Only those who dislike the truth will throw funny looks. It's good that they do, that way one knows who likes the truth and who feels threatened by it so I don't mind the funny looks.
Anyway, got another statistic for your claims perchance? (You know how well that goes for you by now) Are you talking about the 180 Million Muslims in India, or the Hindus or Sikhs? Good luck in finding honor killings statistics for countries like India and its glorious neighbor, Pakistan. Women's rights are in a lousy state in both countries, to such a degree that the number of honor killings isn't remotely accurately known and can only be estimated, especially in the backwards rural regions. One must point out that even though the vast majority of honor killing victims are women some victims are men, in most cases the partners of the female victims.
You are right when you say that it isn't a problem exclusive to Muslims but quite massively wrong when you say it's not a problem with a greater Muslim proportions. According to the following study that includes honor killings from 29 different countries, 91% of the perpetrators were Muslims:

http://www.meforum.org/2646/worldwide-trends-in-honor-killings

But of course, this has nothing to do with religion. As usual, all individual exceptions, all pure coincidence, etc etc.
One can argue that the Quran does not permit honor killings at all, however it's quite easy to take stuff from the hadiths and use them as justification to conduct a little stoning, very popular e.g. with rural tribal "courts" in Pakistan.

In the case of Switzerland, 100% of the honor killings were done by Muslim perpetrators.
A few examples (Wikipedia lists only one but sadly there were more, often they don't get publicized or don't get classified as honor killings)

2010: Pakistani guy killed his teenage daughter with an axe because she was dating a Christian boyfriend. Motto: If you do an honor killing, do it in style.
2011: Moroccan guy stabbed wife 29 times with kitchen knife before slicing her throat - gotta keep it halal after all. He got only a 10 years prison sentence (thanks to bonkers psychiatrist), with good behavior this can end up being less.
2011: Macedonian guns down his wife and adult daughter. They dared to live like Western women, can't have that! The firearm was illegal because as a Macedonian he was legally not allowed to own a gun. Weapon laws are just so racist, aren't they.

It's quite noteworthy that the politically correct Western press often tries to hide the religious identity of the perpetrators so as to not "offend" the Muslim community (when non-Muslims kill Muslims however, then the fact that the victims were Muslims suddenly matters).
Seems not offending the perpetrators is a greater concern than to feel bad for the victims. And if that wasn't enough insult added to injury, Muslim honor killers occasionally get a legal bonus for being Muslim. Example: In 2013, an Afghan German killed his pregnant ex-girlfriend with 3 knife stabs and the judges said that the perpetrator was in a "dilemma due to his cultural and religious background" and that they could therefor not see " any particular grave culpability".
This sort of shit is near unbelievable, how do you suppose the family of the victim is feeling about that? In this case, the family seemed not to be involved in the murder, sad thing is it's often the girl's own families that plan and execute the killing together. It's just wonderful when families do things together.

Meaningless to you because you didn't like what she said. The main problem imho isn't that not enough Muslims are condemning terror attacks (still missing your condemnation of the Charlie Hebdo attacks btw..), I see a greater problem when moderate Muslims don't say anything when Islamists demand special rights here in the West.
Do you want me to make a list of all the things radical Muslims demand here? It's endless and beggars belief. I'm mainly upset about the Western governments that enable this nonsense but I find it disconcerting that moderate Muslims look on and do pretty much nothing when radicals go around and demand schools to put halal meat on the menu for everyone, remove pork from the menu for everyone, cover all the pictures of pigs from a school book with stickers, refuse to send their daughter to swimming classes, demanding not to be buried next to "unclean infidels" - and these are some of the more harmless demands. This sort of crap sows resentment Muslims in the general population and even the moderate Muslims who never asked for this stuff are losing popularity as a result, seems unfair yes but they do little to nothing to oppose their radical fellow believers, on the contrary taking a cavalier attitude towards such "minor issues".
It's a shame because Muslims enjoy more freedom in Western Europe than they enjoy in any Muslim country but when freedoms of the non-Muslim population get compromised because of radical Muslims, the moderates look the other way.
Again, I primarily blame the Western governments for giving in to all kinds of nonsense under the guise of tolerance. Tolerance must be had is their motto, except for non-Muslims of course because they won't complain as much so it's easier to take away their freedoms. And when the population lashes back and e.g. bans minarets then the government acts all surprised and shocked, how dare these unruly peasants decide against the politically correct establishment, preposterous!

Cute? You didn't seem to know it, so I thought I'd bring attention to that. Your lack of reply made me suspect you realised that, so I didn't want to push it. But hey, okay, so you're saying your arguing simply for the position of "I am right, babark is wrong".

Is your position "quite clear"? Really? Out of all the examples I gave you to condemn in the other thread, you either justified, dismissed or explained away every one of them. You didn't condemn a SINGLE one. I guess that means you secretly (or openly?) condone all of them?
My position is also quite clear to anyone who doesn't automatically assume the worst in someone they consider beneath themselves (implicitly worthy of pity or denigration).

Crewdroog said (and you quoted) "I'm an atheist, however I wouldn't shit on someone's religion just cause I don't happen to believe in a god(s). However, if that religion is causing harm to others, then fuck yeah I'm going to call them out on it. Christian's used the bible to keep blacks slaves, keep homosexuals from marrying, women subservient and priests molested children. fuck yeah i'm gonna bash them. but not their faith. the actions, not the faith. Same is going on with Islam."
Your response: "NONONONONONO! ISLAM IS MUCH WORSE! ISLAM IS THE EVILEST!"

It is absolutely amazing I have to KEEP saying this (as I did in the other thread as well- odd that we've shifted that discussion here, but I suppose a thread dedicated to bigotry is more suitable than a thread talking about radicalism in the media), but how about you keep your condescending attitude to yourself? I love a good discussion and back and forth and all, but when the guy I'm talking to is constantly making remarks about how he pities me, and I'm brainwashed, I'm lazy, I'm incapable, and "nice try", making meta-judgements based on the text of my response instead of addressing the actual text itself, it gets annoying.
This is why I asked the question I asked in the other thread: What exactly are you arguing for? What position are you arguing against? What do you think I am arguing for that you are arguing against?
Because your current attitude suggests you don't have any such thing in mind, your objective is simply to "win" at what you perceive is a competition of some sort.

I asked you two simple questions, you didn't answer. It's common courtesy to answer questions first before having your own answered. Besides, if you would answer my two questions that would help me to answer your questions. I repeated my questions here, and you're still not answering. There's two possibilities:
1.) It's a passive aggressive reaction and you're not interested in the discussion, in which case please say it so that I don't have to waste any more time. It's perfectly ok if you don't want a discussion, no one shall be forced to it.
2.) You're too chicken to openly state your opinion, not in front of me but in front of people in general and are therefor trying to dodge the questions at all costs.

I quite elaborately and sincerely debated all your points (even the more ludicrous tangential ones that have non sequitur painted all across them with big fat letters), which is far more than you are doing for me.
You want to play the childish game called "I won't condemn what you asked me to condemn so I'll throw some stuff into the discussion that YOU have to condemn, now we're even ha!"
And when that backfires you portray yourself as the victim, you even resorted to drawing the "I'm a brown person and automatically the victim" card. Which is one of the cheapest moves ever, and didn't make much sense anyway since I'm brown too. Unless you want to say you're more brown than me and therefor deserve to play the card more than me, in which case I could call you a racist for saying I'm not brown enough. Do you not realize how silly this is? But even that I patiently address. Of course, now I'm condescending, and so on.

Surely you have been using the internet for quite a while so therefor you should know that sometimes when you argue with people, they are going to have actual arguments - even if that's inconvenient for you.


Your position isn't clear at all, that's why I asked those two questions. Repeating them one more time:

1.) Do you, babark, think that there should be a law that prohibits people from drawing Muhammad, e.g. in a cartoon where he's naked and gets sodomized by an elephant god or whoever?
2.) Do you think the two brothers who shot up the Charlie Hebdo office and its staff acted in any way, shape or form justifiably?

I kindly ask you to answer, it's crucial to the discussion both in the other thread and here.

Before making crude summaries, read my response again if you failed to understand it the first time around:
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/muhammad_sex_simulator_2015/post218

Besides, crewdroog can perfectly answer for herself whenever she wants to say anything, but then again you're obviously trying to shield yourself by shoving someone else in front of you for your own defense. This would probably work, if I was super stupid or hadn't already attended kindergarten.

If you're so annoyed by me, the condescending pompous ass that I am that degrades you so gravely at every opportunity (by having arguments), then why did you follow me here? Why not reply in the other thread, where you still owe me answers?
This thread here is by definition bound to offend you regardless of my participation in it, yet instead of addressing the game this thread is originally about and against which you're entirely free to voice your discontent, your only purpose here is to get yet more "abuse" from me? Voluntarily? You must be a masochist but let me be clear, I find zero enjoyment in picking on anyone, just saying what I think and there's no guarantee you're going to like everything or any of it.

As I wrote above, it's your turn to answer my 2 questions since they were asked first, this is commonly accepted procedure in a conversation.
I'll give you an advance and say this: I have no interest in winning any competition. I know full well the number one rule of internet discussions which is "there is no winner". Nor am I getting a rise out of making you annoyed, this I could achieve with far less effort. I see a topic I have an opinion about and I express that opinion. You're welcome to do the same but don't cry like a little baby when you meet resistance. Would you rather I was dishonest and treating you with silk gloves or do you want honesty? If it's the former, feel free talk to someone else because I'll be the entirely wrong conversation partner for you.

:D So your answer is "No, but I asked you first!"?
How would answering your questions help you answer mine? I asked you what you are talking about. What your purpose is in this "debate", what you are opposing. Does that mean you don't know the answer to any of those, and were just talking aimlessly, but if I answer now, you'll know?
So it's quite the opposite- answering my question is fundamental to the basis of whatever discussion we're having. It could render your questions absolutely irrelevant and meaningless dependant on certain answers.
Which is why I asked it.

I'm sorry, it seems you didn't understand what happened. I wasn't offering you "points" to debate. I gave some real-life things that happened, and asked "Do you condemn these?".
You have yet to condemn any of them. Using your logic, since you don't explicitly condemn them, you must condone them.

I don't remember initiating any argument with anyone. Either way, interesting that you consider "You're brainwashed" "You're lazy" "You're a coward" "You're incapable" to be actual arguments.

Go back to where I mentioned Crewdroog. I wasn't speaking for her or trying to "shove someone else in front of me for my own defense".

Follow you? You mean when you brought me up in a discussion for lulz with "Oh look at this guy's stupid arguments that I'm misrepresenting! Laugh at them with me so that we can together dismiss them without addressing them!"?
Also, "owe" you answers? :D
You "owe" me answers too...

I hate to be mature for a second but we seriously need to let this thread die.

That's right, you don't like to hear that there are people out there like my friend who, despite being deeply religious, doesn't get aggressive or violent when I insult his religion, thereby displaying -true- tolerance. Not the fake kind that is only convenient when it's demanded but inconvenient when it needs to be given.

As for narrow-minded, it's more like clear-minded but narrow-minded suits me if it means that my mind is only open to useful opinions and closed to bad ideas, I fail to see how that is anything negative.

Xenophobia, well same things as with bigotry or "Islamophobia". All these terms are describing irrational dislikes, and I can guarantee you that I don't dislike anything irrationally so sorry to disappoint but I can't accept your well meant compliment.

Lastly but not leastly, self-righteous. Hm, let's see, it's defined as "a feeling or display of (usually smug) moral superiority derived from a sense that one's beliefs, actions, or affiliations are of greater virtue than those of the average person."

Well I am definitely and admittedly smug when confronted with a certain type of person but I don't believe my beliefs are greater than those of the average person, just yours. So I might again not qualify for your wonderful compliment. Maybe you have some more labels, or maybe you have some useful arguments and points?

Could explain why you have already capitulated yet aren't aware of it, mental self-defense mechanism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
I recommend counseling for that.

How exactly is a video of a openly gay reformist Muslim woman constructively talking about issues within the Muslim community and how to solve things a shit thing? Before you collectively label everything I "dig up" as shit, maybe care to watch it first and then come back and make an informed comment that adds to the discussion.

As for you still having your head, if you're a cowering dhimmi and play ball you won't get beheaded, so no need for you to worry you'll be perfectly fine in any scenario.

You can of course hold any personal opinion you like of Cristopher Hitchens but if you want to discredit what he says as bullshit in one sentence, you're going to have to try a lot harder and bring arguments. Hitchens can act like a twat at times but if he speaks the truth then his twatness doesn't change the validity of his words.

Tough luck, I happen to be every bit as much offended by political Islam as it could ever be by anything I say. They have no monopoly on being insulted. I draw the line whenever religion aka institutionalized fear and insanity crosses the border between private matters and being in any way compulsory for everybody.

I think we can agree upon the fact that blowing up is unacceptable and as for being extremely offended, as I said I am equally offended by religion and those who try to make it mandatory for everybody as they can ever be offended by me.

As for "pushing moderates towards extremism", that they do themselves. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, I take no accountability whatsoever when any moderate moves even an inch more towards extremism after hearing anything I've said, nor is the Muhammad game here or its creator in any ways accountable for such shifts.
People have to take responsibility for what they freely decide to do and stop portraying themselves as victims.

I disagree, because today the visual representation of Muhammad is clearly the one "blasphemy" that will net the most death threats, not only voiced but carried out. The risk the creator of this game is taking is larger and in no way comparable to if he had chosen any other religious figure, be it Jesus or anyone. And that is exactly the point of this game, and the reason why it needs to exist despite being silly and lacking in quality.

Haven't stopped, but I had backlog to attend to. My apologies :)
Didn't want to leave your thread unattended, basically we can be happy that for once you were taking about a game other than Sacrifice so we are grateful for that! I still don't have Sacrifice btw, it's somewhere on the to-do list but lots of backlog that comes before that. It shall be rectified one day, no worries.

Yet another question and no answers.

I actually accommodated you by partially answering your question in post 273 but since you've repeatedly refused to answer my questions and yet again demonstrate unwillingness to 1.) state where you stand on blasphemy laws about Muhammad and 2.) whether the Charlie Hebdo attacks were justified or not, there is no point in arguing with you any further.

It speaks very poorly for you, and you've lost what little basic respect I still had for you.

From all the labels I put on you I clearly forgot you're schizoparanoid, you seek counseling for that too.
You know your post are getting floor rolling material more and more, keep it coming. :^D

Not feeling well today?
Things must be very serious if you start proposing this, when was your last tentacle screening?

I think it is a very mature thing to give special needs children a place where they can play in the mud and get dirty.
Hey maybe playing with them isn't a bad idea either.

I just wanted to make sure my fellow starspawn, fishmen and their food is doing okay.
While I'm here, Do you have a minute to talk about our Dark Lord and Saviour Cthulhu?

Speaking of which,
a Cthulhu, which/who is raping a hentai pig/sheep/girl/boy simulator would probably set a milestone in tentacle porn. Alas it probably already exists somewhere...

W...what?... TinyE?

*Checks content of head*

His Manure-level has reached a critical low!

Don't worry Tiny, we got this! We're going to fill that head with fresh crap!

Oh my god hurry up, he is already developing common sense!!!

It appears that picking random scary and complicated sounding words you find in the dictionary are your very last hope at trying to give a semblance of human intelligence. I think I'll give you a little break.

*pats you on the shoulder*

Be careful or I'm going to start hitting you up for games again! :P

Ooops. did I just say that in the general forum? XD

Is it an AAA game?! :D

BTW he didn't find that in the dictionary because it's not a real word.