said I dislike an entire religion. I dislike loads of entire religions. To which you responded;



But you've just this said half an hour ago;




So which is it? Am I reasonable as you said or am I bigoted for disliking entire religions, which you also said? Remember, there's a massive difference between not liking aspects of a religion and not liking entire religions.

See above on what I contend is reasonable.

gitzy16v

givyjoe wrote: »

I said I didn't like certain aspects without specifying any. Such aspects would include attitudes to gay folks.. but then again, I don't like the 'similar' (but obviously not as extreme) attitudes of the Catholic Church towards gay folks.

The difference is, I have said I don't like certain aspects of the beliefs (example above), which I contend is a fairly reasonable point of view. What I would argue to be unreasonable, is simply saying I don't like Islam... the entire religion. Simply stating that you don't like an entire religion (which most here don't know that much about - I include myself in that), based on probably only some of the extreme beliefs is unreasonable in my view. Would it be reasonable for jewish folks to dislike our religious beliefs (the whole lot) based on our (Catholic) religious views around abortion for example?

When someone says they dislike Islam, are they not also saying they don't like Muslims..? You know, the folks who practice the beliefs they don't like.

That's my point around bigotry, simply saying I don't like XXX religion (by proxy those who practice it) is unreasonable and bigoted IMO.



It's an overly simplistic one that I lazily used as the first result. I specifically noted in the same post, that as soon as I finished my post.. I realised some people would immediately make the argument.. oh well that makes you a bigit too.. simply for disagreeing with your points of view. The key word you keep missing even from the first definition.. is 'intolerant'. I specifically said, multiple times after that you were entitled your views, i.e. I tolerate them!, but that I didn't agree with them.

The second is a far more specific and oddly enough it neatly puts you into that bucket.



See above on what I contend is reasonable.

Tied yourself up in a bigoted knot you can't get out of.

givyjoe

gitzy16v wrote: »

Tied yourself up in a bigoted knot you can't get out of.

Eh, yeah.... that's exactly it:rolleyes: Can only assume you didn't bother actually reading the post or related posts.

gozunda

gozunda wrote:

What happened to the first definition of bigot you posted this morning ie


"A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions."

That version not suit the mess you've got yourself into ?

giveyjoe wrote:

it's an overly simplistic one that I lazily used as the first result. I specifically noted in the same post, that as soon as I finished my post.. I realised some people would immediately make the argument.. oh well that makes you a bigit too.. simply for disagreeing with your points of view. The key word you keep missing even from the first definition.. is 'intolerant'. I specifically said, multiple times after that you were entitled your views, i.e. I tolerate them!, but that I didn't agree with them.

What's a "bigit' btw is it a big bigot perhaps?

The obvious issue you had with the first one is that it refers to the third person and clearly indicated that the reference applied to a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions. ie as your attitude towards others clearly showed

The one you replaced it with after this was pointed out to you - better suited your attempts to blame others for being bigots because their 'unreasonable' (ie as defined to be unreasonable by you) beliefs and opinions that did not correspond with yours

The problem with your many of your directed replies is that you clearly show no respect to other posters opinions and where they disagree with you as I have you accuse then of being bigot. :rolleyes:

You also said that

givyjoe wrote:

The second is a far more specific and oddly enough it neatly puts you into that bucket

So please give prize examples of selected versions of the 'truth' as you see it ie "strong, unreasonable beliefs or opinions about race, religion or politics" that puts me into a bucket (sic)

And by that definition I don't mean those just that you disagree with ...

SnakePlissken

david75 wrote: »

Sad that I need to explain it but I was referring to the marriage equality referendum. Which was won with 62% of the vote. 38% voted no. That no vote was based in a religious prejudice and we heard the no campaign rattle on about their ‘sincerely held beliefs’ and warping it to make it about children needing mothers and fathers. Spurious religious nonsense. Which we’re already seeing again with the abortion debate.
Don’t try suggest Ireland is somehhow more enlighten than any Muslim nation. The thankfully dying hardcore catholic body is as extremely retarded as any sharia law but dying off and the abortion debate will be its death rattle.

Here’s a detailed breakdown of those numbers for you

http://mcimaps.com/the-numbers-behind-irelands-historic-vote-on-same-sex-marriage/

If you give a fool enough rope, he will invariably hang himself. Congratulations, you've just confirmed that you did indeed pull that little "Statistic" from your posterior.

You made this claim;

david75 wrote: »

You live in a country which 38% of voters are of the belief, based on their catholic faith, that gay people are unequal and don’t deserve equal rights.

You are rather ineptly trying to argue that all those 38% who voted no in the marriage referendum did so due to their

david75 wrote: »

catholic faith,

, this is a blatant falsehood which you have arrived at purely to scaffold your already crumbling argument.

Are you really so foolish to believe that;

Of those 38% who voted no, none were Muslim, Atheist, Jewish, Protestant, and so on and so forth?

And of the 62% who did vote yes, none were Catholic?

I for one know a great many people who describe themselves as Catholic who did indeed vote yes for equality, but you don't want to hear that, for how can we dare criticize Islam's failings if people such as yourself haven't got the failsafe of whataboutery about the Catholic Church?

gitzy16v

givyjoe wrote: »

that's exactly it.

You're right

SnakePlissken

david75 wrote: »

Sad that I need to explain it but I was referring to the marriage equality referendum. Which was won with 62% of the vote.

You really are a contrary sort aren't you? In a long rambling post about how Ireland did indeed pass the marriage referendum, you then come out with this little nugget of intelligence.

david75 wrote: »

Don’t try suggest Ireland is somehhow more enlighten than any Muslim nation.

I mean, seriously, is this a sign of schizophrenia we're witnessing? These two statements directly contradict the other and you managed to state them in the same post.