Comments policy in 2010: what do readers think?
Posted on Thursday 31 December, 2009
Filed Under Blogging
SEVERAL regular readers have pointed to the increasingly acrimonious tone in this blog’s comments box, and have suggested that I start deleting comments, and even banning individuals of which they disapprove. However, I don’t plan to go down that road. Well, not yet, anyway.
There are number of reasons why I want Dave’s Part to stick to a full-on freedom of speech format. Not least of these is that I actually enjoy a good old fashioned no-holds-barred comments box slugfest. That’s not everybody’s style, but it is mine.
That’s why this blog is designed for people who are passionate about their politics, and ready to argue the toss in support of their position.
Some widely-read British far leftist bloggers routinely take down comments with which the main writer cannot deal. Others rely on moderation. OK, these things are up to the proprietors, but to my mind, such measures kill the flow of debate.
In almost four years, I have removed removed less than half a dozen comments from this website. Mostly this was unavoidable; some comments were plainly libelous, others identified people who wish to remain anonymous online. Apolitical abuse in obituaries written about personal friends also got the chop. Other than that, I have abided by the title of an old Chuck Berry song as a rule of thumb: let it rock.
Accordingly, I positively welcome comments from rightwingers, including those on the hard right, provided only that they come up with reasoned arguments. Hey, Tories! Come and have a go if you think you’re hard enough!
People like Bill Corr are obviously a million miles from this blog’s openly socialist stance, and yes, I do think some of his contributions are racist. But my gut instinct is that he says nothing with which you lot cannot deal.
On the other hand, this bloke is upsetting sections of my core (or should that be ‘non-Corr’?) readership. Are you guys man/woman enough to take it? Opinions, please.
I also positively welcome comments from the mad as fuck ultralefts. However, I was particularly incensed by this recent jibe from the execrable Southpawpunch:
I agree with Eddie and John above and someone else who made a similar comment yesterday, that this blog is heading way downhill due to the “collection of racists, fascists and idiots that infest the comments”
I think the blog owner needs to decide whether he wants comments here from Lefts, such as myself (maybe he doesn’t) or the aforementioned – as, for me, it’s going to have to be one or the other.
By way of context here, readers may be aware that I am facing a four-day jury trial at the High Court in April, in front of Mr Justice Eady, in response to an action brought by the subject of one of a 2007 post.
One of the grounds on which I am being sued is a comment left by the above-mentioned Southpawpunch, who has disgracefully proved too pussy to provide a witness statement, lest the British state rumble the identity of this fearsome revolutionary. Thanks a lot, comrade.
Unsurprisingly, I don’t give a shit whether our heroic self-proclaimed ‘Left’ ever comments here again or not. But even in these circumstances, Southpawpunch most emphatically is not banned.
So let me throw this topic over to the masses. Would tighter control make for more intelligent discussion, or is it better to reject censorship and let people – from all points on the political spectrum – sometimes talk crap?
At this stage I will restrict myself to an appeal to one and all; keep the comments box political and at a halfway decent theoretical level in 2010, please folks.
Happy New Year. Even if it brings a Tory government and a couple of BNP MPs at Westminster, opening up a decade of domination for the British right as the left continues to flounder in its own stupidity.
<<Go back
Comments
113 Responses to “Comments policy in 2010: what do readers think?”
Happy new year Dave here is a radical thought why not abolish comments altogether! Or if that’s too radical have a click switch so your readers who mainly want to read your thoughts have to make a conscious effort to read comments!
Mohsen, I don’t really understand why you choose to reply to the Ahmadinejad’s ‘mature democracy’ thread here but seeing as you have I’ll reply here also.
You say you can’t understand why your call to “destroy Islam” could in any way be construed as a a message of hatred towards the world’s Muslim population.
How stupid is it possible to be ?
Try substituting Islam with Judaism.
“destroy Judaism”.
And what do you think the reaction of Jews would be to that message ?
Don’t you think they might, quite rightly, raise the possibility that you might be an anti Semitic purveyor of hate towards the Jews ?
I don’t think there’s any doubt about it.
Likewise, if I hear the call raised to “destroy socialism”, as a socialist my immediate instinct is defensive, that I should defend the ideology that I have believed in for over 30 years.
So your claim that the demand to “destroy Islam” can in no way be seen as an attack on the world’s Muslims is utterly absurd, only a fanatic could rationalise such a call as being inoffensive to Muslims.
And what is this absurdly infantile need to repeat the “Mohammed was a pedophile [sic]” line whenever you can ?
Is this some kind of badge of honour for the Islamophobes ?
In fact this line is almost exclusively the language of hatred deployed by the lumpen far right in Europe, with a small number of buffoons like yourself joining in.
If you want a real living example of paedophilia and religion in the 21st century you could go to Ireland where it is now obvious that child abuse was institutionalised in the Catholic Church.
In that situation you might raise the call to “destroy Catholicism”.
Indeed you could head North and very quickly find yourself a mob who would be more than happy to rally to the call to “destroy Catholicism” and before you know it you’ve got a pogrom on your hands.
In that situation do you think that Catholics would see the supposed subtleties in your position or do you think that they might feel that their community was under direct threat ?
Your absurd ultra leftism in relation to Islam is the mirror image of the fanaticism that you say is inherent within Islam.
That you choose to repeat the exact same language of hatred towards Muslims as the far right do tells us all we need to know.
Southpawpunch – I think it’s a shame if you should feel a need to stop commenting here on other matters.
Eddie,
Why you insist on bringing in the topic of “Jews” to your petty arguments with other people?
You might, given some of your previous statements be more careful, you might for example, apply things the other way around, as with your argument above.
Your arguments with these anti-Muslim bigots are not enhanced by reference to Judaism or Jews, your arguments should stand on their own.
Bugger, this is going to kick off, but-
You can’t seriously be attacking Eddie Truman for using attacking Judaism as an example of something wrong to do? Are you just looking for any old excuse to start a fight?
I expect if he’d have listed Catholicism, socialism and, I don’t know, Hinduism in his examples he would have been attacked for not explicitly saying that it would be wrong in the case of Judaism also.
Anyone who is a socialist wants to construct and facilitate a socialist world, that’s what politics are all about. Can Eddie Truman tell us how his shameless pursuit of theocrats is doing that? In recent months I have been wondering if the left has forgotten all aout the Transititional Programme. Trotsky’s whole idea was that the question of power should be raised to educate people but also to provide a ‘bridge’ towards sociailist demandsd. (I’m simplyfying here). Does Eddie Truman, skidmarx, the petty bourgois Southpawpunch, not feel that there are important questions of political power to be raised in regard to Islamic societies? Islam will not be destroyed as long as the countries are corrupt, underdeveloped, refuse to take any responsibility for their people’s welfare, are riven with divisions etc etc. BUT if you think that people are entitled to live in peace, security, equality, to have modern hospitals etc then you have to raise those demands viz a viz the Islamic world. Yes, the Hindu world and the Bhuddist world are probably backward too, but they aren’t blowing us up! It’s elementary Marxism really.
There is little that is opaque about Isamphobia Watch – it is Bob Pitt and (to a lesser extent) Eddie Truman.
I am told by those who have met him that Eddie is a throughly decent bloke – a little prone to frothing, but then who’s isn’t.
Re comments, Hugh Kerr, despite having been a Harlow MEP and having visited our town managed to get Ipswich in Norfolk in writing on the murders.
Without comments made on this perhaps he would still believe our team is the Canaries.
“mcTOURsers, I am mcTROUsers”, Trousers smousers. You might have chosen your name better – trou means hole in French, and I think you can guess what kind hole you have inside yer breeches.
Dave, do you *really* think the Tories are hard right?
Jesus! You can’t fit a Rizla between them and the LimpDumbs or Labour.
Isn’t there a piece of music called ‘The Old Trout’ or something similar?
Schubert?
Wasn’t it re-recorded by The Goaded Toadies, a Seattle garage band, in the seventies?
Hands up everyone who is even very mildly apprehensive of a bombing outrage perpetrated by Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians or even those ghastly Born-Again Christians.
See!
Anyone catch the news from Copenhagen today?
One of those fun-loving Somalis – “a pitiable refugee from his war-torn homeland” – wanted to make the New Year an occasion to remember!
Since I was mentioned earlier in these comments can I make it clear that I have not asked Dave to “ban” Bill Corr or his ilk. But I do expect socialists such as Andrew Coates, Jim Denham and others to condemn the vicious racist intrusions of Corr (see above on “the fun loving Somalis.”) But having understood from one of his own posts that he is an ex-Stalinist, I suppose I should not be entirely surprised. Of course Corr is also pig ignorant. Leaving aside the mass bombing of civilians by the “Christian” British, the Americans, and Russians and others he does not seem to know that “suicide bombing” was pioneered by Japanese Buddhists and Shintoists and developed by Hindu Tamils in the Sri Lankan civil war. This no more justifies the disgusting racist smearing of all Japanese or all Sri Lankans (or all Buddhists, all Shintoists or all Hindus) than it does his stereotyping depiction of Somalis or Muslims.
“But I do expect socialists such as Andrew Coates, Jim Denham and others to condemn the vicious racist intrusions of Corr”, John: specify which comment(s) you want me to condemn, and I’ll respond.
Do *you* condemn Islamist attacks on trade unionists in Iraq and upon womens’ edicational institutiions in Afghanistan?
Jim Denham. The hard left have got nothing in common with working class people. They see the working class as some sort of tool to enable them to gain power. The working class are not as stupid as the hard left think they are. The hard left actually think Islamists are fighting capitalism thus their support for them. The good thing is the idiots will never gain power. The hard left never voiced its outrage when Irish working class were being slaughtered by the IRA.
Jim – Take you pick from any of the racist observations of Corr above. Re your bizarre question: not only “do” I condemn such attacks I have “done” so for a long time – as you are perfectly well aware. Really Jim if you admire Max Shachtman’s politics so much, you should at least try to emulate his standards when it comes to polemic. He would not be impressed with your efforts in this thread among others.
On the comments policy: I think it should remain as it is. While there are now and again comments that disgust me…so what? If I only want to read what I agree with, then I don’t need to bother reading at all. And if I disagree, I can reply, or put up and shut up (I tend to opt for the latter option – and often, I wish other readers would sometimes show a little more self-control and not *always* insist on giving their twopennth to *everything* someone else writes – usually in the comments box, and not usually as a result of the article itself.
There will, sadly, always be people who firstly provoke articles and/or comments they don’t like – and then take (whatever kind of) action against them, regardless of how laughable and/or uncontroversial such comments seemingly are. Unfortunately, that – as Dave has had to personally experience – can include legal action.
But Dave’s “letting it rock” is always more preferable, in my opinion, to deleting/banning. And we can hope for a reform of the libel laws, though I wouldn’t hold my breath.
John Palmer says:
“Really Jim if you admire Max Shachtman’s politics so much, you should at least try to emulate his standards when it comes to polemic.”
I say: John, I don’t doubt that you *do* oppose Islamo-fascism: I just want to know when and where you are on record as having done so. And if you want me to condemn something, please at least let me know what…is that unreasonable?
One of the grounds on which I am being sued is a comment left by the above-mentioned Southpawpunch, who has disgracefully proved too p**** to provide a witness statement, lest the British state rumble the identity of this fearsome revolutionary. Thanks a lot, comrade.
If you are the defendant, I would think you can subpeona the cowardly Southpawpunch.
Also, there are other legal ways to arrive at his identity since you do have his IP address.
One of the grounds on which I am being sued is a comment left by the above-mentioned Southpawpunch, who has disgracefully proved too p**** to provide a witness statement, lest the British state rumble the identity of this fearsome revolutionary. Thanks a lot, comrade.
Dave, if you are the defendant, I would think you can subpeona the cowardly Southpawpunch.
Also, there are other legal ways to arrive at his identity since you do have his IP address.
Sorry for the double post. The reason is that the word “p u s s y” which appears in the original article was being caught by the filter and the post was being deleted.
Dave, your filter deletes posts with certain words in it, that you do use in your articles, making your articles unquotable. Just funny – that is all.
Bill Corr – what makes you think that Islamophobia Watch and RedWatch are both funded by the same source?
And if they are, that is not surprising at all. Both are fascistic totalitarian websites. One is fascism of the left and the other is fascism of the right.
Asia Times Online is a postcolonial organization funded by this Chinese billionaire that nurtures fascism, postcolonialism, and historical revisionism on both sides of the spectrum and pays a whole army of pro-Islam and leftist commentators such as Afrasiabi identified to be a Press-TV operative to write articles. I think its worth investigating the links between that and Islamophobia Watch.
Bill Corr – what makes you think that Islamophobia Watch and RedWatch are both funded by the same source?
And if they are, that is not surprising at all. Both are fascistic totalitarian websites. One is fascism of the left and the other is fascism of the right.
Asia Times Online is a postcolonial organization funded by this Chinese billionaire that nurtures fascism, postcolonialism, and historical revisionism on both sides of the spectrum and pays a whole army of pro-Islam and leftist commentators (such as Afrasiabi I believe of Press-TV fame) and utra-rightist commentators to write articles. I think its worth investigating the links between that and Islamophobia Watch.
Andrew Coates: There is little that is opaque about Isamphobia Watch – it is Bob Pitt and (to a lesser extent) Eddie Truman.
You seem to know something about them that the rest of us don’t know. So please tell us Andrew, who is bankrolling IslamophobiaWatch?
Mohsen. Both organisations are useless, unproductive and serve no one but themselves. MI5/6 must have an easy job with them as they babble out everything they know. Redwatch only publish what is already known about the looney left. Islamaphobia Watch is the joke of the decade. I mean a Watch about something that does not exist. Lets face it the security services will hardly be getting paid overtime on them.
Jimmy Glesga: The hard left actually think Islamists are fighting capitalism thus their support for them.
Good point Jimmy. Islamic economy is essentially socialism (state capitalism) where the monopoly capitalist has been replaced by the community mosque, the molla clans, state institutions, and state militias. There is no separation of economics and politics in Islam – just like any good ole communist system.
The postcolonial and the hard left consider Islam to be socialistic. Islam also has a 2.5% capital tax and prohibits interest (i.e. zero value for capital – at least in theory). This is all music to the ears of the utopian hard socialists.
Recently the pomo left has been singing the praises of spiritualism, of monotheism and monotheistic religion, and has been attacking the atheists, like Dawkins, Dennett and PZ Myers.
The dialectical and totalitarian left is coming full circle to its reactionary roots – first they embraced Islam, and now they embrace god. SWP’s love of Islam is not simply tactical. They also dig the spiritualism and the postmodern anti-enlightenment.
Jimmy I mean a Watch about something that does not exist (Islamophobia).
heh – According to IslamophobiaWatch, me, a muslim apostate, must be Islamophobic and racist, because I dont like Islam and I do not embrace Islam.
They are so intellectually F***ed Up. First they think Islam is a race, and then they think anyone who criticizes Islam and does not submit to the Pedophile must somehow hate 1.8 billion people and wishes to discriminate against Muslims.
Finally, they don’t accept that a Muslim can or may drop his/her faith. They don’t accept that I can possibly be an apostate. They must believe that Islam is coded in my genes or something.
They mimic the same irrational and deficient thought processes as Islamists do. If they had power, they would probably kill muslim apostates, just like Islam does.
Mohsen. I would not worry to much about the hard left. After the dialectial verbiage in the local pub (or Mosque) they go home like the rest of us. Bunch of boring baskets. I prefer real people that like a bevvy. At least we admit we talk a lot of shoite when we get drunk. Life just goes on Mohsen then we die. Who needs idiots to interfere in nature.
John Palmer – are you implying that since suicide bombing was invented by the Japanese that statistically its not the Islamists (Wahhabis and Mahdists) who are killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, mostly Muslims? Are you denying that 99% of suicide bombing deaths are attributed to Islam? Its so unscientific and silly what you say. The Chinese invented the gunpowder. So you say the Iraq invasion should be blamed on the Chinese.
Then you say the sarcastic phrase “fun loving Somalies” is racist. Do you have proof that Islamist Somalies who brutally condemn music, cinema, art, alcohol, free sexual relations, etc. and who demand a life of ascetic worship are actually more fun loving than others? You don’t make sense – and you should know that statistically and empirically you are wrong.
YA MOHSWEN [inter alia]
It was clumsy phrasing on my part that gave the unintended impression that I imagined that REDWATCH and ISLAMOPHOBIA WATCH were funded by the Mekon, Dr Evil or Bill Gates.
About figuring out who sent a submission by e-mail for publication on the ‘net, it has proven possible to track someone down from teeny clues.
A TRUE STORY FOLLOWS:
A Brit civil servant in Geordieland wrote a nasty abduction-rape-torture-snuff piece of fiction about Girls Aloud, a girlie group, which he called ‘Girls [Scream] Aloud’ and sent it off to JUST PUTRID STORIES in KRISTEN’S ARCHIVE on the asstr website.
Some busybody, publicly-embloyed or privately funded, found it and the tale – a work of unpleasant fiction no nastier than much of the stuff in THE FOURTH PAN BOOK OF HORROR STORIES – was tracked to its source.
The piggies, who have no time to chase real criminals or stop yobs harrassing the isolated and vulnerable, were ecstatic at the prospect of a safe conviction for the bloke who wrote this nasty work of fiction, with their pictures in the newspapers, promotion and recognition all round [prior to their developing serious back problems at the age of 50 and taking early retirement to play golf on the Costa Brava] but were dismayed to lose the case on the grounds that very few prepubescent fans were likely to run across ‘Girls [Scream] Aloud’ by accident.
Meanwhile, the writer has lost his job and his reputation in his neighbourhood; you may be certain that his unlettered Geordie neighbours probably think that he was caught kiddie-fiddling in the park or something similar and somehow ‘got off’ on a technicality.
The Royal Society of Literature ought to ride to the rescue of this man of letters!
This may be stating the glaringly obvious, but there is a vast difference between those who use their bodies as bombs in the course of a war and those who strap explosives onto themselves – or other people – and aspire to kill or maim people in a poultry market or inside a mosque.
Wafa Al-Biss was burned in a domestic accident in Gaza.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+and+Islamic+Fundamentalism-/Attack+by+female+suicide+bomber+thwarted+at+Erez+crossing+20-Jun-2005.htm
She received regular treatment inside Israel, at the expense of the Israeli taxpayer.[All good Palestinian doctors are working a long way from impoverished Gaza.]
Explosives were strapped to her and she was instructed to return to the hosptal inside Israel and set off her explosives at a moment when she would kill and maim the maximum number of Jews.
Comment would be superfluous.
The use of piloted bombs in wartime is a different issue altogether.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze
War between uniformed and usually consenting adults in public is not at all the same as attempting to kill and maim doctors and nurses in the very same hospital where one has been treated with skill and compassion.
Bill: Explosives were strapped to her and she was instructed to return to the hospital (that treated her) inside Israel and set off her explosives at a moment when she would kill and maim the maximum number of Jews.
You see, according to the screwed up intellectually deficient poco left (predominantly found at SU and LT), its the fault of the Japanese Shintoists. Or alternately, since you cannot remotely blame the Shintoists if she had blown up the Israeli hospital, then neither can you blame Islam or the Palestinian Islamists.
Any more evidence needed on how reductionist dialectics can turn your brain into mush?
Why its important to read dissenting views in the comment box:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/education/edlife/03adult-t.html?em
I think Dave underestimates the problem here.
A comments policy that positively welcomes contributions from bigots like Bill Corr will in all likelihood lead to individuals like that dominating and derailing the discussion, while most leftists will conclude that there is little point getting involved in debates with right-wing cranks and racists and will look elsewhere for a discussion forum. Apart, that is, from the likes of Jim Denham, Sue R and Andrew Coates, who of course have much in common with the Islamophobic right.
Dave might also like to reflect on why it is that his blog attracts so many anti-Muslim bigots, of both right and left.
One aspect of life seldom encountered by the servant-employing classes in Britain is the constant apprehension that the disgruntled maids of the household may be dabbling in black magic:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=130605&d=3&m=1&y=2010
Andrew Neather did not refer to this particular proclivity of the part of the the au pairs and gardeners whom Londoners of his acqaintance are obliged to employ in order to make the capital function.
He did, however, make the point that unemployed BNP supporters in Burnley and Barking were unlikely to seek such employment, ending his published piece with the rhetorical flourish, “Fascist au pair, anyone?”
He did not pause to consider that those in a spot of bother with the immigration authorities, Baroness Scotland’s Polynesian housekeeper included, might put a hideous and fiendish curse on the entire Labour Cabinet and their toadies, lackeys and hangers-on.
Neather included.
Anon. It is easy to do the name calling anti-muslim bigot routine. Of course you have to say this to defend the indefensible. Lopping off peoples heads because they have an opinion is bound to make people anti. You can be anti something without being a bigot. Some Catholics because of the child abuse scenario have turned their backs on the church. They are anti but hardly bigots. Just take a look at the horrors being committed across the planet in the name of Islam. I assume Anon you are anti-capitalist!
This thread is a good example of how a couple of right wing bigots can hijack a discussion entirely, no?
Waterloo Sunset. A discussion cannot be hijacked when you have the freedom to discuss as you have. So carry on.
Well said, Jimmy Glesga. I’m not anti anything, I’m pro-Socialism.
Anon – you are welcome to ignore my rantings (or points) and discuss your own. But to call me an anti-muslim bigot, simply because I hate the Qor’aan and hate Pedophile Mohammed, is uncalled for.
What makes you think that as a Muslim apostate (and a proud one to boot) that I have to love the Qor’aan?
Isn’t it a bit moronic to say that a muslim apostate must love Islam, no matter what? How did you arrive at this predicate, as I think it denotes a catastrophic failure of empiricological reasoning – and that scares the heck out of me for very good reasons.
Certainly agree with Jimmy G. and Sue R.
Lets say we wish to discuss Democratic Socialism or Market Socialism, which are very interesting and important topics. Does one think it can be done at SU or at LT? Not a chance.
My bum itches.
Well all the Election is on the horizon. Decision time. Do you sit in the pub plotting the revolution that will never come. Or do you get behind Labour and support the elderly, weak and infirm in our country. It is difficult of course with all the wars going on but wars have always gone on and always will. It is the nature of the beast however sad that may be. This idea that some on the left have that if the Tories get in then they can regroup is mind boggling. Mrs Thatcher is eternally grateful that the left whilst regrouping! helped her to power. How many times must you regroup. So you leftie middle class pretend socialist academic intellects! get out of your big houses in suburbia and do something. Better than wind.
S.Doogan. I once had an itchy bum. I called the comrades to a special meeting to dicuss it. After a lenghty discussion we decided to hold another specially convened meeting at a later date however when I got home I scrathed ma erse and the problem was gone.
Reply to Eddie Truman (11:29 2 Jan 2010) of IslamophobiaWatch.com
Eddie you are wrong in so many ways.
He says: “destroy Islam” is a hate message to all Muslim people, because it would be like “destroy Judaism”
1- Judaism is a closed religion as it does not proselytize and has no designs to convert the world, much less through the sword.
Your comparison is disingenious, wrong headed, and a category mistake.
2- Judaism is tightly identified with the Jewish people, a race and an ethnicity. “destroy Judaism” will indeed and rightfully be construed as anti-semitic, due to this association. To be fair, you should have compared Islam to Christianity, and not to Judaism in this regard. Islam however is an internationalist multi-ethnicity movement for forced submission to allah, and is not identified with any racial or ethnic group.
3- Judaism (and Christianity) is a reformed religion. It accepts secularism, secular and open minded upbringing of the young, and accepts the state separation of politics and religion. So calling for the destruction of Judaism as a religion is oxymoronic, because it violates freedom of thought or religion.
Islam is neither reformed nor does it accept separation of mosque and state. It specifically instructs its adherents on how to brainwash and mentally torture its own young in order to instill this ideology. Calling for the destruction of Islam is so obviously a call for its doctrinal reformation and a call for forcefully booting it out of politics. It is not a call for punishing its believers for their belief. This should be obvious to even the most casual observer.
So you are wrong and silly to equate the destruction of political Islam to the destruction of individual believers or groups of people.
I have to side with modernity here and question your wrong headed attempt to equate muslims to jews. Not only its categorically wrong, in that one is born a jew like it or not, while Islam is something you choose — but I also sense a streak of the standard racist gripe “Jews are privileged and held to a lower standard – so why not my group” in what you say.
Mohsen. Here we are on the birthday of Newton and still debating man made fiction.
See?
I try to start a discussion on the compelling and absorbing issue of maids endangering their employers by practicing witchcraft and all that happens is yet more ranting about Islamophobia and so on.
There’s already a Jihad Watch and a Dhimmi Watch so there ought to be an Islamophilia Watch.
I hesitate to tell Mohsen anything about the belief system into which he was born, but one might very gently observe that so far as I’m aware the Sufis and the Ahmedi heretics in Britain have caused no bother. So far.
Sue R – APOLOGIES. Yes, I was wrong to accuse you of going on about the prophet M. being a pedophile – of course it’s Mohsen, another name with an S. in it – easy mistake.
Abraham pimps his wife in Egypt: Genesis 12 vs 10 – 20; and slight reprise in Genesis 20.
I think it may have been his brother Lot who fucked his grand-daughters, though
Yes, WE know that this is not proven history, but the point is that believers BELIEVE it IS, and take it as a foundation for their moral system.
As to the prophet M. being a pedophile: is their any document that states he had sex with her when she was pre-pubertal? It has been common in nearly all societies for powerful families to cement alliances with other families by inter-marriage, and age would not be a barrier – it doesn’t mean that sexual relations would start immediately, maybe not ever. Also, an ‘age of consent’ is as far as I know unheard of in history in ANY culture until very recently, so there’s no justification for singling Islam out.
Again, a genuine ‘pedophile’ would be a repeat offender – that seems to be a universal pattern – but only this one thing is ever alleged against the prophet.
Mohsen is therefore indulging in ‘hate-speech’ calculated to stir up hatred against a religious group or race, which is highly illegal.
Andy Newman, the intellectual midget and embodiement of reactionary postcolonialism is getting a good trashing at Harry’s Place.
He has come out against the secular democracy movement in Iran.
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2010/01/03/international-solidarity-2010-style/
McTrousers needs to read his Old Testament more thoroughly.
Lot’s daughters deliberately got their dad drunk to have sex with him.
They were doing this not for recreational fun – not that I’d say that was REALLY wrong – but to keep the family line going. Check the link I gave to Robert Crum’s BOOK OF GENESIS ILLUSTRATED.
Dave, not sure if you’ll find this helpful but here are the ‘rules’ on my blog:
“No swearing. No inappropriate, facetious or pointless comments. No abusive remarks. No spamming. That is all.”
Makes my life very very very easy, and I’ve never had a single complaint about it.