Commenter Archive

Comments by ScrubAssChump*

On “Does The Bible Teach Necessity As a Defense (or permitted exception) to Incest?

Well exactly. It is all absurd. We are debating nothing more than stories made up by goodness only knows who for what whatever reason they served at the time. We may find them an amusing distraction but can't honestly take them seriously as having any bearing on life in the 21st century.

"

"That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up."

So the old mans drunk and sleeping, yet he still gets a boner and his daughter fucks him to ejaculation without waking him up? Who wrote this shit? Let me guess. An old drunk bloke?

"

lol @Kenyan-Marxist president

"

Twitter has just suspended the @Anon_Operation account, which had 22,173 followers...

"

KL if you log in to this site before posting then people can link directly to your blog by clicking on your name. (provided you have added the website to your profile) I have flu. Just sayin.

"

Anyone interested can also email me at emilieduchatelet8@gmail.com. (Kenneth can you put my email address on your blog post :))

On “On Hobbits, Race, and Self-Contained Worlds

Tolkien wrote: 'The Lord of the Rings' is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision, that is why I have not put in, or have cut out practically all references to anything like 'religion,' to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and symbolism." (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 1981) which is probably why it "takes work". Tolkien never underestimates the intelligence of the reader. He also wrote of his aversion to allegory, stating that "As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical..."

On “Helen Kushnick

"dumb shit kickin hick" :) I hope that comes out in England, I'd love to see it.

On “Notes on video games as culture.

I like this piece very much, William.

On “Computing in virtual worlds

Barrett, darling, the Russian dogs of war are getting restless. I am holding them at bay presently, but will require your input ere long.

On “Private Arbitration and Islamic Law

Oh dear. Mark, this bit:" I never said that I thought CAIR was cuddly" So you begin by being defensively irrelevant rather than addressing the actual points.

I haven't made any comment on your personal view of CAIR. How could I. This is the first time its come into conversation. I brought CAIR into the debate. But regardless, why, indeed, is your personal view of Islam pertinent here? You don't like it. Well we all think its a crock but I thought we'd got past that to the real meat. (Halal or no)

I'm making a valid point, a number of valid points actually, which you have ignored, totally. For instance the fact that the instigator of this whole debacle is the Executive Director of CAIR. The fact that CAIR has links to terrorist factions. "Moderate" Muslims denouncing CAIR and the FBI dissociating itself from them. These do not strike you as important?

It is quite obvious that whatever I say, whatever evidence I present you are determined to ignore it and carry on with your stance that Islam in America is benign and there is absolutely no reason for concern. Maybe so, except its not. And there is.

It is disingenuous to maintain a position that has so effectively been demolished by my posts. And that last sentence is possibly the most nonsensical of the lot. (give or take the prior Halal meat example which I answered perfectly and you did not even acknowledge as completely refuting your whole point) But that pales into insignificance compared to this. Whether CAIR are in the pocket of terrorist organisations doesn't bother you? I repeat for my own clarification: you do not care whether the Council for American Islamic Relations (which in its mission statement purports to be Americas largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organisation) are in the pocket of terrorist organisations. The largest Muslim civil liberties organisation in America is a front for fundamentalists. And you don't care. The FBI does. MI6 does. I do.

"

You see I attached that quote as a starting point for further investigation. Whether the person I quoted is a Community volunteer or a Binman or a roadsweeper is beside the point. They make a point which flashed in my mind a signpost to finding out more about the motives behind the Oklahoma/Sharia debacle. (Obama started out as a Communty Organiser, remember, a career path much derided by the Republican media, do you wish to be compared to Republicans? shock!... just sayin)

Anyway I was really hoping somebody would take the bull by the horns, or the pig by its trotters, or the woman by the Burka or something, and look into the background of CAIR, and Mr Awad. But nobody did so I had to. Just a cursory google will bring up all sorts of warnings of links to HAMAS, terrorist this and Islamists that which should ideally be flashing up in big red letters. If this was my internet they would.

Whatever you may think is the benign intention of those cute little Muslims to not have their poor religious rights trampled over by the bad Americans, I can assure you it is not benign and they are not cute. But more on that later.

But firstly. If the Halal meat buyer wants to check the meat he is buying is Halal then he needs to do what every other suspicious Halal meat buyer does and visit the slaughterhouse and make sure the animals are killed while still alive and allowed to slowly bleed to death. (Animal cruelty laws versus religiously mandated laws is a whole other area of massive argument and morally dubious cultural relativism which it would do well to leave out of this one) Other than that any Halal meat sold in the US must be certified by the Islamic Services of America. Sharia law is not needed to determine Halal meat disputes because there are already adequate Halal meat production laws in place in the US. In fact one could widen that analogy and say there are already adequate laws covering just about every dispute which Sharia determines is unique to it. Sharia is not unique. It is biased and marginalises half the population it supposedly seeks to ameliorate. The US already has a perfectly robust legal system. The debate (I think) has to widen to examine exactly what Sharia law means, where it comes from, whether it is fair and why it is seen as an infringement of *rights* if prohibited. (who's rights one might ask, certainly Muslim women are better served under American law)

Back to the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) of which Muneer Awad is Executive Director.

This is from 2006 : http://www.meforum.org/916/cair-islamists-fooling-the-establishment

This may be of interest, since it reveals that not all Muslims are exactly happy with CAIR:

"Of particular note are the American Muslims who reject CAIR's claim to speak on their behalf. The late Seifeldin Ashmawy, publisher of the New Jersey-based Voice of Peace, called CAIR the champion of "extremists whose views do not represent Islam."[8] Jamal Hasan of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance explains that CAIR's goal is to spread "Islamic hegemony the world over by hook or by crook."[9] Kamal Nawash, head of Free Muslims Against Terrorism, finds that CAIR and similar groups condemn terrorism on the surface while endorsing an ideology that helps foster extremism, adding that "almost all of their members are theocratic Muslims who reject secularism and want to establish Islamic states."[10] Tashbih Sayyed of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance calls CAIR "the most accomplished fifth column" in the United States.[11] And Stephen Schwartz of the Center on Islamic Pluralism writes that "CAIR should be considered a foreign-based subversive organization, comparable in the Islamist field to the Soviet-controlled Communist Party, USA."[12]"

There is plenty to mull over in that one report alone. To dismiss it is foolish, in my opinion. Whatever Awads motive for seeking to have the law include Sharia (whether its for his will, as stated or whatever) one cannot overlook the fact that as soon as he became Exec Director of CAIR, (in fact, one month later) he became prominent and took on the American legal system. Coincidence? I don't know but political affiliations are important and should be investigated, imo.

Of course it took the FBI 3 years to catch on : http://www.investigativeproject.org/985/fbi-cuts-off-cair-over-hamas-questions

Oklahoma may be a Conservative stronghold. Rex Duncans amendment could arguably be termed as unwise, especially since he called it Save our State, and especially when Oklahomas Muslim population tops a "massive" 1% or 30,000 in a state of 3.7miliion. A slight over reaction on Duncans part, maybe and one which is easy to pick on. Frankly, he could have been more subtle. But I think that America is sadly hoodwinked and divided by partisan politics and unless one is overtly this side or that, Left or Right, it seems unlikely ones views will be heard, hence Duncans Us and Them attitude.

However political correctness is still allowed to make a mockery of reality in the US and those sensible people on the Left have a tendency to allow PC to rule them at the expense of common sense. You have your partisan media - you are either a Maddow fan or you watch O'Reilly. Either way you are having your views spoon fed to you. Republican Christians hate Muslims and Islam (unfair) so Democrats love them and it (unwise). You have to choose your side and stick with it.

Or not. One could always retain skepticism and reserve judgement. In the meantime, any criticism of Islam is met with cries of "racist", effectively silencing anyone with a less than vigorous grip on reality. Which is absurd. Only the intellectually weak conflate race and religion.

"

At this point I don't give a flying fuck whether America becomes a Caliphate. You fucking deserve it for being so liberal and a bunch of pussies (except Robert., BarrettBrown, that Lawyer fella and possibly Mark Thompson although I think he holds back, oh and Jason cuz I just like Jason, and Jaybird because he is SO SILLY) Rufus, I think you need anger management therapy. :)

I came across this on a website somewhere last week, pasted it somewhere on my computer, lost it and found it again just now and will now reproduce it like magick. Its about the Oklahoma law (gasp) and I think it deserves further investigation (by someone) only I can't be bothered because I have to get drunk.

"Mr. Awad, who filed the lawsuit, claims this amendment abrogates his right to practice his religion. Yet it is only when his religious law comes in conflict with the law of the land that a problem arises. Is Mr. Awad then suggesting that in instances when Sharia and the Constitution are in conflict, his religious law should take precedence?

It is of particular interest that Mr. Awad is also the professional head of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Oklahoma. CAIR has been linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is an organization dedicated to establishing an Islamic caliphate with the Quran as its constitution.

It will be interesting to see how the debate around this amendment develops. Will it be primarily centered on cries of Islamophobia, or will attention be paid to the basis for voter concern even if this amendment is overturned?"

I deem that worthy of a Mark Thompson-like totally new post and then we can all start fighting again. Its been an absolute pleasure, love Emma xxx

On “On the other hand…

BarrettBrown, I appear to be still in fucking England, I'd like to suck up to you in that room with the servants.

Oops said that out loud. (not drunk)

On “Private Arbitration and Islamic Law

Firstly, I'm pleased you agree the vitriol was unnecessary, because it was. It was less a response to the discussion as a personal attack on me. Everybody else managed to be perfectly reasonable, I suppose you were having an off day. Or maybe you were upset that I had ignored you, again. I saw your previous comment on the root of the word religion but did not think it significant enough to warrant a reply. And your assertion that I had disagreed with every word you said when in fact I had never replied to any word you'd said, was just plain bonkers and really quite puzzling. My interjection to your post to Robert was nothing unusual - its usually taken as a normal part of posting, people interject, like in a conversation. Its what happens. Usually people just go with it, reply or ignore. Whatever it was that compelled you to attack, and I am positive you will deny it anyway, you got my attention, but not for the right reasons.

Secondly, how you can hold me responsible for the past discussions you've had on Islam on this forum, when I only joined it a few days ago, is also beyond my comprehension and frankly absurd. Even if you don't hold me responsible, your mentioning that those past discussions irked you, as if that was somehow my problem, is a little weird to say the least.

I was discussing this with my friend Jeremy Stangroom (whos book, "Why Truth Matters" I quoted above in a reply to Jaybird) He is something of a mentor of mine and advised me to tell you this with regard to the Koran:

"There are a number of big differences between how the Qur'an and the Bible are viewed by Muslims and Christians, respectively. Not least, the Qur'an is supposed to be the *literal* word of God (to the extent that a common view amongst Islamic scholars is that the Qur'an is uncreated and eternal); and there is no tradition within Islam of seeing it as being merely metaphorical or whatever (although, of course, it is accepted there are issues to do with interpretation).

The other thing is that Islamic law - as I'm sure you know (this is Jeremy to me, not you) - isn't derived solely from the Qur'an. The ahadith, sirah, scholarly consensus and analogy from previous cases and rulings are also significant. You should tell Rufus he needs to read some Islamic jurisprudence. He could start with "The Reliance of the Traveler" - (it's actually an interesting read!):

http://www.nku.edu/~kenneyr/Islam/Reliance.html

Finally, and this is the funniest thing you wrote:
"The snark about beating up Muslims is genuinely unrelated to anything I wrote."
(you have to be kidding me, right) Yes. I know. I was joking about beating up the Muslims.

On “The virtues of Caligula

Was that to me, Mr Brown? Because you know you don't even have to ask.

On “Private Arbitration and Islamic Law

I can't pardon your frustration, Rufus because I am not entirely sure what you are frustrated about.

Everything I've written about Islam is informed from personal experience dealing with Apostates who have sought asylum in the UK or from what I have read. I'm not sure why that offends you or should provoke this remarkably vitriolic response.

"Honestly, it’s hard at this point to believe that you’re interested in having a discussion at all, since your preferred mode of discourse seems to be the monologue, or maybe just the harrangue. You know, it’s fine to disagree with every word I say, but actually listen first, instead of responding to what people say in Saudi Arabia."

I wasn't aware I had been having this discussion with you. I have been having a discussion with Mark Thompson and Transplanted Lawyer. So I'm nonplussed as to why you should think I disagree with every word you say since this is the first time I've actually replied directly to you. I thought the post regarding Taqiyaa, interesting. Perhaps you did not.

You are obviously proud that you have read the Koran. Well done, I'm proud of you too. But only because I would not have the patience. How did you stay awake would be my first question. My point that it is believed only to be the true version when read in Arabic stands. You are studying a bastardised version. You may think that reading a 7th century story book is admirable and points you out as some kind of scholar but I have to disagree.

You like to debate text which was allegedly dictated to Mohammed, an illiterate desert tribesman, by Allah, a suprnatural entity. Go Rufus! I find that intellectually ridiculous.

I'm not au fait with the "office politics" in sway here yet, so was unaware of you giving Bob a hard time because he gives you a hard time. I suppose I stepped on someones toes. Oops.

I don't think I've mentioned Saudi Arabia once in any of these posts.

I don't much like the bible either, just out of interest. Not that that has anything to do with this, but you brought it up and in any discussion on Islam, it is always held up as just as bad.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go and beat up some Muslims.

"

@Jaybird, it won't let me reply to your last truth post so I am having to reply underneath Transplanted Lawyer.

There may be sordid history in the hstory of truth but then human affairs are always sordid and messy. I don't see the sordidness (is that even a word) sordidity? sorditude? as something to distract us from seeking truth.

I see it as a process wherein it starts out cloudy and dirty and gradually becomes clear. I'm happy to argue about everything because it clarifies my own position in my mind. I don't pretend to know what ultimate truth is - I don't believe in absolutes - I think if one wants absolutes then one goes and hides in religion.

By the way it is so eery that you should mention phlogiston in your post! I had this discussion about scientific truth with the author, Jeremy Stangroom, and we ended up discussing phlogiston!

On “The virtues of Caligula

So I am now at liberty to run amok.

*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.

The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.