• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack in... NZ?

He claimed the manager said one of the team members were offended by his comments and that Knight-Wagener didn't fit in with the team.

"Loose lips sink ships. It is a fair reason for dismissing someone, in my opinion, but only if it is an ongoing issue," Knight-Wagener said.

"He said he knew as soon as the words came out of his mouth that he'd said the wrong thing.

"I was just remarking on what I'd heard on the news ... and as I said it, I thought it's just appalling the way it sounds as it's coming out of my mouth and I thought I'm gonna stop talking about it." "

This is an appalling response to an erudite man.

RIP free speech in New Zealand, but no doubt the New Zealand prefects on the thread will call me to account.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12216465
 
uke2se said:
What does this have to do with the fact that a white supremacist and terrorist killed 50 muslims?
Click to expand...
What is the point of ISF?
It is of overriding importance that all things are discussed on this forum, which I have come to view as the most liberal board, and where nuance is not demolished by the thundering finger waggers.
 
Milo Yiannopoulos Fan Loses Job

You forgot this bit:

When questioned whether he was a right-wing radical, Knight-Wagener said he wasn't sure what right or left wing was but he was a supporter of Milo Yiannopoulos - a far-right British speaker who was last week banned from Australia after he blamed the Christchurch terror attack on "extremist leftism and barbaric, alien religious cultures".He said he liked Yiannopoulus due to his opinion which created debates. However, he said he had no problem with Muslims, didn't condone the attack and said people shouldn't be dying.
Tradie's Muslim comments get him axed from new job (NZ Herald, March 26, 2019)
Click to expand...


A very "erudite man", indeed!
Yes, that's all white supremacists do: 'create debates'. Except, of course, when they kill people ...
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
What is the point of ISF?
It is of overriding importance that all things are discussed on this forum, which I have come to view as the most liberal board, and where nuance is not demolished by the thundering finger waggers.
Click to expand...

Do we need to discuss everything in a thread about a white supremacist terrorist act?

Do you think it's vital that we discuss your problems with Islam in such a thread?
 
He obviously does, and you're infringing on his freedom of speech if you question it.
A white supremacist attack on Muslims is obviously an occasion for victim blaming.
 
Let the conspiracy theories begin.

Jews outraged after mosque leader blames Mossad for Christchurch attack

ETA: Apparently all manifestos written by homicidal maniacs are not created equal. The difference you ask ?

Manifesto crosses a line that Mein Kampf didn't - Chief Censor David Shanks

While Mein Kampf outlines Hitler's desire to see the Jewish people exterminated, it doesn't say how.
Click to expand...

What was I saying about news articles upthread ?

Terrorist Attacks by Vehicle Fast Facts
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
In NZ it is OK for Muslims to treat their women as second class citizens because Maoris did it first. Is that really the argument you want to make?

In this regard I really don't give a flying **** about your country. I am against women being treated as second class citizens in any country and by any group of people. Choosing to show support for the shooting victims by wearing a symbol of the oppression of women is jot something I support under any circumstances. And I will continue to say so to anyone who argues otherwise.
Click to expand...
The problem here is that you have run so far up the "progressive" tree that you are failing to see that you are becoming the very thing you object to.

There is exactly no difference between a man telling a women she has to wear a hijab or sit at the back, and a man telling her that she is not allowed to wear a hijab or sit at the back. Both are talking away the woman's advocacy and replacing it with what they think is right.

True progressiveness is when you accept people and their beliefs, regardless of whether you agree with those beliefs yourself.

Progressiveness is not just forcing a different set of rules on people and thus violating their rights in a whole different way.

If you think that allowing people to conduct their religion in a way that is lawful and traditional to them, and not telling people what clothing they can and can't wear is not progressive, and you think that women being seated to the back of a meeting in one particular religion, is treating them like second class citizens, then I have to say, first I am worried should you ever get a hint of power, and secondly you seem to have rather a lack of 1st world problems to deal with. I am sure that without trying very hard you can find a lot of actual real issues where women are being treated as second class citizens without looking very hard, and many of those things will be in your own country.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
The problem here is that you have run so far up the "progressive" tree that you are failing to see that you are becoming the very thing you object to.

There is exactly no difference between a man telling a women she has to wear a hijab or sit at the back, and a man telling her that she is not allowed to wear a hijab or sit at the back. Both are talking away the woman's advocacy and replacing it with what they think is right.

True progressiveness is when you accept people and their beliefs, regardless of whether you agree with those beliefs yourself.

Progressiveness is not just forcing a different set of rules on people and thus violating their rights in a whole different way.

If you think that allowing people to conduct their religion in a way that is lawful and traditional to them, and not telling people what clothing they can and can't wear is not progressive, and you think that women being seated to the back of a meeting in one particular religion, is treating them like second class citizens, then I have to say, first I am worried should you ever get a hint of power, and secondly you seem to have rather a lack of 1st world problems to deal with. I am sure that without trying very hard you can find a lot of actual real issues where women are being treated as second class citizens without looking very hard, and many of those things will be in your own country.
Click to expand...

LOL at "true progressive" and the moronic tripe in this post.

Most religions are bigoted and sexist in some form, as a skeptic with 3 daughters (one who happens to be gay) I despise them.

Islam is one of the worst, Christianity not far behind.

A better world has Muslim woman treated the same as men, the best world has no religion at all.

Stop making excuses for idiotic backward thinking, it's embarrassing to read.
 
PhantomWolf said:
The problem here is that you have run so far up the "progressive" tree that you are failing to see that you are becoming the very thing you object to.
Click to expand...

There is exactly no difference between a man telling a women she has to wear a hijab or sit at the back, and a man telling her that she is not allowed to wear a hijab or sit at the back. Both are talking away the woman's advocacy and replacing it with what they think is right.
Click to expand...

Of course there is no difference. My point is that women should wear what and sit where they damn well please. Men should not be telling women anything.

True progressiveness is when you accept people and their beliefs, regardless of whether you agree with those beliefs yourself.

Progressiveness is not just forcing a different set of rules on people and thus violating their rights in a whole different way.

If you think that allowing people to conduct their religion in a way that is lawful and traditional to them, and not telling people what clothing they can and can't wear is not progressive, and you think that women being seated to the back of a meeting in one particular religion, is treating them like second class citizens, then I have to say, first I am worried should you ever get a hint of power, and secondly you seem to have rather a lack of 1st world problems to deal with. I am sure that without trying very hard you can find a lot of actual real issues where women are being treated as second class citizens without looking very hard, and many of those things will be in your own country.
Click to expand...

You seem hung up on that word 'progressive'. It has nothing to do with what I am saying. If you want to use a single word that describes my position I suggest 'equality'.

There is no country in the world where women are treated as completely equal to men. Every country needs to improve in this regard.

This thread is about NZ which I believe is a first world country, Yet there are links upthread to information that some widows of the shooting victims do not know how to function in your society without their husbands. This is a direct result of their religion treating them as second class citizens. This is also not the trivial situation you are implying. If you think such conditions in your country are acceptable and do not need to change you are a part of the problem.

Also, what ProBonoShill said.
 
Last edited:
ProBonoShill said:
LOL at "true progressive" and the moronic tripe in this post.

Most religions are bigoted and sexist in some form, as a skeptic with 3 daughters (one who happens to be gay) I despise them.

Islam is one of the worst, Christianity not far behind.

A better world has Muslim woman treated the same as men, the best world has no religion at all.

Stop making excuses for idiotic backward thinking, it's embarrassing to read.
Click to expand...

Wow, the irony is amazing, you apparently read my post with so little understanding that you then went on to prove me exactly right.

Consider this for a moment. How is your hatred for the way Religious extremists live and your desire to make laws to force them to live the way you dictate to be right any different from their hatred of the way you live and their desire to make laws to force you to live the way they dictate to be right?
 
PhantomWolf said:
Wow, the irony is amazing, you apparently read my post with so little understanding that you then went on to prove me exactly right.

Consider this for a moment. How is your hatred for the way Religious extremists live and your desire to make laws to force them to live the way you dictate to be right any different from their hatred of the way you live and their desire to make laws to force you to live the way they dictate to be right?
Click to expand...

Your nonsensical post is there for all to see, void of logic and skepticism.

Consider this for a moment. How is your hatred for the way Religious extremists live and your desire to make laws to force them to live the way you dictate to be right any different from their hatred of the way you live and their desire to make laws to force you to live the way they dictate to be right?
Click to expand...

This is quite possibly the most ignorant thing I've ever read here and that's astonishing.

The difference? I believe in a civilized society with equal rights for women and homosexuals.

Are you a poster boy for Saudi Arabia?
 
PhantomWolf said:
There is exactly no difference between a man telling a women she has to wear a hijab or sit at the back, and a man telling her that she is not allowed to wear a hijab or sit at the back. Both are talking away the woman's advocacy and replacing it with what they think is right.
Click to expand...

I agree with this 100%, in principle. But there comes an issue when women are being forced by their families and communities to, for instance, wear the hijab. It's no longer a personal choice that they are making, but one imposed on them by those around them. When, or at least if, this is happening in your country, do you think that there's a role for government in preventing that oppression, and if so, how?

It reminds me to some extent of the issue of men having multiple wives. In principle it seems like everyone agreed to the situation, so why should government prevent people from making personal choices? In reality you find for instance fundamentalist Mormon communities, where old men force young girls to marry them, and those girls have no real choice in the matter. How do we prevent that sort of oppression? By outlawing what seems at first inspection to be a simple matter of personal choice, but in reality is more complicated than that.

I'm not sure what the right course of action is with respect to hijab, and certainly when it is actually voluntary I don't have any issues with women who choose to wear it, any more than fundamentalist jews who wear their cultural garb. But doesn't society have a duty to protect those women and girls for whom it is not voluntary?
 
sadhatter said:
If that is the direction you need to take the debate in, go for it, but that is not what is happening.

Their extremists inspired other extremists to attack them. Their extremists also run countries without the checks and balances the extremist in chief has. These are important parts in the discussions.
Click to expand...

What’s that got to do with the people killed in the mosques in New Zealand?
 
ProBonoShill said:
Your nonsensical post is there for all to see, void of logic and skepticism.
Click to expand...

I'm entirely happy for people to see my posts, I am quite glad they can see yours too and watch the rage in them when the truth is pointed out to you

This is quite possibly the most ignorant thing I've ever read here and that's astonishing.

The difference? I believe in a civilized society with equal rights for women and homosexuals.
Click to expand...

I never said that you didn't believe in equal rights for women and homosexuals, I'm saying that your ideas are bigoted because you don't believe in religious people having equal rights in pursuing their religion as they see fit. Well actually I didn't say that, you already said it for me.

Your best argument is "But I'm right!" Well guess what, the extremists on the other side think that they are right too, what grants your form of extremism the right to tell others how to live any more than theirs does? The answer is nothing, you're both in the wrong for trying to demand others live your way and in that, both as bad as each other.

Are you a poster boy for Saudi Arabia?
Click to expand...

Wow, I don't think I have ever managed to see anyone commit three fallacies in a single short sentence before, but you managed it.

1) Ad Hominem - The best you have is to attack me personally? Not only is that a fallacy, but I believe that attacking the poster and not the argument is against the rules here. Seems to be Strike one on your argument

2) Poisoning the Well. You know full well that Saudi Arabian has absolutely zero to do with this discussion. Bringing it in it nothing more than a clumsy and silly attempt to poison the well. Strike Two for your argument.

3) Strawman - Finally you are trying to make my argument that extremists on both sides are as bad as each other into an case of if I refuse to support your extremest views I have to be a supporter of the other side's extremist views. That is clearly not what I am saying and everyone here but apparently you can read that. I'm saying that your form of tyranny is just as bad as their form of tyranny. That no one has any right to make rules and laws that stop others from living as they will, as long as they do so without harm or to other's rights to live as they will.

Yes, that means I am against both those that make it law to force the wearing of religious garb, and those that make it law to prevent the wearing of religious garb. Both are an infringement on people's right to live and dress as they will, and both are tyrannical, bigoted, and wrong. And with that you have Strike Three.
 
Roboramma said:
I agree with this 100%, in principle. But there comes an issue when women are being forced by their families and communities to, for instance, wear the hijab. It's no longer a personal choice that they are making, but one imposed on them by those around them. When, or at least if, this is happening in your country, do you think that there's a role for government in preventing that oppression, and if so, how?

It reminds me to some extent of the issue of men having multiple wives. In principle it seems like everyone agreed to the situation, so why should government prevent people from making personal choices? In reality you find for instance fundamentalist Mormon communities, where old men force young girls to marry them, and those girls have no real choice in the matter. How do we prevent that sort of oppression? By outlawing what seems at first inspection to be a simple matter of personal choice, but in reality is more complicated than that.

I'm not sure what the right course of action is with respect to hijab, and certainly when it is actually voluntary I don't have any issues with women who choose to wear it, any more than fundamentalist jews who wear their cultural garb. But doesn't society have a duty to protect those women and girls for whom it is not voluntary?
Click to expand...

You can't solve oppression with more oppression, you can only do it via education. Teaching those that are forcing their women to wear head coverings, regardless of the religion, that they need to allow those women to make the choice of if they would want to do so on their own. By creating a law like France's, all that is happening is that there is now a new and different oppression from a different source. That is no better then what was happening to start with. Why should a women be made a criminal for her choice to wear clothing she wants to wear? That question applies equally to France and places like Saudi Arabia and Iran.

As to the polygamy thing, I believe that in most places it's illegal, so regardless of the membership and such, they are actually breaking a law that wasn't aimed at them when it was set.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
You can't solve oppression with more oppression, you can only do it via education. Teaching those that are forcing their women to wear head coverings, regardless of the religion, that they need to allow those women to make the choice of if they would want to do so on their own. By creating a law like France's, all that is happening is that there is now a new and different oppression from a different source. That is no better then what was happening to start with. Why should a women be made a criminal for her choice to wear clothing she wants to wear? That question applies equally to France and places like Saudi Arabia and Iran.

As to the polygamy thing, I believe that in most places it's illegal, so regardless of the membership and such, they are actually breaking a law that wasn't aimed at them when it was set.
Click to expand...

Why aren't polygamy laws oppressive? The logic in the two cases appears to be the same to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom