Whats The Point In Buying And Owning A...
Property1 min ago
He Might Not Have Done It? Right Oh!
221 Answers
https:/
He was already on bail for assault and threatening to kill her! Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs. I hope the apologists are having a little iternal review.
Why was he on bail? Why wasn't the scum in the slammer? I think we know, once again someone dies because we are petrified of offending muslims. Madness.
Answers
1. A man was captured, on a variety of CCTV films, stabbing to death a woman who was pushing a baby in a pushchair.2. The suspect was named, his photograph was published but his relationship to the victim was not given.3. The suspect was shown, in footage he filmed himself, assembling a baby's crib. He was confirmed as originally hailing from Bangladesh and as...
12:55 Wed 10th Apr 2024
11:18, I agree his religion is peripheral to the crime but this thread has been a lot about AH denying what is obvious then berating me for going with the obvious. I don't think his religion is the most important thing to discover at all I am just defending myself against AH who accuses me of all manner of things for stating what is obvious to most.
I tend to use the scientific approach to these things. So I start off with a hypothesis and then pursue that until it is shown to be wrong. So I see a man with Muslim name from a Muslim country who has assaulted the victim and threatened murder. I know about Muslim tendencies in this area so they are the basis of my starting point. It seems the police also have a similar approach. It seems AH wants to do the opposite. Thus is the field of battle for this post.
Well, I have no intention of speaking for Andy (God knows he's more than capable of doing that for himself) but you do have a track record of condemning before things are proven, especially when brown skin is involved in a crime. That seems to be what Andy's argument is. Don't build the gallows until after the judge has spoken.
TTT - // I tend to use the scientific approach to these things. So I start off with a hypothesis and then pursue that until it is shown to be wrong. So I see a man with Muslim name from a Muslim country who has assaulted the victim and threatened murder. I know about Muslim tendencies in this area so they are the basis of my starting point. It seems the police also have a similar approach. It seems AH wants to do the opposite. Thus is the field of battle for this post. //
You will, I am sure, admit that you have a certain negative attitude towards Islam - and in this instance, that has led you to make a connection, in your view at least, that the suspect in this trial is - not may be, but catagorically is - a Muslim.
My response was simply to advise that this - at the time we started - had not been confirmed, and in my view, you were reaching a conclusion, based on your oft-stated view that Muslims are barbarians, and therefore if this suspect is a Muslim, it stands to reason that he is guilty of murder.
Every one of my responses, from then until now, has underlines my same point - there is no report that the man is a Muslim, and to date he has not been charged.
That has led to a full-on exchange, because neither of is is of the temprement to back down, and here we are now.
I regard your offer of a 'bet' on the religion of the ssupect to be deeply inapporpriate, and it seems our tame moral guardian is delighted to give you a swerve, while saving her high-handed telling-off for me, because I reacted sarcastically at the constant provocation from another poster with nothing to add apart from rampant bigotry and offence.
I have argued, and will again, that your premise that a man with a Muslim name, from a Muslim country 'must' be a Muslim, when there is no evidence to support that view.
I am a man with a Christian name, from a Christian country, and I am an atheist.
Now let's be objective here - your assertion is quite probably correct.
But because you offer it from the point of view of backing your often-expressed view that all Muslims could be potential murderers, and this is another example - I felt it necessary to challenge your supposition.
You have defended it, and we have argued, and we remain without a resoltion, although you are finally acknowleding that your obsession with the man's faith is disproportionate, in view of the larger picture of the tragedy involved.
I will not be taking up your offer of a 'bet' - my position remains unchanged, and if Naomi wishes to think that I am the worst contributor on that basis, then she is simply choosing to ignore the evidence of the thread, and taking her usual personal animosity to further heights, which of course i am delighted to ignore, for the silliness of her view - again.
Mozz - // Well, I have no intention of speaking for Andy (God knows he's more than capable of doing that for himself) but you do have a track record of condemning before things are proven, especially when brown skin is involved in a crime. That seems to be what Andy's argument is. Don't build the gallows until after the judge has spoken. //
Thank you - I cross-posted - but i can see that an objective view from someone not caught up in the heat of exchanges sees the situation from my point of view.
11:31, perhaps but he hasn't really engaged on that basis. He attacks my "hatred" of muslims and fair enough but in doing that he denies the obvious until it's proved beyond all doubt because this and other posts have indicated to me that AH sees himself as the defender of Muslims from "extremists" like me. I just see myself as absorbing and reacting to what is obvious however unpalatable that may be to AH and co.
AH: "..there is no report that the man is a Muslim, and to date he has not been charged."
Do you not have to be charged to go to court?
https:/
11:41. Well, that confirmed the bit I put in parentheses in my last comment 😁
11:45. I'm sure Andy will retort your respose in due course, but I see it more as a counter to your eagerness to pigeonhole the accused. Again, you have got a track record when it comes to "dancing the usual dance" when on occasion, you've been way off the mark.
AH asserts that: //"People don't murder people because they are Muslims, they murder people because they are mentally deranged to one degree or another." // - I addressed that at 09:24, he seems to have ignored that and my later request to comment here it is again:
AH: "People don't murder people because they are Muslims, they murder people because they are mentally deranged to one degree or another." - well that may be true in cases of individual action but what about 9/11 7/7, Madrid, Bali, Oct 7? That was organised extermination of the infidel. Then there are cases like this:
https:/
A woman upset a local pedlar, he accused her of blasphempy, she was lynched by a mob. This sort of thing happens all over the muslim world, usually we don't hear about it. Stonings and floggings for the crime of being raped. etc They are and always will be barbarians.
TTT - // 11:31, perhaps but he hasn't really engaged on that basis. He attacks my "hatred" of muslims and fair enough but in doing that he denies the obvious until it's proved beyond all doubt because this and other posts have indicated to me that AH sees himself as the defender of Muslims from "extremists" like me. //
First of all, I have never referred to you as, or indicated that I think you an 'extremist', which is a highly evocative word, and one i would not use in reference to anyone who does not deserve it.
Secondly, I am not denying 'the obvious', I am simply pointing out that because you see something as 'obvious' does not mean that it is actually a fact.
It's 'obvious' that the sky is blue - but it's not blue, and stating it as 'obvious' does not make it a fact, and that has been, and is, the entire thrust of my argument thus far.
I don't see myself as 'the defender of Muslims' from amyone.
You have known me long enough, and debated with me often enough, to know that I have a highly developed sense of fair play, and if i see a person or persons wrongly condemned because of what they are, rather than what they may or may not have done, then I will defend them.
That defence applies to anyone and anything - not just Muslims, and if you think about it, you know that to be true.
12:05.
I know that was intended for AH, but I'm here so I'll comment. You're moving further away from the incident in question. You're comparing acts of terrorism by an organised extremist group like Al Qaeda or HAMAS to the act of an individual. Many Muslims were disgusted by 9/11, as I'm sure many have been by 7 Oct. In much the same way as not all Northern Irish were IRA supporters or not all Russians are behind Putin's war in Ukrain, you can't (well you can, but I believe you shouldn't) blame all for the acts of some.
The acts of one deranged psychopath (in this incident) is not indicative of all, and many in the Muslim community will be horrified by it.
TTT - //
AH asserts that: //"People don't murder people because they are Muslims, they murder people because they are mentally deranged to one degree or another." // - I addressed that at 09:24, he seems to have ignored that and my later request to comment here it is again:
AH: "People don't murder people because they are Muslims, they murder people because they are mentally deranged to one degree or another." - well that may be true in cases of individual action but what about 9/11 7/7, Madrid, Bali, Oct 7? That was organised extermination of the infidel. Then there are cases like this:
https:/
A woman upset a local pedlar, he accused her of blasphempy, she was lynched by a mob. This sort of thing happens all over the muslim world, usually we don't hear about it. Stonings and floggings for the crime of being raped. etc They are and always will be barbarians. //
Your final sentence once again underlines your position in regard to Islam, and once again I challenge it.
The people who carried out these attrocities are not doing so because they are Muslims, they are doing so because they are deranged psychopaths, who like to use their advised beliefs as an excuse for their murderous behaviour.
Yes, some Muslims murder people - but so do some Christians, and some men, and some women, and some people with red hair, and some people with glasses, and some people who are tall, and some who are short ......
You cannot condemn an entire section of the world's population because of the actions of a few who excuse themselves by hiding behind the faith of a peaceful massive majority.
It is not logical, and no amount of you arguing is going to make it so.
So I start off with a hypothesis and then pursue that until it is shown to be wrong. (*)
nope that is NOT the scientific way - re-read ( assuming you have read them first time around Popper ( on falsifiable hypotheses) and Kuhn ( structture of scientific evolutions). Add in Illich ( deschooling society)
(*) - I agree is a real life reductio ad absurdum - assume A if it leads to a contradictions, then A is false - but this has its limitations in scientific induction
You SHOULD collect data and try to conclude a er conclusion - and also form a hypothesis which is falsifiable - and then see if it is falsified.....
the Ho hypothesis - popular in the fifties - is less popular now. Criticised on a starting point of 'there is no difference' is ridiculous, no-one in real life does that....
( sozza VERY technical, retro will go off his trolley if he reads this), scientific logic or even logic is unknown in police circles
Mozz - //
12:05.
I know that was intended for AH, but I'm here so I'll comment. You're moving further away from the incident in question. You're comparing acts of terrorism by an organised extremist group like Al Qaeda or HAMAS to the act of an individual. Many Muslims were disgusted by 9/11, as I'm sure many have been by 7 Oct. In much the same way as not all Northern Irish were IRA supporters or not all Russians are behind Putin's war in Ukrain, you can't (well you can, but I believe you shouldn't) blame all for the acts of some.
The acts of one deranged psychopath (in this incident) is not indicative of all, and many in the Muslim community will be horrified by it. //
Thank you once again.
Again we have cross-posted, and again i can see that you take my argument exactly as i have offered it.
I know that TTT and his fellow posters on his side of the debate will not concede the logic of what you and i are saying, but it does offer me some respite in knowing that i am not a lone voice in protesting against this bigoted and illogical witch-hunt that pervades this site on a daily basis.
12:16, No, I am addressing the assertion that: //"People don't murder people because they are Muslims, they murder people because they are mentally deranged to one degree or another." // - I used examples of organised mass attrocities to refute that as a maxim. The stated aim of Islam is extermination or conversion, they do not deny that. Individuals may well be doing it because they are raving mad but I'm pointing out that it is not only those that commit attrocities. There are many examples of organised mass murder by Islamic organisations. That refutes the statement that "people don't murder because they are muslims" - they do and it's prescribed.
AH: "The people who carried out these attrocities are not doing so because they are Muslims, they are doing so because they are deranged psychopaths, who like to use their advised beliefs as an excuse for their murderous behaviour." - finally we are getting somewhere,You accept that Hamas, ISIS, Al qaeda etc are "deranged psychopaths", that's a relief. Now what about the people who lynched a woman on the say so of some pedlar who had annoyed her? They were just ordinary muslims going about their business yet they were very easily turned into a murderous mob.
TTT - // 12:16, No, I am addressing the assertion that: //"People don't murder people because they are Muslims, they murder people because they are mentally deranged to one degree or another." // - I used examples of organised mass attrocities to refute that as a maxim. The stated aim of Islam is extermination or conversion, they do not deny that. Individuals may well be doing it because they are raving mad but I'm pointing out that it is not only those that commit attrocities. There are many examples of organised mass murder by Islamic organisations. That refutes the statement that "people don't murder because they are muslims" - they do and it's prescribed. //
I don't believe it does.
For your premise to fly, then psychopaths can only ever act alone.
History proves that this is simply not true.
It only takes an organised few generally uhinged people to offer a deranged solution to a perceived problem, and you cvan find millions of people who will jump on board.
They may turn a blind eye to the realities of the barbarism that is being organised from the top, but that does not mean that it is being organised a driven by a hardcore of mentally unstable individuals.
If you need an example, it's called The Nazi Party.
If Islam commanded its followers to destroy all infidels, and they all obeyed, you and I would not be sitting here exchanging views today - we would be dead.
There are more than enough Muslims in the world to wipe out any infidels, it simply needs them all to be on board with the extremist interpretations of the Koran.
They're not, which is why it falls to the same few maniacs to continue pedalling their dreadful crimes, and being condemned by the majority.
Latest Posts
So South Kora Goes To The Dogs...?
News9 mins ago
News25 mins ago
Film, Media & TV30 mins ago
