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

givyjoe

gozunda wrote: »

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 - refers to the first person and better suited your attempts to blame others for being bigots because their views and opinions 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 the disagree with you as I have you accuse then of being bigot.

Really, you feel the need to make a point out of a typo?:rolleyes:
Did you mean 'they' :rolleyes:

I think you may have a different understanding of intolerant as well as bigoted.

My issue is with folks who want to treat others differently (namely less favourably) based on their religion or race or ethnicity or even their political beliefs. I think that's a fairly reasonable belief to have, wouldn't you agree?

david75

SnakePlissken wrote: »

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.



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.

Do you have trouble reading or is it just comprehension? We’re you even here for that referendum? The entire no campaign was run by a hard right catholic faction and their nonsense was what lost it for them. That 38% contains almost emtritely a ‘tradtional’ Catholic demographic and predominantly rural. Hardly the most enlightened of people. How is Ireland’s and the churches history of treatment of women as second class citizens or gay people as abhorrent any different to the view taken by MB etc?

Is making patheitc attempts to insult me or anyone the very best you can do? You’re probably part of the rot that’s anti progressive anti everything you deem ‘left’ or liberal. I’d feel bad for you but I’m happy knowing that Ireland and the likes of you are an almost extinct breed in real life. Yis are alive and well behind your keyboards though. Pathetic.

Hitman3000

david75 wrote:

Do you have trouble reading or is it just comprehension? We’re you even here for that referendum? The entire no campaign was run by a hard right catholic faction and their nonsense was what lost it for them. That 38% contains almost emtritely a ‘tradtional’ Catholic demographic and predominantly rural. Hardly the most enlightened of people. How is Ireland’s and the churches history of treatment of women as second class citizens or gay people as abhorrent any different to the view taken by MB etc?

Such utter b.s.. The Catholic church has a litany of sins to answer for but to compare them to the MB is some stretch. lol

gozunda

givyjoe wrote: »

Really, you feel the need to make a point out of a typo?:
Did you mean 'they'

I think you may have a different understanding of intolerant as well as bigoted.

My issue is with folks who want to treat others differently (namely less favourably) based on their religion or race or ethnicity or even their political beliefs. I think that's a fairly reasonable belief to have, wouldn't you agree?

Not a typo point out - I just thought you may have came up with an alternative type of bigot as you did with your changing definitions....

So it is 'treating' now? You have changed the definition again?

Reasonable as defined by you? No.

Btw you forgot to answer the last part of my post. Don't try to duck and dive - you're in so deep at this stage - someone should take the shovel away from you ...

givyjoe

gozunda wrote: »

Not a typo point out - I just thought you may have came up with an alternative type of bigot as you did with your changing definitions....

So it is 'treating' now? You have changed the definition again?

Reasonable as defined by you? No.

Btw you forgot to answer the last part of my post. Don't try to duck and dive - you're in so deep at this stage - someone should take the shovel away from you ...

Right, so based on your own words, it's fair to say you do believe that it's ok for someone to be treated less favourably because of their religious beliefs etc?:(

Or... is that you simply won't agree because I'm the one quoting it? Yeah, you seem quite reasonable re: your beliefs alright. P.s. I didn't define that, it's defined in law. Nor did I define the previously quoted definitions of bigotry.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Such utter b.s.. The Catholic church has a litany of sins to answer for but to compare them to the MB is some stretch. lol

You're right.. MB probably didn't systematically cover up decades of child sex abuse.

Sofiztikated

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

From the ashes of the Coptic Christian places of worship in Egypt I say fcuk you Ibrahim and all that you stand for. We will not be conquered.

And there we are, folks.

Some ****ebags did something ****e to people in Egypt, so **** this lad that **** all to do with it, bar being the same religion. He hasn't had any convictions of any wrong doing, he was held for 4 years and released without charge. I hope that my country would do the same for me, regardless of my religion (or lack thereof) or acquaintances.

I listened to him speak, without watching the screen, I was writing something, and he just sounded like any other Dublin youngfella, and happy to be home.

If he gets in trouble, or is suspected of anything like terrorism, he should be investigated and dealt with.

The chap in the Philippines that's being held on bolix charges, and looking at 10 years for apparent possession of 0.38g of cannabis (about a joints worth, and not a big one) but is known to be a shakedown by Airport Police should also lended the same help.

Ireland should look after its citizens, regardless of who you are.

SnakePlissken

david75 wrote: »

Do you have trouble reading or is it just comprehension? We’re you even here for that referendum? The entire no campaign was run by a hard right catholic faction and their nonsense was what lost it for them. That 38% contains almost emtritely a ‘tradtional’ Catholic demographic and predominantly rural. Hardly the most enlightened of people. How is Ireland’s and the churches history of treatment of women as second class citizens or gay people as abhorrent any different to the view taken by MB etc?

Is making patheitc attempts to insult me or anyone the very best you can do? You’re probably part of the rot that’s anti progressive anti everything you deem ‘left’ or liberal. I’d feel bad for you but I’m happy knowing that Ireland and the likes of you are an almost extinct breed in real life. Yis are alive and well behind your keyboards though. Pathetic.

Such unhinged aggression in this post, I really have touched a nerve haven't I?

Again, nothing wrong with my comprehension, but if you're going to persist in posting such waffle as;

david75 wrote: »

That 38% contains almost emtritely a ‘tradtional’ Catholic demographic

You're going to get called out for some evidence to support your claim, but there is no evidence to be found because what you stated is a lie.

But let's not backtrack here, you clearly stated that all those who voted against the marriage referendum were exclusively Catholic, here's my evidence;

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.

Please do explain to us how you came to the understanding that no Catholics voted in favor of the referendum, and how you could possibly believe, of those who voted no, none were Muslim, Atheist or any other religion?

Hitman3000

givyjoe wrote:

You're right.. MB probably didn't systematically cover up decades of child sex abuse.

I wouldn't be singing the praise of a faith that was founded by a guy that married his 6 year old neice. ; )

givyjoe

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I wouldn't be singing the praise of a faith that was founded by a guy that married his 6 year old neice. ; )

Hmmm...praise.. do you mean me? Our faith is better though right?:eek:

Hitman3000

givyjoe wrote:

Hmmm...praise.. do you mean me? Our faith is better though right?

Our faith ?I think all religion is b.s. used by assholes to control idiots. That's just my opinion though

First Up

Meanwhile I hope young Halawa is enjoying his return home and catching up with his life.

For sure he will have better things to do than read the tripe being posted here.

The_Kew_Tour

First Up wrote: »

Meanwhile I hope young Halawa is enjoying his return home and catching up with his life.

For sure he will have better things to do than read the tripe being posted here.

And here you are....

givyjoe

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Our faith ?I think all religion is b.s. used by assholes to control idiots. That's just my opinion though

I'm making the assumption that we are both Catholic..(8/10 folks in Ireland are) or probably at least both Christians. I'm more of a scientific in my beliefs, so like many I just passed through the rituals we all did as a kid

WinnyThePoo

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

And here you are....

.... And there you are.

david75

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Such unhinged aggression in this post, I really have touched a nerve haven't I?

Again, nothing wrong with my comprehension, but if you're going to persist in posting such waffle as; You're going to get called out for some evidence to support your claim, but there is no evidence to be found because what you stated is a lie.

But let's not backtrack here, you clearly stated that all those who voted against the marriage referendum were exclusively Catholic, here's my evidence;



Please do explain to us how you came to the understanding that no Catholics voted in favor of the referendum, and how you could possibly believe, of those who voted no, none were Muslim, Atheist or any other religion?

Yep. Definitely some comprehension problems. Already answered this. You do know Catholicism is the predominant religion in the country right? The majority of those that voted no were catholic and voted no based on their catholic beliefs. Just as the majority who voted yes were catholic and are not practicing catholics. Ie the majority of Ireland’s ‘catholic’ population. (If you doubt that go take a look inside any church any given day. Empty). The percentage of other faiths that voted in the referendum would be so small as to make no difference to either result. Probably fewer than 20,000 of the votes cast nationally.

You think those are lies I’d be happy to see you present some fact based evidence to support it. Otherwise I’ll quote you, you’re just lying.

Hitman3000

givyjoe wrote:

I'm making the assumption that we are both Catholic..(8/10 folks in Ireland are) or probably at least both Christians. I'm more of a scientific in my beliefs, so like many I just passed through the rituals we all did as a kid

Always best not to make assumptions, 8/10 ticked a box on a census form saying Catholic . Means f**k all other than junior might get into the local school. I prefer if people form their opinion based on fact not some b.s. in the Bible Koran or Torah etc.

gozunda

givyjoe wrote: »

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...

Yes well it is evident that you frequently fail to respect other posters opinions unless they agree with you

You also frequently resort to unnecessary name calling especially in this thread - the use of the term bigot and general insults to denigrate other posters and their opinions.

So as you asked I did a quick check and here are some of the lovely insults you have used over the last few days ...

givyjoe_examples wrote:

Don't give a flying f***

Get over yourself

You're having an absolute laugh

Utter waffle

So much horsesh!te

What are u babbling on about

Yey that's what exactly makes you a bigot

Mate please go educate yourself

My Lord you are talking done absolute twaddle

Etc etc

You also said ...

givyjoe wrote:

Someone (on this thread of all places) who cares about blasphemy

I would have presumed that if anyone would not have used blasphemy - it would have been you- considering how you have stated that you don't like others being treated unreasonably because of their religion.

If their religion contains prohibitions again blasphemy as both Christiantiry and Islam surely it is unreasonable to take the name of a deities in vein?

And you do know that blasphemy is actually illegal in this country?

givyjoe

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Always best not to make assumptions, 8/10 ticked a box on a census form saying Catholic . Means f**k all other than junior might get into the local school. I prefer if people form their opinion based on fact not some b.s. in the Bible Koran or Torah etc.

Sorry but I cant leave smart arse comments, such as the above go. Were you or were you not baptised a Catholic? I should have just said statistical probability instead of assumption. :rolleyes: I think you completed missed my point of referring to 'our faith'.

SnakePlissken

david75 wrote: »

blah blah blah.

This is rather boring, just be adult about it and admit you have no proof to substantiate this claim, and did indeed pull it from your posterior;

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.

Not all Catholics voted NO, not all those from other religions voted YES, what is so hard to grasp?

david75 wrote: »

I’m happy knowing that Ireland and the likes of you are an almost extinct breed in real life.

I'm a dying breed? Who exactly do you think I am? I voted yes in the equality referendum, I'm proud to live in a country which recognizes the equality between the sexes and those of all sexuality, I'm honestly baffled at how you could claim I'm part of a dying breed when you don't know who I am.

Please elaborate, who is this dying breed you speak of?

givyjoe

gozunda wrote: »

Yes well it is evident that you frequently fail to respect other posters opinions unless they agree with you

You also frequently resort to unnecessary name calling especially in this thread - the use of the term bigot and general insults to denigrate other posters and their opinions.

So as you asked I did a quick check and here are some of the lovely insults you have used over the last few days ...



You also said ...


I would have presumed that if anyone would not have used blasphemy - it would have been you- considering how you have stated that you don't like others being treated unreasonably because of their religion.

If their religion contains prohibitions again blasphemy as both Christiantiry and Islam surely it is unreasonable to take the name of a deities in vein?

And you do know that blasphemy is actually illegal in this country?

If you are insulted by any of what you are quoted.. then I think you may be more than a little on the sensitive side. Also, where have I frequently called folks names..? Could you please compile another list for me?

Still not want to comment on my discrimination question then? Do you think it's ok to treat others not of the same religious beliefs (etc) less favourably, i.e. discriminate against them

I'm aware we have a ludicrous law on blasphemy, that will likely be removed from law in the coming years. Your point being? That I should be in prison without trial or..?

Omackeral

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Always best not to make assumptions, 8/10 ticked a box on a census form saying Catholic . Means f**k all other than junior might get into the local school. I prefer if people form their opinion based on fact not some b.s. in the Bible Koran or Torah etc.

Census is full of liars and truth stretchers. For example, over 40% said they spoke Irish in 2011. Wouldn't believe that whatsoever.

gozunda

givyjoe wrote: »

Right, so based on my* own words, it's fair to say you do believe that it's ok for someone to be treated less favourably because of their religious beliefs etc?

*fixed that for you

Wrong again I'm afraid. Your definition of 'reasonable is in question here. Don't be obtuse when the reference was quite clear...

givyjoe wrote: »

Or... is that you simply won't agree because I'm the one quoting it? Yeah, you seem quite reasonable re: your beliefs alright. P.s. I didn't define that, it's defined in law. Nor did I define the previously quoted definitions of bigotry.

You made up your own definition regarding 'treating' which was at quite a variance from both definitions given previously. So it does look like you are now making things up and applying your own home made qualitative judgements that suit you. And no that is no not good enough.

[Deleted]

The fact that you would descend to brining child sex abuse into this discussion to suit your own agenda is disgusting and beyond the lowest of the low ...

SnakePlissken

david75 wrote: »

The percentage of other faiths that voted in the referendum would be so small as to make no difference to either result. Probably fewer than 20,000 of the votes cast nationally.

In the last census it was found that 20% of the populace was NON Catholic, so approximately 950,000. Where did you get the 20,000 number from, are you claiming that of those listed in the census, 930,000 are below voting age? Estimating that of the 20,000 you claimed were eligible to vote were female, it would mean each would have had to mother 93 kids to support the number you've arrived at... ouch.

Once again, I'm incredibly embarrassed for you and your compulsion to pluck numbers from thin air to support whatever argument you wish to put forward.

But no, according to you, those who voted no in the marriage referendum were exclusively Catholic.

givyjoe

gozunda wrote: »

Wrong again I'm afraid. Your definition of 'reasonable is in question here. Don't be obtuse when the reference was quite clear...



You made up your own definition regarding 'treating' which was at quite a variance from both definitions given previously. So it does look like you are now making things up and applying your own home made qualitative judgements that suit you. And no that is no not good enough.

[Deleted]

The fact that you would descend to brining child sex abuse into this discussion to suit your own agenda is disgusting and beyond the lowest of the low ...

Ok, this is starting to get a little weird. I didn't make up any definition, anywhere... in any of my posts. Do I literally have to start breaking down words from the dictionary for you?

Simple question.... do you.. believe.. its ok.. to treat people differently (less favourably..) based on their religious beliefs? If you need to understand what treat means.. please look up the definition of discrimination for context

So now you're 'insulting' me?:rolleyes:

Asus X540L

This guy and his family needs to be removed from this fine country asap.

WinnyThePoo

Asus X540L wrote: »

This guy and his family needs to be removed from this fine country asap.

Go ahead so.

gozunda

givyjoe wrote: »

If you are insulted by any of what you are quoted.. then I think you may be more than a little on the sensitive side. Also, where have I frequently called folks names..? Could you please compile another list for me?

I though you said you 'respected' other people opinions. It is clear you do not looking at those replies. As for names?
How about Bigot being used ad nauseum?

givyjoe wrote: »

Still not want to comment on my discrimination question then? Do you think it's ok to treat others not of the same religious beliefs (etc) less favourably, i.e. discriminate against them

The last time I looked we were referring to "bigotry" definitions which appear to have by magic moorped now into "discrimination" - why you do that? Who are you saying is being discrinated against? More whataboutery?

Edit: Just checked and that was a question you put to Omackeral a few posts back. I think you are getting somewhat mixed up with the posts. Quite understandable :rolleyes:

givyjoe wrote: »

I'm aware we have a ludicrous law on blasphemy, that will likely be removed from law in the coming years. Your point being? That I should be in prison without trial or..?

Well for both your inquiries I respect the law - something that you appear to do when it suits you I see. So there's something you don't agree with and you want to get rid of it? Not suit your narrow worldview? Even though as you state those with religous should not be treated less favourably - however with that you are walking all over the beliefs no? More irrelevant rhetorical questions?

The_Kew_Tour

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

.... And there you are.

Ya but im not moaning like a child:pac:

WinnyThePoo

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Ya but im not moaning like a child:pac:

Sure you aren't honey

The_Kew_Tour

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Sure you aren't honey

:pac::pac::pac: