fffurkins Tanja

[T.Bagger]

Found her. (underage?)

http://s27.postimg.org/5czzy06xf/amsterdam.jpg

[BillB]

On 12/02/2016 4:27 PM, T.Bagger wrote:
>
> Found her. (underage?)
>
> http://s27.postimg.org/5czzy06xf/amsterdam.jpg

How "beta male" do you have to be to spend ten years paying impoverished
Third World youth (children?)to have sex with you?

Have you noticed that all the things furkin accuses others of, he is
himself in spades?

And to fall in love with a prostitute and scour perv sites on the
internet in an attempt to track her down...that's just off the charts
funny. LOL!

[fffurken]

Watch the scummy, ad hom, libtards swarm..

[BillB]

You don't understand what ad hominem is. You should really look it up.
This is really getting embarrassing.

Do you want me to explain it to you in terms even someone like you could
understand? I am an expert in logic and critical thinking. I have a
professional doctorate in law.

[fffurken]

You can't see more than two inches in front of your face you're so dumb. You remind me of Pepe, except he showed a tiny bit of promise.

[Dutch]

T.Bagger wrote:
>
> Found her. (underage?)
>
> http://s27.postimg.org/5czzy06xf/amsterdam.jpg
>

Figures you'd be looking for pics like that.

[fffurken]

lol I called T.Bagggger earlier on today and he showed up just like clockwork

[Dutch]

That is a disturbing thought.

ad ho·mi·nem

/ˌad ˈhämənəm/

adverb & adjective

adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem

1.

(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the
position they are maintaining.

[fffurken]

lol It's amazing isn't it, they just don't get it.

This is a product of A) Having no argument B) My butt is so sore and C) I'm a fascist

[BillB]

Dutch, your best buddy ffurkin spent 10 years exploiting impoverished
Third World young women (children?) for his own sexual gratification.

As a champion of woman's rights ---all women, not just ones exploited by
brown people -- you must be OUTRAGED! Yet, all I see you is repeatedly
defending furkin when people criticize him for exploiting women in this way.

These young women are essentially held in sexual slavery under the worst
conditions imaginable. Please explain how you do not view someone like
furkin as lower than dirt and in the highest form of contempt (much like
you would a Muslim male), you being so deeply concerned about women's
rights and all.

[BillB]

On 12/02/2016 5:28 PM, Dutch wrote:

> That is a disturbing thought.

It should be for you.

> ad ho·mi·nem
>
> /ˌad ˈhämənəm/
>
> adverb & adjective
>
> adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem
>
> 1.
>
> (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the
> position they are maintaining.

You'd be better off going to a textbook or encyclopedia for a clearer,
more complete definition. That's adequate, but not great.

Can you tell me the difference between an ad hominem attack and a common
insult, Dutch? Or are they the same thing? Yes, this is a test.

[fffurken]

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 1:44:27 AM UTC, BillB wrote:

> Can you tell me the difference between an ad hominem attack and a common
> insult, Dutch?

rofl Why the fuck would he ask you

[Joe Camel]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 5:32:47 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
<
< ad hominem
<
< /?ad 'häm?n?m/

<
< adverb & adjective
<
< adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem
<
< 1.
<
< (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the
< position they are maintaining.

Sometimes, doesn’t the position someone takes, assuming it’s horrible enough, reflect on the actual character of the person maintaining that position? For instance, if someone calls fffurken a creep because he thinks fucking children is just fine, couldn’t that assertion be described as accurate and fair rather than ad hominem?

Not taking sides, but???

[fffurken]

You're brilliant, you really are

[BillB]

If someone calls furkin a creep for liking kiddie-fucking (which, AFAIK,
we have no proof of at this point), then that has absolutely nothing to
do with ad hominem. But you're right, that is exactly the sort of thing
furkin *thinks* is ad hominem. That's because he is an uneducated Irish
drunk.

Now, we could change that around a bit to make it ad hominem. Let's say
furkin said, "There's nothing wrong with kiddie-fucking because they
like it too," and you responded with, "Your opinion is worthless because
you're a pedophile and a creep," that would be a fallacious ad hominem
attack, because you are trying to weaken his argument with an irrelevant
personal attack. A much better response would be to hit him over the
head with a metal bar.

[fffurken]

Wow, contemplating that garbage, then typing it, then posting it, is really quite telling. Perhaps you should go to bed.

[risky biz]

Question for you, 'dutch' since you seem to be into definitions- what do you call springing to the defense of a repulsive individual for the sole reason that they peddle ethnic hate propaganda which you like?

[BillB]

On 12/02/2016 6:40 PM, fffurken wrote:

> Wow, contemplating that garbage, then typing it, then posting it, is really quite telling.

Yes, it is. It tells everyone that I know what ad hominem is, and you don't.

I'm not the one who "bragged" about 10 years of sex tours in Thailand.
That was you. You really can't blame people for having reasonable
suspicions based on incomplete information. We weren't born yesterday. I
honestly don't think anyone believes you spent a lot of time checking
IDs while you were busy sexually exploiting those impoverished young women.

[BillB]

furkin isn't Muslim (brown). He gets a pass.

Isn't this DIRECTLY in line with what I have been claiming about Dutch
all along? How can he be so self-unaware to not realize that people are
going to spot the pattern after a while?

[fffurken]

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 2:55:24 AM UTC, BillB wrote:

> I'm not the one who "bragged" about 10 years of sex tours in Thailand.
> That was you.

I didn't "brag" about that and those were not my words.

I have expressed my regret, once with a movie scene from the Shawshank Redemption and from which has been stolen a quote by Reza Risky to say that I'm a paedophile of young boys, my time in Thailand.

[risky biz]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 7:16:06 PM UTC-8, fffurken wrote:
> On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 2:55:24 AM UTC, BillB wrote:
>
> > I'm not the one who "bragged" about 10 years of sex tours in Thailand.
> > That was you.
>

~ I didn't "brag" about that and those were not my words.

>
> I have expressed my regret, once with a movie scene from the Shawshank Redemption and from which has been stolen a quote by Reza Risky to say that I'm a paedophile of young boys, my time in Thailand.

"I've been in Thailand more times than I know of . .

And then in Thailand I discovered that an abundance of sex didn't have to
involve complications, like human relations. And so began a well over
decade long stint of whoremongering in that country.

I wish I could go back and talk to that boy"
'fffurken' 1/26/13 'Buck Wild' thread

"I had more than 10 years of sex tours in Thailand"
fffurken 9/21/15 'How to get an invite to the White House and a few days off from school' thread
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/rec.gambling.poker/S1gCfwYPBcM/cnwq2_1RCgAJ

THREE WEEKS LATER: "I've never been on a Thai sex tour in my life, those were your words, I went there on holiday, and had a good time."
fffurken 10/13/15 'Ben Carson comes out as Islamophobe on national TV' thread

THREE MONTHS LATER: "I've never been on a Thai "sex tour" in my life, those were your words, because you wanted to paint me in a bad light"
fffurken 1/16/16 ''furkedon' calling out 'Joe Camel'' thread

AND THEN IN THE SAME THREAD IN THE FACE OF QUOTES: I've admitted that I'm a drunk, functioning I would say as I have a job and I pay my bills and so on, and I've admitted that I went on Thai "sex tours" for more than a decade. And I wanted to do that.
'furkedon' 1/16/16 ''furkedon' calling out 'Joe Camel'' thread

"Child sex tourism has been closely linked to poverty, armed conflicts, rapid industrialization, and exploding population growth.[8] In Latin America and Southeast Asia, for instance, street children often turn to prostitution as a last resort. Additionally, vulnerable children are easy targets for exploitation by traffickers.[8]

Thailand, Cambodia, India, Brazil and Mexico have been identified as leading hotspots of child sexual exploitation.[9]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sex_tourism

"Thailand isn't the paedophile capital of the world, stop lying."
fffurken 10/16/16 'RGP stats' thread

Thailand has one of the largest child sex trade operations in Southeast Asia. UNICEF estimates the number of Thai children involved in prostitution to be between 60,000 and 200,000, though the organization says the exact number is difficult to track.

The Europeans and Americans who go to Southeast Asia as 'sex tourists' often rationalize having sex with children with the idea that 'they are helping the children financially better themselves and their families,' Nair said. 'Paying a child for his or her services allows a tourist to avoid guilt by convincing himself he is helping the child and the child's family to escape economic hardship.'

Other tourists try to justify their behavior by believing children in foreign countries are less 'sexually inhibited.' Nair said tourists convince themselves 'those countries don't have the same social taboos against having sex with children.'
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2325416&page=1

[risky biz]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 7:16:06 PM UTC-8, fffurken wrote:

> On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 2:55:24 AM UTC, BillB wrote:
>
> > I'm not the one who "bragged" about 10 years of sex tours in Thailand.
> > That was you.
>

~ I didn't "brag" about that and those were not my words.

>
> I have expressed my regret, once with a movie scene from the Shawshank Redemption and from which has been stolen a quote by Reza Risky to say that I'm a paedophile of young boys, my time in Thailand.

I guess we'll just have to believe that you checked IDs during your drunken numerous drunken sex tours and that you never saw any of the 'ladyboys' that were quite prevalent in the video that 'travel' posted which was what got you so excited that you started bragging because you thought you were describing somethibg admirable. Yuck.

[fffurken]

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 3:36:27 AM UTC, risky biz wrote:

> > I have expressed my regret, once with a movie scene from the Shawshank Redemption and from which has been stolen a quote by Reza Risky to say that I'm a paedophile of young boys, my time in Thailand.

> And then in Thailand I discovered that an abundance of sex didn't have to
> involve complications, like human relations. And so began a well over
> decade long stint of whoremongering in that country.
>
> I wish I could go back and talk to that boy"
> 'fffurken' 1/26/13 'Buck Wild' thread

Yes, that's it, it doesn't exactly cover the exchange but I remember Alim got it very quickly at the time. Alim is way smarter than you are, WAY smarter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWQYVYvoqDA

[Dutch]

You've lied too often. There's nothing you can say that would believe.

[BillB]

Whoops! You showed some more ankle.

[Dutch]

If you are involved in a debate with another person and you make a
disparaging remark about him that has nothing to do with the position he
is taking in the argument that is ad hominem. It is an attempt to damage
the credibility of one's opponent in the eyes of a judge of the debate
in order to sway him towards your side of the argument, or sometimes to
unsettle your opponent so he makes errors or loses his cool. This stuff
you're doing is classic ad hominem. You'd be disqualified from a formal
debate.

[BillB]

On 12/02/2016 11:22 PM, Dutch wrote:

> If you are involved in a debate with another person and you make a
> disparaging remark about him that has nothing to do with the position he
> is taking in the argument that is ad hominem. It is an attempt to damage
> the credibility of one's opponent in the eyes of a judge of the debate
> in order to sway him towards your side of the argument, or sometimes to
> unsettle your opponent so he makes errors or loses his cool. This stuff
> you're doing is classic ad hominem. You'd be disqualified from a formal
> debate.

How was T Bagger involved in a debate? He posted a picture of furkin's
loverboy. That is not a debate. furkin accused T Bagger of "ad hom".

In fact, I believe Mr. Bagger has even said he hates Muslims just as
much as you guys. He just hates furkin more, that's all. Try to keep up.

Now that we got that out the way...Did you really think I was DEBATING
you and furkin?? LOL!

I'm trying to *teach* you to get in touch with your true selves, come to
terms with your racism and bigotry, and finally try to do something
about it. You two have nothing to debate me about. You have youtube
videos and a childlike worldview. Do you not realize how far beneath me
debating you would be? It would be like me debating a kindergarten
student. It's absurd.

Debate...lolol Jesus, Dutch. My eyes are watering I'm laughing so hard.

[Dutch]

It's theoretically possible, but the onus would be on the individual
launching the attack to show the relevance to the particular argument.
Adolph Hitler might have made some sound arguments on subjects other
than how to deal with the Jews.

[Dutch]

You're wrong, it does not have to be spelled out that explicitly to be
an ad hominem. The context of the debate is sufficient. People who bring
up this attack are almost always attempting to undermine his credibility
*because* they disagree with his position on "Islam". I say almost
because some of them appear to be simple insults by people who just get
off piling on (and looking for porn)

[Dutch]

I wasn't springing to anyone's defense, I was responding to what
appeared to me to be gratuitous and creepy piling on from someone not
even involved in the discussion. I'm not at all convinced that any of
the shit you spew about ffurkin is accurate, partly because you have no
credibility with me. You lie about me, why wouldn't you lie about him?

[BillB]

I am not wrong, Dutch. I gave an example of something that IS ad
hominem, and I gave an example of something that IS NOT ad hominem. Both
are correct. I didn't say anything about anything having to be spelled
out "that explicitly." You have the logic skills of a crack addict.

I did deliberately give *very clear examples* so idiots like you and
furkin would be able to understand. Take an introductory logic course
and get back to me.

[Dutch]

You ought to stop calling me a racist. It's untrue and uncalled for and
I'm getting a little sick of it. Just because I don't subscribe to your
particular brand of neo-progressive political correctness that does not
entitle you to be such an asshole. I thought you had higher standards.

[BillB]

On 13/02/2016 12:06 AM, Dutch wrote:

> You ought to stop calling me a racist. It's untrue and uncalled for and
> I'm getting a little sick of it.

Don't be offended. Your definition of racist and mine are two very
different things. You think of a racist as someone who has a swastika
tattooed on his forehead and says nigger a lot, right? That's not what
I'm talking about. I already said my definition only puts you below the
50th percentile of human beings. That's really not so bad, but you do
exhibit a strong racial bias. At least, my working theory is that it is
racially motivated at it's core. It could be just plain old religious
bigotry, but I'm giving you credit for being a little more complex than
that.

Seriously, Dutch, what other logical conclusion is there? You paint
yourself as a champion of women's rights, but when a *white* Christian
guy shoots up an abortion clinic and yells out in court that he's a
"warrior for the babies," you try to defend him by saying he's not a
Christian terrorist.

When the topic of the thread is the millions of rapes and sexual
assaults committed by white Christian men in North America and Western
Europe, you horn into the conversation, try to minimize the serious of
the *white* misogyny, and desperately try to change the subject to how
bad Muslims (brown people) are on the other side of the world. Why??

When a lower (but *white*) life form like furkin is chided for his 10
year exploitation of impoverished Third World women for his own sexual
gratification, you repeatedly jump in to align with him against his
detractors. I can't see you doing that if he was a Muslim abuser.

You constantly attack Muslim males for their treatment of women, day
after day, post after post, yet you couldn't produce ONE POST from the
last DECADE where you denounced white males for their mistreatment of
women, which you are literally SURROUNDED by. Does that make any sense?

What other conclusion do you expect us to make? You wear your bias on
your sleeve.

Just because I don't subscribe to your
> particular brand of neo-progressive political correctness that does not
> entitle you to be such an asshole. I thought you had higher standards.

Aren't you trying to enforce your "neo-progressive" politically correct
feminist views on Muslims? Doesn't that make you an asshole?

[Dutch]

risky biz wrote:
> I guess we'll just have to believe that you checked IDs during your drunken

Par on that hole.

[Dutch]

fffurken wrote:
> Alim is way smarter than you are, WAY smarter.

That's not saying much.

[Dutch]

When are going to realize that you have no credibility left here? You
need to start over and build it back up. Your reputation is in shambles
right now. I know you're probably incapable of realizing this due to the
fact you have an ego the size of Mount Rushmore, but take my word for
it. You need to develop some honesty and humility, and I mean this with
all due respect, i.e. none.

[BillB]

On 13/02/2016 1:23 AM, Dutch wrote:

> When are going to realize that you have no credibility left here?

For whom do you purport to speak? Thinking you speak for the whole world
(or, for that matter, all Muslim women) is a clear sign of insanity.

[Dutch]

BillB wrote:
> I'm trying to *teach* you

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[BillB]

haha..you and furkin are becoming the same person.

I don't think you realize how ironic your response was.

[fffurken]

^
|

This guy gets it.

I'm sure there are others but no libtard does.

Having saud that, why on earth *would* a libtard understand that their main arguing tool is a fallacy.

[Dutch]

Your examples illustrated my point. You use ad hominem attacks against
ffurken ALL THE TIME whether you have the balls to admit it or not.

[BillB]

On 13/02/2016 11:44 AM, Dutch wrote:

> Your examples illustrated my point. You use ad hominem attacks against
> ffurken ALL THE TIME whether you have the balls to admit it or not.

No, I don't. I demolish furkin's childlike "arguments" with utterly
overwhelming and devastating facts and logic. Anyone with a three digit
IQ can see that.

Then I call him a fucking idiot because he is one.

That is not ad hominem. I'm sorry you aren't smart enough to appreciate
the difference.

And don't forget, I NEVER insult anyone who doesn't insult me first. I
believe in civility.

You are still ignoring the fact that we were talking about whether Mr.
Bagger's posting of furkin's loverboy was "ad hom" (lol). That's what
proved (yet again) that furkin has no idea what the term means. Try to
keep up.

[fffurken]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Dutch]

BillB wrote:
> On 13/02/2016 12:06 AM, Dutch wrote:
>
>> You ought to stop calling me a racist. It's untrue and uncalled for and
>> I'm getting a little sick of it.
>
> Don't be offended. Your definition of racist and mine are two very
> different things. You think of a racist as someone who has a swastika
> tattooed on his forehead and says nigger a lot, right? That's not what
> I'm talking about. I already said my definition only puts you below the
> 50th percentile of human beings. That's really not so bad, but you do
> exhibit a strong racial bias. At least, my working theory is that it is
> racially motivated at it's core. It could be just plain old religious
> bigotry, but I'm giving you credit for being a little more complex than
> that.

What a load of patronizing hogwash.

> Seriously, Dutch, what other logical conclusion is there? You paint
> yourself as a champion of women's rights, but when a *white* Christian
> guy shoots up an abortion clinic and yells out in court that he's a
> "warrior for the babies," you try to defend him by saying he's not a
> Christian terrorist.

I don't recall the exact exchange but I believe this was another one of
your whataboutery posts where you attempt to deflect criticism away from
some Islamic terror attack or another. There have been so many I can't
recall which one it was. I wouldn't defend this guy's actions, ever, but
abortion is not mentioned in a biblical context and anti-abortion
activists are not all Christians. They are Christians, Jews, Muslims,
atheists, etc.

> When the topic of the thread is the millions of rapes and sexual
> assaults committed by white Christian men in North America and Western
> Europe, you horn into the conversation,

How do you know they're Christian?

try to minimize the serious of
> the *white* misogyny, and desperately try to change the subject to how
> bad Muslims (brown people) are on the other side of the world. Why??

You're just repeating the same lame sophistry I already dismissed in the
original thread. Piling on more shit doesn't make it stink less. I
described both phenomena honestly and accurately by their relative
impact on women. You had no answer for that response then and you still
don't.

>
> When a lower (but *white*) life form like furkin is chided for his 10
> year exploitation of impoverished Third World women for his own sexual
> gratification, you repeatedly jump in to align with him against his
> detractors. I can't see you doing that if he was a Muslim abuser.

There's a lot you can't see due to your blinding neo-progressiveness.
Yes it's a strange thing, but you're a classic example.

>
> You constantly attack Muslim males for their treatment of women,

No, sigh.... I attack Islam for Sharia and the notion that women are
second rate citizens that are to stay in the house, cook, and breed and
suffer corporal punishment for getting out of line. Western Christianity
was not a whole lot different a few generations ago..

day
> after day, post after post, yet you couldn't produce ONE POST from the
> last DECADE where you denounced white males for their mistreatment of
> women, which you are literally SURROUNDED by. Does that make any sense?

I condemn ALL MEN who mistreat women, but Islam which in most Islamic
countries is unreformed, preaches the violent subjugation of woman as a
fundamental article of faith.

>
> What other conclusion do you expect us to make? You wear your bias on
> your sleeve.

It's in your regressive mind.

>
> Just because I don't subscribe to your
>> particular brand of neo-progressive political correctness that does not
>> entitle you to be such an asshole. I thought you had higher standards.
>
> Aren't you trying to enforce your "neo-progressive" politically correct
> feminist views on Muslims? Doesn't that make you an asshole?

My views are decidedly not neo-progressive or politically correct. If
they were I would be like you, any time I sensed any criticism of Islam
I would feign offense, play the race card and engage in some form of
whataboutery. And I would not let up until the critics were shouted down.

My view, if you're listening, is that every person regardless of gender
or race of origin of birth is born with the right to determine his or
her own future. No fascist religion, political system or ideology has
the right to undermine that right.

My worry talking to you about this is that you are so invested in your
position that you couldn't back down even if you wanted to. In order to
save face you are compelled to paint me as a racist, even though you
know its a lie. It's the lawyer in you.

[Dutch]

I was only joking. You never had any credibility here.

[Dutch]

I do see the irony. I actually have a working sense of humour, even when
I'm the butt of the joke, something I doubt you have. The truth is, I
was tired, it was 1:30 A.M. my cold medicine was kicking in, I was
actually falling asleep, and seeing you say "I'm trying to *teach* you"
was a bit too much. Sometimes your posturing is so blatant that it comes
across as self-effacing, which would be endearing, but I'm beginning to
wonder if it isn't just pure unvarnished arrogance.

[Dutch]

BillB wrote:
> On 13/02/2016 11:44 AM, Dutch wrote:
>
>> Your examples illustrated my point. You use ad hominem attacks against
>> ffurken ALL THE TIME whether you have the balls to admit it or not.
>
> No, I don't. I demolish furkin's childlike "arguments" with utterly
> overwhelming and devastating facts and logic.

I disagree but it's irrelevant.

Anyone with a three digit
> IQ can see that.

You mean *any sane person*?

> Then I call him a fucking idiot because he is one.

That is a common defense of the ad hominem but it is invalid. The debate
is ongoing, and the attacks are interspersed within the debate

>
> That is not ad hominem. I'm sorry you aren't smart enough to appreciate
> the difference.

You're wrong.

> And don't forget, I NEVER insult anyone who doesn't insult me first. I
> believe in civility.

That's irrelevant also.

> You are still ignoring the fact that we were talking about whether Mr.
> Bagger's posting of furkin's loverboy was "ad hom" (lol). That's what
> proved (yet again) that furkin has no idea what the term means. Try to
> keep up.

I already said in an earlier post that his was not an ad hominem, he was
just piling on for pure sport. But think of the ongoing exchanges as a
sit-down debate taking place in one session then you can see that making
disparaging remarks during the proceedings is classic ad hominem.

[risky biz]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 11:49:49 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:

~ Adolph Hitler might have made some sound arguments on subjects other

> than how to deal with the Jews.

'how to deal with the Jews'? WTF does that mean? That's right out of 1930s Germany. I always believed that if someone rubbed you briskly they'd find an equal opportunity anti-semite beneath the skin. The Muslims just happen to be the scapegoats du jour. If we were in Germany in the 1930s right now you'd be ranting about the destruction of "Western" civilization by the Jews.

[risky biz]

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 12:05:34 AM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
> risky biz wrote:
> > On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 5:28:49 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
> >> T.Bagger wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Found her. (underage?)
> >>>
> >>> http://s27.postimg.org/5czzy06xf/amsterdam.jpg
> >>>
> >>
> >> Figures you'd be looking for pics like that.
> >
> > Question for you, 'dutch' since you seem to be into definitions- what do you call springing to the defense of a repulsive individual for the sole reason that they peddle ethnic hate propaganda which you like?
> >
>

~ I wasn't springing to anyone's defense, I was responding to what

> appeared to me to be gratuitous and creepy piling on from someone not
> even involved in the discussion. I'm not at all convinced that any of
> the shit you spew about ffurkin is accurate, partly because you have no
> credibility with me. You lie about me, why wouldn't you lie about him?

Why would anyone need to lie about either one of you? You both condemn yourselves with your own words quite well enough. You're simply too dense to realize that.

Good luck, 'dutch', with your campaign to censor any mention of disreputable behavior by non-Muslims. Unbelievable. But laughable. Can't you hear a couple of dozen people laughing at you?

[Dutch]

OMG, could you possibly be any more of a language Nazi?

[Dutch]

risky biz wrote:
> On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 12:05:34 AM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
>> risky biz wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 5:28:49 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
>>>> T.Bagger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Found her. (underage?)
>>>>>
>>>>> http://s27.postimg.org/5czzy06xf/amsterdam.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Figures you'd be looking for pics like that.
>>>
>>> Question for you, 'dutch' since you seem to be into definitions- what do you call springing to the defense of a repulsive individual for the sole reason that they peddle ethnic hate propaganda which you like?
>>>
>>
> ~ I wasn't springing to anyone's defense, I was responding to what
>> appeared to me to be gratuitous and creepy piling on from someone not
>> even involved in the discussion. I'm not at all convinced that any of
>> the shit you spew about ffurkin is accurate, partly because you have no
>> credibility with me. You lie about me, why wouldn't you lie about him?
>
> Why would anyone need to lie about either one of you?

Because you can't sustain your fascist agenda with the plain truth.

> You both condemn yourselves with your own words quite well enough. You're simply too dense to realize that.
>
> Good luck, 'dutch', with your campaign to censor any mention of disreputable behavior by non-Muslims. Unbelievable. But laughable. Can't you hear a couple of dozen people laughing at you?
>

You have transformed into a twisted caricature before my very eyes. It
gets a little tedious to keep having to remind you of the facts, because
you can't hear a thing I say anyway, the hate is seething in your brain
so loud because I won't submit to your fascist campaign of mind control.

But here goes anyway. I have NOT tried to censor anything by anyone,
non-Muslim or otherwise. YOU are the censor here, not I. You are
desperate to control what I say and about whom. You would have loved
being a party operative in East Germany

[fffurken]

On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 6:18:03 AM UTC, Dutch wrote:

> You have transformed into a twisted caricature before my very eyes. It
> gets a little tedious to keep having to remind you of the facts, because
> you can't hear a thing I say anyway, the hate is seething in your brain
> so loud because I won't submit to your fascist campaign of mind control.

He also supports ISIS just ask him.

[Dutch]

I just heard a good one, "When I'm talking to a Liberal regressive I
feel like I'm in the presence of someone who has made a reverse Faustian
bargain. He sold his soul to the devil and in return he got stupid." -
Sam Harris 4:52 @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J70pBCj8krA

[Clave]

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:XMWvy.21498$FG1....@fx01.iad...

Whenever I hear people trot out that kind of facile argument I can't help
but think they were never smart enough to know what stupid is.

You've done nothing to change that.

[Dutch]

Harris didn't make any argument I can see, he made a humorous (imo)
analogy, or metaphor, or whatever.. As far as not knowing what stupid
is.. can you clarify, or am I walking into a Clavian setup?

[fffurken]

ngcfc

[da pickle]

On 2/12/2016 8:10 PM, Joe Camel wrote:
> Not taking sides, but???

Do you really find satisfaction with this crap?

[risky biz]

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 10:18:03 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
> risky biz wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 12:05:34 AM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
> >> risky biz wrote:
> >>> On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 5:28:49 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
> >>>> T.Bagger wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Found her. (underage?)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://s27.postimg.org/5czzy06xf/amsterdam.jpg
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Figures you'd be looking for pics like that.
> >>>
> >>> Question for you, 'dutch' since you seem to be into definitions- what do you call springing to the defense of a repulsive individual for the sole reason that they peddle ethnic hate propaganda which you like?
> >>>
> >>
> > ~ I wasn't springing to anyone's defense, I was responding to what
> >> appeared to me to be gratuitous and creepy piling on from someone not
> >> even involved in the discussion. I'm not at all convinced that any of
> >> the shit you spew about ffurkin is accurate, partly because you have no
> >> credibility with me. You lie about me, why wouldn't you lie about him?
> >
> > Why would anyone need to lie about either one of you?
>
> Because you can't sustain your fascist agenda with the plain truth.
>
> > You both condemn yourselves with your own words quite well enough. You're simply too dense to realize that.
> >
> > Good luck, 'dutch', with your campaign to censor any mention of disreputable behavior by non-Muslims. Unbelievable. But laughable. Can't you hear a couple of dozen people laughing at you?
> >
>
> You have transformed into a twisted caricature before my very eyes. It
> gets a little tedious to keep having to remind you of the facts, because
> you can't hear a thing I say anyway, the hate is seething in your brain
> so loud because I won't submit to your fascist campaign of mind control.
>

~ But here goes anyway. I have NOT tried to censor anything by anyone,

> non-Muslim or otherwise. YOU are the censor here, not I. You are
> desperate to control what I say and about whom. You would have loved
> being a party operative in East Germany

That's somewhat a moot point as you have no power to censor RGP. All you can do is rant, rave, and go batshit crazy when someone posts something about NON-Muslim terrorists. Which, as we can see, you've been doing. And it's pretty funny. You're being laughed at. Do you feel any sense of compensation that you are supported 100% by one of the world's most ardent pedophiles?

[BillB]

On 14/02/2016 8:58 AM, risky biz wrote:

> That's somewhat a moot point as you have no power to censor RGP. All
you can do is rant, rave, and go batshit crazy when someone posts
something about NON-Muslim terrorists. Which, as we can see, you've been
doing. And it's pretty funny. You're being laughed at. Do you feel any
sense of compensation that you are supported 100% by one of the world's
most ardent pedophiles?
>

Hey, hey, hey....we aren't here to laugh at Dutch, or to try to
humiliate him. (That's why we have furkin) My only goal here is to help
Dutch come to terms with his crippling phobias, make some adjustments,
and move on with his life.

Let's try to keep this professional.

[Joe Camel]

I do, and what would you do with yourself if you had no crap to count, document, and report?

[T.Bagger]

Just for the record I hate sand-niggers just as much as you and fffuckhead. I just jump in here once in a while strictly FOR the ad hominem attacks against fffuckhead because he's an asshole. I'm glad Muslims are overrunning Europe and I can't wait until fffuckhead is bowing and praying to Allah 5 times a day.

BTW - do you consider this ad hominem?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/lBRgzjnK6sw/PP_PO0KRGAAJ
If you do then maybe you and your friend have no room to criticize.

[Dutch]

If I recall he had been speaking with a student from a prestigious
college who led a protest to get the resignation of the dean of the
college for refusing to expel a student who wore a Pocahontas costume to
a Halloween party. I think that qualifies as stupid.

[Dutch]

That is correct, but Islam is censoring the entire world right now. It
takes only the publishing of a book critical of The Prophet or cartoons
lampooning him for anyone to receive a death sentence, without a trial,
and you're not safe anywhere in the world. You don't even need to be the
actual blasphemer, living in the same city can get you killed.
Apparently you don't value your freedom, or your safety, but I do, mine
that is.

> All you can do is rant, rave, and go batshit crazy when someone posts something about NON-Muslim terrorists. Which, as we can see, you've been doing.

rotfl

> And it's pretty funny. You're being laughed at. Do you feel any sense of compensation that you are supported 100% by one of the world's most ardent pedophiles?

I can accept being laughed at, what I can't accept is having a fascist
organization trying, and succeeding, to infringe on the rights and
freedoms my forefathers fought and died to protect.

[risky biz]

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Good one. And so true.

[risky biz]

On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 2:21:21 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:

~ I can accept being laughed at, what I can't accept is having a fascist

> organization trying, and succeeding, to infringe on the rights and
> freedoms my forefathers fought and died to protect.

Yah, your forefathers fought and died to protect. Sure. Do you have any examples? Do you even know who your forefathers were? I'm guessing that's as imaginary as any of us being censored by the 'Islams'. What an idjit.

Your definition of 'censorship' is the large number of people with character who don't define censorship as agreeing to scapegoating, hatemongering, and malevolently insulting the religious beliefs of others.

Your definition would require us all to consider Joseph Goebbels an advocate of freedomn of speech. Most of us have more brains than that. It's too bad you don't but that's your problem.

[Dutch]

risky biz wrote:
> On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 2:21:21 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
>
> ~ I can accept being laughed at, what I can't accept is having a fascist
>> organization trying, and succeeding, to infringe on the rights and
>> freedoms my forefathers fought and died to protect.
>
> Yah, your forefathers fought and died to protect. Sure. Do you have any examples?

WW1, WWII

> Do you even know who your forefathers were?

Of course, don't you? We've got lots of photos of them in uniform. They
fought the Nazis. Further back they fought the Romans in southern Scotland.

> I'm guessing that's as
> imaginary as any of us being censored by the 'Islams'. What an idjit.

You're being censored right now, you're just too dense to know it.

> Your definition of 'censorship' is the large number of people with character who don't define censorship as agreeing to scapegoating, hatemongering, and malevolently insulting the religious beliefs of others.

Criticizing religion is an essential and fundamental part of free
speech. It's one of the main reasons America was founded.

> Your definition would require us all to consider Joseph Goebbels an advocate of freedomn of speech. Most of us have more brains than that. It's too bad you don't but that's your problem.

No, I would have been killed for openly criticizing Joseph Goebbels,
very much like Charlie Hebdo were killed for criticizing Mo-ham.

Get it? Islam = Fascism

[Clave]

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message

news:oIwwy.51596$St7....@fx05.iad...

That must be logic you need a 98th percentile IQ to understand.

[Dutch]

I would have thought average. Submit to authoritarian rule or die seems
to be the common theme.

[Clave]

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message

news:i%ywy.74014$Jv5....@fx23.iad...

And silly fucking me, I thought the theme was a complete misunderstanding of
fascism.

[risky biz]

~ I would have thought average. Submit to authoritarian rule or die seems

> to be the common theme.

As in murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? Oh, darn! I forgot that 'those people' don't count by your accounting rules.

[risky biz]

So explain what you think the 'sound arguments' of Hitler were 'to deal with the Jews'.

[Dutch]

Fascism
noun
1.
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power,
forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry,
commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Yup, yup, yup yup, yop and yup, Sounds quite a lot like Saudi Arabia if
you throw in *theocratic* before dictator.

[Clave]

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message

news:gTAwy.62847$TS4....@fx07.iad...

> Fascism...

Is an atheistic political construct based on Marxism.

Islam is a monotheistic religion.

Other than that, yeah they're exactly the same thing.

[Dutch]

What you snipped was a direct, unedited quote from a dictionary.

>
> Is an atheistic political construct based on Marxism.

Nazism, and Hitler maintained close ties to Roman Catholicism. They were
even blessed by the Pope.

> Islam is a monotheistic religion.

Islam is much more than a religion, it is also an authoritarian
theocratic form of government with rigid codes of conduct and laws (from
the 7th century).

> Other than that, yeah they're exactly the same thing.

It doesn't matter much what the historical roots were when the end
result to the person living under each is that are subject to
authoritarian dictatorship.

[Clave]

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message

news:FBBwy.56828$3C6....@fx21.iad...

Who cares? It doesn't make the attempted equivalence to Islam valid.

http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html

You probably won't get the point of that either.

[Dutch]

Doesn't make it invalid either.

> http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html

"apples and oranges" is the title of an argument, not an argument

>
> You probably won't get the point of that either.

A little jerking off to disguise the fact there hasn't been an argument.

[Clave]

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message

news:IcCwy.43304$Ut6....@fx22.iad...

I said you wouldn't get it, and I was right in exactly the way I knew I
would be.

>> You probably won't get the point of that either.
>
> A little jerking off to disguise the fact there hasn't been an argument.

You've been posting a number of sex fantasies lately -- you might want to
rethink whether that's something you want to be doing. It reflects a lot
more on you than it does on the people you're trying (poorly) to insult.

Also too, it's a strange tactic to see coming from someone who's accusing
other people of not having arguments.

In re which, BTW, just because you didn't/couldn't see the argument (as
predicted) doesn't mean there wasn't one there.

[fffurken]

Shut the fuck up you hideous Islamopologist FREAK!

[Dutch]

WHAT??

-- you might want
> to rethink whether that's something you want to be doing. It reflects a
> lot more on you than it does on the people you're trying (poorly) to
> insult.
>
> Also too, it's a strange tactic to see coming from someone who's
> accusing other people of not having arguments.
>
> In re which, BTW, just because you didn't/couldn't see the argument (as
> predicted) doesn't mean there wasn't one there.
>
>

More content free snark from you, how about just fuck off and drop dead
you useless toad.

[Clave]

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message

news:hKCwy.17337$VJ2....@fx15.iad...
> Clave wrote:

<...>

>> In re which, BTW, just because you didn't/couldn't see the argument (as
>> predicted) doesn't mean there wasn't one there.
>
> More content free snark from you, how about just fuck off and drop dead
> you useless toad.

Mee-yow.

There's plenty of content in the snark -- your increasingly defensive
tunnel-vision just won't let you acknowledge it.

[fffurken]

ngcfc

[Dutch]

Clave wrote:
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message

>> More content free snark from you, how about just fuck off and drop
>> dead you useless toad.
>
> Mee-yow.
>
> There's plenty of content in the snark -- your increasingly defensive
> tunnel-vision just won't let you acknowledge it.

It was content free [as usual] and my vision is crystal clear.

The tactic of the regressive when any criticism of Islam (or Muslims,
although that is rare) is detected is to eschew any attempt to address
the criticism with substance and go directly to launching of the
"Islamophobe" accusation. It is a brilliant diversionary tactic, because
by the time a person is done refuting the accusation the original
subject becomes lost.

[Clave]

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message

news:2NNwy.78165$8h4....@fx34.iad...

> Clave wrote:
>>
>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>
>>> More content free snark from you, how about just fuck off and drop
>>> dead you useless toad.
>>
>> Mee-yow.
>>
>> There's plenty of content in the snark -- your increasingly defensive
>> tunnel-vision just won't let you acknowledge it.
>
>
> It was content free [as usual] and my vision is crystal clear.

LOFL -- as far as you know.

[Dutch]

Clave wrote:
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:2NNwy.78165$8h4....@fx34.iad...
>> Clave wrote:
>>>
>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> More content free snark from you, how about just fuck off and drop
>>>> dead you useless toad.
>>>
>>> Mee-yow.
>>>
>>> There's plenty of content in the snark -- your increasingly defensive
>>> tunnel-vision just won't let you acknowledge it.
>>
>>
>> It was content free [as usual] and my vision is crystal clear.
>
> LOFL -- as far as you know.

Well duh. That's a suffix that could be added to every statement by
everyone ever. But thanks for the brilliant perspective.

[Clave]

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message

news:ycQwy.75038$XJ3....@fx43.iad...

It just seemed especially true right there. Still does.

[Dutch]

Right, to you. It's always true, and therefore not worth saying. Like I
said, "content free".

[risky biz]

~ Yup, yup, yup yup, yop and yup, Sounds quite a lot like Saudi Arabia if

> you throw in *theocratic* before dictator.

Yeah, and Saudi Arabia is one of the closest allies of Canada and the US in the Middle East. So it sounds like you, too.

[risky biz]

~ It doesn't matter much what the historical roots were when the end

> result to the person living under each is that are subject to
> authoritarian dictatorship.

Then you need to explain why violence against women is as bad or worse than in NON-Muslim societies, don't you? But I'm guessing that you're not up to that.

[risky biz]

MISSTYPE CORRECTION: Then you need to explain why violence against women in NON-Muslim societies is as bad or worse than in Muslim societies, don't you? But I'm guessing that you're not up to that.

[Dutch]

What's your point?

[Dutch]

risky biz wrote:
> you need to explain why violence against women is as bad or worse than in NON-Muslim societies,

You have provided NO evidence of that. It is a highly dubious claim.

[risky biz]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 4:27:24 PM UTC-8, T.Bagger wrote:
> Found her. (underage?)
>
> http://s27.postimg.org/5czzy06xf/amsterdam.jpg

Pop Quiz for 'furkedon':

Does Tanja look the same as you remember her or did she grow up some?

[risky biz]

Well?