201. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253773 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 11:11 pm

Jesus86, a fellow Oxbrigder! Come on, together we can take these guys down! Then we can duke it out between us.

N.B.: Bonzai response to you over on the "When Atheists Attack" thread...

202. Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space

Comment #253771 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Don_Quix, if that is hte reference, then it is rather neatly done. :-3

203. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253769 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 11:04 pm

Funny you should mentione the Hiporcratic oath, Laurie. It says this:

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.

As to your hypothetical example, of course you, if you were a teacher, would have the right not to teach science or whatever. And serious schools would be free not to hie you, and individual parents would be free not to send their children to you.

nalfeshnee, that is all irrelevant. There is only one question: Is the foetus a human life? If it isn't, then no justification is needed. If it is, then no justification is sufficient.

204. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253549 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Steve, that sophistry isn't enough, isn't nearly enough. Is it or is it not human? If not why not? When does it become human?

Goldy, sorry, but that's a ridiculous argument. Countries that prohibit murder still have murder.

Deciuys could you refresh my memory what you're taking about? *is confused - it's late and I didn't sleep much last night*

205. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253542 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Anyway, decius, what is with this hostilit? We are talking about a matter that noone can seriously deny is, at least morally questionable. I say the goverment has no business forcing doctor's consciences in such as case. What is so difficult about that idea?

206. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253541 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 2:25 pm

decius, I wasn't erecting a straw man, I thought you were talking about the doctors' plot (which, strangely, tends to stick in the mind when someone mentions Muslim doctors).

Now, as regards your other points, in a private system, which is what we should have, I would indeed support their right to do so. I would also support everyone else's right to avoid Muslim doctors like the plague, as it were.

I've written quite a bit about this before; if I dig it up, I'll refer you to it.

207. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253536 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Steve, here is the embryo at 30 days. The brain is already developing. If hybrots have the kind of computational power they have, how much does the following have?

http://www.visembryo.com/baby/14.html

Sorry, Steve, you'll have to bring a shedload more evidence than that.

208. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253534 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Quetz, no, it's a matter of facing up to what we're talking about.

If I was defending the war in Iraq, would anyone complain if pictures of dead civilians were posted?

No, they wouldn't, and, more to the point, neither would I.

Sorry, this is euphemistic nonsense. I submit that if the abortionist case crumbles at having to look at what's being killed, then it's bullshit from the start.


EDIT: Sarg, I, vaguely, had no beef with aborton, as I had never thought about it. Then I studied embryology, neuroscience etc. I was able to realize that what I'd learnt had implications elsewhere.

209. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253532 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 2:17 pm

decius, those Muslim doctors were trying to murder large numbers of people. I am sorry if this elementary distinction is beyond you.

As I said: if I want jihadis put to death, everyone runs screaming about how howwid and nasty and nazi and fascist I am. If I want to spare the lives of unborn children, I get the same treatment.

Make up your minds, you can't have it both ways, and you're wrong twice.

Incidentally, the science doens't support your position. If you want to take a look at embryological development, it's here:

http://www.visembryo.com/baby/index.html


Take a browse and learn something.

210. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253521 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Unless one can show that personality can exist without neural substrate, then there is rock-solid evidence that one is not dealing with infants, but with the precursors of infants - something with no mind, awareness, or knowledge of its surrounding - effectively little more than pure reflexes.

There are neurones developing, neurones that will form the basis of the human mind. Again, it is you who have to prove that this isn't human. To say that you haven't reached that standard is to say the least of it. By 25 days, the CNS's basis has developed, the neural tube developes even earlier. Again, if ten thousand can do as much as they can, how much more can the rudimentary brain of, say, a one month foetus do?

211. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253514 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Quine, again, take an actual look of a sonogram. Look at the records of embryology. Then tell me that this isn't an unborn child.

The linguistic form "unborn child" is specifically chosen to help the emotions of our species outweigh reason

No, Quine, it isn't. It's to stop those who like to hide behind euphemism and find nice words for nasty things. It's to force people to face up to what they are, in fact, discussing and advocating.

Punkt aus basta.

212. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253504 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Steve, as a matter of fact I have: see te hybrot example, again.

But the ball is very firmly in your court in this case. You are against the death penalty because you don't "believe in a perfect legal system" - and yet you want abortion, without rocksolid evidence that we're not dealing with infant lives here?

I'm not being snide or taking a dig - for once - when I say that I have trouble understanding this mindset.

213. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253498 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 1:48 pm

There is a much more cynical argument to be made here:

http://www.theinterim.com/2004/june/steyn.html

214. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253494 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Sorry, Steve, interesting analogy, but no proof. Based on those studies, and the endless information about embryology, it seems that the concept of unborn child is accurate.

If you want abortion, you'd better have rocksolid evidence that we're not dealing with human life here.

I really do have trouble understanding the mentality that approves of the death penalty for unborn children, but not convicted murderers and jihadists.

215. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253492 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Well, PaulJ, I'm afraid that I have to simply say that I don't think that it should be legal in the first place. And I certainly don't believe you may force a doctor to take part in that if he doesn't wish too.

I think that the draft, even in a time of war, is hideous. Now, if it is grotesque, even in a time of war, to force people to kill enemy soldiers, how much more hideous is it to force them to kill unborn children?

216. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253486 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Meaning that abortion could be prohibited entirely.

By George, I think he's got it!

To those on the other side of this debate, the burden of proof is on you to prove, beyond far more than reasonable doubt that we're not dealing with a human life here.

Seriously, am I the only one who thinks that nalfeshnee's position has flown the coop? That killing babies who are demonstrably and provably capable of life beyond the womb is out by any standard of morality you care to mention?

Steve, the hybrots prove that you can get rudimentary calculation ability, learning ability, consciousness, with ten thousand rat neurones arranged haphazardly on a chip. What can we expect from far more than that number of human neurones, in a developing brain?

Sorry, that puts is well into the 'reasonable doubt' territory. We don't kill humans for this reason.

Here's the Hitch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcYv9hAkenI

217. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253476 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 1:20 pm

nalfeshnee, the foetus is viable at that stage. Got that? You are talking about infanticide.

That's the beginning and the end of it. There is no other question that matters.

218. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253474 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 1:19 pm

I think we've had this argument before, about the problems of socialized healthcare.

Just as regards the first sentence though, I'm going to have to paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke here: "Just how much do you have to hate free will to approve of the death penalty for unborn children, but not convicted jihaidsts?"

Steve, you're a biologist, much like myself. Have you looked at the studies that are coming out of neuroscience now? Look up those things called "hybrots". And also take a look at the stages of embryological development.

219. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253469 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Sorry if I used the wrong term. I was referring to the level of embryonic (or blastocytic?) development before a central nervous system forms, whenever that is.

Even so, an embryo with even a partially-formed central nervous system would still likely experience less pain and suffering than an adult human.

A blastocyst is the only thing useful for making ES cells - it's 100 or so undifferentiated cells.

The second sentence, though, is irrelevant. We are dealing with human life here.

220. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253467 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Also, am I the only one who sees something wrong about forcing doctors to violate their conscience?

221. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253463 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 1:06 pm

I'm going to have to weigh in here. I am anti-abortion for the same reason the Hitch is: we really are dealing with "unborn infants" here. That's embryologically, what they are.

Since someone mentioned 'late term abortion'. That's actually early term infanticide. There are enough hideous cases where the baby is still alive after being 'aborted'. Not wishing to be partisan about this, but Barack Obama was one of the few people opposed to a law that would have made it mandatory to save the kids life.

For example, an embryo cannot experience pain or suffering because it does not have a central nervous system. An adult human being dying from a terminal illness can experience pain and suffering.

Don_quix, you are making a mistake: it's blastocysts that cannot feel pain. By every standard measurable, embryos do.

222. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253434 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Bonzai, I observe once more that on this site, if you want to see religion in general disappear, it's all smiles. If you want one religion in particular to disappear, well, then people look at you funny (no, not you specifically; it just seemed like a good moment to bring it up).

Right at the outset, could I please, please ask you to read the following:

http://carnageandculture.blogspot.com/2008/05/mark-steyn-mod-squad.html

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004034.php

Please read them, especially the second. They cover alot of your questions.

What does it suppose to mean? I don't expect someone from a Muslim background to make a big point in renouncing his Muslimhood and thereby cutting off all family ties. "Being Muslim" is not just about Islam, it is also a cultural thing.Most people are not ideologically obsessed like that. They may not be very religious overall but still want to keep the Ramadan, etc.

May I quote you on this? This is exactly the problem I've been discussing about Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only Muslim. You don't know when that won't revert to full blown Shariah Islam. And even if it doesn with one lot of individuals, what about their children? How do we know that they won't want their Islam a little stronger? Which is exactly what's happened with all the Muslim populations we have been foolish enough to allow into our own countries.

By declaring indiscriminate war on all Muslims you risk driving them to the radicals because they see themselves threaten as a group. T

I am not declaring war. They declared this war, fourteen centuries ago. And it is Islam, not I, that groups all Muslims as part of the Muslim nation, the Ummah. Yes, I know that not all think that way - but how can you tell the difference? How can an Infidel tell the difference between a genuinely kaffirized Muslim and a true Muslim practicing taqqiya?

Since deception and lies are such a deep part of Islam, and since further 'moderate Muslims' can revert, manichurian-candidate style, to fully-fledged alleigance to Islam, how is an infidel to tell, without prolonged study? And can we really endure the risks that Muslim influx into the West brings with it?

The reason I'm so gloomy, despite the fact that what you write is eminently reasonable (I'm not being sarcastic - it is), is that these cases have been made before. Even such a high mind as Snouck Hurgronje pointed out exactly what you are, about a hundred years ago. Yet here we are again, facing the Jihad.

It's this infernal dualism within Islam, and the hold it has on its believers, and the way vague muslims and muslim populations can revert to fully blown madness that has made Islam such an enduring menace.

223. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253257 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 8:35 am

Styrer, lay off the manga-geeks! I'm one of them. On the other hand, Kyoshiro to Towa no Sora (or whatever) is worrying in the extreme...

224. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253249 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 8:27 am

Yes, I said that the way I view Muslims - i.e. the considerable majority of those following Islam , with respect to this question is as follows. Once again, and I am getting tired of saying it, that isn't the same thing as saying they're all jihadis.

----

Bonzai, I understand where you're coming from. I get this alot - that, when I discuss Islamic theology and jurisprudence, I'm agreeing with bin Laden or whomever. That misses the point. The Jihadis and their mouthpieces wil always have better access to Muslim audiences than I will. Where I see a problem, they'll find ten more.

That's the reason I don't think in terms of integration, which I, to be honest, seems like a lost cause. I think in terms of apostasy, and how we might maximize that. I really don't expect them to speak out against the Jihad as Muslims, I realize that that's largely impossible. That's why I think we need to help those who genuinely do want a decent life based on respect for human rights to break free of the mental prison of Islam.

225. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253242 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 8:16 am

hawt please don't confuse my "seawater" choice in this case as any kind of generalized cheerleading. I could send you article after article about what's wrong in Iraq.

I take Bill Whittle's view:

We're going to look at what both men believe in respect to deterrence: whether their positions increase or decrease the likelihood of further attacks on the US.

That's it. That's all. That's the sum total of this election for me. We've survived boobs and crooks and idiots and charlatans of all stripes and colors, struggled through booms and recessions, surpluses and deficits, and wars on poverty and drugs and crime and General Public Lasciviousness and come through just fine, and we will again.

But the nuclear destruction of the heart of Manhattan, or Long Beach Harbor, or the Capital mall - these things are serious business and as Sam Johnson once said, the prospect of being hanged in the morning tends to focus the mind.

226. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253236 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 8:06 am

Shoot, sorry about that Mitchell. I didn't think.

227. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253233 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 8:00 am

mitch do me a favor and read my post to titania, would you? Learn how to draw accurate distinctions.

Also, I know of that group you linked to. They're part of the real "Tiny Minority of Extremists" who try to stop the Jihad. On the other hand, maybe you'd like to contrast them with the Canadian Islamic Conference?

I did address that point, in the post you quoted, but hey, why let prosaic facts stop you?

228. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253223 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 7:51 am

What Sciros said.

229. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253219 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 7:49 am

America fought against and helped to crush Nazism in Europe and Imperialist Japanese under a Democratic president. The U.S. has been perpetually in some kind of military conflict ever since no matter who was in office. The idea that the U.S. is just gonna roll over for bad guys under Democrats is absolute BULL, especially because there is scarcely any real difference between the parties in the way they actually behave once they are in Washington and our economy is war-based.

hawt4dawk I should like to thank you for being the first person who has addressed this issue in a language of reason and facts.

However, my impressions are based on what's going on right now.

230. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253214 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 7:46 am

Fanusi, I apologize if I have misrepresented you

Then, perhaps, you now understand why I let guys like Steve & others have it, and get incensed why people complain about my being mean to them?

I get tired having to continually repeat myself and having my words distorted and being lied about. Surprisingly enough, I am also capable of getting offended, not least by unthinking condescension like: "there's hope for Fanusi".

I think that it may be possible that Styrer's sudden and inexplicable switches may have something to do with being treated in a similar way.

My impressions were that you had said several times that the moderates allow the jihadis to flourish and were not doing enough to stop them and therefore were somehow complicit.

That statement, with which I do agree, is not equivalent to saying they're all jihadis. The moderate Muslims do allow the fanatics to flourish, and they are complicit, given that they stonewall any attempt at inquiry into this field. They're worse than useless in this fight.

That is why, instead of hoping for some 'moderate Muslim' resistance which will never come, I say we should pay attention to the defectors from the House of Submission: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Walid Shoebat, Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan...

231. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253196 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 7:31 am

Quetz, I'm trying to avoid it. Yet imagine the reaction if I said that Titania thought Islam wasn't a problem, and we needn't take any steps. I'd get buried under an outcry.

232. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253190 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 7:26 am

Haven't you said many times that there are no moderate Muslims and that a mere scratch of a Muslim will bring out the jihadist in him? Or words to that effect?

Quotation please, to back that statement up. Take your time; you'll need it. I have made my position on the 'moderate Muslim' very clear, numerous times. Will it be necessary for me to repeat myself, again? Or will that be a waste of time, as it'll only be ignored once more?

And you want me to lay off others, Titania, when I get this kind of distortion all the time?

233. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253188 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 7:24 am

I'm now going to have to do the decent thing and stick up for Styrer, who strikes me as getting unjustly pasted. What, exactly, has he said that's so harsh or nasty? I'm reading these characterizations of him, but I find it hard to locate any specifics.

234. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253181 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 7:15 am

Titania, given your recent comments that I lump all Muslims together, I was struck by reading the following on JihadWatch:

The movie makes no such "inference"; indeed, it goes out of its way to rule out any such conclusion. And in any case, its very existence shows up the glaring absence, seven years after 9/11, of any Muslim anti-terror effort. Every -- and I do mean every -- effort at raising awareness of and resistance to the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism is met with claims from Muslim groups that all Muslims are being lumped together and labeled as terrorists, no matter how strenuously this is denied in the piece they're criticizing. We are supposed to believe that the Muslim groups that are complaining abhor jihad terrorism, but they resent that the presentation in question goes too far and tars all Muslims. I myself get this all the time, although I have never said at any time -- simply because it wouldn't be true -- that all Muslims are pursuing the Islamic supremacist agenda.

235. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253175 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 7:08 am

Quetz, I think it's because the alternative seems to be some sort of a "Philosopher-King" advocacy. Anyone got any third-way suggestions?

236. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253166 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 6:51 am

*stetches* Here is the reason why I'm so damn fanatical about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMLJJEDDDGc

237. Without God

Comment #253158 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 6:43 am

Sarg, you seem to have caught me undressed. I read that quote attributed to Virgil.

I've read the Aenaid, though. It's a very good read.

238. Without God

Comment #253143 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 6:21 am

Well, Quetz, you made me want to throw something at you, so rather well in fact. :-)

239. Without God

Comment #253141 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 6:17 am

Sarg, true, you probably can't carry it off. :-) Anyway, I do think we shouldn't disparage religious art, any more than we disparage Virgil, just because we don't believe in Juno any more:

To every man on earth
Death cometh soon or late
And how may a man die better
Than facing fearful odds
Defending the ashes of his fathers
And the temples of his gods?

My fathers' ashes are scattered over the eastern plains, and my temples are the Observatory and the Laboratory.

240. Without God

Comment #253138 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 6:13 am

A point worth making is that we don't need to give up the treasures of religion to give up believing in it. I love the great cathedrals, I still enjoy reading the King James Bible, and I like a little blood and thunder rhetoric in my literature (John Donne, Milton and Dante do very, very nicely).]

As regards the heroes, there is a field that seems neglected: that of technological and industrial achievement. Have you ever really looked at an industrial plant? Have you ever thought just what it took to create such wonder, to tame the blind and mindless forces of nature for our use?

Or have you ever looked at an aeroplane in a cloudless sky? Look at one of those capsules and think of how the human forms within them would be utterly annihilated, were it not for the triumph of millenia keeping them alive?

If we want purpose and glory, there is far, far more the in the world of science and industry.

241. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253101 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 4:54 am

As a matter of fact, yes. I find it extremely tiring to have to listen to constant defamation, and then get complaints when I push back.

I also think we both know whom I'm talking about.

242. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #253100 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 4:52 am

Incidentally, I'm relieved to hear that your father was not hurt the other day. Also, congratulations on giving up smoking. I gave up about 7 years ago. Not easy.

Thanks on both counts, Rachel. :-) I'll find out who's the local representative and write to them.

A third tack, useful for lighting a fire under their behind, is to point to the resurgence of neo-fascist parties (witness Le Pen in France, the BNP in Britain etc.) and point out that unless they address the legitimate concerns of their constituents, things will get alot worse.

243. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253096 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 4:46 am

The only other suggestion I have made is that you not bring it up constantly as the only consideration people should have on any issue and that you choose a thread where you can espouse all you want.

For the third time, Titania I have no problems with that, if you ask Certain People to show me some courtesy in return. Once more, I brought up the subject of Iranian nuclear weapons, which seems to trump every other consideration. It was then that this thread got derailed.

244. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #253085 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 4:35 am

Rachel, that's a very good idea. I'm involved with the local iranian diaspora, but that's something I hadn't thought of. THanks.

245. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253079 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 4:29 am

It is melodramatic. You want to compare me with the Crusaders and the Inquisitors? Come on, that is just not serious.

You do have the right to say what you want and I have the right to call you on how ineffective your tactics are to convince people.

Then I'll throw the ball into your court. How do you wish me to express myself?

246. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253066 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 4:21 am

Titania,

Fanusi, I am sorry, but I was thinking of you. You must admit some of your proposals are precisely those used by Crusaders, Inquisitionists

Please spare me the melodrama. The crusaders seized captured turkish children, raised them high on pikes and cried "These hostages will harm Christian children!" After the greek war of independence, it was said that not a Mosque was left standing or a Muslim left living. In the second world war, two hundred thousand german women and children were burned alive with phosphorus. That's what real fanaticism is. and I will add that for all the hysterical screeching, there is noone on this board who could stand against that if it came to it.

Which is the point I keep emphasizing. If - or, as it looks ever more likely, when - we see a major catastrophe, all bets are off. It won't just be a matter of that unthinkable idea of expelling guys like Abu Hamza. It'll be blood-feud: you kill one of ours, we kill a thousand of yours. Or ten thousand, or a million, or whatever.

Think that's insane? Imagine what would happen if CBN terrorism would strike a Western city. Imagine the fear and terror and distrust that would pour forth in the wake of that. Imagine people knowing that the mere presence of Muslims in your community put you at that risk.

Now imagine how that would play out.

I have said, and this is always ignored, that the choice is between harsh now or unthinkable later.

You see, it's unfortunate, but a moral principle cannot stand on its own. It needs a whole social structure to support it. And lacking that, it will perish.

Now, my "Inquisatorial" advocacy is the end of Muslim immigration and the expulsion of loud-mouth Shariah supporters (e.g. Abu Hamza). In almost any ear of human history, guys like Abu Hamza wouldn't just be expelled, they'd be put to death for treason. So forgive me if I don't think too highly of this melodramatic characterization.

Incidentally, I knew full well you were thinking of me. I was merely pointing out that it's in fact the likes of Steve who are fanatically wedded to a faith in certain precepts. "You can't say we should stop Muslim immigration!" "Why not?" "Because you can't, that's why!"

Incidentally, I have explained my distinction between Islam and Muslims many, many times and I am fed to the teeth with it being ignored.

Again, PLEASE stop and drop the Steve bashing and, more importantly, the baiting. And I will add Stephen Fry to the list of people you should not mention if you want people to listen to you.

Okay, why the hell shouldn't I give a little payback? And why shouldn't I mention Stephen Fry when I was, in fact, being specifically complimentary.

I find it extremely revealing that there is an outcry about my snobbishness, and about my saying what, exactly, is in store for Stephen Fry and Elton John at the hands of those undefined "citizens" that Steve & hiz boyz spend all their time defending, but there is almost zero comment about what those, again, undefined "citizens" are saying, preaching and preparing. Instead I and my views are considered the only threat. This is simply not serious.

I also notice that - hah - there's plenty of "advice" being given to this Grand Inquisitor, yours truly, about what he should and should not say. The irony is just dripping off the walls.

247. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253009 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 2:40 am

Fair enough. Then how should I respond when people start complaining that the facts I bring to the table are mean and hurtful?

248. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253003 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 2:35 am

Vaal, I wasn't having a go at Stephen Fry (whom I like, and who also seems to get it about Islam...). I was merely pointing out the way these things are heading.

249. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253000 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 2:31 am

Quetz, duly noted. Then how do you suggest I respond?

250. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252995 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 2:25 am

Oh, for goodness sakes, Corylus, I used the 'skippety-skip' comment before I even knew Steve was gay, and I'd use that language with anyone.

One of the reasons I'm "homosnobbic" is the irritating tendency to think that being gay is in any way relevant.