Now you say! But one never knows with you.

BTW Jagdeep is a bigot only so far as you and refresh equate all muslim people with islamic extremism – surely I have heard you two strongly protesting that that is wholesale ‘demonisation’ ?

twist turn smoke screen
waffle waffle waffle

=>”Jai, Didn’t stop you from posting lad-trash in #31 in spite of not reading Soumaya’s article though dude.”

Mountains, molehills, context, satire, etcetera.

=>”But you were the one who jumped up in defence of the sexism in this thread.”

No, I just said that saying a woman is pretty does not automatically make the man concerned a “sexist”. It’s not an insult, and neither does it automatically imply that the man is ignoring the woman’s intellectual faculties & opinions and is reducing her to her physical appearance, even though his comments may obviously be inappropriate. It depends on the context in which the man makes such statements and his motivations for doing so, along with how the woman herself feels about the guy making the remark.

If a man completely ignores the woman’s opinions and just says “She’s pretty”, it can mean he either is sexist or he just doesn’t have an opinion himself on her views.

Angelina Jolie has appeared on television numerous times talking about her charity work, and the fact that large numbers of guys may end up just ogling her instead of listening to her views doesn’t automatically make them misogynists. In some cases, yes, but in others, not necessarily.

See? Two can play at this game. I am doing it as a parody though. You seem to actually mean and believe it.

Well, I am amazed at the concern you show against ad hominem attacks on individuals given your recent displays of sniping at Chairwoman, ostensibly for her ‘position on Israel’. Four words: Hypocrite, kettle, pot, black.

But the comparison does not stand because (a) this is not ad hominem (b) her points have been addressed repeeatedly on this thread and on CiF.

Let’s get one thing clear — this is not an assertion of ‘conspiracy’ — it is a simple and plain statement of an ideology. It is describing and criticising the ideological position from which assertions are made. I have stated this more than once now, but you seem unable to grasp this — I assume it is because you don’t want to accept it, but I can’t keep saying it again and again everytime you scramble and fumble a response.

Er, I wouldn’t pointers on what sexism is or isn’t from the likes of Anas. His take on the death penalty just blew me away:

One of the stupidest grounds for defending capital punishment has to be the oft-quoted rationale of “a life for a life.” I overheard one old geezer arguing for the death penalty to another on exactly this basis in the local Salvation Army store while I was rumaging for bargains. Now I’ve heard this quote plenty of times before, but maybe because of my currently reduced mental capacity it stuck with me and the more I thought about it, the more it became a completely moronic thing to say. If I kill someone and am then executed, well then surely someone is then going to be actively responsible for taking my life, which makes them a candidate for having their lives terminated by the logic of “a life for a life”, and so on, and so on…where does it stop? No, if you are going to kill someone, it has to be because God told you to or has given you permission.

Do you mean, Refresh, that we should call Soumaya on the carpet for her fascisto-theocratic obsessions?

The skank isn’t interested in dialogue or reasoned responses; her only concern is the protection and sheltering of her clandestine islamist agenda.

Other than that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING under her headscarf.

Were one to hold a rally in support of Pakistan’s reformed rape laws, do you think Soumaya would attend?

No, Soumaya would be “out of town”.

Were one to hold a rally supporting the right of Iranian women to dress as they please ( Soumaya’s big on “choice” ya know), do you think she’d attend.

No, Soumaya would be “out of town”.

Were one to hold a rally denouncing Saudi Arabia’s lack of relgious freedom, do you think Soumaya…the fearless advocate for relgious freedom….would attend?

No, Soumaya would be “out of town”.

So why dignify and legitimise this women’s agenda of theocratic enslavement with a reasoned response? Our reasoned responses to her ill-reasoned “thoughts” constitute the fuel, the carburant of islamist propaganda. All Soumaya can do is kite her Bronze Age programme on the back of the progressive narrative, and in order for her to continue to do so she absolutely needs our participation in the “debate”.

Let her toddle off and seethe in silence.

I didn’t accuse you of sexism, if you read carefully. But you were the one who jumped up in defence of the sexism in this thread.

The world asks, yeah? And? So what? It’s a fairly straightforward representation of that ideology’s precepts. Get over your pompous self.

How dare you call yourself progressive.

=>”This is you in #31: Sorry folks, I don’t have anything constructive to add to the debate and I haven’t read her article (yet)
” etc

Which was followed by the first sentence of my post #58:

“Okay, I’ve had a chance to read through Soumaya’s article.”

Please read other commenters’ posts carefully before deciding to accuse them of various allegations. Thank you.

See Jagdeep’s

“Something like that — which makes all the sheen about community cohesion and bridge building disingenuous — they despise the country and society to begin with. There is no end to this. It is a laying down of markers — those that disagree are against the struggle, collaborators, kulaks.”

Eh, direct challenges have been posed on practically every Ghannoushi article at CiF for her to clarify her MB links. There’s a strong whiff of dishonesty about her refusal to do so. Myself, i make up my mind based on what i read and unfortunately, i have read too many of her articles- she’s too islamist for me.

This is you in #112:
I have no idea what you’re referring to by using the word “again”. There is no precedent for me commenting about something on PP without comprehensively reading the source material beforehand.

This is you in #31:
Sorry folks, I don’t have anything constructive to add to the debate and I haven’t read her article (yet)

And as for not recognising the silly sexism – don’t tell me you’re claiming cultural illiteracy?