|
WhoreMods -> RE: Pakistani Men Can Now “Lightly Beat” Their Wives Who Decline Sex or Refuse to Wear What Their Mates (6/8/2016 7:40:25 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Awareness
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
I said a reasoned critique, not a a single American fuckwit talking nonsense. I was the one who used the phrase "regressive left", so I'm perfectly entitled to use a critique from the regressive left to illustrate my original point which is that Charlie Hebdo is not an example of the regressive left - because if they were, they'd be pandering to Islamic aggression and making apologies for it.
Also, you'd have to be some kind of complete fucking moron to think that Muslims would attack a magazine devoted to making excuses for them. Oh, wait - I forgot who I was talking to.
quote:
Still, if you think that dragging the content of the magazine into a general whine about all satire aimed at moslems being inherently racist trumps a history of generalised satire at all sorts of targets that goes back to the early '70s, that's your problem.
However, assuming that this bizarre argument you've derived from a regressive lefty (not your usual choice of source, I note) bears any resemblance to reality, how do you reconcile the fact that you're now insisting the magazine has a racist agenda with your previous (unsubstantiated) arguments that its only issue is anti-Religious?
Your source is clearly pandering to the moslems. Charlie Hebdo (note the order of the d and b, btw) definitely isn't. You don't get attacked by fundamentalists if you're an apologist. That was MY point you fucking idiot. I was the one who said trying to use Charlie Hebdo as a counter-argument to the notion that the regressive left panders to Muslims was a FUCKING stupid thing to do. Jesus Christ, you are unbelievably intellectually incompetent.
quote:
(Nice work on changing your story and hoping that nobody will notice because you couldn't find any evidence to support your original argument, though. I'm glad I'm far too ignorant to resort to that sort of desperate evasiveness myself. )
You don't fucking understand my original argument you village idiot - fuck, you don't even understand your own because you're now making the same point I did.
Christ, how the hell do you function in everyday life if you can't keep a single thought straight in your head? You're on fucking medication aren't you?
Remember saying this?
quote:
I don't think you understand how this works. You're the one claiming there's more to Charlie Hedbo beyond its obvious anti-religious bigotry, it's up to you to support that claim. (post 33)
Or this?
quote:
Actually, it's "magazine dedicated to anti-religious bigotry". (post 31)
Your inability to construct a coherent argument and follow it through, rather than insisting that what you said doesn't mean what you said means when you realise your argument is unsustainable, does call your claims of intellectual superiority into doubt.
|
|
|
|
