Could Islam be the answer to ending sex abuse?

SonofPog · Post by **SonofPog** » Sun Oct 15, 2017 11:52 pm

Yeah, these days, say you're English, you get arrested and thrown in jail.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Oct 15, 2017 11:57 pm

What? Just for saying you're English?

SonofPog · Post by **SonofPog** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:05 am

Yeah mate, these days, you get arrested and thrown in jail, just for saying you're English.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:08 am

Actually thrown in jail?

ElectroClaret · Post by **ElectroClaret** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:09 am

And they'll bandage your knuckles up for free.

You know.....after all that dragging on the tarmac..........

SonofPog · Post by **SonofPog** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:19 am

Just for saying you're English IT!!!

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:21 am

In jail? You'll be thrown in jail just for saying your English?

SonofPog · Post by **SonofPog** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:25 am

Well, No.

But I've you cross out British and write White English on a form they send it back to you.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:17 am

I posted a while back that the Independent had become silly internet tabloid and nobody really seemed to believe me.

It takes a while for content to catch up with reputation.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:28 am

Rowls wrote:I posted a while back that the Independent had become silly internet tabloid and nobody really seemed to believe me.

It takes a while for content to catch up with reputation.

I take it you've read the article and can explain what it is you disagree with and why.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:32 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:I take it you've read the article and can explain what it is you disagree with and why.

I'd no more read an article titled like that than I would in the Daily Mail titles "Can Tomatoes Cure Cancer?"

We all know the answer to these silly tabloid questions and I know what the article will say.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:34 am

Rowls wrote:I'd no more read an article titled like that than I would in the Daily Mail titles "Can Tomatoes Cure Cancer?"

We all know the answer to these silly tabloid questions and I know what the article will say.

The headline isn't a question.

So you didn't even click the link, but you already know enough about the article to pass judgement on it.
Classic Rowls.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:42 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:The headline isn't a question.

Yeah, the "headline" here (AKA thread title) IS a question and if the article follows that kind of questioning I don't need to bother clicking it because I know the answer.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:13 am

Rowls wrote:Yeah, the "headline" here (AKA thread title) IS a question and if the article follows that kind of questioning I don't need to bother clicking it because I know the answer.

Classic Rowls.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:24 am

There are only so many hours in the day.

I know what has been posted here which gives me a lot of insight into an article I don't want to read.

I know it's published by a click-baiting tabloid, internet-only newspaper.

Are you desperate to read the following article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... umors.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

????

No?

Me neither.

Carry on "classic" turtlebrains

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:32 am

Why should anyone ever take any of your opinions seriously when you're this resistant, or this lazy, when it comes to fact-checking yourself?

I bet you still haven't read it, have you? Even after it is explained how your assumption is wrong, i'd be willing to bet you've still not read the article and that your opinion still hasn't changed.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:39 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Why should anyone ever take any of your opinions seriously when you're this resistant, or this lazy, when it comes to fact-checking yourself?
I bet you still haven't read it, have you? Even after it is explained how your assumption is wrong, i'd be willing to bet you've still not read the article and that your opinion still hasn't changed.

I read the Guardian and New Statesman to challenge myself. They are well-written, thoughtful publications.

Would you read the Daily Mail to seriously challenge your beliefs? If you do, it shows what a tool you are.

Read the Telegraph or the Spectator instead.

No I've not read it. I haven't even given any precis of what I reckon it says and yet you think my "assumption is wrong"? You don't do irony do you?

You bet my "opinion hasn't changed" based on the fact that you don't know what my opinion is (or even would be)? ?????

My opinion is that the article isn't worth reading!

And you never realise when you're ascribing me with views I don't hold either do you? There's probably some vacuous nascent 'phobia' I'm presenting with forming in your thick skull right now based upon a response I haven't given to an article I haven't read.

Have you read the DM article yet?

Why not?

You anti-science neanderthal!

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:26 am

I've read it, and can categorically say it's not worth reading. It's just a propaganda piece aimed at wooing the independents large Muslim following with enough progressive buzzword like 'rape culture' and 'victim blaming' whilst whistling to the tune of 'toxic masculinity is the problem' early on in the article to keep their white liberal Base happy. However, once it got that out the way, it gets on to its real agenda. Talking about how the influence of the prophet Muhammad prevented rapes by making women guard their private parts (aka cover up) and we start to scratch away to the Islam we all know and love.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:29 am

I need to reword what I put
The use/practice of sharia law will be legal under U.K. Law in 15/20 years.

How it was written suggest we would all be living under it in 15/20 years which is of course not going to happen.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:57 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:I've read it, and can categorically say it's not worth reading. It's just a propaganda piece aimed at wooing the independents large Muslim following with enough progressive buzzword like 'rape culture' and 'victim blaming' whilst whistling to the tune of 'toxic masculinity is the problem' early on in the article to keep their white liberal Base happy. However, once it got that out the way, it gets on to its real agenda. Talking about how the influence of the prophet Muhammad prevented rapes by making women guard their private parts (aka cover up) and we start to scratch away to the Islam we all know and love.

Do you think victim-blaming doesn't happen the way the article says it does?

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Talking about how the influence of the prophet Muhammad prevented rapes by making women guard their private parts (aka cover up) and we start to scratch away to the Islam we all know and love.

Lol. Quote?

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:10 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Do you think victim-blaming doesn't happen the way the article says it does?

Lol. Quote?

"Accordingly, the Prophet Muhammad by example demonstrated that the burden of modesty, respect, and combating abuse of women rests on men. Indeed, men must take the lead in stopping such sexual abuse. After all, while the Quran obliges women to dress modestly as a covenant with God, Islam prescribes no punishment whatsoever for women who choose to dress otherwise

And when it comes to the Islamic concept of Hijab, it is men who are first commanded to never gawk at women, and instead guard their private parts and chastity, regardless of how women choose to dress – pre-empting sexual abuse."

This is an incredibly tailored way of saying what we already know. That men are to control women, manage them and their actions. If you can't see that this is a desperate attempt to put a positive and liberal spin on common knowledge about Islamic culture then this debate is pointless..

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:11 am

The use/practice of sharia law will be legal under U.K. Law in 15/20 years.

How it was written suggest we would all be living under it in 15/20 years which is of course not going to happen.

Is this before or after we join the German European Super state?

So many things to worry about on a Monday Morning.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:15 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:"Accordingly, the Prophet Muhammad by example demonstrated that the burden of modesty, respect, and combating abuse of women rests on men. Indeed, men must take the lead in stopping such sexual abuse. After all, while the Quran obliges women to dress modestly as a covenant with God, Islam prescribes no punishment whatsoever for women who choose to dress otherwise

And when it comes to the Islamic concept of Hijab, it is men who are first commanded to never gawk at women, and instead guard their private parts and chastity, regardless of how women choose to dress – pre-empting sexual abuse."

This is an incredibly tailored way of saying what we already know. That men are to control women, manage them and their actions. If you can't see that this is a desperate attempt to put a positive and liberal spin on common knowledge about Islamic culture then this debate is pointless..

You're so far gone, aren't you? The author literally says the exact opposite of what you say he says but to you it's proof that he really means what you claim he means.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:17 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Is this before or after we join the German European Super state?

So many things to worry about on a Monday Morning.

An EU army would be a great and clever way to bypass their military restrictions though, wouldn't it?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:21 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:An EU army would be a great and clever way to bypass their military restrictions though, wouldn't it?

We have a veto on that. Oh wait...

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:23 am

Wait a minute. Are you seriously concerned that an EU Army is a way for Germany to achieve what it failed to achieve in the 40s?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:30 am

Yeah, he is.

He's gone full Ringo.

YOU NEVER GO FULL RINGO

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:31 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Wait a minute. Are you seriously concerned that an EU Army is a way for Germany to achieve what it failed to achieve in the 40s?

Not particularly, it's just one of those things that have crossed my mind.

bfccrazy · Post by **bfccrazy** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:35 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Wait a minute. Are you seriously concerned that an EU Army is a way for Germany to achieve what it failed to achieve in the 40s?

Well it was a nazi idea .... I'm also pretty sure the first leader of it was one of Hitlers right hand men ........ Not as far fetched as you're making it out however unlikely.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:38 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Yeah, he is.

He's gone full Ringo.

YOU NEVER GO FULL RINGO

He went full Ringo when he claimed the article was saying it's a woman's job to cover up and then quoted the passage that said it's not a woman's job to cover up.

I don't know how we're supposed to communicate with these people.

bfccrazy · Post by **bfccrazy** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:41 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:He went full Ringo when he claimed the article was saying it's a woman's job to cover up and then quoted the passage that said it's not a woman's job to cover up.

I don't know how we're supposed to communicate with these people.

"These people"?

Lemme go find that race card

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:49 am

When you say it was a Nazi idea, it was also a Roman idea, a Frankish idea, a Holy Roman Empire idea, a French idea, and hell, might even have been an English and Burgundian idea as well.

They were all autocratic states though, be that Emperor, first consul or whatever, Not one of them was a democratic organisation of 27 democracies.

So a bit like Sharia Law for all, I don't think we've got anything to worry about.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:50 am

bfccrazy wrote:"These people"?

Lemme go find that race card

I'm highly offended at being labeled in such a way. I have a dream, that one day a man will be judged on the content of his sh1tposting, not the colour of his party.

bfccrazy · Post by **bfccrazy** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:57 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:When you say it was a Nazi idea, it was also a Roman idea, a Frankish idea, a Holy Roman Empire idea, a French idea, and hell, might even have been an English and Burgundian idea as well.

They were all autocratic states though, be that Emperor, first consul or whatever, Not one of them was a democratic organisation of 27 democracies.

So a bit like Sharia Law for all, I don't think we've got anything to worry about.

And it being pushed forward by a nazi lawyer and soldier .... Who went on to become the 1st leader ......

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:01 am

Er, again there is a difference between the following three really quite important points

1) Actual history, as in what actually happens and what did happen

2) The EU and what it is, rather than what, say, Nigel Farage thinks it is

3) The Germany of 1930s and the Germany of the 2017s

If I'm being totally honest, we've more in common now with the Germany of the 1930s than the Germany of 2017 has with it.

Going way O/T here, but it has been British Foreign policy since, well, forever to not allow France/Germany to dominate Europe*. It seems completely weird that we've decided to let them do just that because of blue passports and some Eastern European immigrants.

*again, its not possible to dominate Europe like the old nations did, but they have a lot more clout if we are not involved in it.

Funkydrummer · Post by **Funkydrummer** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:44 am

I can see how easy it is to confuse "ending" with "promoting".

ClaretAndJew · Post by **ClaretAndJew** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:47 am

So I take it no one has actually read the article, because it's literally nothing about Islam ending sex abuse.

Funkydrummer · Post by **Funkydrummer** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:50 am

ClaretAndJew wrote:So I take it no one has actually read the article, because it's literally nothing about Islam ending sex abuse.

Exactly.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:42 pm

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:53 pm

We need Ringo on here tonight so we can see him squirm even more. Hopefully, the mods won't spare his humiliation next time.

UpTheClaretsFCBK · Post by **UpTheClaretsFCBK** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:15 pm

let's organise some kind of march against this article.

That'll solve the issue.

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:18 pm

ClaretMoffitt wrote:

I don’t get it? Are you suggesting that some guy in Saudi is better at jigsaws that an alleged white rapist of Jewish descent?

CnBtruntru · Post by **CnBtruntru** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:18 pm

clarethomer wrote:I nearly sprayed the screen with my tea after reading SimonNorwich' comments

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:19 pm

How can you do a jigsaw when you can't see the pictures on them because of that silly bright light?

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:42 pm

Saxoman wrote:Claret tony should close these thinly veiled hate threads.

Have you been so brainwashed you've forgotten it's completely OK to hate Islam? or Christianity. Or Communism. Or existentialism. Or Reaganomics. Or feminism. Or White Nationalism.

Not its practitioners. Just the theosophy or philosophy of your preferred target.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:00 pm

thatdberight wrote:Have you been so brainwashed you've forgotten it's completely OK to hate Islam? or Christianity. Or Communism. Or existentialism. Or Reaganomics. Or feminism. Or White Nationalism.

Not its practitioners. Just the theosophy or philosophy of your preferred target.

The truth is it isn't though. Somehow it has become the one and only ideology that it is not OK to talk negatively about in society. That is what concerns me, and should concern people who truly think of themselves as liberals...

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:10 pm

Could tomatoes end sex abuse ?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:13 pm

evensteadiereddie wrote:We need Ringo on here tonight so we can see him squirm even more. Hopefully, the mods won't spare his humiliation next time.

Stop kidding yourself

The only one squirming was Upthebeehole!

And idiots like you who attempted to back him up

"Oops, I wrote 'muslim sex ring' instead of 'white man Dr Matthew Falder from Cheshire'."

Absolutely pathetic.

Walton · Post by **Walton** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:24 pm

Saxoman wrote:Claret tony should close these thinly veiled hate threads.

Agree.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:47 pm

ClaretMoffitt wrote:The truth is it isn't though. Somehow it has become the one and only ideology that it is not OK to talk negatively about in society. That is what concerns me, and should concern people who truly think of themselves as liberals...

How are you not embarrassed when you read this **** back to yourself?