Moslem leader speaks on Women

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Of course. That wasn’t the point though. I keep reading your responses wondering if you’re reading some other thread and then accidentally posting here…because you clearly do not understand the issue I’m raising.

Read the OP - isn’t it about the Australian Mufti who is blaming the rape victims? What did you think we were talking about?

pro:

Well, if the media aren’t concerned with the mistreatment of women, what’s the basis for raising a storm over the man’s comments?

You’ committed a couple of logical fallacies:

1. I’m sure Australian newspapers also post editorials and comments about the mistreatment of women. Australia has the same type of government/society that America has, judging from my time at the Sydney Olympics -so I suspect they do have similar concerns and agencies to address them.
2. Why do you want them to do so? This has nothing to do with the issue of the Mufti of Australia blaming rape victims.
3. You are committing tu quoque - even if the media are not concerned about the mistreatment of women, why can’t they report the Mufti’s blaming the rape victim speech? Do you expect the media to be saints in order to report some newsworthy oppobrius comments from an Islamic religious leaders?

pro:

The basis for these attacks is supposedly that his statements are offensive and incompatible with public discourse on the subject. Yet, the fact that the justice system actually treats victims this way (as opposed to just saying offensive things) doesn’t make the headlines. That is good evidence that bare hatred of Muslims is motivating the storm, not real concern for the specific issue at hand.

I think you’re telling fibs here, pro. I’m sure the Australian legal system does not blame rape victims.

pro:

Again, you missed the boat. Reread my posts. I’m sorry I have to say it so many times, but your misunderstanding and misconstrual of my points is so complete that there’s no other real solution.

I’ll let the readers decide: you were the one who tried to tu quoque by pointing out some other poster’s not bashing America while he pointed out the horrid nature of what the Mufti said. That is tu quoque, pure and simple.

You were the one who decried the media’s reporting of the Mufti’s oppobrius words as ‘bashing Muslims’. I think you only want the media to portray Islam in apologetic terms. I suppose you wouldn’t have a problem if they portrayed Islam in good terms, but the moment they report the TRUTH about Muslims/Islam you claim they are ‘bashing’ Muslims.

Did the media report the TRUTH or not? Yes or no? Why are you so afraid of the TRUTH just because it is embarrassing for you?

 

[pro_universal]

1. I’m sure Australian newspapers also post editorials and comments about the mistreatment of women. Australia has the same type of government/society that America has, judging from my time at the Sydney Olympics -so I suspect they do have similar concerns and agencies to address them.

You know, before, I was unsure about your analytical ability. But now that you’re “pretty sure” based on a visit to the Sydney olympics that Australia is the same as America, all my doubts are removed. Wow, this is just brilliant…Sherlock Holmes himself would’ve been in awe.

1. Why do you want them to do so? This has nothing to do with the issue of the Mufti of Australia blaming rape victims.

This has nothing to do with the Mufti blaming rape victims? What is objectionable in his comments, then?

I think you’re telling fibs here, pro. I’m sure the Australian legal system does not blame rape victims.

That would be based on zero experience with the Australian system. See above, re: “Sherlock Holmes himself would’ve been in awe.”

Did the media report the TRUTH or not? Yes or no? Why are you so afraid of the TRUTH just because it is embarrassing for you?

Hey look: a strawman.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

You know, before, I was unsure about your analytical ability. But now that you’re “pretty sure” based on a visit to the Sydney olympics that Australia is the same as America, all my doubts are removed. Wow, this is just brilliant…Sherlock Holmes himself would’ve been in awe.

Why not? I did spend a few months travelling around Australia and living with Australians. From what I gather they are pretty much the same as Americans, except 20 years behind the times.

pro:

This has nothing to do with the Mufti blaming rape victims? What is objectionable in his comments, then?

Hmmm… read his comments when he compared women who dress immodestly to meat.

If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if she’s wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don’t happen.

That’s why he said she owns the weapon of seduction.

Satan sees women as half his soldiers: “You’re my messenger to achieve my needs.”

Satan tells women: “You’re my weapon to bring down any stubborn man. There are men that I fail with. But you’re the best of my weapons.”

The woman was behind Satan playing a role when she disobeyed God and went out all dolled up and unveiled and made of herself palatable food that rakes and perverts would race for. She was the reason behind this sin taking place.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6089008.stm

I suppose you just don’t see how offensive it is.

pro:

That would be based on zero experience with the Australian system. See above, re: “Sherlock Holmes himself would’ve been in awe.”

That would be based on your total lack of proferred evidence. From what I gather the Australians have a well-developed legal system based on the British system. I’m sure they would not punish a rape victim in any way.

pro:

Hey look: a strawman.

How is pointing out your aversion to the truth being printed in the media, when it is the truth about Muslims, a straw man? Do you even know what a straw man is?

You were the one who was blaming the media for ‘bashing Muslims’ when it reported the Mufti’s comments.

Now, are those comments truthfully published or not? If they were then what’s your problem?

Apparently you only have a problem when the media portrays Islam/Muslims in a negative light - even if true.

 

[pro_universal]

Why not? I did spend a few months travelling around Australia and living with Australians. From what I gather they are pretty much the same as Americans, except 20 years behind the times.

Interesting that you say that. About 20 years ago, it was impossible for a man to rape his wife in America (marriage was implied consent) in many jurisdictions, and it was also legal to shoot your wife if you caught her cheating (or at least, no jury would convict you.) And that was also before rape shield laws…which made trials victimizing and usually unsuccessful.

But that’s not really relevant, because your general impression from a vacation doesn’t form the basis of a factual conclusion.

I suppose you just don’t see how offensive it is.

That’s more strawman. You are inventing a point to shoot it down.

That would be based on your total lack of proferred evidence. From what I gather the Australians have a well-developed legal system based on the British system. I’m sure they would not punish a rape victim in any way.

Huh? The Australian law reform commission comments on sexual assault law and evidence law aren’t evidence? What?

You are “sure” because you don’t know anything about it. That’s why.

Apparently you only have a problem when the media portrays Islam/Muslims in a negative light - even if true.

I have a problem when the only reason Muslims make the news at all is to bash Islam. If someone wrote a story titled “DC Jewish Leader supports child molestation” (a rabbi was caught during the dateline expose on internet child predators) and then referred entirely to the Jewish community in the story, you can bet your life savings I’d have something critical to say about the papers and anyone who seized up the story to bash Judaism.

When the aim of an article, discussion, and public rowe is solely to bash a religion, the discourse ought to be criticized, no matter which religion is the target.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Interesting that you say that. About 20 years ago, it was impossible for a man to rape his wife in America (marriage was implied consent) in many jurisdictions, and it was also legal to shoot your wife if you caught her cheating (or at least, no jury would convict you.) And that was also before rape shield laws…which made trials victimizing and usually unsuccessful.

But that’s not really relevant, because your general impression from a vacation doesn’t form the basis of a factual conclusion.

And do you provide factual evidence for your implication that the WESTERN system (not just Australian, pro) blames the rape victim?

You decry my knowledge of Australia from a long visit there - but I bet you have not even visited every Western country, yet you feel bound to comment on Western legal systems in general. What’s good the goose, pro. Ever heard that proverb?

Besides, your first para is nothing more than a tu quoque. Is it an involuntary reflex to tu quoque for you? Is tu quoque like a twitch?

Also, please check out the Islamic laws of ‘marital rape’. I’m sure it would be interesting for another discussion - just so you can tu quoque with some knowledge.

pro:

That’s more strawman. You are inventing a point to shoot it down.

How is the central crux of this thread a straw man? You have absolutely no idea what logical fallacies mean, do you? Did not Tehran University teach you not to argue with logical fallacies?

I bet you just googled ‘straw man’, didn’t you? Because you have absolutely no idea what it means.

pro:

Huh? The Australian law reform commission comments on sexual assault law and evidence law aren’t evidence? What?

You are “sure” because you don’t know anything about it. That’s why.

What do they say about blaming the rape victim? That one must oppose blaming rape victims if one is to comment on the Shaykh’s blaming of rape victims?

pro:

I have a problem when the only reason Muslims make the news at all is to bash Islam. If someone wrote a story titled “DC Jewish Leader supports child molestation” (a rabbi was caught during the dateline expose on internet child predators) and then referred entirely to the Jewish community in the story, you can bet your life savings I’d have something critical to say about the papers and anyone who seized up the story to bash Judaism.

Irrelevant as we’re not talking about any such story. The fact that we don’t talk about such stories, because none has come to our attention as current affairs, does not invalidate our right to talk about a Mufti blaming rape victims.

Do you even step back and say, okay, this Mufti said some pretty bad things which I’m not going to support because I’m a good person? No? It never crossed your mind? The urge to defend the Ummah is just too strong eh?

pro:

When the aim of an article, discussion, and public rowe is solely to bash a religion, the discourse ought to be criticized, no matter which religion is the target.

If the Mufti had shut up there wouldn’t be the need to criticize him. Since you have the good fortune to live in a Western secular democratic country, don’t you find your para a tad stupid? After all, there is such a thing as ‘freedom of speech’, or doesn’t it apply when it comes to ‘bashing’ Islam/Muslims?

 

[pro_universal]

And do you provide factual evidence for your implication that the WESTERN system (not just Australian, pro) blames the rape victim?

Wait, who is talking specifically about other than Australia here? Huh?

You decry my knowledge of Australia from a long visit there - but I bet you have not even visited every Western country, yet you feel bound to comment on Western legal systems in general. What’s good the goose, pro. Ever heard that proverb?

Well, I’ve studied Australian law in Australia. I’d say that’s a pretty good basis for making at least some claims about Australian law.

Besides, your first para is nothing more than a tu quoque. Is it an involuntary reflex to tu quoque for you? Is tu quoque like a twitch?

More strawman.

I bet you just googled ‘straw man’, didn’t you? Because you have absolutely no idea what it means.

It means you’re addressing a point I didn’t make in order to shoot it down. That’s exactly what you’re doing.

What do they say about blaming the rape victim? That one must oppose blaming rape victims if one is to comment on the Shaykh’s blaming of rape victims?

That’s absolutely the case. It would be foolish to bash someone for repeating a position that you agree with.

After all, there is such a thing as ‘freedom of speech’, or doesn’t it apply when it comes to ‘bashing’ Islam/Muslims?

Man, on to freedom of speech now? You are seriously reaching, and have demonstrated absolutely no comprehension of the point I made. You didn’t even try to address the point about religious bashing being the source of an uproar…so…

Keep (re)reading.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Wait, who is talking specifically about other than Australia here? Huh?

Did you or did you not accuse the WESTERN system for blaming the rape victim? Yes or No?

pro:

Well, I’ve studied Australian law in Australia. I’d say that’s a pretty good basis for making at least some claims about Australian law.

I’m sorry to not regard you as the authority on Australian law especially since you commit so many logical fallacies.

Please provide the evidence that Australian (see - I relent on the Western system) legal system blames the rape victim.

This is what you wrote:
Do they want to hear anything about rape victims and the way western systems systematically abuse them?

Now, isn’t that a tu quoque? Are you saying we have no right to criticize the Mufti for blaming the rape victim because our Western legal system is less than perfect with regards to our treatment of rape victims?

Please provide the evidence and show the readers how you just cannot help but tu quoque.

pro:

More strawman.

Throwing around the term when you misapply it won’t help your credibility, pro.

Your first para of your previous post was a massive tu quoque - you could not help slamming the American legal system of 20 years ago for not recognizing marital rape, could you?

What has that got to do with the Mufti’s ‘blame the rape victims’ comments? Nothing - ergo tu quoque.

Pro:

It means you’re addressing a point I didn’t make in order to shoot it down. That’s exactly what you’re doing.

And I have shown that the central crux of the thread cannot be a straw man.
This is what you asked:
What is objectionable in his comments, then?

This is what I replied:

… evidence of the Mufti’s comments…

I suppose you just don’t see how offensive it is.

Pro’s reply:
That’s more strawman. You are inventing a point to shoot it down.

Now, how is it a straw man to answer your question about what is objectionable in his comments?

pro:

That’s absolutely the case. It would be foolish to bash someone for repeating a position that you agree with.

So you agree with the Mufti eh?

Some lawyer jokes come to mind.

pro:

Man, on to freedom of speech now? You are seriously reaching, and have demonstrated absolutely no comprehension of the point I made. You didn’t even try to address the point about religious bashing being the source of an uproar…so…

Keep (re)reading.

How am I ‘reaching’? You bash the media for reporting the Mufti’s ‘blame the rape victims’ speech - and you don’t think it’s a freedom of speech issue?

 

[pro_universal]

Rodrigo,

Reread my posts. You’re asking questions that are already clearly answered above.

What’s not a question in your post is a strawman. As usual.

 

[Montalban]

Notice something here. A Muslim rapes a woman…it’s her fault for dressing that way or not covering. A Muslim beheads someone…it’s his fault for leaving Islam. A Muslim flys a plane into the wtc…it’s the fault of US policy. A Muslim complains of being poor…it’s the fault of Bush. A Muslim complains of being backward…it’s the Jews fault. A Muslim shoots a nun…it’s the Pope’s fault. It’s always someone elses fault.

Islam is a great believer in blame-shifting.

Even Pro_universal agreed that Islam can attack a nation that’s not an immediate threat; so your country could be blamed because it might one day have been a threat to Islam, and Islam just had to attack you to protect itself from this potential danger

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro,
Thanks for showing the readers what sort of person you are. They will also see that you have no idea at all what formal logic is and besides committing tu quoque like it’s a twtich you throw around the term ‘straw man’ like confetti, without the slightest idea how to apply it.

Agradece y adiós
Rodrigo

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Also, for an ‘Australian’ why do you use American spelling conventions - defense instead of defence.

Pro_universal:

I’m not Australian, that’s why. But as you well know, non-Australians do live in Australia.

Indeed, so given your own objections to non-Moslems talking about Islam, you’ve now got to exclude yourself from discussion on Australia. Else, look up hypocrite.

Montalban:

It is again misrepresentation by you we see here now. This is not ‘one’ case. I’ve see three Muftis alone mentioned - all from different years. I cited two other Moslem advice sites. None of which you attempt to tackle.

Pro_universal:

How many people voted for Pauline Hanson? How many for the “muftis”?

What has this got to do with anything? Nothing. More Islamic diversionary tactics. Is Pauline Hanson a religious leader? Did she incite people to rape? Man you go off on tangents that must be a specialty study all of its own (might call it the “Geometry of Islamic Argument: New Dimensions in Diversion”).

Montalban:

Also, as you’ve made the claim, please cite for me the legal cases that you speak of. When I’m researching a case I use austlii.edu.au/, or caselaw.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/ which are good tools to use.

Pro_universal:

What do you research cases for?

Wouldn’t you like to know (that’s assuming that I don’t do this as a hobby)

Pro_universal:

I have full access to American westlaw, lexisnexis, and the Australian versions of both. Let me know what you can see, and I’ll cite a source that you can log into and read online without having to go to your law library and look it up.

Although your whole attack on Australian law is off-topic, I invited you to present evidence, (because I am interested in continuing discussion and I know you won’t deal with the evidence I’ve presented to you). (and I’d like to see how much you know)
Let’s just look at what you present as evidence…

Pro_universal:

Some quick sources that will detail the problems with Australian law’s treatment of rape victims:

VLRC Report-Sexual Offences-2004 (not sure if you can get it online, and it’s specific to Victoria)

Did you even look at what you cited? There’s no point accessing something you don’t understand.

Pro_universal:

For the complete lack of rape shield laws in Australia and the way evidence law victimizes rape victims:
austlii.edu.au/au/other/a…html#Heading98

Let’s start with what it says…
These ‘rape shield laws’ are said to have three principal aims. These are to:

• prohibit the admission of evidence of a complainant’s sexual reputation;

• prevent the use of sexual history evidence to establish the complainant as a ‘type’ of person who is more likely to consent to sexual activity; and

• exclude the use of a complainant’s sexual history as an indicator of the complainant’s truthfulness.[11]

The very first point is that the complainant (that’s usually the victim) is not allowed to be questioned regarding her sexual reputation. That’s in itself a pointer to it’s evidence against the very point you’re hoping to make.
Thus even if the woman’s a prostitute (for her ‘profession’) this can not (normally) be used against her - debunking your ‘point’… which was off-topic anyway.

There’s no ‘lack’ of laws at all. If you read it you’d even notice that the ‘complaint’ (or more properly concern) about these laws is that in NSW, for instance, the shield laws are too restrictive!

Pro_universal:

Here’s some more on evidence law:
138.25.65.50/au/other/alrc/pu…s/reports/102/

Once again you’ve not checked your sources. Go to this site, look for ‘rape’ and it leads back to the cite above. So much for another merry adventure where your posts show a complete lack of proper research, and you of comprehension.

No where will I argue that we have a perfect system, but we don’t have secular or religious (other than the Moslem) leaders making such comparisons. Your ‘proof’ (by way of diversion) has at least been one of some merriment.

 

[Montalban]

Pro_universal:

Read there about how your courts like to “warn” juries about how women who wait to report rapes are less credible.

The word ‘credible’ doesn’t appear there at all.

Montalban:

Firstly, your comment is racist! These ‘Moslem women’ are likely to be ‘Australian’ too, are they not? If you mean “And when Moslem women in Australia are attacked by non-Moslem men in cases …etc.” then you should say so.

Pro_universal:

Good point. Non-Muslim Australian men who rape Muslim women (of any nationality) is what I was referring to.

Montalban:

the chance to please offer some evidence. Show me the evidence that non-Moslem men are gang raping Moslem women - with, or without incitement to commit such a crime by members of their clergy.

Pro_universal:

My point was that it rarely gets reported or tried.

That’s hilarious. You make a statement. I ask for evidence. The very fact you’ve no evidence, for you, proves your statement.

Pro_universal:

To list the evidence I know of would require breaches of confidentiality that I can’t make.

That’s not true. There are many investigative reports where details are secure. There are crime statistics, even about un-reported crimes.
Try
lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_onlinequeries

Pro_universal:

But it’s a fact: it happens in Australia, and the victims face just the problem that other rape victims in Australia do.

No one denies rapes happen. You’ve yet to show religious or secular leaders (other than Islamic ones) saying that the victim is at fault… and that this attitude is wide-spread.

Pro_universal:

Right, and I’m pointing out how much of a media circus it is to talk about what Muslims think of women, whereas strangely, the criminal justice system’s treatment of women never makes the papers at all.

So you say; proven, as you see it by the very fact there’s no evidence for it!

Pro_universal:

So I repeat my question: Is this about women, or is this about bashing Muslims? If it were about women…you’d think that other, more damaging and powerful mechanisms of victimization would be making the papers. That leads me to believe that this is more about bashing Muslims than helping women.

Well, your attempt at diversion has been very interesting. Now, if you will, please deal with the facts. This Moslem leader is still in his post.

 

[Montalban]

You do not understand what a tu quoque is.

He does, and you do it. His application to your posts is justifiable. Your defence is that others do the same thing as well… you did this in relation to war in Islam -v- war in Christianity. You do it every argument.

I am not arguing that the man’s comments are correct because Australian’s mistreatment of victims is correct.
Rather, I’m arguing that the reason this is a big media story in the first place is discrimination against Muslims. If it were really about sensitivity to the issue of rape victims, there would be front page stories about how rape victims get abused by the justice system every day.

But the issue only makes the covers in the mouth of a Muslim. Why is that?

You’ve yet to show that this is true, other than you saying it is so. If you were really concerned about the injustice, then you’d not misrepresent the evidence put to you (more of that later)

Because it’s more about criticizing Islam generally than it is about being offended by mistreatment of rape victims. Hence, this kind of criticism has absolutely nothing to do with solving the problem of mistreatment and victimization of rape survivors, and everything to do with bashing a religion.

And the comments by some on this thread are consistent with that. Do they want to hear anything about rape victims and the way western systems systematically abuse them? Of course not. They’d rather confine the discussion to bashing Muslims. That’s because the real interest here isn’t even in tackling or understanding what they think are problems in Islam…it’s about finding any excuse possible to justify blanket hatred of Muslims.

You’re a great one for diversion and misrepresentation. People present you evidence from the Muftis and you reduce this to being ‘one Mufti’. You’ve completely ignored evidence I’ve cited from two Islamic expert sites that believe women are the sexual property of men.

Even when you go off-topic and present ‘evidence’ it refutes yourself, which is probably why you don’t venture into evidentiary debate all that often.

No one makes any claim that the rape laws in Australia are perfect. But then no one’s presented any evidence that a body of opinion is out there urging men to rape. And your defence for this is that the very lack of evidence proves your point! Conspiracy! Your whole argument there is circular.

 

[pro_universal]

Montalban,

Your flurry or responses doesn’t deserve a line by line, because it belies a fundamental truth: you didn’t read the reports I cited.

Look at what kinds of defences are admissible, and what kinds of cross examination can occur under them whenever a complainant gives testimony. The fact that “rape shield laws” aren’t incorporated into evidence law contributes to the sluggishness of reform. Read the reports.

As for crime stats, they don’t list offenders and victims by religion. To know that, you’d have to be connected to particular cases. You can keep denying that if you want, but it’s a fact that it happens.

No one makes any claim that the rape laws in Australia are perfect. But then no one’s presented any evidence that a body of opinion is out there urging men to rape. And your defence for this is that the very lack of evidence proves your point! Conspiracy! Your whole argument there is circular.

They’re not just imperfect; they’re so bad that I haven’t met a single attorney here who would unreservedly recommend that a victim report the crime to police and seek prosecution.

The Mufti didn’t urge men to rape either, so your demand for evidence of that is nonsense. Rather, the Mufti said women should be blamed if they are raped when they go around immodestly because they were in a sense “asking for it” like a piece of meat…and this is an argument that Australian courts allow in criminal trials (you can see that in the reports).

And the fact of the matter is, you’ve got an extremely low conviction rate for rape in Australia (at least, so say the prosecutors and the polic here)…so your juries and judges aren’t just allowing the argument, they’re buying it in a lot of cases.

But hey, just as I predicted…no one wants to turn this into a discussion on victimization of women. It’s about bashing Islam, and that’s all that matters.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Listen up folks. Don’t criticize the Mufti for blaming the rape victims because the Australian courts have a low conviction rate for rape.

Don’t think of doing it because the Australian rape shield laws aren’t incorporated into evidence law.

But wait - they have a rape shield law to stop defendants from ‘blaming the victims’?

Never mind - it’s just inconvenient details.

Makes sense?

Did anyone mention tu quoque?

 

[pro_universal]

Listen up folks. Don’t criticize the Mufti for blaming the rape victims because the Australian courts have a low conviction rate for rape.

Don’t think of doing it because the Australian rape shield laws aren’t incorporated into evidence law.

Wrong.

Let’s use this man’s comments as a springboard for debating the gross mistreatment of rape victims in Australian courts. Let’s expand the discussion to look at the way that secular authorities of all religious backgrounds ignore the re-victimization of rape victims in Australia.

Let’s get beyond bashing a religion and look at the root of the problem from a “let’s treat women better” perspective, instead of spending all our time asking “how bad is Islam?”.

How about that?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro:

Wrong.

Let’s use this man’s comments as a springboard for debating the gross mistreatment of rape victims in Australian courts. Let’s expand the discussion to look at the way that secular authorities of all religious backgrounds ignore the re-victimization of rape victims in Australia.

Let’s get beyond bashing a religion and look at the root of the problem from a “let’s treat women better” perspective, instead of spending all our time asking “how bad is Islam?”.

How about that?

Who gave you the right to tell everyone to ‘use this man’s comments as a springboard’ to do anything?

The Mufti made some comments highly offensive to right-thinking moral people and he should be criticized for it, and that’s the only purpose of criticizing him.

You know what? The rest of your ‘use this man’s comment as a springboard etc.’ is (surprise, surprise) a red herring.

 

[pro_universal]

Who gave you the right to tell everyone to ‘use this man’s comments as a springboard’ to do anything?

The Mufti made some comments highly offensive to right-thinking moral people and he should be criticized for it, and that’s the only purpose of criticizing him.

You know what? The rest of your ‘use this man’s comment as a springboard etc.’ is (surprise, surprise) a red herring.

What gives me the right to ask for it is the basic principle that religious bashing with no point other than religious bashing is fruitless, morally wrong, and against the terms of service of this website.

Your description of my call to take this beyond bashing a religion is unsurprising also…you’d rather just sit and bash Muslims than actually view this as a problem that is not specific to any religion or political creed, and talk about specific needs for reform.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

What gives me the right to ask for it is the basic principle that religious bashing with no point other than religious bashing is fruitless, morally wrong, and against the terms of service of this website.

You have no right whatsoever to do so. All you’re doing is commit a red herring by requiring us to ‘use this man’s comments as a springboard’ to do something that is unrelated to the issue of his ‘blaming the rape victim’ comments.

pro:

Your description of my call to take this beyond bashing a religion is unsurprising also…you’d rather just sit and bash Muslims than actually view this as a problem that is not specific to any religion or political creed, and talk about specific needs for reform.

Why should anyone entertain your red herring?

I suppose you’re not a barrister as you certainly don’t argue like one, but if you were to defend a client from a charge do you ‘take the direction of your defense beyond defending the charge’?

Or do you just address the issue?

 

[pro_universal]

You have no right whatsoever to do so. All you’re doing is commit a red herring by requiring us to ‘use this man’s comments as a springboard’ to do something that is unrelated to the issue of his ‘blaming the rape victim’ comments.

Pointing out that there is more to the context than just one person’s comments on rape is not a red herring.

You only consider it to be so because your aim is to bash Islam, not to consider the specific issue at hand (ie, the way rape victims are treated and should be treated.)

I suppose you’re not a barrister as you certainly don’t argue like one, but if you were to defend a client from a charge do you ‘take the direction of your defense beyond defending the charge’?

Or do you just address the issue?

Who’s on trial here? If you are saying that Islam is on trial, then you’re proving my point: this is about bashing Islam and not about genuine outrage at discrimination against rape victims.