Nice try, Loudmouth....

You employ "sweetie" and "Love" as a tactic when you are debating women.

I have no problem being called either term in the normal course of life. However, if any of the men I might have recourse to debate in real life stooped to calling me "sweetie" or "Love" in the middle of debate, it would be seen for what it was - a sexist tactic.

I find it amusing that you, who hold yourself up as the great defender of women and equality, regularly deploys terms of endearment as a finishing kicker only when you are "debating" women.

If you're such a fan of equality (as you represent yourself to be) why not use them for the fellas as well?

Dear Constance,

I'm not really into mud-slinging,
and nobody likes an illogical or
abusive debater. When you say something
intelligent - I shall happily discuss
the issues with you.

Cheers.

Dear Poirot,

I'm consistently suprised by some of the downright
personal attacks that some posters indulge in when
opinions disagree with theirs. But I guess in public
forums we should expect it especially when dealing with
emotive subjects and issues such as religion and
politics.

Still, words do hurt no matter what anyone says.
The scars are that much deeper.

See you on another thread

Lexi: Now you're simply stirring.

No I wasn’t. I was looking for a simple answer to a simple answer. You have answered that question in the Negative. That is NO. Religious schools are another question. I don’t regards “Equal Rights “ across the board as stirring either. One of the big things I would like to see is equal pay for equal work, that includes juniors doing adult work.
Lexi: Why on earth would you assume that either Poirot or myself would want the Quran taught in
Australian public schools?

You have just spoken for yourself & confirmed NO. You have to let Poirot speak for herself. Csteel is another matter. I don’t expect a direct answer from either of them, just more diversion.

Lexi: Neither Poirot nor myself have ever advocated Islamic fundamentalism.

Maybe you haven’t but, when asked, Poirot, & csteel, always divert the question as instructed by the Islamic Fundamental handbook on Deceit & Lying. I am not stirring here either, just stating a known & all too obvious fact.

Lexi: At the same time we don't believe in taring an entire group of very diverse people with the actions of a few

Democracy is the Rule by many over the few. Islam is the Rule by a few (All with different agendas) over the Many. If the Islamic many are or want to be free to think for themselves then they quickly get stoned in a public place as a lesson to toe the official line “Or Else.”

Lexi: attempts to tag Poirot and myself with all sorts of nonsensical labels - you shall both be subsequently ignored.

Nonsensical Labels. We all have all done that at some time or other, especially those other two.

Please, let’s have a sensible debate. Answering each others questions directly & not diverting them. Let’s discus the pros & cons of a this subject honestly. Loudmouth & I have put forward facts, as we have found them, & have asked for an explanation of these factors. All we have ever received in return is diversion & abuse. Lexi, in your last post you have done that. You have explained your position. Thank you. Now, if we can get the same from Poirot & csteel, wouldn’t that be wonderful.

Good diversions, Poirot - you the man !

As for this:

" .... you are tarring everyone with the same brush. This thread like all the others on the subject follows exactly that model. You pull out the nastiest and most diabolical examples and post them as evidence that all Muslims follow that template....if that isn't your purpose, why do you bother to post them?"

Evidence, please, Poirot. Otherwise it's just ad hominem, isn't it, really ?

'Sweetie' and 'love' - sorry, I do genuinely like you and Lexi, for some reason. I guess I just love feisty women. I wish blokes had that sort of drive, no offense, Jayb.

Lexi,

As for this 'tarring with the same brush' thing:

For the record, I'm aware of some of the major differences within Islam, between Sunni and Shia for one thing, and the various other developments and schisms, Sufis, Ahmadiyas, Ismailites and Druze, Alawites, etc.

I'm aware that many of these strands have been persecuted over the centuries by the dominant Sunni and Shia, not to mention Christians as well.

I'm aware of the intersection between ethnicity/language and branch of Islam that may be operating in any particular case. I'm aware that Hazara are not fleeing their own country because they are Muslim fundamentalists but precisely to get away from the murderous Taliban fundamentalists.

Murderous ? What else would you call at least one atrocity each week against Hazara ? By the 'religion of peace' ?

I certainly don't claim to be an expert, this is not really my thing. But I know an attack on human rights when I see it, particularly on the rights of women.

On cultural or whatever grounds, you may choose to remain silent about the rights of Muslim men over Muslim women, but with respect, I don't think that is in any way helpful to our sisters.

Or has universalism, universal human rights, concern for others unlike ourselves, become so yesterday ? God, I'm so out of touch.

Respects,

Joe