poirot: You do talk some rubbish at times, Loudmouth.

See, that's my point. You get shown reality, told where the truth lies. You read it in the papers & see it on TV every day & still we are called dissenters. We are told we talk rubbish because we refuse to toe the Politically Correct line.

The Politically Correct, Do-Gooders, Greenie Whackers are so wrapped in cotton wool & falling through cloud they have a white out. They don't even know which way is up for all their Sociologist Uni education.

I've told you before. If you are not Muslim you are an animal & can & should be shot. This was told to me by an Imam in Malaysia. He was chasing some Orang Asli out of town. I asked him why & that's what he told me. No Allah, Animal. You can shoot. It's Ok. So it is with all Muslims, even the supposedly tame ones.

Are you prepared to change your religion or get one or be killed? Become a Muslim because that's the choice you or your children will get once they get to around 30% of the population. No more going to the beach, No more BBQ's, no more going shopping with the girls on your own with out a male relation escort.

Enjoy your life while you can because with you & your ilks’ help it won't be enjoyable for long.

Hi Poirot,

I'm talking rubbish ? How do you mean ? Help me by giving an example.

Otherwise your comment is really just an empty ad hominem, isn't it ?

Do you have an argument that you can put up against whatever I wrote ?

Do you have any principles at all that one can come to grips with, in mutual agreement or otherwise ?

Cheers,

Joe

Jayb & Loudmouth,

Some good incisive questions –I’m impressed
It’s not often we see Monsieur Poirot lost for words.

Bravo I say, bravo!

Sorry to disappoint you, SPQR, but Monsieur Poirot was not lost for words. He was unavoidably detained due to OLO's posting limits : )

Loudmouth,

This is what I wrote to Jayb:

"I'm not offended by you, Jayb. You display an attitude that will always seek to inflame debate. You seek difference while wise people seek common ground."

It was meant (as you are no doubt cognizant) as a general observation on methods humans might employ in an attempt to co-exist peaceably.

You, as is your wont, picked up a portion of it and proceeded to run off at the mouth true to form.

My reference to rubbish was directed at your style, wherein your first and third paragraphs were comprised of your ACME brand strawmen - and you finished it off with your own ad hom.

So my referral to garbage emanates from watching you and Jayb stomping around at the end of a very long thread blowing your horns and massing the hounds (shame - only SPQR turned up : )

For instance, Joe, if you weren't quite so keen to construct strawmen to provoke me, we could probably find some "common ground" to move ahead. But you don't wish to engage in constructive dialogue or you wouldn't employ the tactics you do. I've said that I don't support fundamentalism. Our differences seem to stem from my pointing out that humans tend to engage in odium even under the guise of enlightened values. From that, my initial stance, your have gone out of your way to paint me as a supporter of the most heinous atrocities. That is disingenuous in the extreme.

Why would you (or Jayb) expect a civil response when you start out so provocatively?

In the realm of constructive discourse -
Strawmen + provocation = rubbish.....IMO

Poirot,

I'm sorry, I may have misunderstood you - I thought you were talking about 'common ground' with Islamists.

I'm sure that you and I can find common ground - we both, after all, claim to be on the Left rather than the Right. And I'm sure that you support women's rights, and young girls' rights, in Islamic societies. I even suspect that you would support the extension as much as possible, of Enlightenment values, and their constant positive modification and improvement, to all people in all societies.

And I'm pretty sure that both of us would be executed under an Islamist regime, quick-smart.

But the question still is: if there really can be no common ground between position A, women's rights, the rule of law and the right to criticise; and position B, a cramping of women's rights, law derived from some Book, and a consequent prohibition on free speech - do we buckle and give in ?

For example, do we, as someone glibly suggested above, ban blasphemous speech, or do we allow speech which some may find offensive (not to mention beheadable) ?

Do we support complete equality for men and women, boys and girls ? Or should men rule over women, and, for example, have the right to machine-gun pretty women who won't come across, on bogus grounds of adultery ?

Do we observe and implement, without fear or favour, a relatively impartial body of law - as much as possible, in a bourgeois society and capitalist economy and polity ? Or do we give priority to the interpretations of assertions in a book ?

No, on those issues, there cannot, in my view, be 'common ground'.

What do you think, Poirot ? After more than 600 postings, can we get down to the nitty-gritty ?

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,

Thank you for your more measured tone : )

I think your points have merit and ,as you can see, I'm much more amenable when not being provoked. Unfortunately, I'm saturated as far as this thread goes - and need to concentrate on a few things, so I'll decline for now, Joe.

(it's a busy life...while I've been posting here, I've also been communicating by walkie-talkie with number one son ensconced in a cupboard looking for wayward parts of a toy. I know you'll appreciate, in that case, my competence in multi-tasking...over and out!)

Cheers : )