Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - People Maliciously Spreading Hatred

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

People Maliciously Spreading Hatred
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13, 14 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Axl Rose

Joined: 16 Feb 2006

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:11 pm Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

Axl Rose wrote:

I'm an atheist and not a Christian, but Jesus never killed anyone nor raped children. Muhammad was a genocidal, maniacal pedophile. The basic ethical difference between these two religions becomes clear in the light of this. Muslims in Saudi Arabia have their prepubescent daughters married off to middle aged men. Saudi Arabia is a paradise for the pedophile and a hell of sexual slavery for the female. Muslim terrorists killed more people, all civilians, in 2008 than the Israelis and the Palestinians managed, together, civilian and military, since 2000. Had Muhammad's mother remained a virgin, none of these marriages, none of these terror attacks on innocent civilians, would occur.

Kuros wrote:

You won't find God talking about humping little children in the hadiths, because the hadiths aren't his Word. Indeed, that's why I call the entire issue a distraction.

Allah permitted sex with prepubescent wives in the Koran, as I showed above. Sex with such girls follows logically from the rules on iddah. The reason, the real reason, why this glaring indecency is in the Koran is that the Koran wasn't authored by God (because there's no such thing, mainly, but he wouldn't author such junk even if he existed) and it was instead authored by very stupid medieval Arab men who had more wives than teeth.

Mohammed's first wife was a generation older than he. Why aren't you instead obsessing about Mohammed's gerontophilia?

I don't find it heinous.

bcasper wrote:

What constitutes an "adult" is not HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE but actually very clear cut for biologists: one who is capable of reproduction

To see leftwingers make such lame excuses for Muslim barbarism, including Muhammad's pedophilia, is as sickening as it is comical. Proper liberals like myself have just got to sop debating you assholes. It's like debating a Christian fundamentalist about evolution - no piece of evidence will ever be sufficient. If the entire system of belief being the invention of a genocidal pedophile, and adherents every year killing more civilians than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined, isn't evidence enough that this set of beliefs needs to go the same way as Naziism, then there's not much to be debated. We've just got to hope that you guys stop breeding and one day die out.

It's highly unlikely A'eesha was capable of reproduction at 9. I doubt even that she'd menstruated yet (girls become fertile 2-3 years after they begin menstruation, which is at 11 at least). But hey, you or some other lefty will be on hand with some bogus evidence that Muslims' hero was acting entirely ethically.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:34 pm Post subject:

Axl Rose wrote:

bacasper wrote:

Axl Rose wrote:

Kuros wrote:

You won't find God talking about humping little children in the hadiths, because the hadiths aren't his Word. Indeed, that's why I call the entire issue a distraction.

Mohammed's first wife was a generation older than he. Why aren't you instead obsessing about Mohammed's gerontophilia?

I don't find it heinous.

You've confused me now. Are you obsessed by sex with prepubescent females, believe it is cool for men to have sex with women old enough to be their grandmothers, or both?

Axl Rose wrote:

bcasper wrote:

What constitutes an "adult" is not HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE but actually very clear cut for biologists: one who is capable of reproduction

I have already demonstrated to you that there is no evidence that Mohammed warrants a clinical diagnosis of pedophilia, yet you persist in this wrongheaded point.

Biology is lame, eh?

The paucity of your position is further evidenced by your resorting to name-calling and ad hominem attacks.

If you had any credibility left, you've pretty much finished it off here.

There may be perfectly valid reasons to oppose Islam. Mohammed's non-existent pedophilia is not one of them.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:53 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Mohammed's non-existent pedophilia is not one of them.

His genocidal behaviour and sanctioning of rape are more than enough reason to condemn Islam.

Axl Rose

Joined: 16 Feb 2006

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 9:06 pm Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

Axl Rose wrote:

bacasper wrote:

Axl Rose wrote:

Kuros wrote:

You won't find God talking about humping little children in the hadiths, because the hadiths aren't his Word. Indeed, that's why I call the entire issue a distraction.

Mohammed's first wife was a generation older than he. Why aren't you instead obsessing about Mohammed's gerontophilia?

I don't find it heinous.

You've confused me now. Are you obsessed by sex with prepubescent females, believe it is cool for men to have sex with women old enough to be their grandmothers, or both?

I don't find sex with old women heinous. Not my cup of tea, but if Muhammad wants to engage in consensual sex with an old bird, it doesn't piss on my fries. But child rape is obviously reprehensible and not capable of defense. Your question assumes moral equivalence between sex with old women and child rape. It's as brainless as any other mind-eroding tripe I've ever heard, but par for the course in a discussion with a lefty. Leftwing politics functions exactly like religion and in particular its turning of human brains into dumpster juice.

Bacasper wrote:

I have already demonstrated to you that there is no evidence that Mohammed warrants a clinical diagnosis of pedophilia, yet you persist in this wrongheaded point.

The evidence is all 4 Sunni schools and the school of Shia Islam stating that Muhammad took A'eesha as his wife at age 6 and had sex with her when she was 9. If you believe there's no evidence, get on the phone to the Grand Muftis.

Bacasper wrote:

Biology is lame, eh?

What a spectacular dumbing down of the discussion. Biology is not "lame", no, dude. However, if Mo boned A'eesha at age 9, he did so probably before she menstruated and certainly before she was fertile. Your comments previously showed that you have a simplistic understanding of female reproductive development (adult = reproductive ability, when in A'eesha's case this would have almost certainly been absent)

Whether Mo had sex with a 9 year old really is of no interest to me. However the beliefs of the schools of Islam, and their influence, and the influence of Hadith on Sunnah, are very important, because gross and damaging barbarism is waged on girls as a result.

caniff

Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 9:58 pm Post subject:

It seems some people think this discussion centers around whether Mo actually banged a nine-year-old. I think the point, which has been repeated here many times by others, is that this belief influences Muslims TODAY. Historical evidence doesn't mean shit if Muslims think that's what happened (and apparently they do) and use that as a justification for their own disgusting behavior.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 10:59 pm Post subject:

Axl Rose wrote:

bacasper wrote:

Axl Rose wrote:

bacasper wrote:

Mohammed's first wife was a generation older than he. Why aren't you instead obsessing about Mohammed's gerontophilia?

I don't find it heinous.

You've confused me now. Are you obsessed by sex with prepubescent females, believe it is cool for men to have sex with women old enough to be their grandmothers, or both?

I have not broached the subject of morality. Clinically however, both syndromes constitute paraphilias, and more specifically both are chronophilias.

Is Mohammed guilty of "child rape?" There is no evidence that he forced himself upon Ayisha.

Was she below the age of consent at the time? No, since such laws did not exist then.

Mohammed may have had sex with his willing 9-year-old bride, but he is NOT guilty of "child rape" in either the forcible or statutory sense.

Quote:

Unlike you, the Grand Muftis have not diagnosed Mohammed a pedophile.

Bacasper wrote:

Biology is lame, eh?

Quote:

Bold mine.

I think I know a little bit more than you about female reproductive development. But since you admit your comments are based on speculation, I don't need to go into cases of normal puberty begining at age 9, and precocious puberty beginning much younger, and the 6-year-old mother, among others.

Of course, whether or not she had reproductive capacity when they had sex does not matter, since the ponts have already been made that Mohammed was not a pedophile, and he did not rape Ayisha.

I have already demonstrated to you that there is no evidence that Mohammed warrants a clinical diagnosis of pedophilia, yet you persist in this wrongheaded point.

bacasper wrote:

There may be perfectly valid reasons to oppose Islam. Mohammed's non-existent pedophilia is not one of them.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 4:25 am Post subject:

Quote:

Of course, whether or not she had reproductive capacity when they had sex does not matter, since the ponts have already been made that Mohammed was not a pedophile, and he did not rape Ayisha.

Do you think it is normal for a 50 year old man to be sexually attracted to a 9 year old girl? Does it worry you that a man that would do such a thing is considered the 'Perfect Man' by muslims?

Axl Rose

Joined: 16 Feb 2006

Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:20 am Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

I have not broached the subject of morality.

Yes, you have, and in doing so, you posited an absolutely base and lazy form of moral relativism. You asked "Mohammed's first wife was a generation older than he. Why aren't you instead obsessing about Mohammed's gerontophilia?", which is a question of ethics, and absolutely crass ethics, at that.

Bacasper wrote:

Clinically however, both syndromes constitute paraphilias

So?

Depression and Schizophrenia are both psychoses, but there's a recognized level of seriousness between them. Likewise, in paraphilias, there's no moral equivalence whatsoever between, say, Andromimetophilia, and infantophilia.

Moral inequivalence submitted as evidence is amongst the most stereotypical leftist drivel and occurs when one has a brain that's smaller than an electron (as you, as a subscriber to cancerous leftism, most certainly do). Accidental killing and murder are both killing, but there's no moral, no legal, no sane, equivalence between them. Likewise there's none between the various paraphilias. Muhammad liked prepubescent girls, according to the most esteemed of Muslims. He also liked old women. There's no moral equivalence between them, because an old woman, assuming any sex took place consensually, is capable of making that decision. A 9 year old is not.

Bacasper wrote:

and more specifically both are chronophilias.

There's no moral equivalence between chronophilia A and chronophilia B. Ask a senator. Ask a judge. Ask any sane adult.

Bacasper wrote:

Is Mohammed guilty of "child rape?"

According to all 4 Sunni Islam schools and the Shia school of Islam, yes, he was, because a woman rejecting sex is haraam, and, in a 9 year old girl and 50 year old man relationship, coercion, exploitation at the very least, must necessarily occur.

Bacasper wrote:

There is no evidence that he forced himself upon Ayisha.

Well, it's your position that there's no evidence that he even had sex with her - and I agree there's no physicial proof - so him not having forced himself on her follows from that. However, senior Muslims whose business it is to prescribe Sunnah say that Muhammad boned a 9 year old. Any such sex can only have come about via rape, or at the very least exploitation of A'eesha's prepubescence.

Bacasper wrote:

Was she below the age of consent at the time? No, since such laws did not exist then.

Mohammed may have had sex with his willing 9-year-old bride, but he is NOT guilty of "child rape" in either the forcible or statutory sense.

Pathetic moral relativism. There's no consent in Islam anyway. There's no sex outisde marriage, marriage occurs via consent of the father, and any sex is best to be, but not must be, done at 9 or above in pure Shariah. These are the ethics Muhammad invented. You're now submitting the nonsequitur of medieval law = ethical conduct.

Bacasper wrote:

I think I know a little bit more than you about female reproductive development.

You know absolutely nothing about it, evidently

Bacasper wrote:

But since you admit your comments are based on speculation,

Where did I say that, and, if I did say that, what were those comments' relevance to the issue of when female reproductive capacity generally begins?

Bacasper wrote:

I don't need to go into cases of normal puberty begining at age 9, and precocious puberty beginning much younger, and the 6-year-old mother, among others.

In other words, you're using the extremely isolated and rare exceptions of girls younger than 9 becoming pregnant as an excuse for Muhammad's pedophilia.

Bacasper wrote:

I have already demonstrated to you that there is no evidence that Mohammed warrants a clinical diagnosis of pedophilia, yet you persist in this wrongheaded point.

According to the evidence that all 4 Sunni schools and the Shia school of Islam use, the Hadith, Muhammad was sexually aroused by, and acted upon this arousal, by a girl who, in any but the most isolated and rare of circumstances, was prepubescent. Therefore, according to these important people in present-day Islam and their evidence, Muhammad was a nonce. Were any physcial evidence of Muhammad not having wed A'eesha at 6 and slept with her at 9 put before them, these people would dismiss the evidence, because they have absolute faith in A'eesha's (may Allaah be pleased with her Laughing

) testimony

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 8:21 am Post subject:

Axl Rose wrote:

bacasper wrote:

I have not broached the subject of morality.

That's your interpretation. What I actually was doing was trying to understand your obsession with sex with prepubescent girls

Bacasper wrote:

Clinically however, both syndromes constitute paraphilias

...and not the other paraphilia.

Axl Rose wrote:

"a recognized level of seriousness between them?" WTF is that supposed to mean? Both depression and schizophrenia can be serious, lifelong illnesses, can be amenable or resistant to treatment, lead one to suicide, and have psychotic features, to give some equivalences. Anyway, that is besides the point. In another discussion I may well have asked you why are you obsessed with schizophrenia and not depression.

Axl Rose wrote:

Moral inequivalence submitted as evidence is amongst the most stereotypical leftist drivel and occurs when one has a brain that's smaller than an electron (as you, as a subscriber to cancerous leftism, most certainly do). Accidental killing and murder are both killing, but there's no moral, no legal, no sane, equivalence between them. Likewise there's none between the various paraphilias. Muhammad liked prepubescent girls, according to the most esteemed of Muslims. He also liked old women. There's no moral equivalence between them, because an old woman, assuming any sex took place consensually, is capable of making that decision. A 9 year old is not.

Stop with the labels already. It is sad you are unable to tolerate a discussion at any variance with your dogma without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Again, there was no legal prohibition at the time. I am not referring to any other aspect of its morality or lack thereof.

Axl Rose wrote:

Bacasper wrote:

and more specifically both are chronophilias.

There's no moral equivalence between chronophilia A and chronophilia B. Ask a senator. Ask a judge. Ask any sane adult.

Ask a clinical sexologist. They do not distinguish the paraphilias based on morality except in cases of harm or unwillingness, neither of which we have in the case under consideration.

Axl Rose wrote:

Bacasper wrote:

Is Mohammed guilty of "child rape?"

None of those schools say that Mohammed was a rapist.

Ayisha herself never alleged coercion or exploitation. Are you going to reinterpret her reality for her?

Can you source your claim? Because there are myriad examples of prepubescent children willingly engaging in or even soliciting sex.

Axl Rose wrote:

Bacasper wrote:

There is no evidence that he forced himself upon Ayisha.

Learn to read and comprehend more carefully. I never said there's no evidence. I accept the consensus view that it did occur, and the parties were mutually willing.

The rape question has already been addressed.

Axl Rose wrote:

Bacasper wrote:

Not moral relativsim, but merely the law. The behavior fits neither legal definition of forcible nor statutory rape.

Axl Rose wrote:

Bacasper wrote:

But since you admit your comments are based on speculation,

Where did I say that, and, if I did say that, what were those comments' relevance to the issue of when female reproductive capacity generally begins?

You said "probably."

Quote:

However, if Mo boned A'eesha at age 9, he did so probably before she menstruated and certainly before she was fertile.

Axl Rose wrote:

Bacasper wrote:

I don't need to go into cases of normal puberty begining at age 9, and precocious puberty beginning much younger, and the 6-year-old mother, among others.

In other words, you're using the extremely isolated and rare exceptions of girls younger than 9 becoming pregnant as an excuse for Muhammad's pedophilia.

No, I am just showing thast you do not know for sure. 8 to 9 years old is considered the lower end of the normal range for puberty in females.

Axl Rose wrote:

Bacasper wrote:

I have already demonstrated to you that there is no evidence that Mohammed warrants a clinical diagnosis of pedophilia, yet you persist in this wrongheaded point.

) testimony

Do you have any idea how many men are aroused by prepubertal sexual stimuli?

Quote:

A study of randomly selected �normal� men at Kent State University (Hall, G. N., Hirschman, R, and Oliver, L. 1995) discovered that �20% of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest and 26.25% exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli.�

I believe there are some very valid grounds on which to oppose Islam. Your time and efforts would be better spent on the real ones.

Axl Rose

Joined: 16 Feb 2006

Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:33 am Post subject:

Quote:

That's your interpretation. What I actually was doing was trying to understand your obsession with sex with prepubescent girls

You also keep objecting to ad hominem. "Obsession with sex with prepubescent girls" is cheap schoolyard talk designed to deter legitimate criticism of Muslims' pedophile prophet.

idiot

Quote:

...and not the other paraphilia.

Some are more serious, ethically, than others.

It would be bizarre and disproportionate to devote time to criticizing Muhammad's old woman paraphilia and spend less time criticizing his fondness for 9 year olds.

Quote:

"a recognized level of seriousness between them?" WTF is that supposed to mean?

Exactly what it said. There are levels of seriousness and no equivalence. It's the same with fetishes. It's the same with phobias. You submitted that Muhammad has paraphilias, possibly, implying disproportionality between criticism of one and ignoring the other, where in actual fact there's absolutely none.

Quote:

Again, there was no legal prohibition at the time. I am not referring to any other aspect of its morality or lack thereof

If you're not "referring to any other aspect of its morality or lack thereof" then there's little point submitting this as evidence for anything. Is the legality of Muhammad's behavior disputed by anyone? Muhammad engaging in the barbarity that was the norm of the day, and not breaking away from this savagery, is the whole point. Muhammad reaffirmed medieval ethics and perpetuated them as something to emulate (and people still do).

Quote:

Ask a clinical sexologist. They do not distinguish the paraphilias based on morality

A sexologist's opinion about paraphilias is irrelevant, then, in a discussion on ethics. A doctor will make little distinction professionally between a person burned by accident and a person burned deliberately, but in his own private ethical view, he will, clearly. And, whilst a sexologist might not professionally distinguish between paraphilia A and B in terms ethical seriousness, they may well do privately (when they discuss ethics)

Quote:

Because there are myriad examples of prepubescent children willingly engaging in or even soliciting sex.

This is a very poor excuse for pedophilia

Quote:

Not moral relativsim, but merely the law. The behavior fits neither legal definition of forcible nor statutory rape

If you agree that by behaving in a way that violates no laws (because the laws don't exist) it doesn't follow that the behavior is ethical, it's a worthless insertion. It is precisely the point that Muslims' hero engaged in and perpetuated medieval savagery, which exists intact where Islam is followed to the letter.

Quote:

No, I am just showing thast you do not know for sure. 8 to 9 years old is considered the lower end of the normal range for puberty in females.

In other words, you're using the extremely rare and isolated cases of girls menstruating age age 8/9 in order to make an excuse for Islamic savagery

Quote:

Do you have any idea how many men are aroused by prepubertal sexual stimuli?

This is a hopeless excuse for a man who called himself the Prophet of Allah, setting the example of morality and rectitude, sleeping with a 9 year old at age 53. It really does go to show that there are literally an unlimited number of excuses makeable by the left for Muslim savagery.

Quote:

I believe there are some very valid grounds on which to oppose Islam. Your time and efforts would be better spent on the real ones.

*sigh*

Child brides are still, in great number, married off by their fathers to men of any age. It is very much a valid ground on which to subject Islam to the rigorous criticism it deserves. Obviously, a system whereby a father can marry off his child daughter is totally open to the exploitation of girls, ruining their youths and lives. All this is halal, certainly not prohibited, because of the prophet.

Captain Corea

Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul

Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:13 am Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

I have already demonstrated to you that there is no evidence that Mohammed warrants a clinical diagnosis of pedophilia, yet you persist in this wrongheaded point.

There are other definitions of pedophilia and sexual abuse against children - I'm sure we could find a nice spot for him somewhere in one of those.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:10 am Post subject:

Anyway, let's move on from Mohammed violating a little girl of nine. It's time for me to maliciously spread some more hatred. The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur�anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150) Another gem of moral teaching that has stood the test of time; "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.� (Bukhari 34:432) I drove them along until I brought them to Abu Bakr who bestowed that girl upon me as a prize. So we arrived in Medina. I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) met me in the street and said: �Give me that girl.� (Sahih Muslim 4345) Raping women captured in battle! Nowadays this kind of behaviour is rightfully described as a war crime.

CyberGuy

Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Location: Daejeon, Korea

Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:48 pm Post subject:

Captain Corea wrote:

bacasper wrote:

I have already demonstrated to you that there is no evidence that Mohammed warrants a clinical diagnosis of pedophilia, yet you persist in this wrongheaded point.

There are other definitions of pedophilia and sexual abuse against children - I'm sure we could find a nice spot for him somewhere in one of those.

Hmm, and who formulated those definitions? AS THE AGE OF CONSENT AS A RULE, IS A RECENT IDEA GRADUALLY APPLIED SOLELY ON OBJECTIVE BASIS OF AGE. (Hence ignoring if the person is physically grown up, AND ignoring if the person is mentally mature too. All you have to do is to be of 12 or 13 years of age and you are free to fornicate no matter you are mentally/physically mature or not).

If EACH and EVERY person just few centuries ago did not have any problem with marriage in young age then NO DEFINITION OF PEDOPHILIA same as today's existed in the old times.

Furthermore, girls and boys at the age of 9 or 10 in the old times were not drooling like you were at the age of 10 just few years ago. Now a days, if people even at the age of 15 or 16 are so immature then it does not mean people were always like that.

A similar example is: People in the old times used to fight wars by slaughtering the enemies by swords, decapitate them or harshly penalize them in front of public. The act of slaughter was surely a very graphic scene full of blood and gore. Now for the youngsters of today, they might pee in their pants while watching such a scene, so you might like to set certain age limits (like they have in video games too). BUT in the old times, the witnessing public did not have age limits like that. However people might have subjective restrictions on their children.

Another perspective today is: Watching blood and gore may have bad effect on elder people too, but guess what? in the old times people had no choice except to fight with swords so they did slaughter people by their own hands as they did not have freakin AK47, or did they?

Now we come back to this age of "herd of womenish-men and manly-women whining all over the internet" condemning all and all of their forefathers of Pedophilia just because THEY NOW see their own children drooling around at such an older age at which the people of old times used to be pretty grown up physically as well as mentally.

Prophet Muhammad (SAW), is being portrayed in your retarded minds as if all the people of old times had strict age of consent, profound age of being able to watch graphics scenes etc. and Muhammad who was fighting wars with his enemies and married a young woman?

Study some good books of history and come out of your geeky womenish-men's civilization from today's gay-lobe. This talk is never gonna end as your utter dumb selfishness will keep on prevailing in the name of point-making wars.

Captain Corea wrote:

- I'm sure we could find a nice spot for him somewhere in one of those.

I am sure a man from old times would fit you people under the definition of: Narrow-minded intellectual-looking retards who spend most of their time in crawling over internet forums than reading some good history in order to have a bigger picture. The retards who speak before they try to study and know what is being referenced by the person disagreeing with them. People who would say ANYTHING to prove the correctness of their version of morality being perceived from their cockroach holes.

See example of the army of such unthankful retards this person is talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoGYx35ypus

I am not sure if you will keep on taking and giving offenses for the sake of offenses or will you try to really convince yourself to watch this debate to get another perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq6Mdu8idic

CG.

P.S. (All of my arguments were not directed to offend Captain Corea specifically. So they should be taken in general sense. Offense to everybody? I hope not.)

CyberGuy

Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Location: Daejeon, Korea

Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:50 pm Post subject:

Malicious hatred of bigverne has been promptly replied in the video I referred: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq6Mdu8idic If you cant watch/read what I am answering then better not bother accusing and asking for answers. Note: the Christian debater is a professor while the Muslim debater is just a student.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:59 am Post subject:

CyberGuy wrote:

Malicious hatred of bigverne has been promptly replied in the video I referred:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq6Mdu8idic
If you cant watch/read what I am answering then better not bother accusing and asking for answers.

Note: the Christian debater is a professor while the Muslim debater is just a student.

If you think I'm going to sit through a 2 hour propaganda video for your desert cult you're very much mistaken. Very interesting that you have no answer to Mohammed's sanctioning of raping women captured in battle. Face it, your 'prophet' has all the moral fibre of Ratko Mladic.

But keep on with your propaganda. It is obvious to everyone that you are the living embodiment of why people don't like Islam.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13, 14 Next
Page 12 of 14

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe