Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - lapwing

Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 486
Update to story

Here is the young girl playing with her sister after being reunited and an interview with her if you scroll down

Being a fan of Rumpole of the Bailey I always think it best to suspend judgment and so, in this case. keep it to alleged kidnapper rather than "he kidnapped her". If everyone believes that already it throws a fair jury trial into question. So we get trial by media and not trial by jury. Note I'm not saying the alleged abductor is innocent I'm just saying the best way to judge this is a court of law not media articles designed to garner circulation.

I note that the girl's father lost custody of her because he was sent to jail. What if the brother and sister had asked the uncle to pick her up from school and then planned to accuse him of kidnap for some kind of family revenge reason, or other reason. Unlikely, given the length of time the girl was missing (provided that's accurate). I'd certainly like to know why the girl's father was sent to jail. Does his sister have a criminal record as well? (Previous conviction info is kept from juries in the UK, but not the judge or investigators).

Imo there is far too much kangaroo court trial by media.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Motes and beams - more balance please
« on: May 14, 2016, 11:57:54 AM »

4:24 is in a different section from 4:3. This whole surah deals with various issues concerning women: it's in sections.
Why are you avoiding explaining "And if you fear that you cannot do justice to orphans," which starts 4:3. Why are those words there?

edit: Also, you have not yet given a reason for translating the word, normally rendered as "marry", in the Koran, as "have sex".

I'm actually not sure why the gun was even needed here.  I'm not sure, but the article doesn't seem to mention the abductor being armed, and there were two men there to stop him.

Guns may not have been needed, but it is best just to have them in this case. This 57 year-old man kidnapped a 9 year-old girl. They were seen that week on store security buying lipstick, girls underwear, a bikini, and nail polish. He was planning on keeping her for awhile and, most likely, doing the unthinkable to this child.  I would say this man deserved to have a gun pointed at him.

My daughter is 9. If a man kidnapped her, and I knew where they were hiding, you can be darn sure I would bring a gun with me (or someone with a gun) to get her, even if I knew the kidnapper was unarmed.

Also, the fact that the men had guns may have saved the kidnapper from a beat-down.

There's also:
DeVine said the custody battle narrative had developed in the week since Trent was picked up from her school by Simpson, her former guardian. Simpson had recently lost custody of Trent, who was in her father’s care before her disappearance. But DeVine was emphatic that Trent’s kidnapping was not merely the product of a guardianship battle.

So the alleged abductor is her uncle by marriage and her former guardian. There was no mention of the girl's mother in the article but the alleged abductor is married to her aunt (the father's sister). Sounds like a case that needs a court of law to disentangle, and not to believe anyone's evidence without testing it.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Motes and beams - more balance please
« on: May 14, 2016, 06:55:22 AM »
Quote from: TheCross
Sura 4:3 says that muslim men have the right to have sex with their female captives and slavegirls.
A "creative account" if ever there was one!
And if you fear that you cannot do justice to orphans, marry* such women as seem good to you, two, or three, or four; but if you fear that you will not do justice, then (marry)only one or that which your right hands possess. This is more proper that you may not do injustice.

* this word is only used in the Koran to mean "marry" not "have sex"

It's clearly about allowing polygamy, and some say this was in the aftermath of the battle of the Uhud when heavy losses meant many widows and orphans, so polygamy was allowed as a way of protecting the orphans. Otherwise, what is the point of "And if you fear that you cannot do justice to orphans"?

Once again, you rip a verse out of its context, change the meaning of a key word and so distort the meaning and then have the gall to announce QED!

If anybody did that with the Bible they would be rightly criticised.

I mean are you really saying that "Sura 4:3 says that muslim men have the right to have sex with their female captives and slavegirls." where you don't even bother to quote the verse is "evidence"?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, rather, than making an empty assertion about the other verses, how about you providing some evidence.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Motes and beams - more balance please
« on: May 14, 2016, 06:28:10 AM »

If you used the same amount of effort to put forward a reasoned argument that you do in filibustering and seeking to undermine me personally, you might get somewhere!

I think you're confused

It seems you have this prepared in advance narrative that you refuse to put under honest scrutiny and admit when it is false and inconsistent with reality and the facts of reality

this has been gone over numerous times and you refuse to cede basic points of factology.

I presume that you have an adequate and reliable memory and can recall the instances when these were given. But it's rather unfair of you to request of me to once again provide those verses

Aren't there supposed to be a great many of these verses (according to you) so how do I know which ones you mean - I'm not a mind reader. When Christians discuss, say, the divinity of Christ with, say, Jem you don't find people (inc Jem) say "well you know what verses I mean, I've said this all before so why don't you just accept what I say without question". Yet I'm understanding this from you on this matter, even though it's also based on the exegesis of ancient religious texts.

Since your thesis is that Islam is different from Christianity in being inherently violent (it's obviously different in many other ways), you have to show a distinct difference between Muslims in history and, Christians in history, AND prove that such difference is directly due to being different religions.


3. Marks out of 10 for this OP? Minus 3!

I guess you could say this OP...

*puts on sunglasses*

Shot itself in the foot.


I think the OP was actually asking a perfectly fair question of Christian pacifists. If anyone thinks differently, then please explain...

Given that "Christian pacifist" has been defined (has it?) who is actually claiming to be a "Christian pacifist"? (does it mean not lift a finger to help in this situation?)

The OP wasn't about gun control from the looks of it.
If it's not about gun control why is "lethal force" being specified?

Still no answer about the case where the young girl is accidentally shot dead in the struggle with the uncle. I'd say that was a "perfectly fair" example as well.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Motes and beams - more balance please
« on: May 13, 2016, 08:03:20 PM »
Quote from: kravarnik
how that precise act they did is promoted, or given as a commandment, in Islam
I'm yet to see this proved.

Muslim raping women is found in the Quran ... Muslims crucifying or beheading people of the Book(Christians + Jews) is also found in the Quran
If, say, a Muslim said similar things about the Bible, wouldn't you expect them to back it up with evidence? I would!


On the one hand you're saying it's not about gun control, on the other hand you're talking about lethal force. Like Q11 I find your being unclear.

Also, I had no answer to the question about if the young girl had been accidentally shot?


3. Marks out of 10 for this OP? Minus 3!

I guess you could say this OP...

*puts on sunglasses*

Shot itself in the foot.



Choose Your Own Topic / Motes and beams - more balance please
« on: May 13, 2016, 05:58:55 AM »

If the welfare of Muslim women is invoked as a priority for white Europeans, it’s as part of a rescue fantasy positioning white men as liberal, progressive heroes in contrast with barbaric, backward, and misogynistic Muslim men. The war in Afghanistan, for example, was sold to white populations, by Laura Bush, among others, as a war to rescue Afghan women. In the nineteenth century, women’s rights were regularly used as a justification for colonialism. The idea that white men might themselves be a threat to the women they’re ostensibly rescuing doesn’t fit the narrative.
When white men are discovered to have committed acts of sexual violence while playing that role of heroic rescuer they’ve grown so accustomed to, they’re seen as bad apples and anomalies. The gang rape and murder of a fourteen-year-old Iraqi girl by white U.S. soldiers was not considered characteristic of white men universally, or even of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, in the way that the Cologne attacks have been interpreted as evidence of a general problem with Muslim men. Similarly, numerous reported incidents of child sex abuse by EU peacekeeping forces in the Central African Republic have not been presented by European media outlets as evidence white Europeans are bringing a culture of rape to other societies.
The oh-so chivalric attempts to use the safety of white European women like myself as a justification for racist violence and hostility and to deny other human beings the basic right to refuge is particularly tiresome when women in Europe have never been safe from sexual violence, regardless of the movement of migrants. Anti-Muslim and anti-refugee advocates claim to enjoy gallantly confronting “difficult questions,” so here’s one: Why won’t we admit that many of the faults we ascribe to other cultures are equally a part of our own?

Oh and btw life for Muslim women was better under the Najibullah Soviet backed regime - the regime that Reagan and Bush sought to topple using the Mujahideen as proxy fighters - those Mujahideen later became AQ and mounted the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and the White House: the ultimate shooting yourself in the foot!

I'm sure there are people who will love to pick holes in this article but the basic point is valid I think.
The Cologne attacks were given much greater prominence in the western media than attacks by white men on Muslim women. How many knew about what is going on in CAR and similar incidents? I couldn't find it in this forum.
More info:

Posters such as bskeptic go out of their way to find examples of Muslim abuse and violence. It exists, of course, as Muslims are sinful human beings as we all are. But where is the even handedness that admits white men are not without sin when it comes to raping women (10% of black slave population was mixed race!)

1. Pacifism is not the same as gun control as any good dictionary will prove!

2. The reporting (which may not even be accurate) of one incident doesn't prove anything.
There could easily have been a struggle, the gun went off and the 9 year old girl could have been fatally wounded.
Would you then say that makes the case for gun control? And in practice there are very many accidental deaths due to gun ownership, as well as deliberate shootings.

3. Marks out of 10 for this OP? Minus 3!

we're really way out of our depth
Could this be a reason to engage more in proper philosophy rather than less?

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Poll: Hillary Clinton Supporters.
« on: May 11, 2016, 04:27:35 AM »
Do some Americans think they are God's chosen people, or that it is a possibility?

I'm doing a typically good free Coursera course on Ancient Greek philosophy:

Only drawback, unlike other courses I've done there aren't many participants, so not much discussion.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Poll: Hillary Clinton Supporters.
« on: May 10, 2016, 01:13:32 PM »
Your last post was petty wasn't it AD.

Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 486