Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

I didn't interpret your questions:

So the reason we have "cover your breasts" laws is because men can't control themselves?
You really believe that?
Do you also believe in Burkas?

to be comments about this thread's topic.

They are not and if you look at the context even you can clearly see that it was pointed out that that was the case.

Just because you are karma buddies with this religious bigot doesn't mean you get to quote me out of context and drag the discussion even further off topic.

Just for your edification here is my full posting:

Originally Posted by kennyc

While this whole subthread has taken a decidedly weird turn. What in the world does this have to do with the price of tea in china?

So the reason we have "cover your breasts" laws is because men can't control themselves? You really believe that? And you also believe that the women could change the law by themselves.

This is getting way too weird for even me I think...

Do you also believe in Burkas?

[penartur]

Originally Posted by nguirado

I actually just asked my wife and she said that she wouldn't change it. She elaborated, but I'm trying to be brief. The only women who I've ever heard clamor for this change do so for political reasons. Again, I won't elaborate for now. I never ever hear women complain about this law otherwise. I'm willing to bet an Amazon ebook that more women don't want to see other women topless than men don't. I know that even if it were legal, very few women would take advantage.

And i want men's naked chests to be forbidden, why there is no such a law?

[eric11210]

Originally Posted by penartur

PS: Your nick keeps bothering me, i don't know such an English word, but there are two Russian words with such transliteration, one meaning "a cannon" and another meaning "fluffy/furry"

And in Yiddish it means a charity box. It's just one of those funny things about languages that different words have vastly different meanings depending on which language (and for that matter, which dialect of a language -- football means vastly different things for Americans and Britons for example) you are speaking.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by penartur

And i want men's naked chests to be forbidden, why there is no such a law?

and cover their ugly faces!

maybe if the women got together it would be change immediately.

[AGB]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

AGB - Do you object to women wearing the hijab, al-amira, shayla, khimar or chador?

Here is a BBC web-page that includes helpful graphics showing the different types of Muslim head-coverings: French MPs vote to ban Islamic full veil in public

No, I don't even object to burkas per se. I object to groups in society dictating what other groups should wear, how to look, and how to behave, based on their own religious beliefs.

[penartur]

Originally Posted by kennyc

and cover their ugly faces!

maybe if the women got together it would be change immediately.

I'm not a women btw *blush*

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by penartur

I'm not a women btw *blush*

I know. I was attempting to refer back to the silliness above about Women determining the law.

Sorry.

[penartur]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I know. I was attempting to refer back to the silliness above about Women determining the law.

Sorry.

I should read posts there more carefully...

What are you sorry about?

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by AGB

No, I don't even object to burkas per se. I object to groups in society dictating what other groups should wear, how to look, and how to behave, based on their own religious beliefs.

Do you object to these groups: the Catholic and Anglican churches, and their habits? Wikipedia: Religious habit

Do you think there is any significant difference, between a nun who chooses to wear a habit, and a Muslim woman who chooses to wear a hijab, apart from their different religions?

Has anyone in this thread, concerning Amazon defending a book about Paedophilia, supported any "society dictating what other groups should wear, how to look, and how to behave, based on their own religious beliefs"?

What do you think about Phillip Greaves' arrest?

[AGB]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

Does you object to these groups: the Catholic and Anglican churches, and their habits? Wikipedia: Religious habit

Quite a difference. Apparently the habit is traditionally worn by both monks and nuns, and it is not dictating what regular believers should wear, and certainly not what non-believers should wear. So, yes, there's a vast difference.

Do you think there is any significant difference, between a nun who chooses to wear a habit, and a Muslim woman who chooses to wear a hijab, apart from their different religions?

Yes, there's a vast difference as I mentioned above. It's not about "choosing", it's about whether or not the patriarchs in a Patriarchy dictates what is "correct" and what is not, usually using interpretations of scripture.

Has anyone in this thread, concerning Amazon defending a book about Paedophilia, supported any "society dictating what other groups should wear, how to look, and how to behave, based on their own religious beliefs"?

I'm not sure what you mean. It seems you are defending the likes of nguirado's rights to dictate what other people can wear, read, behave, show, based on his religious morals.

What do you think about Phillip Greaves' arrest?

It's an arrest. It doesn't mean much in itself, other than it shows how a sherif in sleepy town can get people extradited by baiting people. If anything, the arrest itself shows a problem with the judicial system.

However, when he has had his day in court, and some facts are on the table, instead of some religious morals in horror over a book, then I will form an opinion on the actual judgement. An arrest in itself by a local sherif really doesn't mean much, to be honest.

[nguirado]

If you go through the thread, you'll see that I did not pull the thread off topic. I responded to some careless, bigoted comments by some of the members here. Not only bigoted, but somewhat illogical. For example, AGB, whose country does have indecency laws, now says that he doesn't want laws restricting what people do or don't wear. So, I suppose he wants to get rid of the laws in his country.

Although he displayed an impressive knowledge of the nuances of pornography, he doesn't know what a straw man argument is and is willing to contradict himself in order to indulge his hatred.

Kenny, I resent the fact that you ask questions and then claim that I'm pulling the thread off topic. If people didn't feel the need to insult those who disagree with them on some points, the thread would have been over long ago, as this isn't a very complicated subject. And, you do know that women make up a slightly larger share of the voting public than men. I don't know of any mass movements in the US against deceny laws, do you?

I don't think you called me a "religious bigot" since I didn't insult anybody's religion or lack therof. If you did, then you must consider anybody who explains his opinion, bigoted. This is another example of a careless charge.

I'll continue if somebody has anything logical, non-hateful.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by penartur

I should read posts there more carefully...

What are you sorry about?

Just about confusing you...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by nguirado

If you go through the thread, you'll see that I did not pull the thread off topic. I responded to some careless, bigoted comments by some of the members here. Not only bigoted, but somewhat illogical.....

Kenny, I resent the fact that you ask questions and then claim that I'm pulling the thread off topic. ...

I don't think you called me a "religious bigot" since I didn't insult anybody's religion or lack therof. If you did, then you must consider anybody who explains his opinion, bigoted. This is another example of a careless charge.

I'll continue if somebody has anything logical, non-hateful.

You're welcome to resent whatever you want. But you certainly twisted the thread off topic, and you certainly have religious beliefs I consider bigoted.

This is the typical reaction (as has been discussed in various threads in the R&P forum) -- poor pitiful me. They are attacking my beliefs because I express them.

Interesting that you call the predecessors posting in this thread bigots and then claim that you are not and resent it.

Would you like to discuss the book and associated events or do you want to keep whining?

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Post #901
... Just because you are karma buddies with this religious bigot ...

I gave nguirado Karma because I admire his ability to express himself clearly, calmly and courteously, without being insulting. If that bother's you, then please feel free to de-select me as your Karma buddy.

As regards nguirado allegedly being a "religious bigot", I really don't understand why you, and apparently AGB, think that is the case. Please indicate the Post #'s where you think he has posted comments that are based on religious bigotry, and please also indicate why you think religious bigotry is any different from atheistic bigotry.

Do you think all people who hold religious views are bigots, or is it just a select group, in which case what is that group?

Surely, if nguirado holds religious views, then he is entitled to express them, without being insulted by those who don't share them. AGB accused him of issuing religious vomit, and now you accuse him of being a religious bigot. Why all this enmity? I understand why people get so upset about paedophilia, but this spat seems silly.

[AGB]

Originally Posted by nguirado

If you go through the thread, you'll see that I did not pull the thread off topic. I responded to some careless, bigoted comments by some of the members here. Not only bigoted, but somewhat illogical. For example, AGB, whose country does have indecency laws, now says that he doesn't want laws restricting what people do or don't wear. So, I suppose he wants to get rid of the laws in his country.

Red herrings.

By that argument, there's no difference between a secular country's indecency laws and religious dictation such as yours or that of the Taleban.

Further, we also have a blasphemy paragrah in this country. It hasn't been tried to be applied in about forty years, and even then it was thrown out of court.

Although he displayed an impressive knowledge of the nuances of pornography,

Way to go with your insinuations, when what the discussion was about was your complete misunderstanding of the word "explicit". Go back to post 800 and see for yourself.

But if knowing that "explicit language", "explicit nudity", and "explicit sex" is not the same thing is "impressive", religious people like yourself are very easily impressed.

Oh, wait, we already knew that.

he doesn't know what a straw man argument is and is willing to contradict himself in order to indulge his hatred.

What a load of tosh: You're the one that had to look the word, resulting in you quoting the definition, making one yourself in the very same paragraph while accusing me of making one where I didn't.

You really are intellectually dishonest.

Kenny, I resent the fact that you ask questions and then claim that I'm pulling the thread off topic.

The proof is in the pudding, this is when you started pulling it off-topic with your very own private interpretation of the word "explicit":

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...&postcount=800

If people didn't feel the need to insult those who disagree with them on some points, the thread would have been over long ago, as this isn't a very complicated subject.

Says the bloke who tries to hide his religious judgement behind rhetorical questions, intellectual dishonesty, strawmen and so forth.

And, you do know that women make up a slightly larger share of the voting public than men. I don't know of any mass movements in the US against deceny laws, do you?

See above.

I don't think you called me a "religious bigot" since I didn't insult anybody's religion or lack therof. If you did, then you must consider anybody who explains his opinion, bigoted. This is another example of a careless charge.

No, it's actually straight forward: You use your moral derived from your religious beliefs to judge others, and try to stuff your religiously derived morals down the throats of other. Intellectual dishonesty is no hindrance for you.

I'll continue if somebody has anything logical, non-hateful.

You need to take a hard look at yourself.