Hijab

[Awkward Linguist]

How would muslims see if this woman is attractive or not?

You must be registered for see images

You're quite the dumbass. That's not a Hijab​

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

I hate the way you guys post for debates these days.

It starts off with a lengthy post, and then another member adds a paragraph reply to each sentence of that post, and the cycle continues and the posts keep getting bigger.

I am a goldfish, I don't have time for this.

 

[Osmon]

How people expect me to let Atheists bullshit when they won't let me bs too ? Like, yeah you're an Atheist and you can talk shit all the time, yeah that's good nice job but when I say some shit y'all ballistic ***** dammn.

 

[FreakensteinAG]

I hate the way you guys post for debates these days.

It starts off with a lengthy post, and then another member adds a paragraph reply to each sentence of that post, and the cycle continues and the posts keep getting bigger.

I am a goldfish, I don't have time for this.

That's meant to be how proper debates are to be done. We're too used to debates among "the top of the political parties" being 2 minutes each person. How can there be contrasting of information when they're only two minutes each? When scientists debate, they take hours.

I don't have much to say since there has been lots of replies from seemingly every perspective, so I'll just reinforce the OP's original question. Women who are in specific regions of an Islamic state have to wear a headdress to be a Muslim. This would seem as authoritarian as a Jew having to wear a yarmulke in cathedrals. Except the Jews only have to wear their headdress in the Cathedral, and they won't get killed for not wearing it. So some people have no trouble wearing the required garment, but others feel oppressed being forced under penalty of death wearing it.

 

[YowYan]

It's not beautiful at all and deep down you and all those that uphold that doctrine with pride know it. It's male domination at its core, and started by males. A simple act oppression and the women wearing a hijab are trained since a young age to feel pride and a sense of duty for wearing one and being a submissive pet to your husband and community.

 

[Ansatsuken]

It's not beautiful at all and deep down you and all those that uphold that doctrine with pride know it. It's male domination at its core, and started by males. A simple act oppression and the women wearing a hijab are trained since a young age to feel pride and a sense of duty for wearing one and being a submissive pet to your husband and community.

This is true in middle east country especially in Afgan, Iraq etc but in other part of the world where Islamic country exist is not so true especially in my country Malaysia. Husband or society never force, beat their children or wife because of Hijab. Its a choice or learning. Society here never look down on muslim women that not wearing hijab or vice versa. But they will look down on you if your behavior is shit.

But yes I always heard that in middle east they get forced or killed bcus not wearing it. It just their mentality/ the way of thinking that many times againts Islamic teaching.

 

[SasukeTheEmo]

It's not beautiful at all and deep down you and all those that uphold that doctrine with pride know it. It's male domination at its core, and started by males. A simple act oppression and the women wearing a hijab are trained since a young age to feel pride and a sense of duty for wearing one and being a submissive pet to your husband and community.

Head dresses have been worn in many cultures outside of Islam.
No oppression as women wore it willingly. Nothing was forced.

 

[Avani]

Which part? My problem was with you telling me not to reply to you. How did I misunderstand that?



I never said you rely on my identity to 'trash an argument', but simply making constant references to me, calling me a liar etc. is ad hominem argumentation.

It's not an ad hominem when it's a true statement- You lied and I will come to it in a minute. You have been attacking and insulting and trying to put words in my mouth which I didn't say and even if you fail you continue as if your own false conclusion about my statement was a fact.

Really? How so? And finally you've shown your true colors.

That's an insult.

It always comes down to muslims and islam is this and that bad. I don't know what personal reasons you have against muslims...maybe some of them caused harm to your relatives in the indo-pakistani wars...who knows. Or it's just the usual historical grievances...But just because there are bad apples.

So me saying that Hijjab/pardah being used as tools of oppression and yet people support it due to social conditioning equates to saying Muslim and Islam is bad?

That's false conclusion you made deliberately and thus a lie again. And yes rest of your conclusion again constitutes an insult and an attempt at defamation.

Ok so if I dare to quote you and reply to you, I deserve a torrent of insults. Seems legit.

See another attempt to imply that you are getting insults for quoting me when you are just getting harsh replies for downright insulting and lying about what I post.

Ira. Seriously. Please. At least try to keep up the image of objectivity. In the past year, this is the 3rd thread in which we're talking. In the first thread, you basically agreed with Aim64c that genocide against the palestines is justifiable. of course I'll disagree with such a statement.

Serious lie again one I wouldn't pass by. Here is the post I made along with link to the whole discussion to see the context:

Spoiler

I think you're perfectly aware that was not the main point u.u

I merely pointed out that somethings do not have yes or no answer.

I didn't say I don't take sides. I don't support terrorists, but I don't think Islam is terror, either. I gave my reasons above u.u

I am not even going there. I have seen a lot of different faces of it in Indian history. So I know there are many sides.

And I'm afraid my advocation may be contraproductive. I'm not a muslim, so I can't tell how exactly they think: I'd like to make it clear that my intention was simply to show why me- as an outsider- can accept the reasoning of moderate muslims.

I never question that. I think their way is the one which will get a solution for all parties to live in peace. Don't confuse me with the other guy you are having a walli war with. I just don't think much of denying any responsibility by the other party when it's clear both act in the same way.

Moderate muslims also say that Islam comes from the same "supernatural power" yet they interpret it the peaceful way. Christians also said that their teachings are from divine source, the rulers ruled by divine right, yet it could be changed. If someone says that Islam is nothing like Christianity, because it is also a political system given by god- then we are back to the argument that a system can be changed by the people. "But god's word can't be altered". And what is the exact word of god? "The Quran" And what's in the Quran? "Fight the disbelievers" Yeah that's one of the things. "But it overwrites the peaceful ones"- And we are back to the same arguments that I've already addressed above.

I am aware. We had seen some of the worst of them too. Portuguese were here longer than British. Did I even question this part?

Those concepts are not in the Quran itself, though, furthermore, there are other 'houses' (or abides) as well (liek House of Truce).

The concept is accepted and that's what matters in the end. I am aware of Dar ul Aman too.

And that's the thing. The ideology of being superior and our culture should be spread, is not unique to Islam. It's also present in Judaism (the idea of 'chosen nation'), and hence in Christianity, and can be traced until modern imperialism.

Why are you telling me things which I said myself?

Yes but I don't think that in understanding another culture the best approach is to call it outright bullcrap. That goes for both sides.

Yeah that derails the dialogue even before it starts.

Cultures are in interaction, and can learn from each other. (Let's not forget the importance of Arabs in the European renessaince- that basically led to reform Christianity and feudalism. Though some people will deny that importance). Muslims should recognize the benefits of democracy and the importance of human rights (well many of them do- they key is education. Obviously, illiterate and poor people are easier to radicalize- however radicalism spreading fast in youths as well [but that's not unique to muslims]. )

I just want everyone to leave other nations alone if they are not causing problem for others and are able to provide basic human rights to their citizens.

But before we judge a culture, we should focus on our one as well. I was watching an anti-islamic video: it showed the front of a newspaperthat muslims in UK demand sharia law. Above the headlines, was an article about a 16 yrs old [British] girl who died of drinking too much vodka at a party. Is that good? Call me an idiot or whatever, but I don't think that's much better than cutting the hand of thiefs (though the two phenomena are different in nature, so maybe the comparing is not correct- but I'm just talking about aspects that could be dealt with: each culture has its own issues). I can mostly talk about my country though. We were occupied by the ottomans for centuries- yet I don't go blame the muslims for our current situation. Here, 1/3 of the population live in poverty. 1/4 of the households have problems paying bills. Hundreds of thousands of people go to work abroad because they can't find jobs.

I don't even watch such things all that much. And yea. Every culture has issues, that's why we should address our own problems too instead of blaming only the rest of the world.

We don't have much immigrants, but we do have about gypsies -adding up to 1/10 of the population (btw they are supposed to originate from India)- who are overrepresented in criminal statistics (though that goes for minorities in general), and they give birth to 4-8 children, while Hungarians 1-2.

Why would you even bring them up.. it's counter productive to what you were trying to establish...


I know about the reputation of gypsies but thousand years ago India was yet more flourishing country than any European one for a population to move there for better living.

If anything we still have a similar tribe here- Banjara and Dom as they are called locally. British promptly made a list of communities whom they classed as criminal tribes and added them to it in 1871(repealed in 1952).

After this many generation the ones you have don't even have that much Indian blood in them as they mixed from many other European countries. By the accounts I hear they probably attracted the most backward, deprived homeless, wandering people from all of the nations they lived in as they grew in number.

In a few generations they may be the majority. 80% of our GDP goes for state debt. (And we can't complain, we are in top 60 countries when it comes to GDP). So is Islam the biggest threat?

I didn't say Islam the reiligion is the biggest threat. But did you just compare the threat from armed extremists of that back ground with a groups of people which are product of racist discrimination of European nation and don't really have any personal political agenda as a community to impose a new social order on you in which you will turn into a second class citizen?

The Romani people, also referred to depending on the sub-group as Roma, Sintior Sindhi, Kale, or Romani , are an Indo-Aryan ethnic group, who live primarily in Europe. They originated in the region of northwestern India and now Pakistan,[1][2][3] and left sometime between the 6th and 11th century, brought by Muslims to Europe as slaves......

... Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi and these soldiers were defeated, they were moved west with their families into the Byzantine Empire between AD 1000 and 1030.[8]

Genetic evidence connects the Romani people and the Jat people, the descendants of groups which emigrated from South Asia towards Central Asia during the medieval period.

You must be registered for see links

The name Hindu Kush in Farsi/Parsi literally means 'Kills the Hindu', a reminder of the days when Indian slaves from the Indian subcontinent (whom their enslavers referred to as Hindus[6]) died in the harsh weather typical of the Afghan mountains while being transported to Central Asia.[....

..."The name Hindu Kush first appears in 1333 AD in the writings of Ibn Battutah, the medieval Berber traveller, who said the name meant 'Hindu Killer', a meaning still given by Afghan mountain dwellers who are traditional enemies of Indian plainsmen (i.e. Hindus)."

You must be registered for see links

In the least Ibn Battutah pointed out what was going on their with that wording.

If there is any connection with India they became slaves and were sold and that's how they ended up there...

As I said bringing them up was counter productive...Anyway..

I doubt you will lose majority. Chances of having more mixed people are higher though I can understand if it scares you. You are worried because they are 10%... we have 25% Muslims you know.. You shouldn't have brought this up..Luckily we are not that paranoid here.

don't think so. Of course ISIS and terrorists should be dealt with, but you know, we pay taxes to maintain governments, armies, NATO...stuff like that. But first of all we should mind our own freaking business instead of 'exporting democracy' to other countries because it's the best system ever (which is true regardless).

It's only the best as it gives everyone at least some chance to get in power more or less and thus reduces that conflict to an extent, and because you can kick out an incompetent leader out of power at one point without having to shoot them.

You must be registered for see links

Then I only pointed out that we have gypsies, who are supposed to originate from India. You tok it in the wrong way, apparently. I didn't even say they are bad persons in general, and by no means I said anything bad about India or Indians. I even sent you a pm apologizing for any misunderstanding. If you take it as an attack, you're not normal, sorry.

I didn't take it wrong way- I told you your analogy was wrong. And you rustled immediately. And don't lie about the PM apology either. Here is one of the PMs you were sending:

Spoiler

Hi...I don't like being on bad terms with people (especially that earlier we could talk normally) so I'll apologize for my behavior though I disagree with your approach. First of all I didn't make an analogy between ISIS and gypsies. I never said gypsies are a threat (and I'm not scared of them -I didn't say that either). I said Islam is not the biggest threat. I listed like 5-6 things that are more imminent concerns to us, that's all. I didn't say gypsies are a bigger threat than ISIS- I only said Islam itself is not the biggest threat, and all the other things together are an issue. Also, if this minority was not originating from India (and I used the word "supposed to" in the thread- which implies that it's just a simplification of their origins)- well let's say if I was talking about Philippinos, you wouldn't give a damn to defend them (when there was nothing to defend to begin with.)

And I reported that thread few days ago already for flaming- noone cared. When people post "Aim is the typical shthead American", or he answer "you can't read or lack comprehension"- that seems like a flame war to me.

Neither do I and that's why I left the thread.

And I didn't say Islam is the biggest threat ever. So you trying to tell me that repeatedly doesn't help. But extremists are a serious threat- no matter what their background, creed, belief etc.

And no it's not only terrorists of Muslim background. We have a severe problem with communist terrorists too. So you do not understand the scope of our worries.

Just because there are other problems too it doesn't mean one should ignore terrorists. I have to be alive first and foremost to worry about other things. And I also would like to do on my own terms and don't want to be forced to change my belief, my culture and abandon our history and think less of our ancestors, heroes, legends, values or live as a second class citizens in my own country of origin to be able to live.

You can probably ignore the stuff for you are in a safe zone. I wish I had that luxury to ignore extremists.

Anyway-- Every time peace talks come up between India and Pakistan some armed groups up the terrorist infiltration and the extremists in their army up the clashes on the borders with constant firing. On top of it they call Indian Muslims sell outs if they support India.

Can we resolve it unless extremists are subdued? Are we wrong if we want the region more balanced for the sake of both communities?

You think I reacted on Roma because I am Indian and you said they were. Nope that's oversimplify it. But, whatever, I do not wish to explore it anymore. You can deal them like Hitler did or make a new Israel for them in their supposed origin Afghanistan/Pakistan or you can educate them and give them job opportunities and bring them in mainstream. That's your business.

And I don't really like to continue arguments from threads in my inbox or profile. So I probably wont be replying the discussion itself.

However I appreciate the effort you made and sorry for the delay in reply. I haven't been online much in days.

And I didn't say you said Islam is the biggest threat ever. Nor did I say that extremists shouldnt be dealt with.
I just noticed a tendency that you never quote Aim64C or argue his points-only those who disagree with him.

You gave that impression when you kept saying that in different ways.

Exactly what I am supposed to say about his post? No one likes his approach on any issue. Not just Islam. Try talking to him in Naruto threads or on his other favourite topic the gun related laws in US.

I don' read his essays nor I know about that part much and other members were dealing with it just fine. I addresses the issue which concerned me and only as much as I know about. Weren't you doing the same- posting about the issue you are concerned with?

Yet your tone got pretty hostile when I mentioned gypsies- my intention was not to talk badly about India:

No your tone got hostile when I pointed out how the imperialism and racism caused that problem in your country. For me it was valid point since I was talking about those issues. They all tie up in the behaviour of extremists and end results.

The term India was just incidental.

I just knew you are Indian so you probably heard about them. However, you don't really know how things are here so I said I can mostly talk about my country. And you can talk for yours. Gypsy actually doesn't only denote an ethnic minority here but also a lifestyle. Even 'whites' can be called gypsy. And they have all chances to get education by the way- but they have a tendency of not taking their children to kindergarten, and they skip classes from school. Of course not everyone is like that. But yeah, if some crazy muslims in the Middle East claim to take over the world, that's not as big a threat to me as if I'd try to walk home at night at certain areas of the city (where chances are high that a gypsy will put a knife to my throat).

That's how the minority groups marginalized for centuries act. It takes time and a lot of patience to gain their trust.

The difference is you only seem to want to focus on American aggression and I want both the Americans and middle eastern to stop bothering others with their personal righteousness.

Lucky you. We are still waiting to know fate of 40 Sikhs kidnapped by ISIS in June.

I wish you stop sending me such PMs.

This is your Last PM in that series I bluntly told you to stop.:

You must be registered for see images

^ the apology letter exchange you keep bringing up.( funny that you tried to get a last word even in there adding something which was already over and done with)

You were dragging same forum argument in PM and repeating stuff. Apology was merely an excuse. So next time try to present it as something else I will directly infract for trolling. Because that's the simplest way to define your behaviour under circumstances.

The fact that you are well aware of my stand on the issue and how conflicted you are in your assertions regarding me. And your own cycle of accusing me and then stepping back when failing to produce anything substantial and then going back accusing the same thing again. You deny you said things about me and then immediately start doing it again. It's been over an year. I do not have endless patience with you.

Then, in the second discussion, I was trying to point out that the syrian conflict is not a local one, and that Europe has a responsibility of accepting refugees. You brought up India. I just pointed out that India has nothing to do with the discussion. Then Aim64c posted examples of muslims committing crimes here and there- among others, in India. So, it was he who brought up India not me, again. I gave a counter to every point of his. I didn't pick on India, you singled it out of a broader context of my post. I didn't say anything bad about your country, I just mentioned a fact as a counter to Aim64c's post. If you take that as an attack, you're not normal.

You say it's not local conflict but you object when it's pointed out that population disbalance lead to a partition based on religion or demands for the same. I can cite East Timor and Ireland and demands like Gorkhaland too. It's a valid point when you insist another country must take refugees and I told you that on humanitarian ground they should but I cannot blame them for trying to guard their interests.

You talk about objectivity and yet you continue with false statement. But now you have crossed a line So I quoted the original post above.

Normal is boring. However you just made another snide attempt trying to belittle me.

Yet in the meantime, you're continuously making insults about me and my religion. You also accuse me of lying, and trying to defame your country, when in fact I never did that.

You are defaming ME - I didn't make any insult towards the religion. And about you I only speak what I can show.

I never ever said anything bad about India or Indians. I even admitted that I have no problem with India or Indians. So, you're the one lying, and even now trying to make it seem as if I was attacking you.

See above and tell me how you are not attacking me.

Again, we only had a debate in 3 threads, including this one. Yet you're talking as if I 'assaulted' you like a hundred times and as if for no reason I had something against you.

Yet you did.

What same treatment? For every 10 insults you make about me, I answer with 1-2 counters at bestwhat same treatment? Even now, to your reply to OP, all I did was quoting an article. You could have just ignored it, or you could have asked me to delete it- as I always offer you that I'm willign to delete troublesome posts that you find offensive, if you'll do teh same. You never took my offer. I always ended these debates with pointing out that I have nothign against India- yet you say I must be lying. That's not an argument. That's an ad hominem accusation..

False statement and screwed up logic. There is no correlation between having or not having anything against a country or a person lying. And you are completely blind to the fact how heavily you are relying on fallacies yourself since the beginning. Deception seems to be the basic way you operate:


Diverting the argument to unrelated issues with a red herring (Ignoratio elenchi) [Check]
Insulting someone's character (argumentum ad hominem) [Check]
Assuming they are right by "begging the question" (petitio principi) [Check]
Making jumps in logic (non-sequitur) [Check]
Identifying a false cause and effect (post hoc ergo propter hoc) [Check]
Asserting that everyone agrees (bandwagoning) [Check]
Creating a "false dilemma" ("either-or fallacy") in which the situation is oversimplified [Check]
Selectively using facts (card-stacking) [check]
Making false or misleading comparisons (false equivalence and "false analogy) [check]
Generalizing quickly and sloppily (hasty generalization) [check]

You have done it all by now in this thread itself. Example :

And again, I nowhere read in the rules that I can't quote you,or else I'll get a shitstorm of accusations in the name of same treatment.

Did I say it's written in rules? Identifying a false cause and effect (post hoc ergo propter hoc) [Check]

Really, it's just disgusting now. I never said anything bad about your country- yet you accused me of trying to defame you.

Acting as if there is a correlation between these two?

I quoted you politely and linked an article- you say i'm attacking you. You've thrown like a dozen insults at me just in this thread- yet you say I'm just getting the same treatment.

Please list all 12 of them.

Let's start over again.

No let's not. You are just tiresome at this point.

How so? As a gmod, you are supposed to enforce the rules of NB and ban/infract people if they break them. However, if you yourself are generating a flamewar, insulting others, how can you claim the moral upper hand when banning others? That was my point.

No you are trying to drag me in one. Moderator's job is moderating. Nothing more. Infactions and bans do not show a mod's superiority or inferiority for that matter. It's just a reminder that you broke the site rules.

You say I don't deserve politeness- because ...why exactly? You say because I'm attacking you? I might be attacking your points, but I almost never say anything about your person.

Look above. Keep denying if you wish.

That was meant to be a compliment. I can hardly imagine that you get this butthurt in real life too.

How sweet of you! Now let me tell you unless you learn not to give backhanded compliments and get rid of condescending attitude to go with it, you are not going to get any self respecting girl with a spine, put up with you. You buying premium jewellery won't make them fall in love with you. If you don't want RL advice from me stop referring to my RL.

Nope it's not an attack it's simply reply to your own attitude and persistence in giving unsolicited views about my RL which you class as "compliment".

This argument has been dragged enough already. Any attempt to debate this post will be either ignored or reported depending upon the content. I skipped a lot of your post because of this kind of content as quoted above. It's not worth it to try to debate it with you with this kind of serious of personal assaults. And given your approach you have no intention of having a sincere discussion.

PS: I had tried my best to be polite to you despite my severe annoyance at your attempt to continue a forum argument in PM after I had deliberately stopped replying in thread.

PPS: Don't even try to start a debate over the content and topics in the PM or the ancient post I linked.

 

[Babadook]

It's not an ad hominem when it's a true statement - You lie and I will come to it in a minute. You have been attacking and insulting and trying to put words in my mouth which I didn't say and even if you fail you continue as if your own false conclusion about my statement was a fact.

It's quite sad it's come to this. You haven't even tried to address my points, you're just trying to prove how I lie and how I insult you. You could have quoted my posts without mentioning my original account. I asked you several times no to expose that. Don't bother taking the case to admins, I've already msged them.

You've got no more arguments- you had to resort to discussing how my one year old post and pm you interpret...

And I don't mind getting banned. Don't think that after this I want to have anything to do on this site.

That's an insult.

Doesn't really matter at this point, to you everything is an insult, apparently:

Of sure reply away -it's your funeral. But then don't cry later because you always come with " you are a mod,how could you do this " argument and that's your card always when you hit a wall in terms of argument and of course with your passive aggressive flaming and insults.

I didn't even bring that up at that point, yet you were trying to present it as if I did. Who's putting words into whose mouth? Besides, if you check that old thread about palestinians, I precisely remember your wording that 'as a lawyer, I should know better that there are grey areas'. It was you back then who first made references to my field:

No one is approving anything. Being a lawyer you should be aware of the grey areas and when how sometimes there are no right sides and then there are cases when it comes down to which side had better lawyers.

And what is 'passive aggresion' ? It's rather paradoxic.

You accused me with flaming and isnulting when I didn't even say any.

So me saying that Hijjab/pardah being used as tools of oppression and yet people support it due to social conditioning equates to saying Muslim and Islam is bad?

Nope, but saying that islam is oppression, is.

That's false conclusion you made deliberately and thus a lie again. And yes rest of your conclusion again constitutes an insult and an attempt at defamation.

What is a false conclusion? And what makes you think I'm deliberately lying? You've constantly been accusing me of this, but you've got no proof. You just keep ssaying I misread your posts and that I'm lying, yet you haven't even refuted any of my points, despite I even made a list of them to make it easier for you Lol

See another attempt to imply that you are getting insults for quoting me when you are just getting harsh replies for downright insulting and lying about what I post.

Oh, using the euphemism 'harsh replies'. All right, then my 'insults' are just harsh replies too Lol

Serious lie again one I wouldn't pass by. Here is the post I made along with link to the whole discussion to see the context:

No one is approving anything. Being a lawyer you should be aware of the grey areas and when how sometimes there are no right sides and then there are cases when it comes down to which side had better lawyers.

^There there, I was talking about that one.

I didn't take it wrong way- I told you your analogy was wrong. And you rustled immediately. And don't lie about the PM apology either. Here is one of the PMs you were sending:

How did I lie?

Hi...I don't like being on bad terms with people (especially that earlier we could talk normally) so I'll apologize for my behavior though I disagree with your approach.

Yet your tone got pretty hostile when I mentioned gypsies- my intention was not to talk badly about India:

I did apologize and pointed out that I have nothing against India.

Guess what, I've never been there, I don't even know anyone personally who's been there, I continuously been saying that I have noting against India or Indians, even now I'm saying that. You can't produce any quote in which I said anything bad against India. In fact, these quotes only prove that I did apologize. And excuse me, I didn't know that the magnificient Ira can't be replied to/quoted, and can't even be sent pms on forum discussions...

So next time try to present it as something else I will directly infract for trolling. Because that's the simplest way to define your behaviour under circumstances.

Go ahead. I already told you to ban me if you wish.

The fact that you are well aware of my stand on the issue and how conflicted you are in your assertions regarding me.

Your stand on the issue is that genocide is a grey area.

No one is approving anything. Being a lawyer you should be aware of the grey areas and when how sometimes there are no right sides and then there are cases when it comes down to which side had better lawyers.

And your own cycle of accusing me and then stepping back when failing to produce anything substantial and then going back accusing the same thing again.

1) At least one of us admits being wrong at times :|
2) I just produced one.

No one is approving anything. Being a lawyer you should be aware of the grey areas and when how sometimes there are no right sides and then there are cases when it comes down to which side had better lawyers.

You deny you said things about me and then immediately start doing it again. It's been over an year. I do not have endless patience with you

What is it that I said about you that I denied, and then started doing it again immediately?

You say it's not local conflict but you object when it's pointed out that population dissemblance lead to lead to a partition based on religion.

What?

It's a valid point when you insist another country must take refugees and I told you that on humanitarian ground they should but I cannot blame them for trying to guard their interests.

Good for you.

You talk about objectivity and yet you continue with false statement. But now you have crossed a line. Please provide direct quote where I justified a genocide or made an attack on the religion. Or I am dead serious I am taking your case to admins.

No one is approving anything. Being a lawyer you should be aware of the grey areas and when how sometimes there are no right sides and then there are cases when it comes down to which side had better lawyers.

You said it's a grey area. Quite funny, considering your name is Jean Grey Lol Also, Aim64c was pretty much approving it so you said a lie in this post Lol

You said all religions are for controlling the masses, and you interpreted my posts as showing how oppressive islam is. That is an attack on religion (s).

You are defaming ME - I didn't make any insult towards the religion. And about you I only speak what I see.

I find it rather insulting that you say it's oppressive and its only purpose is to control the masses.

I also speak about you what I see. I see a butthurt mod whose only tool left is to derail the topic by bringing up one year old posts and exposing my original accoutn despite I asked you not to, several times. Yet you complain when I return to saying the same things...talking about double standards.

Yet you did.

What did I do? We only talked a few times gee.

False statement and screwed up logic. There is no correlation between having or not having anything against a country or a person lying.

What false statement? I did told you the last time that I'm willing to delete my troublesome posts if you do that too. Again, I have nothing against India. You're being paranoid.

YoU've been countinuously accusing me of lying deliberately, without being able tp prove it. It's not something you can prove anyway, so it's just ad hominem argumentation. Besides, I did say like a hundred times that I have nothing against India, yet you also said that I'm attacking and defaming your country too. It's another question you also accuse me of dfaming and attacking you too, not just your country.

And you are completely blind to the fact how heavily you are relying on fallacies yourself since the beginning. Deception seems to be the basic way you operate:


Diverting the argument to unrelated issues with a red herring (Ignoratio elenchi) [Check]
Insulting someone's character (argumentum ad hominem) [Check]
Assuming they are right by "begging the question" (petitio principi) [Check]
Making jumps in logic (non-sequitur) [Check]
Identifying a false cause and effect (post hoc ergo propter hoc) [Check]
Asserting that everyone agrees (bandwagoning) [Check]
Creating a "false dilemma" ("either-or fallacy") in which the situation is oversimplified [Check]
Selectively using facts (card-stacking) [check]
Making false or misleading comparisons (false equivalence and "false analogy) [check]
Generalizing quickly and sloppily (hasty generalization) [check]

Oh. Let's look at your posts. I simply quoted an article, and you told me not to reply as I wouldn't like your reply. Apparently, you just assumed smtg of me, which is an ad hominem argument. At the very beginning. Then you kept on ranting how the word kafir translates bad.

That word comes with a lot of negative connotation towards them and matching sentiments don't ...

Yet later you accused me of running on emotions, despite it's you who mentioned your sentiments about a word...

Then you were talking about my 'passive aggression' and my flaming and insulting when I didn't even say any.

Then you said I have no arguments. Then you said you trashed my arguments. Now make up your mind. Did I have an argument or not? At least be consistent.

Then, first you say you don't care about more info. Then you ask for an explanation.

You have done it all by now in this thread itself. Example :


Did I say it's written in rules? Identifying a false cause and effect (post hoc ergo propter hoc) [Check]

I never said you said it's written rules so fail point. Obviously I was using sarcasm.

You must be registered for see links

Acting as if there is a correlation between these two?

Not necessarily, bar the fact that you are Indian and take it in a bad way whenever I dared to mention India while you're expecting me not to reply to you...and bar the fact that you did also accuse me of trying to defame India too...

And I was just pointing one positive thing from my side- compared to your attitude under the general principle of 'same treatment'.

Please list all 12 of them.

1) Assuming that I won't like your replies.
2) Trying to shut me up.
3) Saying "Boy, you do have a knack for rushing to post stuff which boomerangs at you." It's rather patronizing and condescending- you took such tone if used by me, as an insult, so I also take it as such.
4) don't cry later because you always come with " you are a mod,how could you do this " argument and that's your card always when you hit a wall in terms of argument and of course with your passive aggressive flaming and insults.

^false accusation in a condescending way
5) You have a serious reading comprehension issue or you think you can get away with intentional misunderstanding of the post and twisting it anyway you like.
6) You are being extremely ignorant and pulling stuff out of thin air.
7)Of course you wouldn't know the difference. You are too self indulgent to notice the difference.
8) You are acting all deaf.
9) Obviously civilizations are much wider and varied than your knowledge.
10) All I see is an emotionally enraged post but nothing real to respond to objectively - for all you are doing is running on emotions.
11) someone like you who can't even read a post properly.
12) all this accusing me of lying

Also, if your task is to infract peple and close threads, I'm proposing to infract yourself for the very same behavior for which you're threatening me of giving an infraction. Also, delete my previous username from those quotes, as I asked you several times not to expose that.

And seriously, you're playing very very dirty here, anyone can see that. You didn't even address ANY of my points from the list or from my quotes.

PPS: Don't even try to start a debate over the content and topics in the PM or the ancient post I linked.

Then why do you bring it up? Lol You use information you only know because you're a mod, and you ask me not to say anything in my defence? Just wow.

 

[Avani]

It's quite sad it's come to this. You haven't even tried to address my points, you're just trying to prove how I lie and how I insult you. You could have quoted my posts without mentioning my original account. I asked you several times no to expose that.

You don't want me to expose your original account but you keep bringing up it yourself and used the exchange from that account to misrepresent our conversation. It doesn't work that way.

Don't bother taking the case to admins, I've already msged them.

So you want admins to listen to you only and ignore what I have to say regarding this conflict? Interesting. But I think they must listen to both sides.

You've got no more arguments- you had to resort to discussing how my one year old post and pm you interpret...

Read above.

And I don't mind getting banned. Don't think that after this I want to have anything to do on this site.

Nothing to do with me.

Doesn't really matter at this point, to you everything is an insult, apparently:

Yea sure.

I didn't even bring that up at that point, yet you were trying to present it as if I did. Who's putting words into whose mouth? Besides, if you check that old thread about palestinians, I precisely remember your wording that 'as a lawyer, I should know better that there are grey areas'. It was you back then who first made references to my field:

Link and direct quote please. No more reference without context.

Nope, but saying that islam is oppression, is.

When did I say that? Direct link and quote please.

Rest of it is either already addressed several times over or is just more bickering anyway.

 

[Babadook]

You don't want me to expose your original account but you keep bringing up it yourself and used to misrepresent the whole exchange.

And? You could have just quoted the pms and posts with my name deleted...

So you want admins to listen to you only and ignore what I have to say regarding this conflict? Interesting. But I think they must listen to both sides.

What makes you think I only want them to listen to my side? Where did you get that from? I linked them the thread, they can read everything for themselves.

Link and direct quote please. No more reference without context.

I just did quote it like 3 times in my previous post. Do you even read it?

No one is approving anything. Being a lawyer you should be aware of the grey areas and when how sometimes there are no right sides and then there are cases when it comes down to which side had better lawyers.

________-

When did I say that? Direct link and quote please.

Here:

You are telling us all how oppressive the religion is. By all means keep going.

I didn't say any such thing, so it's your own interpretation only. Then:

Religions have always been used as tool for oppression. They do not dictate such rules for spiritual advancement but for their sociopolitical goals and better control over the masses.

And again, I'm asking you as a gmod to at least delet/cover/somehow hide my name. You only know of my original because you're a mod, otherwise I don't remember telling you about it. Besides, it's rather paranoic to have taken a screenshot of that and keeping it for a year. How many thousands of screenshots you have? Lol And it's not like you could prove anything with it, bar the fact that you're only quoting it because you know I don't want it. But it's pretty obvious that I did apologize and I did stress that I have nothing against India. Especially that I didn't even bring up India and never said anything bad about it. Anyway, the reason why I didn't want people to know about my original is exactly because I didn't want anyone to use my previous identity to defame islam- as I've converted in the meantime. What you're doing is exactly what I wanted to avoid. My previous relationship has nothing to do with the discussion and it's pretty petty to bring up, really. You're just trying to piss me off or smtg, this is admittedly not about the topic anymore. Yeah apparently in that pm I said ok you're not agreeing with Aim64c. That was a year ago. Yet you keep making me think you do agree with him that islam is just an oppressive ideology. But you expect me not to believe so. But when I expect you to believe me, you don't. So, really...even if you could have shown that I'm inconsistent, well, so are you, so you're noone to hold that against me. And in this thread, it was you who started accusing me of insulting you and lying...which in itself is an insult and a lie...so...if you sow hostility, you reap hostiliy. I treid to stay objective, but now you did not even try to argue my points about hijab, you just resorted to hurting me. It doesn't matter tho, it's not like I'm offended, it's just sad. Even if I also resorted to subjective arguments in the end, at least even two posts ago I tried to stay on topic. My point on the hijab still stands, everything else abuout the past, my identity or India is irrelevant.

 

[Avani]

And? You could have just quoted the pms and posts with my name deleted...

And I owe you much effort because? I can't risk the accusation that it was someone else who sent those PMs.

What makes you think I only want them to listen to my side? Where did you get that from? I linked them the thread, they can read everything for themselves.

You told me not to contact them. ^^

I just did quote it like 3 times in my previous post. Do you even read it?

You quoted it out of context not to mention you deleted several posts in that thread.

And I'm a lawyer so excuse me if I don't approve it. But in the end, one side or the other may really end up being exterminated.

No one is approving anything. Being a lawyer you should be aware of the grey areas and when how sometimes there are no right sides and then there are cases when it comes down to which side had better lawyers.

And I said I don't want to take sides and I admitted I don't know the solution either Lol
Maybe you should reread my posts Lol

But if someone says there are no civilians, I don't have to agree. International treaties > your opinion

I agree and yet how many were on trial in Hague from the winning side?

Two third of causalities in WWs were civilians- on both sides. One of the article says that since then it has only increased and current stats are 90% casualties in wars are civilians( world average). Just reading the data gives me a headache and horrifies me . I wouldn't want to be in a war zone. But we can only wish that leaders are more sensible.

See^ . Without context you claimed that was approving genocide while I was just making cynical posts and your own tone at the time proves you knew what I meant. Yet you tried to misuse it.

 

[Professor Finesser]

****ing towel heads

 

[Babadook]

And I owe you much effort because? I can't risk the accusation that it was someone else who sent those PMs.

But if I had tried to accuse you of posting someone else's pm, that's when you could have used the whole thing to prove it was indeed me. So, you just again made an assumption. Why would I deny that is my pm, when I know that you can prove it's mine?

You told me not to contact them. ^^

I didn't say that. I said don't bother as I've already msged them. Context, my lady.

You quoted it out of context not to mention you deleted several posts in that thread.

If my memory serves, I did delete some posts as I didn't want anyone to quote me anymore. I was fed up with that discussion.

See^ . Without context you claimed that was approving genocide while I was just making cynical posts and your own tone at the time proves you knew what I meant. Yet you tried to misuse it.

You said noone's approving anything.

False, Aim64c does/did.

Besides, I was talking to another member. So apparently you interfered then, but no problem. Just don't be mad if I also interfere with your posts.

As for context. I was talking about Aim's suggestion of genocide. That I don't approve of it. You said it's a grey area. It's hard to misunderstand.

Anyway you also edited that post. As a lawyer I can tell you it'd be hardly accepted as proof unless you can recover the original .

 

[Avani]

But if I had tried to accuse you of posting someone else's pm, that's when you could have used the whole thing to prove it was indeed me. So, you just again made an assumption. Why would I deny that is my pm, when I know that you can prove it's mine?



I didn't say that. I said don't bother as I've already msged them. Context, my lady.




If my memory serves, I did delete some posts as I didn't want anyone to quote me anymore. I was fed up with that discussion.



You said noone's approving anything.

False, Aim64c does/did.

Besides, I was talking to another member. So apparently you interfered then, but no problem. Just don't be mad if I also interfere with your posts.

As for context. I was talking about Aim's suggestion of genocide. That I don't approve of it. You said it's a grey area. It's hard to misunderstand.

False. You quoted were replying another member at the time. Here is the context, sir.

He was in the military .... they tend to think in practical absolutes, nothing unexpected there. But given the power even he would wield it bit differently.



Aye, that is the sad truth ... more I see the world the more I realize how right people like Chanakya and Machiavelli were. Its ultimately a dirty game, and winner takes all.

And I'm a lawyer so excuse me if I don't approve it. But in the end, one side or the other may really end up being exterminated.

Not to mention you had already had sent me PMs over that thread and gotten all the necessary explanation. Refer to my post where I quoted your PMs.

Anyway you also edited that post. As a lawyer I can tell you it'd be hardly accepted as proof unless you can recover the original .

That post was was last edited in 2014. Your reply only shows how badly you are trying to deny your underhanded argument while adding more to pile.

As a lawyer you are making them make look them all bad with so much falsification and continued farce at this time. One would think you would stop after the seeing the direct link. SMH.