Is Dutch Smart?

[BillB]

Dutch once claimed he had the highest IQ ever measured at the University of British Columbia (an elite university located in Vancouver, BC).

Now try to reconcile that extraordinary claim with the fact that today Dutch was trying to persuade me that it was perfectly reasonable, logical and critically sound of him to unquestioningly believe an article he found in the Weekly World News (the same publication that runs headlines like "Marilyn Monroe Impregnated By Aliens: Scientists Confirm") which informed him that Saudi princes were executing multi-million dollar racehorses for engaging in homosexual behavior.

Dutch claims it was perfectly reasonable to believe this story, despite the source, and despite the fact that Islam is 1400 years old and has more than 1.5 Billion adherents, and there has never been a single documented case of even ONE of those billions of Muslims ever executing any kind of animal (other than a human) for homosexual behavior. Not a dog, a cat, or even a cockroach, never mind an animal worth millions of dollars.

So I ask you, based on this evidence, is Dutch really the hyper-genius he claims to be?

[risky biz]

Honestly, he seems to be even dumber than 'furkedon' which correlates with the fact that 'furkedon' successfully brainwashed him. The fake article was even billed as a fake and he was too dumb to notice that. But his dumbest behavior is that he still, remarkably, insists it's believable.

[BillB]

Yes, entirely believable, EXCEPT that it has never happened over many BILLIONS of trials (Muslim lifetimes). Verdict: Dutch is not the hyper-genius he claims to be.

[Dutch]

On 5/31/2018 11:14 PM, BillB wrote:
>
> Dutch once claimed he had the highest IQ ever measured at the University of British Columbia (an elite university located in Vancouver, BC).

That was not the claim I made. I quoted the percentile I was told I
achieved on four hours of testing, I don't even recall what it was now.
If it was the highest ever measured at UBC (how would you know that?)
then it was a fluke because I'm not a genius, never have claimed to be.
I recall feeling exceptionally focused that day though.

> Now try to reconcile that extraordinary claim with the fact that today Dutch was trying to persuade me that it was perfectly reasonable, logical and critically sound of him to unquestioningly believe an article he found in the Weekly World News (the same publication that runs headlines like "Marilyn Monroe Impregnated By Aliens: Scientists Confirm") which informed him that Saudi princes were executing multi-million dollar racehorses for engaging in homosexual behavior.

I had never visited that website before and was unaware of any of those
other headlines, so they are not relevant.

> Dutch claims it was perfectly reasonable to believe this story,

Not quite, my claim is that it is plausible, if you are not put off by
the odd phrase "gay racehorse".

> despite the source,

The source is irrelevant, as I pointed out above.

> and despite the fact that Islam is 1400 years old and has more than 1.5 Billion adherents, and there has never been a single documented case of even ONE of those billions of Muslims ever executing any kind of animal (other than a human) for homosexual behavior. Not a dog, a cat, or even a cockroach, never mind an animal worth millions of dollars.

Why would animal killings be documented? Millions, no, billions of
animals are killed every year, virtually none of them is documented.

> So I ask you, based on this evidence, is Dutch really the hyper-genius he claims to be?

First, I didn't claim that. Second, the evidence is pretty clear when
you break it down.

"Gay racehorse", as humorous as that sounds, is an actual phenomenon.

Saudi Princes feeling a homicidal rage towards homosexuality is a
plausible idea, and undoubtedly factual in some cases.

Saudi Princes not giving a shit about a million bucks (a ham sandwich to
them) is perfectly plausible.

The interesting part of this story is that you feel the need to flog
this dead horse so frequently. I must be in your head. Sorry 'bout that..

[Dutch]

Explain what about it is not believable. A man can be tossed off a roof
but an animal can't be killed for the same reason? How can you say that
with assurance?

[Dutch]

I love how glibly you pronounce as undeniable fact something which you
have absolutely no way of knowing. I guess you have to be really smart
to do that.

[BillB]

Do you deny it?

[risky biz]

Provide some data of the number of homosexuals tossed off roofs in the entire Muslim world (pop. 2 billion). A significant percentage will make your pretension that it is common in the Muslim world far more believable than the one or two videos of this being done in territory that was formerly controlled by the ISIS organization. BTW- ISIS doesn't control any more rooftops. They have been virtually physically wiped out by MUSLIMS.

I guess we have no choice but to accept your explanation that you are too severely dumb to notice headline titles like this right next to the fake, lying article you posted:

Babysitter transported to hospital after inserting a baby in her vagina
FBI seizes over 3,000 penises during raid at morgue employee’s home
Morgue employee cremated by mistake while taking a nap
Couple hospitalized after man gets his head stuck in his wife’s vagina
Elderly woman accused of training her 65 cats to steal from neighbors
Colorado: Hunter claims he was sexually assaulted by a sasquatch
Boston: Members of Midget Crime Gang Suspected of 55 Break-ins
Morgue worker arrested after giving birth to a dead man’s baby


But- how believable is this part of the lying article you posted. This is right in the article:

“Every year, Saudi Arabia executes between 25,000 and 35,000 animals because they are suspected of homosexuality,” explains the PETA spokeswoman, Janet McIntyre. “This includes many animals like dogs, cats, horses and camels, which are either stoned to death or decapitated, almost always in front of crowds. It is both cruel and barbaric, and such practices shouldn’t exist in the 21st century.”

Seriously- no one can possibly be dumb enough to think practices like that would have never been heard of before your groundbreaking discovery of it at this website.

It's more than evident that your standard of credibility consists of, 'If it makes Muslims look alien, crazy, and dangerous and could cause other people to despise them then that's all the credibility needed to justify promoting it on the internet'.

Also- would you like explain why you afterward tried to deny that you posted that article?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/p5tOruY3Hhc/GXES_dELCAAJ

When you couldn't get away with that you then went back to arguing that it's believable.

Here's how believable it is. This is the website's disclaimer:

'WNDR assumes however all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content. All characters appearing in the articles in this website – even those based on real people – are entirely fictional and any resemblance between them and any persons, living, dead, or undead is purely a miracle.'

Any resemblance between 'dutch' and an intelligent human being with an average or above amount of character would be the miracle.

[risky biz]

On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 1:16:55 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> On 5/31/2018 11:14 PM, BillB wrote:
> >
> > Dutch once claimed he had the highest IQ ever measured at the University of British Columbia (an elite university located in Vancouver, BC).
>
> That was not the claim I made. I quoted the percentile I was told I
> achieved on four hours of testing, I don't even recall what it was now.
> If it was the highest ever measured at UBC (how would you know that?)
> then it was a fluke because I'm not a genius, never have claimed to be.
> I recall feeling exceptionally focused that day though.

Why? Did you tell some really believable lies that day?

[Dutch]

Are you out of your mind? You just asserted as fact something that
nobody could possibly know. That is all the comment needed on that
little gem. It's so typical of you though..

[BillB]

So you can't deny it?? I guess that makes it undeniable, eh?

I can't PROVE that little green Martian men aren't secretly living somewhere 500 miles below the surface of the Earth, but I'm pretty comfortable stating as a matter of fact that they don't exist. If you have contrary evidence, I'm all ears.

Let's put it this way, Islamophobe Dutch. Do you have ANY evidence that in the entire history of Islam that even ONE of the BILLIONS of Muslims have ever executed a non-human animal for being gay? ANYTHING? EVEN ONCE? After BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of people over more than a CENTURY?

No, you do not. But it's entirely plausible anyway...right? Because...they're MOOSLIMS!!

Given that fact that you have NO EVIDENCE this or anything like it has EVER happened before in the history of humankind, and the fact that you found the claim in a satirical "news" publication, and the fact that you possess the highest IQ ever recorded, one would think you would view such an outrageous claim with a great deal of scepticism! But not Dutch! Do you think your advanced Islamophobia affliction might have had anything to do with your extreme gullibility in this instance?

[BillB]

On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 1:16:55 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:

> That was not the claim I made. I quoted the percentile I was told I
> achieved on four hours of testing, I don't even recall what it was now.

Liar.

"My score in the 98th percentile was the highest ever recorded"

Of course, even that statement standing alone proves you are an idiot, because a score in the 98th percentile is not -- BY DEFINITION -- the highest ever recorded. LOL In fact, one of every fifty would be higher. The irony is that nobody with an IQ in the 98th percentile would ever make such an idiotic statement.

[Dutch]

On 6/1/2018 11:20 AM, risky biz wrote:
> On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 1:25:17 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>> On 6/1/2018 12:06 AM, risky biz wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 11:14:50 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
>>>> Dutch once claimed he had the highest IQ ever measured at the University of British Columbia (an elite university located in Vancouver, BC).
>>>>
>>>> Now try to reconcile that extraordinary claim with the fact that today Dutch was trying to persuade me that it was perfectly reasonable, logical and critically sound of him to unquestioningly believe an article he found in the Weekly World News (the same publication that runs headlines like "Marilyn Monroe Impregnated By Aliens: Scientists Confirm") which informed him that Saudi princes were executing multi-million dollar racehorses for engaging in homosexual behavior.
>>>>
>>>> Dutch claims it was perfectly reasonable to believe this story, despite the source, and despite the fact that Islam is 1400 years old and has more than 1.5 Billion adherents, and there has never been a single documented case of even ONE of those billions of Muslims ever executing any kind of animal (other than a human) for homosexual behavior. Not a dog, a cat, or even a cockroach, never mind an animal worth millions of dollars.
>>>>
>>>> So I ask you, based on this evidence, is Dutch really the hyper-genius he claims to be?
>>>
>>> Honestly, he seems to be even dumber than 'furkedon' which correlates with the fact that 'furkedon' successfully brainwashed him. The fake article was even billed as a fake and he was too dumb to notice that. But his dumbest behavior is that he still, remarkably, insists it's believable.
>>
>> Explain what about it is not believable. A man can be tossed off a roof
>> but an animal can't be killed for the same reason? How can you say that
>> with assurance?
>
> Provide some data of the number of homosexuals tossed off roofs in the entire Muslim world

Provide your own data asswipe. The point is, if a homosexual man can be
thrown off a rooftop then a homosexual horse can be destroyed. It is no
less believable.

(pop. 2 billion). A significant percentage will make your pretension
that it is common in the Muslim world far more believable than the one
or two videos of this being done in territory that was formerly
controlled by the ISIS organization. BTW- ISIS doesn't control any more
rooftops. They have been virtually physically wiped out by MUSLIMS.

Irrelevant.

>
> I guess we have no choice but to accept your explanation that you are too severely dumb to notice headline titles like this right next to the fake, lying article you posted:
>
> Babysitter transported to hospital after inserting a baby in her vagina
> FBI seizes over 3,000 penises during raid at morgue employee’s home
> Morgue employee cremated by mistake while taking a nap
> Couple hospitalized after man gets his head stuck in his wife’s vagina
> Elderly woman accused of training her 65 cats to steal from neighbors
> Colorado: Hunter claims he was sexually assaulted by a sasquatch
> Boston: Members of Midget Crime Gang Suspected of 55 Break-ins
> Morgue worker arrested after giving birth to a dead man’s baby

I saw no such sidelines on the page when I read it.

> But- how believable is this part of the lying article you posted. This is right in the article:
>
> “Every year, Saudi Arabia executes between 25,000 and 35,000 animals because they are suspected of homosexuality,” explains the PETA spokeswoman, Janet McIntyre. “This includes many animals like dogs, cats, horses and camels, which are either stoned to death or decapitated, almost always in front of crowds. It is both cruel and barbaric, and such practices shouldn’t exist in the 21st century.”

Don't recall that part.

> Seriously- no one can possibly be dumb enough to think practices like that would have never been heard of before your groundbreaking discovery of it at this website.
>
> It's more than evident that your standard of credibility consists of, 'If it makes Muslims look alien, crazy, and dangerous and could cause other people to despise them then that's all the credibility needed to justify promoting it on the internet'.

I didn't create the page.

>
> Also- would you like explain why you afterward tried to deny that you posted that article?
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/p5tOruY3Hhc/GXES_dELCAAJ

I believe I remembered commenting on it, not posting it.

> When you couldn't get away with that you then went back to arguing that it's believable.
>
> Here's how believable it is. This is the website's disclaimer:
>
> 'WNDR assumes however all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content. All characters appearing in the articles in this website – even those based on real people – are entirely fictional and any resemblance between them and any persons, living, dead, or undead is purely a miracle.'
>
> Any resemblance between 'dutch' and an intelligent human being with an average or above amount of character would be the miracle.

Any culture that demonizes and punishes homosexuality to the degree that
is done in some Muslim communities would conceivably react violently to
homosexual behaviour in animals. It's not that much of a stretch. Of
course it's a joke, but jokes are funny because there's a grain of truth
in them.

[Dutch]

You can't lie on an IQ test.

[Dutch]

On 6/1/2018 1:21 PM, BillB wrote:
> On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 1:00:34 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>> On 6/1/2018 2:17 AM, BillB wrote:
>>> On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 1:31:07 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>>>> On 6/1/2018 12:10 AM, BillB wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 12:06:37 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 11:14:50 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
>>>>>>> Dutch once claimed he had the highest IQ ever measured at the University of British Columbia (an elite university located in Vancouver, BC).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now try to reconcile that extraordinary claim with the fact that today Dutch was trying to persuade me that it was perfectly reasonable, logical and critically sound of him to unquestioningly believe an article he found in the Weekly World News (the same publication that runs headlines like "Marilyn Monroe Impregnated By Aliens: Scientists Confirm") which informed him that Saudi princes were executing multi-million dollar racehorses for engaging in homosexual behavior.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dutch claims it was perfectly reasonable to believe this story, despite the source, and despite the fact that Islam is 1400 years old and has more than 1.5 Billion adherents, and there has never been a single documented case of even ONE of those billions of Muslims ever executing any kind of animal (other than a human) for homosexual behavior. Not a dog, a cat, or even a cockroach, never mind an animal worth millions of dollars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I ask you, based on this evidence, is Dutch really the hyper-genius he claims to be?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Honestly, he seems to be even dumber than 'furkedon' which correlates with the fact that 'furkedon' successfully brainwashed him. The fake article was even billed as a fake and he was too dumb to notice that. But his dumbest behavior is that he still, remarkably, insists it's believable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, entirely believable, EXCEPT that it has never happened over many BILLIONS of trials (Muslim lifetimes). Verdict: Dutch is not the hyper-genius he claims to be.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I love how glibly you pronounce as undeniable fact something which you
>>>> have absolutely no way of knowing. I guess you have to be really smart
>>>> to do that.
>>>
>>> Do you deny it?
>>
>> Are you out of your mind? You just asserted as fact something that
>> nobody could possibly know. That is all the comment needed on that
>> little gem. It's so typical of you though..
>
> So you can't deny it?? I guess that makes it undeniable, eh?

Like teapots on the moon?

> I can't PROVE that little green Martian men

Sorry, bad logic. You stated unequivocally that X has never happened,
ever, with NOTHING to back it up. It was a classic bald, unsupportable
assertion. It was a stupid thing to say.

[Dutch]

Is that a direct quote? I don't believe it is accurate. The psychologist
said it was the highest score of anyone *she* had ever tested. I guess I
was really on my game that day, and made some lucky guesses, because I
am quite aware that my IQ is not actually in the genius range.

[BillB]

It's not a bad analogy at all. That's why you snipped it. I will unequivocally state the "bald assertion" that there are no little green Martians living 500 miles below the surface of the Earth, yet I have nothing to back it up but the total absence of evidence that such an extraordinary thing exists, and common sense. Just like I know that Muslims have never executed animals for being gay.

Try not to run from your Islamophobia, Dutch. You have NO EVIDENCE that any Muslim in the history of the planet has ever done such a bizarre thing, yet when the "World News" told you it was so, you uncritically lapped it up like the hungry Islamophobe you are, and you are STILL claiming it is plausible, even though it has NEVER happened over billions of lifetimes! LOL Islamophobia rots the brain.

[Dutch]

Killing animals for a bizarre reason is not little green men. Terrible,
terrible logic. I'm shocked you would try to fob off such a poorly
thought out argument. I thought you fancied yourself smart. Religious
people have been killing animals for eons for dumber reasons that the
fact they were acting homosexually, like to make crops grow. Just
because nobody talks about it does not mean it hasn't happened. Absence
of evidence is not evidence of absence. geez, what a goof. You should
have said that you were not able to find any documented evidence of it
happening (assuming you looked), not made a sweeping statement like that.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality.aspx
Many animals engage in homosexual activity, why is it such a stretch
that people who believe that homosexuality comes from the devil would
want to kill off such animals? Give me a logical response, not your your
usual "lol" slough-off.

[BillB]

> people have been killing animals for eons for dumber reasons....


So you have ample evidence of them killing for all those "dumber reasons", but for some odd reason you have not a shred of them doing it over "animal gayness"? What does that tell you, genius?

, like to make crops grow. Just
> because nobody talks about it does not mean it hasn't happened. Absence
> of evidence is not evidence of absence. geez, what a goof. You should
> have said that you were not able to find any documented evidence of it
> happening (assuming you looked), not made a sweeping statement like that.
>
> https://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality.aspx
> Many animals engage in homosexual activity, why is it such a stretch
> that people who believe that homosexuality comes from the devil would
> want to kill off such animals? Give me a logical response, not your your
> usual "lol" slough-off.

LOL do you have ANY evidence that this has EVER happened EVEN ONCE over many BILLIONS of Muslim lifetimes? YES or NO? Leave your Islamophobic imaginings out of it. Do you have any EVIDENCE it has ever happened in the history of the world?

[BillB]

On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 8:16:50 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:

> Killing animals for a bizarre reason is not little green men.

No, it isn't. That's why it's an ANALOGY. Two different things, but with the same underlying logic.

> Terrible, terrible logic.I'm shocked you would try to fob off such a poorly

> thought out argument. I thought you fancied yourself smart.

Wow, what a convincing rebuttal. You really are a genius!! But can you prove to me that there are no little green Martian men living below the surface of the Earth? Remember...absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!! You said so yourself!

[Dutch]

I'll tell you what it doesn't tell me, that it has never happened, which
was your claim.

> , like to make crops grow. Just
>> because nobody talks about it does not mean it hasn't happened. Absence
>> of evidence is not evidence of absence. geez, what a goof. You should
>> have said that you were not able to find any documented evidence of it
>> happening (assuming you looked), not made a sweeping statement like that.
>>
>> https://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality.aspx
>> Many animals engage in homosexual activity, why is it such a stretch
>> that people who believe that homosexuality comes from the devil would
>> want to kill off such animals? Give me a logical response, not your your
>> usual "lol" slough-off.
>
> LOL do you have ANY evidence that this has EVER happened EVEN ONCE over many BILLIONS of Muslim lifetimes? YES or NO? Leave your Islamophobic imaginings out of it. Do you have any EVIDENCE it has ever happened in the history of the world?

Don't try to shift the burden of providing evidence to me. I'm not
making the claim that it happened, my claim is that it is plausible, a
claim which I have supported with reasonable arguments.

You otoh are claiming that it has absolutely never, EVER happened, a
claim that you won't support because it cannot be supported. It's a
silly, arrogant claim, par for the course for you.

[Dutch]

On 6/1/2018 9:01 PM, BillB wrote:
> On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 8:16:50 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>
>> Killing animals for a bizarre reason is not little green men.
>
> No, it isn't. That's why it's an ANALOGY. Two different things, but with the same underlying logic.

Not the same underlying logic at all. "Little green men" is like teapots
on the moon, like the existence of God, it is an example of something
that despite being really, really, unlikely, can't be disproved. It is
the WRONG analogy to use for your argument.

>
>> Terrible, terrible logic.I'm shocked you would try to fob off such a poorly
>> thought out argument. I thought you fancied yourself smart.
>
> Wow, what a convincing rebuttal. You really are a genius!! But can you prove to me that there are no little green Martian men living below the surface of the Earth? Remember...absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!! You said so yourself!

You're proving my point. We can't prove that there are no little green
men just like we can't prove that there has never been a goat killed by
a rabid homophobe for humping other male goats.

You suck at this. You *could* say that you believe it is unlikely to
have ever happened, and even then you'd need to support that with some
kind of argument, but that's not what you did. You stated, baldly and
unequivocally that it has never, ever happened in all of human history.
You have truly Trumpian confidence.

[BillB]

On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 11:31:57 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:

>We can't prove that there are no little green

> men [living 500 yards below the surface of the Earth]


LOL...what an Islamophobic moron.

Yes, Dutch, I AM prepared to say, as a matter of fact, that there are no little green Martians living 500 yards below the surface of the Earth. (just as I am prepared to say that no Muslim has ever killed a multi-million racehorse for being gay).

There's an old saying among logicians and skeptics: Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

[risky biz]

The IQ test was lying if it said you were smart.

[risky biz]

Honestly speaking, I think most people at RGP are quite aware that your IQ is in the sub-normal range.

[BillB]

On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 12:12:42 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

> Yes, Dutch, I AM prepared to say, as a matter of fact, that there are no little green Martians living 500 yards below the surface of the Earth. (just as I am prepared to say that no Muslim has ever killed a multi-million racehorse for being gay).
>

And you know what, Dutch? If I ran into an internet "news" article that claimed there were little green Martian men living below the surface of the Earth (which would be difficult unless I was actively searching out outrageous bullshit stories, like you were with Muslims), the VERY NEXT thing I would do is check the credibility of the supposed "news" source. But you didn't do that, did you?

I guess geniuses like you don't worry about stuff like that?

[fffurken]

On Saturday, 2 June 2018 17:46:38 UTC+1, BillB wrote:

> the VERY NEXT thing I would do is check the credibility of the supposed "news" source.

lololololololololololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololollololololololol

[Dutch]

On 6/2/2018 12:12 AM, BillB wrote:
> On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 11:31:57 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>
>> We can't prove that there are no little green
>> men [living 500 yards below the surface of the Earth]
>
>
> LOL...what an Islamophobic moron.
>
> Yes, Dutch, I AM prepared to say, as a matter of fact, that there are no little green Martians living 500 yards below the surface of the Earth. (just as I am prepared to say that no Muslim has ever killed a multi-million racehorse for being gay).

You moved the goalposts, sophist. We are currently debating whether or
not ANY human has EVER killed ANY animal because of homosexual
behaviour. Your claim was THAT has never, EVER happened. That was a
ridiculous claim because you have no way of knowing. Martians under the
ground is a red herring.

>
> There's an old saying among logicians and skeptics: Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

Then get busy because yours is on the ground, but not from having an
open mind, because you do not.

[Dutch]

On 6/2/2018 9:46 AM, BillB wrote:
> On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 12:12:42 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
>
>> Yes, Dutch, I AM prepared to say, as a matter of fact, that there are no little green Martians living 500 yards below the surface of the Earth. (just as I am prepared to say that no Muslim has ever killed a multi-million racehorse for being gay).
>>
>
> And you know what, Dutch? If I ran into an internet "news" article that claimed there were little green Martian men living below the surface of the Earth

People killing animals for sick or twisted reasons is not remotely as
implausible as underground Martians. Nice try though.. sort of..

> (which would be difficult unless I was actively searching out outrageous bullshit stories, like you were with Muslims), the VERY NEXT thing I would do is check the credibility of the supposed "news" source. But you didn't do that, did you?

Obviously in this case I did not.

> I guess geniuses like you don't worry about stuff like that?

You are really jealous of that high test score I got aren't you? If it
makes you feel any better I'm pretty sure it was an anomaly.

[fffurken]

Oh sure, homosexuality is widely rejected by Moslems and in fact punishable by death in their hate books.. but it's not as if they would harm an _animal_ for irrational reasons (https://tinyurl.com/yaf2ofuv)!

And, you know, the daily holocaust against animals in the Islamic world (and now unfortunately in ours - https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/m5WM2yLI_7Y/4VvFszyoCAAJ) is entirely rational, too!

lol @ the rabid Moslem mutt & the far left Canadian Islamophilic windbag

[BillB]

On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 1:02:01 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:

> > And you know what, Dutch? If I ran into an internet "news" article that claimed there were little green Martian men living below the surface of the Earth
>
> People killing animals for sick or twisted reasons

hahaha...look who is moving the goalposts. We are talking about people (no...Muslims) killing multi-million dollar racehorses (by the thousands??) because they were gay. THAT'S the story you hungrily lapped up like a starving cat would lap up a bowl of milk.

is not remotely as
> implausible as underground Martians. Nice try though.. sort of..

I'd say they are about equal. Nobody even once in the history of the world has anyone ever presented any evidence that either of those scenarios that have ever existed. They are seem pretty remote.

> > (which would be difficult unless I was actively searching out outrageous bullshit stories, like you were with Muslims), the VERY NEXT thing I would do is check the credibility of the supposed "news" source. But you didn't do that, did you?
>
> Obviously in this case I did not.

No, Dutch, you did not. That's what any normal, intelligent person would do, but, instead, you uncritically accepted this tall, tall (satirical) tale as absolute truth, and ran off to post it as fast as you could on your favorite personal depository of Islamophobic propaganda. You couldn't wait to show how mean and backward those dirty Muslims are. Now ask yourself honestly WHY you exhibited (and continue to exhibit) those racist behaviors, and admit to yourself how it relates to Islamophobia.

[Dutch]

You keep telling yourself that..

[Dutch]

When somebody starts a sentence with "honestly speaking" you can rest
assured what follows is a lie, you daft twat.

[fffurken]

On Saturday, 2 June 2018 21:18:05 UTC+1, BillB wrote:
> On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 1:02:01 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>
> > > And you know what, Dutch? If I ran into an internet "news" article that claimed there were little green Martian men living below the surface of the Earth
> >
> > People killing animals for sick or twisted reasons
>

> hahaha...look who is moving the goalposts. We are talking about people (no...Muslims) killing multi-million dollar racehorses...

Dutch is an 'ISLAMOPHOBE'! Moslems murdering homosexuals (in accordance with their (so-called) "religion"..) DOESN'T MATTER!

Christ almighty. What sick, twisted fucks (every single last one of you are)

[BillB]

On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 1:24:09 PM UTC-7, fffurken wrote:

> Dutch is an 'ISLAMOPHOBE'! Moslems murdering homosexuals (in accordance with their (so-called) "religion"..) DOESN'T MATTER!
>

Of course it matters, just as it matters that Islamophobes use those rare occurrences in an attempt to slur and misrepresent Muslims as a whole. It also matters that some people only care (or even notice) if a Muslim commits such an act, but totally ignore the much more common occurrence of someone from another religion doing the very same thing. It all ties neatly into Islamophobia, a form of mental illness that ranges from mild to severe.

[fffurken]

lol.. It doesn't matter a jot to you, you're a sociopath for starters (otherwise you wouldn't be an extreme far leftist and virulent anti-white racist).

And let us just get this part straight, you believe that homophobia is as big an issue with "people of other religions" as it is with Muhammadans? Just say it (I already know you're nuts), for the benefit of the readers.

[Dutch]

On 6/2/2018 1:18 PM, BillB wrote:
> On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 1:02:01 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>
>>> And you know what, Dutch? If I ran into an internet "news" article that claimed there were little green Martian men living below the surface of the Earth
>>
>> People killing animals for sick or twisted reasons
>
> hahaha...look who is moving the goalposts.

Yes, you. You have scurried back to the gay racehorse story, which is
not the topic under discussion. We are discussing your assertion that
something has never ever happened in all of recorded history. But now
you realize that you overplayed your hand so you're trying to get back
to your safe place, the fake story that I was taken in by. Sorry, I'm
not letting you do it.

> We are talking about people (no...Muslims) killing multi-million dollar racehorses (by the thousands??) because they were gay. THAT'S the story you hungrily lapped up like a starving cat would lap up a bowl of milk.

As much as you love to repeat that story, it is NOT what we're talking
about now. Focus Bill, I know it's hard when you're trying spin a tale.

The current topic under discussion is the plausibility of the idea of a
Muslim (or anyone for that matter) killing an animal due to homosexual
behavior. I stated that the idea was plausible. I supported the
statement with a rational argument to do with homophobic attitudes and
violence towards homosexuals, as well as the fact that the killing of
animals is ubiquitous.

> is not remotely as
>> implausible as underground Martians. Nice try though.. sort of..
>
> I'd say they are about equal. Nobody even once in the history of the world has anyone ever presented any evidence that either of those scenarios that have ever existed. They are seem pretty remote.

Poppycock. Animals are real, the killing of animals is commonplace,
animosity towards homosexuality is real. People are wildly
unpredictable. The possibility killing of an animal for acting out
homosexually barely rises to the level of unlikely.

Compare that to little green men from Mars living underground.

gmafb Bill, really, give your head a shake.

>
>>> (which would be difficult unless I was actively searching out outrageous bullshit stories, like you were with Muslims), the VERY NEXT thing I would do is check the credibility of the supposed "news" source. But you didn't do that, did you?
>>
>> Obviously in this case I did not.
>
> No, Dutch, you did not.

Fine, repeat that story over and over and over over and over and over
over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over
because you have little else to prop up your mini-jihad of hate.

Meanwhile, as you attack me for being open to criticism of Islam, you
repeat the most vile and demeaning things about people's religious
beliefs because in your mind one is politically correct and the other
isn't. In other words, you are a narrow minded, brainwashed hypocrite.

[Dutch]

What's the name of the mental illness that makes someone despise all
religion thus demeaning billions upon billions of decent people?

[BillB]

On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 2:35:24 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:

> What's the name of the mental illness that makes someone despise all
> religion thus demeaning billions upon billions of decent people?

Yet another IQ fail...despising religion doesn't demean anyone, any more than someone despising brussel sprouts demeans farmers.

[fffurken]

Despite my (repeated) efforts recently trying to explain to Dutch that you are never accusing him of criticising a "religion" (as if that's a bad thing) by calling him an 'Islamophobe', but you are instead always calling him a WACIST!, or a bigot, or whatever he still doesn't get it.

So why don't you just say that instead (of 'Islamophobe')? Do all of you (far) leftists have to be such cuntish weasels?

[BillB]

On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 2:30:41 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:

> Yes, you. You have scurried back to the gay racehorse story, which is
> not the topic under discussion.

You don't want it to be, but that's exactly what is under discussion: your willingness to believe any fucking absurd story you see, even if it's in the World News Daily nest to stories about aliens impregnating starlets, as long as it paints Muslims in a negative light.

We are discussing your assertion that
> something has never ever happened in all of recorded history.

Do you have any evidence it has? Are you willing to assert that the Queen of England has never smoked a joint with Snoop Dog in all of recorded history?

> As much as you love to repeat that story, it is NOT what we're talking
> about now. Focus Bill, I know it's hard when you're trying spin a tale.

That is what we're talking about (your Islamophobia induced gullibility)

> The current topic under discussion is the plausibility of the idea of a
> Muslim (or anyone for that matter) killing an animal due to homosexual
> behavior. I stated that the idea was plausible.

Actually, what you have been calling plausible is Saudi Princes slaughtering multi-million dollar "gay racehorses" by the thousands. You are a fucking idiot, Dutch. Just admit that obvious fact, and I'll let it go.

> > I'd say they are about equal. Nobody even once in the history of the world has anyone ever presented any evidence that either of those scenarios that have ever existed. They are seem pretty remote.
>
> Poppycock. Animals are real

And little Green men from Mars are not? How do you know that? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, right?

> the killing of animals is commonplace,

We are talking specifically about killing animals *for being gay*. Driving a car is ubiquitous too, but that doesn't mean I should believe a story in the World News Daily about a man driving his car to the moon. That is NOT commonplace. In fact, there is no evidence it has ever happened even ONCE in the history of the world (just like there is no evidence of Muslims killing animals for being gay...let alone multi-million dollar racehorses.

> animosity towards homosexuality is real.

But animosity toward gay racehorses is not. That only exists in your Islamophobic imagination and in the "World News Daily", where you apparently go to get your crazy Islamophobic fake anecdotes.

> Meanwhile, as you attack me for being open to criticism of Islam, you
> repeat the most vile and demeaning things about people's religious
> beliefs

No, I don't. Liar. I believe in freedom of religion and expression. You do not.

[fffurken]

tl/dnr

[Dutch]

So, despising religion in the harshest terms doesn't demean anyone, but
criticizing Islam as say, Sam Harris does, (btw he also wrote a book
called Message to a Christian Nation critical of Christianity) demeans
all Muslims and also indicates a mental disorder. gotcha, no double
standard there.

[Dutch]

He says that, he calls me a bigot. It's fine to criticize a religion as
long as its followers are mostly white; if they have mostly brown skin
it's off limits. It's right there in the SJW Code of Conduct.

[fffurken]

On Sunday, 3 June 2018 00:07:50 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:
> On 6/2/2018 3:55 PM, fffurken wrote:
> > On Saturday, 2 June 2018 23:41:35 UTC+1, BillB wrote:
> >> On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 2:35:24 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> >>
> >>> What's the name of the mental illness that makes someone despise all
> >>> religion thus demeaning billions upon billions of decent people?
> >>
> >> Yet another IQ fail...despising religion doesn't demean anyone, any more than someone despising brussel sprouts demeans farmers.
> >
> > Despite my (repeated) efforts recently trying to explain to Dutch that you are never accusing him of criticising a "religion" (as if that's a bad thing) by calling him an 'Islamophobe', but you are instead always calling him a WACIST!, or a bigot, or whatever he still doesn't get it.
> >
> > So why don't you just say that instead (of 'Islamophobe')? Do all of you (far) leftists have to be such cuntish weasels?
>
> He says that, he calls me a bigot.

So stop arguing about it then, that's what he means when he calls you an 'Islamophobe'.

End. of. story.

[Dutch]

On 6/2/2018 3:56 PM, BillB wrote:

> On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 2:30:41 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>
>> Yes, you. You have scurried back to the gay racehorse story, which is
>> not the topic under discussion.
>
> You don't want it to be, but that's exactly what is under discussion:

No it isn't. That's what started the discussion originally, but I
subsequently made the more general statement that the idea of an animal
being killed for homosexual behaviour was not that implausible, given
the level of homophobia in the world. You then made the categorical
statement that such a thing has never, ever happened in all of history.
That is a positive claim that demands proof (for which there is none)

> your willingness to believe any fucking absurd story you see, even if it's in the World News Daily nest to stories about aliens impregnating starlets, as long as it paints Muslims in a negative light.

Even if that were the case, it is no longer the subject under
discussion. The subject is the plausibility of something, and then your
categorical statement that it has never EVER happened.

>
> We are discussing your assertion that
>> something has never ever happened in all of recorded history.
>
> Do you have any evidence it has?

I don't need any evidence because I haven't claimed it has happened. I
said that it is possible. You made the claim that it has never happened,
that is the claim that needs evidence.

> Are you willing to assert that the Queen of England has never smoked a joint with Snoop Dog in all of recorded history?

Red herring and irrelevant. All possible hypothetical scenarios are not
equally unlikely. Just because I can say with assurance that for example
no man has ever hopped to the moon on a pogo-stick has nothing to do
with the likelihood of any other hypothetical scenario. You're trying to
cloud the issue because you've been caught red-handed making a
ridiculous claim.

>> As much as you love to repeat that story, it is NOT what we're talking
>> about now. Focus Bill, I know it's hard when you're trying spin a tale.
>
> That is what we're talking about (your Islamophobia induced gullibility)

No we're not, that was just the beginning of the discussion. You have
made a subsequent claim which you are now in full-out retreat from.

>
>> The current topic under discussion is the plausibility of the idea of a
>> Muslim (or anyone for that matter) killing an animal due to homosexual
>> behavior. I stated that the idea was plausible.
>
> Actually, what you have been calling plausible is Saudi Princes slaughtering multi-million dollar "gay racehorses" by the thousands.

The headline said one horse.

> You are a fucking idiot, Dutch. Just admit that obvious fact, and I'll let it go.

I don't want you to let it go, you put this hook in your own mouth and
I'm not taking it out until YOU admit you messed up. Admit that there is
no way in the world that you can make the categorical statement that NO
person has ever killed an animal for being gay.

>>> I'd say they are about equal. Nobody even once in the history of the world has anyone ever presented any evidence that either of those scenarios that have ever existed. They are seem pretty remote.
>>
>> Poppycock. Animals are real
>
> And little Green men from Mars are not? How do you know that? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, right?

Weak.

>
>> the killing of animals is commonplace,
>
> We are talking specifically about killing animals *for being gay*.

Take it one step at a time and you will come to understand. Animals..
common, killing animals, common, despising homosexual behavior, common.
It all adds up to plausibility. Little green men.. irrelevant.

[..]

>> animosity towards homosexuality is real.
>
> But animosity toward gay racehorses is not.

Not the issue any more.

>> Meanwhile, as you attack me for being open to criticism of Islam, you
>> repeat the most vile and demeaning things about people's religious
>> beliefs
>
> No, I don't. Liar.

Do you need quotes? You called religion "abusive". I think the word vile
came into it too.

> I believe in freedom of religion and expression. You do not.

Do you believe some people should be allowed to impose codes of dress on
other people using "God" as an excuse?

[BillB]

On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 4:35:59 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> No it isn't. That's what started the discussion originally, but I
> subsequently made the more general statement that the idea of an animal
> being killed for homosexual behaviour was not that implausible, given
> the level of homophobia in the world. You then made the categorical
> statement that such a thing has never, ever happened in all of history.
> That is a positive claim that demands proof (for which there is none)

It doesn't demand positive proof. You are asking me to prove a negative. I am very comfortable saying that has never happened in the history of the world, just as I am comfortable saying the Queen of England has never smoked a joint with Snoop Dog (I can't "prove" that either). Stop being a dumbass. The important point is that you can't DENY what I said is correct, because there is no evidence that such a thing has ever occured in the history of the planet. ZERO. Yet you were willing to believe it without the slightest bit of skepticism or critical thought, simply because you thought it painted those you hate in a bad light. You RUSHED to report it on the internet to gin up more hate against your favorite target.

> > Do you have any evidence it has?
>
> I don't need any evidence because I haven't claimed it has happened.

LOL...yes, you have. That's what this thread is about: the time you tried to tell us Saudis were executing multi-million dollar racehorses for being gay.

> > Are you willing to assert that the Queen of England has never smoked a joint with Snoop Dog in all of recorded history?
>
> Red herring and irrelevant. All possible hypothetical scenarios are not
> equally unlikely. Just because I can say with assurance that for example
> no man has ever hopped to the moon on a pogo-stick has nothing to do
> with the likelihood of any other hypothetical scenario. You're trying to
> cloud the issue because you've been caught red-handed making a
> ridiculous claim.

If my claim was "ridiculous" it would be easy for you to show me it's wrong.

[BillB]

On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 4:14:37 PM UTC-7, fffurken wrote:

> > He says that, he calls me a bigot.
>
> So stop arguing about it then, that's what he means when he calls you an 'Islamophobe'.
>
> End. of. story.

Islamophobia is a subcategory of bigotry. All Islamophobes are bigots, but not all bigots are Islamophobes. HTH

[fffurken]

> So stop arguing about it then, that's what he* means when he* calls you an 'Islamophobe'.
>
> End. of. story.

*she (old habits die hard)

[fffurken]

'Islamophobia' is defined as the blah blah blah of the religion (so-called).. or Muslims.

You only ever use it in one (semi-definitional) way. HTH (both of you)

PS. Islam isn't a race you farleftwhackjob lol how many times do you have to be told.

[Dutch]

On 6/2/2018 8:51 PM, BillB wrote:
> On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 4:35:59 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>> No it isn't. That's what started the discussion originally, but I
>> subsequently made the more general statement that the idea of an animal
>> being killed for homosexual behaviour was not that implausible, given
>> the level of homophobia in the world. You then made the categorical
>> statement that such a thing has never, ever happened in all of history.
>> That is a positive claim that demands proof (for which there is none)
>
> It doesn't demand positive proof. You are asking me to prove a negative.

You made the statement, not me.

> I am very comfortable saying that has never happened in the history of the world, just as I am comfortable saying the Queen of England has never smoked a joint with Snoop Dog (I can't "prove" that either).

Then you're either an idiot or a liar, because the two scenarios are
completely dissimilar. The killing of an animal is a very broad scenario
covering tens of millions of possible instances involving tens of
millions of different individual animals and humans. Your scenario
involves two specific people.

> Stop being a dumbass. The important point is that you can't DENY what I said is correct, because there is no evidence that such a thing has ever occured in the history of the planet. ZERO.

That's nonsense. There are inummerable things that happen that are never
documented, particularly in parts of the world where the news seldom
travels.

> Yet you were willing to believe it without the slightest bit of skepticism or critical thought, simply because you thought it painted those you hate in a bad light. You RUSHED to report it on the internet to gin up more hate against your favorite target.

How could anyone hate a culture that kills and imprisons gay people more
from the knowledge that they also kill gay animals?

>>> Do you have any evidence it has?
>>
>> I don't need any evidence because I haven't claimed it has happened.
>
> LOL...yes, you have. That's what this thread is about: the time you tried to tell us Saudis were executing multi-million dollar racehorses for being gay.

You're twisting again. I acknowledged that was a fake story a LONG time
ago. The discussion now is different. I say it's very possible it has
happened, a reasonable assertion for which I have made a sound argument.
You say it has never, EVER happened, a claim which is impossible to
prove on its face, which you have acknowledged, and which you support by
comparing it to Snoop Dog and The Queen, in other words not at all.

>>> Are you willing to assert that the Queen of England has never smoked a joint with Snoop Dog in all of recorded history?
>>
>> Red herring and irrelevant. All possible hypothetical scenarios are not
>> equally unlikely. Just because I can say with assurance that for example
>> no man has ever hopped to the moon on a pogo-stick has nothing to do
>> with the likelihood of any other hypothetical scenario. You're trying to
>> cloud the issue because you've been caught red-handed making a
>> ridiculous claim.
>
> If my claim was "ridiculous" it would be easy for you to show me it's wrong.

I did show it was wrong. You admitted it. When you assert that something
has never, EVER happened, you assume a heavy burden. The only defense is
if the thing is SO completely absurd or impossible that we can agree it
could never happen. That's not the case here.

My claim is MUCH easier to defend, I am simply saying that it is
possible that it has happened, and the attitudes of people towards
animals AND towards homosexuality bears me out. The Taliban hang people
suspected of homosexuality, why would they hesitate to shoot a
homosexual donkey? Are you claiming to know the minds of such people?

I believe that that your whole position is based on the fact that the
very idea of a "gay animal" sounds silly. In other words you have no
argument.

[Dutch]

What is your position on Bountiful? Is there a phobia named after people
who are critical of that cult? Bountiphobes?

[BillB]

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 12:28:52 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:

> What is your position on Bountiful? Is there a phobia named after people
> who are critical of that cult? Bountiphobes?

Why do you keep trying to pretend that simply being critical of something qualifies as a phobia. It has been explained to you time and time and time again that that is not the case.

However, IF someone made thousands of posts on the internet about them, including many outrageous and absurd lies from sources such as the "World News Daily", went out of their way to say the most vile things they could dream up about Joseph Smith, expressed fears that they were going to take over Canada and perhaps the world, spent all their spare time on youtube scouring for anti-Bountiful videos he could post, THEN it could fairly be classified as a phobia.

As for my personal beliefs about the "cult", I don't know enough about the facts to make an informed and thorough assessment, but if it was a bona fide religious practice our Charter of Rights (part of the Constitution of Canada) says they should be left alone. I see little danger to society in doing so.

[Dutch]

On 6/3/2018 1:49 PM, BillB wrote:
> On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 12:28:52 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>
>> What is your position on Bountiful? Is there a phobia named after people
>> who are critical of that cult? Bountiphobes?
>
> Why do you keep trying to pretend that simply being critical of something qualifies as a phobia. It has been explained to you time and time and time again that that is not the case.

That's a flat-out lie. Criticism of Islam equals Islamophobia in your
mind. You have repeatedly called Sam Harris an Islamophobe and
criticizing Islam is only a small part of what he does. In fact he is
known more for his book criticizing Christianity, as well as works on
spirituality and other topics. You have called scholars on Islam who
oppose and criticize it Islamophobes.

> However, IF someone made thousands of posts on the internet about them, including many outrageous and absurd lies from sources such as the "World News Daily",

So "thousands" boils down to one, the one you repeat ad nauseum.

> went out of their way to say the most vile things they could dream up about Joseph Smith

Using an expletive to describe a pedophile warlord is out of line, but
it's fine to call Republicans evil? gotcha

> expressed fears that they were going to take over Canada and perhaps the world,

Which I haven't done, I said it is possible *if* one were to extrapolate
a certain hypothetical demographic shift.

> spent all their spare time on youtube scouring

Which I haven't done, so ok. In fact if you were to assemble all the
posts referencing Islam and Muslims I have participated in on this group
I would guess that 99% of them would be like this one, many in a thread
started by you or risky, directed as an attack towards me, with my
participation amounting to me defending myself.

In other words when you talk about my obsession with Muslims what you
really are talking about is your obsession with me.

> for anti-Bountiful videos he could post,

LOL! If I posted all the anti-Muslim videos one can find on the internet
the number actually WOULD be in the thousands.

> THEN it could fairly be classified as a phobia.
>
> As for my personal beliefs about the "cult", I don't know enough about the facts to make an informed and thorough assessment, but if it was a bona fide religious practice our Charter of Rights (part of the Constitution of Canada) says they should be left alone. I see little danger to society in doing so.

What about harm to those trapped inside the cult (including children)?
What about their rights as Canadians, their freedom? As long as
"society" is ok (meaning you) then it's all fine?

[fffurken]

On Sunday, 3 June 2018 22:49:02 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:

> Criticism of Islam equals Islamophobia in your mind.

Oh ffs

Here we go again

[Dutch]

lol.. true. This is where he hauls out the real whopper, that HE is the
biggest critic of Islam ever.

Trump has nothing on BillB when it come to 'alternative facts'.

[fffurken]

On Sunday, 3 June 2018 23:08:03 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:
> On 6/3/2018 2:57 PM, fffurken wrote:
> > On Sunday, 3 June 2018 22:49:02 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:
> >
> >> Criticism of Islam equals Islamophobia in your mind.
> >
> > Oh ffs
> >
> > Here we go again
> >
>
> lol.. true. This is where he hauls out the real whopper, that HE is the
> biggest critic of Islam ever.

She doesn't even really pretend that, she's calling you a bigot, every time.

That's it. Get over it. I know that's hard because, as an egocentric leftist, you're terrified of being called a bigot. I think that's how you internalise in your mind that Moslems don't want to be Moslems, they're "victims".

[BillB]

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 2:49:02 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:

> > Why do you keep trying to pretend that simply being critical of something qualifies as a phobia. It has been explained to you time and time and time again that that is not the case.
>
> That's a flat-out lie. Criticism of Islam equals Islamophobia in your
> mind.

lol...stop trying to tell me that you know better than me what is in my mind. You are delusional.

> You have repeatedly called Sam Harris an Islamophobe

He is, except he's in a special category. I don't really know how much of the horseshit he peddles he *actually* believes himself. I see him as more of a moneymaking propaganda operation targeting gullible and vulnerable people like you.

and
> criticizing Islam is only a small part of what he does. In fact he is
> known more for his book criticizing Christianity

lol...no, he's not. Every time I have seen him on TV he's babbling on about Muslims. For all I know he has a phobia about Christianity too, but I have seen no evidence of that.

, as well as works on
> spirituality and other topics.

Good for him. So what? That makes him less of a purveyor of Islamopobia??

> > However, IF someone made thousands of posts on the internet about them, including many outrageous and absurd lies from sources such as the "World News Daily",
>
> So "thousands" boils down to one, the one you repeat ad nauseum.

Reading comprehension fail.

> > went out of their way to say the most vile things they could dream up about Joseph Smith
>
> Using an expletive to describe a pedophile warlord is out of line, but
> it's fine to call Republicans evil? gotcha

Who is a pedophile? Are you talking about someone who 1500 years ago didn't share your 21st century definition of adulthood?

> > expressed fears that they were going to take over Canada and perhaps the world,
>
> Which I haven't done, I said it is possible *if* one were to extrapolate
> a certain hypothetical demographic shift.

lol...you just contradicted yourself. You have been quite explicit about your irrational fears of Muslims taking over Canada and imposing Sharia law on everyone. LOL!! Really goofy (Islamophobic) stuff

>
> > spent all their spare time on youtube scouring
>
> Which I haven't done, so ok.

Do, lie, you've done it a lot. How didn't find that "gay racehorse" nonsense by reading the New York Times.

In fact if you were to assemble all the
> posts referencing Islam and Muslims I have participated in on this group
> I would guess that 99% of them would be like this one, many in a thread
> started by you or risky, directed as an attack towards me, with my
> participation amounting to me defending myself.

Stop with the delusions. You have made thousands of entirely voluntary negative statements against Muslims. Take some responsibility for yourself and what you write.

> In other words when you talk about my obsession with Muslims what you
> really are talking about is your obsession with me.

I'm not obsessed with you. I am concerned for you. Two different things. I think you should talk to a mental health professional about this obsession of yours. There is help out there for people like you if you'll just be man enough to admit you have a real problem.

>
> > As for my personal beliefs about the "cult", I don't know enough about the facts to make an informed and thorough assessment, but if it was a bona fide religious practice our Charter of Rights (part of the Constitution of Canada) says they should be left alone. I see little danger to society in doing so.
>
> What about harm to those trapped inside the cult (including children)?

We have separate laws and government agencies for protecting children who are being abused or whose needs are not being met. Those apply to everyone.

> What about their rights as Canadians, their freedom? As long as
> "society" is ok (meaning you) then it's all fine?

Any adult (or child, for that matter) is free to go to, or send a message to, the nearest RCMP detachment and complain that they are being held against their will. That will be the end of that. Many support systems are in place for those who choose to leave. Beyond that, you could say that any female adherent of any religion must be "brainwashed" and should be "rescued". Women are the niggers of the religious world, but the fact of the matter is that many women actually choose that life for themselves. It's their right to do so.

[popinjay]

Look at this thread, over 36 posts so far. It was a simple question.

[BillB]

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 6:16:18 PM UTC-7, popinjay wrote:

> Look at this thread, over 36 posts so far. It was a simple question.

I think at this point the question has been fully explored. No, Dutch is not smart.

[popinjay]

Good. This thread is now locked, and pinned sticky.

-Sr. Coordinator

[Dutch]

On 6/3/2018 4:22 PM, BillB wrote:
> On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 2:49:02 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>
>>> Why do you keep trying to pretend that simply being critical of something qualifies as a phobia. It has been explained to you time and time and time again that that is not the case.
>>
>> That's a flat-out lie. Criticism of Islam equals Islamophobia in your
>> mind.
>
> lol...stop trying to tell me that you know better than me what is in my mind. You are delusional.

I don't need to see inside your mind. It's obvious from your words.

>

>> You have repeatedly called Sam Harris an Islamophobe
>
> He is, except he's in a special category. I don't really know how much of the horseshit he peddles he *actually* believes himself. I see him as more of a moneymaking propaganda operation targeting gullible and vulnerable people like you.
>

lol! You repeat the same old shit over and over as if it was an actual
argument. You don't even realize you're doing it. You're an Islamophobe,
he's an Islamophobe, she's an Islamophobe. You're a content-free broken
record.

Name some prominent critics of Islam who *aren't* Islamophobes in your
view. Take your time. lol!

>
> and
>> criticizing Islam is only a small part of what he does. In fact he is
>> known more for his book criticizing Christianity
>
> lol...no, he's not. Every time I have seen him on TV he's babbling on about Muslims. For all I know he has a phobia about Christianity too, but I have seen no evidence of that.

He's critical of both, so why is one a phobia and the other isn't?
Because one is your pet religion?

>
> , as well as works on
>> spirituality and other topics.
>
> Good for him. So what? That makes him less of a purveyor of Islamopobia??

Because you say so.. riiiiight.

>
>
>>> However, IF someone made thousands of posts on the internet about them, including many outrageous and absurd lies from sources such as the "World News Daily",
>>
>> So "thousands" boils down to one, the one you repeat ad nauseum.
>
> Reading comprehension fail.
>
>>> went out of their way to say the most vile things they could dream up about Joseph Smith
>>
>> Using an expletive to describe a pedophile warlord is out of line, but
>> it's fine to call Republicans evil? gotcha
>
> Who is a pedophile? Are you talking about someone who 1500 years ago didn't share your 21st century definition of adulthood?

Why should I give a shit? Because he founded a religion? I hate that he
did that.

>
>>> expressed fears that they were going to take over Canada and perhaps the world,
>>
>> Which I haven't done, I said it is possible *if* one were to extrapolate
>> a certain hypothetical demographic shift.
>
> lol...you just contradicted yourself. You have been quite explicit about your irrational fears of Muslims taking over Canada and imposing Sharia law on everyone. LOL!! Really goofy (Islamophobic) stuff

Liar.

>>
>>> spent all their spare time on youtube scouring
>>
>> Which I haven't done, so ok.
>
> Do, lie, you've done it a lot.

Nope.

How didn't find that "gay racehorse" nonsense by reading the New York
Times.

I stumbled on it,

>
>
> In fact if you were to assemble all the
>> posts referencing Islam and Muslims I have participated in on this group
>> I would guess that 99% of them would be like this one, many in a thread
>> started by you or risky, directed as an attack towards me, with my
>> participation amounting to me defending myself.
>
> Stop with the delusions. You have made thousands of entirely voluntary negative statements against Muslims. Take some responsibility for yourself and what you write.

Prove it, or else admit you're lying and apologize.

You won't do any of that. You're a delusional liar.

>
>> In other words when you talk about my obsession with Muslims what you
>> really are talking about is your obsession with me.
>
> I'm not obsessed with you. I am concerned for you. Two different things. I think you should talk to a mental health professional about this obsession of yours. There is help out there for people like you if you'll just be man enough to admit you have a real problem.

You're obsessed with me. You create whole threads about me trying to
discredit me. You repeat the same story over and over and over, probably
a hundred times by now. And you keep trying because it doesn't work and
that frustrates the hell out of you. It's funny and pitiful at the same
time.

>
>
>>
>>> As for my personal beliefs about the "cult", I don't know enough about the facts to make an informed and thorough assessment, but if it was a bona fide religious practice our Charter of Rights (part of the Constitution of Canada) says they should be left alone. I see little danger to society in doing so.
>>
>> What about harm to those trapped inside the cult (including children)?
>
> We have separate laws and government agencies for protecting children who are being abused or whose needs are not being met. Those apply to everyone.

Shouldn't they be defended from criticism based on religious freedom
like you do with Islam?

>
>> What about their rights as Canadians, their freedom? As long as
>> "society" is ok (meaning you) then it's all fine?
>
> Any adult (or child, for that matter) is free to go to, or send a message to, the nearest RCMP detachment and complain

Easier said than done for a child or a brainwashed dependent woman.

that they are being held against their will. That will be the end of
that. Many support systems are in place for those who choose to leave.
Beyond that, you could say that any female adherent of any religion must
be "brainwashed" and should be "rescued".

Female adherents of moderate mainstream religious groups do not appear
to be brainwashed or abused.

> Women are the niggers of the religious world, but the fact of the matter is that many women actually choose that life for themselves. It's their right to do so.

How very liberal of you. The leaders of that cult are being prosecuted btw.
>

[Dutch]

I'm smart enough to run circles around you.

[BillB]

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 7:44:52 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:

> I'm smart enough to run circles around you.

We've already established that you are delusional. No need for more evidence.

This thread has been locked...please show some respect for authority.

[Dutch]

On 6/3/2018 8:20 PM, BillB wrote:
> On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 7:44:52 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>
>> I'm smart enough to run circles around you.
>
> We've already established that you are delusional. No need for more evidence.

I am fully aware that you don't know when you've lost an argument, so
I'll fill you in. When your argument is comprised of repeating ad
nauseum that anyone who disagrees with you is suffering from a mental
disorder, you have lost, that happened a long time ago actually.

> This thread has been locked...please show some respect for authority.

Just in the nick of time.. for you.