Father left his daughter to DROWN.

There were 2 lifeguards yet the father managed to "stop" both of them. That's bullshit, all they had to do was shove the guy aside and make a B line for the girl. One of the guys could have stayed behind to keep the idiot father busy while the other saved her. They weren't trying.
 
Islam throwing yet another mean curveball at the cultural relativists.
 
If I was a life guard I wouldn't care and would have gone to save her. Should the dudes be fired for sucking at their job?
 
Do the WR Awards have a prize for most forced and nonsensical analogy?

Literally, the ONLY thing mentioned about the father in the four source I've seen is that he is "Asian". I might as well proclaim that you only quoted me because you're a racist black who hates me because I'm white: I literally would have the same amount of substance to my argument.

But, yeah, you're not a racist piece of shit or anything.

So your contention is:

a) The father's ideas about his daughter being "dishonored" by close physical contact with males do not spring directly from his personal religious belief.

Are you therefore willing to admit, if you are proven wrong, that this girl's death was caused as a direct result of aberrant religious belief?
 
Show me where it says that in the Quran. Nothing to do, AT ALL, with Islam. You're projecting.

First, you said it had nothing to do with "religion". That was the statement with which I took issue.

Second, claiming there is only one "correct" or "true" interpretation of any religious belief system is a deluded assertion. And one that, as would be expected, delusional followers from multiple religious traditions make about their particular personal, subjective interpretations of holy writ on a regular basis.

Also good job bringing in race. I swear if it wasn't for all the pro Israel posters, I'd think this section of Sherdog was stormfront lite.

You and Speakeasy have a real hard on about race I guess.

I used race and politics as examples of categorizing systems that operate like religions within society. To help make clear what should be obvious: When people act directly out of an ideological framework it is not only correct but necessary to attach that ideology to those actions.

So, yeah, if a member of the KKK lynches a black person only a lunatic would try and say "This wasn't about racism!"

That's the kind of lunatics you and Speakeasy become when you say this girl's death wasn't about religion.
 
First, you said it had nothing to do with "religion". That was the statement with which I took issue.

Second, claiming there is only one "correct" or "true" interpretation of any religious belief system is a deluded assertion. And one that, as would be expected, delusional followers from multiple religious traditions make about their particular personal, subjective interpretations of holy writ on a regular basis.

I don't understand why you or anyone cares. Live and let live. Let everyone live to their own standards
 
I don't understand why you or anyone cares. Live and let live. Let everyone live to their own standards

Ironically, the religious guy in question had a "live" (for himself) and "let die" (for his daughter) attitude.

 
So your contention is:

a) The father's ideas about his daughter being "dishonored" by close physical contact with males do not spring directly from his personal religious belief.

I'm sure they are related, but "spring directly?" Fuck no. I wouldn't feel the need to speculate on which belief system might supplement, support, but not necessarily directly cause those beliefs. The attribution of all acts of lunacy to the religion of the perpetrator is fucking stupid. When a Christian guy kills his son for being gay, I don't say "Christianity, more like PISStianity," because, while an antiquated couple verses might condemn homosexuality, most who practice do not leap to such extremes. Most Christians, in fact, would not kill their sons. So, the act is just as tied into the hypothetical father's own personal defects as it is the religion's.

Are you therefore willing to admit, if you are proven wrong, that this girl's death was caused as a direct result of aberrant religious belief?

Here you go again with "direct result."

No, anyone who would suppose that, especially given the complete lack of evidence currently, is just hot in the biscuit to slam some brown people.
 
Back
Top