Atheism, Christianity, ISIS, Islam, Moderate Muslims, Religion, Terrorism

JE SUIS CHARLIE

First I would like to start by saying The Prophet Muhammad was a paedophile who married a 6 year old named Aisha (if you don’t believe me google his or her name) – he also married another 12 women (top guy to base your faith on – says a lot about you, yes that was aimed at all Muslims, not just the crazy ones. At least Jesus was a hippie for fuck sake; there are no redeeming qualities in a successful war-lord who spread Islam by killing thousands maybe hundreds of thousands brutally, marrying children & proclaiming that women are worth half as much as men due to their “deficiency in intellect”. You don’t have to be a jihadist, if you idolise this man you are repugnant – end of fucking statement. Google everything I say – you find one incorrect statement and I will eat my hat. I double dare you. ( you might learn something) If I were to start a religion with Jimmy Saville as the Prophet, I would be seen as a monster, and he wasn’t a war-lord! – well take what you will from that statement. Are you anxious? Offended? Worried for my safety? Good! Someone on facebook today said this:

“Terrible news from paris! Hope this doesn’t increase racial tensions here though, the gunmen today dont represent islam in the same way that the paedophile priests don’t represent the catholic church! Cant judge the majority by a minority”

Terrible news it is! Good start.

“racial tensions”

Here is where the trouble begins; is Christianity a race? The answer is no, therefore Islam is not a race either. Words have usages and meanings – let’s only use them when we know what they’re for. What she really means is people who may look “Muslimy” I guess people think Muslims are brown people from the Middle-East. Well, I also hope no one who looks a bit brown is attacked for this, but as we know this hardly ever happens – It did happen at the time of Argo, in a few cases; even after 9/11, attacks against random brown people were few and far between. So this is not an issue for concern.

“the gunmen today dont represent islam in the same way that the paedophile priests don’t represent the catholic church!”

Incorrect and here is why – you have committed the false equivalence logical fallacy. At no point in the Bible does it state that old men, or priests for that matter, should or can rape little boys. Not in any interpretation – it simply is not there. Worry not, there are many horrendous things – but not that. Therefore those priests can blame their rapes on themselves and not their faith. Meanwhile in the Quran (a book which the person making the claim has not read so is not qualified to speak on) it clearly states a Muslim (even the normys) can kill non Muslims; furthermore it states (just as the bible does) that you are forbidden to draw or create an image of the Prophet. Yet we see pictures of Jesus on the wall in church and no one is killed. The same law is found within the Quran (most of the Quran is a carbon copy of the New Testament anyway) but they (Muslims) actually follow it. They really believe it, they are not pretend believers like the people we know who put “Christian” on their job application because they’ve never done anything else. Yes, Muslims who bomb schools of non-believers, who fly planes into buildings in New York, or attack chocolate shops in Australia, or murder cartoonists in France, or murder cartoonists in Amsterdamn, are not “extreme” they are Muslim, they are doing exactly what their book tells them too. They are reading a page from their almighty which says “kill this man” and they are saying “Okay I will do that now” nothing extreme here. Are you “extreme” when you say bless you if someone sneezes? Of course not because as a child you are told to. Are you extreme when you put the holy communion directly into your mouth? Of course not because that is exactly what you are told to do. Are you extreme if you kill a cartoonist who drew the Prophet when you are told in Islam to kill anyone who does this? OF COURSE NOT. I don’t want to patronise, I actually wish these people would educate themselves. I get that from a position of ignorance, it may look racist, and from public scrutiny you may cower as no one wants to be labelled that way. You have an opportunity to learn, a chance to find out what the hell you are talking about instead of being a load of hot air. I know nothing of Chinese cookery, I leave that to the ones educated in that field. I know Islam. If you think these attacks are not Islamic – you do not know Islam.

If you wonder why I shout so loud against Islam & religion in general, or for free speech, or for logic and reason – Or why I stick up for the common good whilst the rest of you make excuses for Islam or religion in general – it’s because I will get enough time to be a silent coward or an ignorant fool when I am in the grave. As long as I have a breath in my body I am going to use it to be a menace to any indecency and corruption I see.

Islam is not a religion of peace: it is a religion of division, rape, child marriage, slavery, misogyny, fear, warmongering, violence in every sense of the word and needs to be stood against. Lots of “Muslims” are nice peaceful people – they don’t really follow the religion like they should, just like most “Catholics” in the U.K. who only go to church for Christmas or the odd wedding. The real Catholics are the priests who live by the rule of God, or stone their children to death for being unruly; The real Muslims are the men who kill cartoonists for drawing a picture, or the ones who do not let a woman who is menstruating stand in the same room as the Holy Quran so as not to tarnish it. (google it) The person on facebook is lovely, she is smart, friendly & is trying to be as nice as possible to other people; that is commendable. She, on this point is disastrously wrong. She has been fed a meme of Islamophobia which makes absolutely no logical sense. She – like many millions out there are afraid to say boo to a goose in case they offend. Soon they will be scared to call someone who is dying of obesity obese: Soon they will fear not to tell a smoker that they are damaging their health, soon they will fear to tell a naughty child off as to not offend him, or not blame criminals for their actions and just ask them all to go free because Russel Brand probably told them. At that point we might as well accept that human intellect peaked a long time ago, and we should crawl back into the earth like the cowards we have become. Until then…

I am Jordan Smith

I am Edmond Dantes

I am Winston Smith

I am Charlie Hebdo

#Je Suis Charlie

Rest in Peace

Advertisements
Standard

11 thoughts on “JE SUIS CHARLIE

  1. Its a shame when people write rubbish like this says:

    Pretty sure when I read it Muslims learn from the Qur’an that God’s objective in creating the human race with different communities, religions, ethnicity, etc. was that they should relate to each other peacefully amid this diversity. They also learn that war is hateful, that it is a blessing to transform fear into a sense of safety that Paradise, not this earthly life alone, is the perfect and absolute Land of Peace; and that the cause of peace is encouraged throughout the Qur’an, through working for the elimination of poverty, social injustice, oppression, greed, over-consumption and similar excesses. Even more importantly, the Qur’an states that it is God’s will for peoples on this earth to remain different, including that they will follow different religions and God tells the Prophet Muhammad that most people will not believe, “even if you are eager that they should.”

    So stop talking absolute bollocks please.

    Like

    • Never heard such nonsense in all my days; I am in work now, when home I will post links to the evidence, funny how your reply has no details proving anything I said wrong-because it is all true. You are simply lying about your religion. Please post evidence or kindly fuck off – I think your wife hasn’t been subjecated enough today, or your child fucking prophet could use some attention.

      Like

  2. Again, evidence showing his peaceful prophet was a war monger – and his best reply is an attempt at an argument from authority logical fallacy. Embarrassing. Am I a Muslim? Only an idiot would ask that after reading my post. I have eyes, a relatively high IQ and a none biased point of view. So when I read evidence saying prophet mo was a child fucker, I don’t pretend its not true. Even Muslim scholars don’t deny this,why you do is beyond me.

    Like

  3. The prophet married Aisha when she was 6, but she didn’t actually live with him until she was 9 or 10 and he didn’t rape, I mean have sex with her until she was 10.

    Six or ten makes no difference to me because both these ages are a CHILD!

    But what do you make of this being the “common” tradtion of the times — the marrying of MUCH, MUCH older men to female children? This was common then … not simply for the prophet but for the entire region. I’m NOT saying this is a right way to behave, but if it were tradition and something legal back then in those times and that region wouldn’t that simply have made the prophet’s actions acceptable for that era? AGAIN, to reiterate, I don’t agree with adult men putting their penises into female children and enslaving them by any means …

    Like

    • I knew this already, written about it in detail in the past. They had sex when she was 9. It doesn’t matter to me what was normal, this man should have been perfect no? Was he not meant to set an example? We know human girls are not sexually mature at that age. Which means it is rape. Furthermore it is well documented that even though he never penetrated her he did perform sex acts on her when she was 6.

      Like

  4. ITS A SHAME WHEN PEOPLE WRITE RUBBISH LIKE THIS says:

    Are you an extremist? Your sounding like an extremist? It’s worrying me and my religion.

    You have also lost the argument after calling me an idiot. A person with a high IQ would of known that.

    Like

    • You sound like a troll. Also you don’t understand arguments if you think because i call an idiot an idiot. An ad hom is not one if it is true. I will post no more of your babble as you keep completely ignoring the evidence. You are an apologist for evil, and because of cowards like you, things like 9-11 happen.

      Like

  5. The person who wrote the orginal facebook post - A response says:

    I am going to discuss the issues with this blog which are, by and large, not based on the authors’ opinions regarding Islam and religion in general. To be clear, I have not read the Quran and have not read the Bible in its entirety. The points I will make are about the conclusions drawn and issues raised by the author about my Facebook post on the 7th January 2015 which stated:
    “Terrible news from paris! Hope this doesn’t increase racial tensions here though, the gunmen today dont represent islam in the same way that the paedophile priests don’t represent the catholic church! Cant judge the majority by a minority”

    I would however point out that anyone who has read the Quran in English translation is reading an interpretation of a book and not the book itself and I am told from a close family member who has studied ancient Greek, and read ancient Greek literature in English translation; this tends to be problematic. Perhaps the author should not proclaim other people to have no authority to comment on Islam when his own (assumed) authority to do so is based on reading a version of a text rather than the text itself.

    The author specifically highlights my use of the phrase “racial tensions”. He correctly states that as Christianity and Islam are not races then members of either religion cannot be considered a race. Where the author becomes mistaken here, however is his assumption that because I have brought race into a statement about a religious conflict (or at least a conflict that the author concludes to be religious), therefore I could not tell the difference between race and religion. Not only is this not clear from my post, this is simplistic and wholly incorrect. I believe it is possible (and I would say likely) that some racist people and groups around the world will jump on the bandwagon now, by using this terrorist attack in order to stoke racial tensions, this is true even though Muslims are not a race. The false interpretations drawn from my post by the author is evidence that they are letting their own bias cloud there judgement.

    The author arrogantly, then goes on, to state “Words have usages and meanings – let’s only use them when we know what they’re for. What she really means is people who may look “Muslimy.”
    The structure of the English language is also important and has ‘usages and meanings,’ and therefore using the abbreviations “let’s” and “they’re” (as opposed to let us and they are) when you are not quoting, is very poor use of language. Normally in an obscure blog this would not be noteworthy. However, if a person is going to be pompous enough to criticise others for their use of language then it is surely worth doing so by writing their blog in complete English.
    If the author is going to criticise others’ usage of words, perhaps they should steer clear of making up words as idiotic sounding as “muslimy.” Yes they have put this in quotation marks but if you are going to criticise others for use of language, best to steer clear of made up words, surely? (another example of this is when he later uses the word “normy,”) If the author had the ability to actually convey their argument in a coherent way, they would have rephrased the whole sentence. For example, “What she really means is people who have similar physical attributes to the stereotypical media driven images of typical Muslims.”
    “What she really means is…” I found this particularly patronising and wholly arrogant that the author thinks they are able to state, definitively, what another person “really” means from there original writing. I find it worrying when people try to re-work original text to fit it into their own agenda.

    The author says: “I also hope no one who looks a bit brown is attacked for this, but as we know this hardly ever happens.” and then goes onto say: “attacks against random brown people were few and far between. So this is not an issue for concern.” This is from a person who ironically, has previously told me I am ignorant (that I ignore the facts). Using the term “random brown people” I’d also like to add, serves only to make the writing of this piece seem even more childish and amateur which is unfortunately consistent throughout the article. In 2013 there were 500 reported anti-muslim hate crimes reported, in 2012 the figure was 336 (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/islamophobia-surge-revealed-in-antimuslim-hate-crimes-9026873.html), and that figure is rising through 2014 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29424165). These figures may not concern the author but as someone who likes to live a peaceful society, they concern me, and they will certainly concern those communities who suffer the affects of anti-Muslim hate crimes. I suggest the author takes his own advise and educates himself on this matter by doing a simple google search. There is further evidence there is a problem in this country with far right extremism and anti-Islamic hate crimes from the governments PREVENT programme which serves to target individuals at risk from extremism both from the religious end of the spectrum to the far right inciting racial hatred by preventing these individuals from committing these crimes before they happen. (https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/protecting-the-uk-against-terrorism/supporting-pages/prevent).

    I will move onto where the author accuses me of “false equivalence logical fallacy,” in regards to my comparison of paedophile catholic priests and Islamic terrorists. The author states the bible does not advocate raping young boys whilst the Quran does advocate killing. The author seems to be arguing that because one is advocated and one is not, the two points cannot be compared (false equivalent). I was not morally comparing the crimes or saying the two examples were actually the same (or were equivalent) rather pointing out that you cannot judge the actions of the wider group by the actions of the minority of its members. I simply believe, all large religious groups will have people who do bad things in the name of their religion but that does not make the whole group bad. I could have said the Islamic extremist do not represent Islam in the same way a worker in Tesco who steals from the tills for no justifiable reason represent the whole work force of Tesco (of course my original example is better because they both come from the world of religion). Of course the crimes are not equivalent but I can give two separate examples and this does not invalidate the reasoning behind my argument.

    After this the author goes on a rant about how Islamic Terrorists cannot be called extreme, just for doing what their religious text(s) tells them to do. I could go into why I believe that this is incorrect, but I am not concerning myself herein with my opinions regarding what I believe to be the authors’ flawed arguments regarding Islam. I am focusing on their flawed interpretation of my Facebook post. I only mention this rant, as nowhere in my post did I mention extremists.

    I found it laughable when the author goes on to say, that, “she – like many millions out there are afraid to say boo to a goose in case they offend.” The author does not know me well. Whilst I have always been liberal in my views I have never shied away from an argument or if I believe in something, hold back my opinions in case I cause offence. I found it slightly insulting that the author seems to assume so much about what I am like and what I really mean to say, even if its not what I actually said.

    The author continues, “because Russel (sic) Brand told them.” I am assuming (and here I could be wrong) that this is a reference to the fact that I have posted several times about Russell Brand on Facebook. This is simply because I have shared the same view on certain issues but I am not in anyway the type of person to simply be fed an opinion by anyone. Using ridiculous examples such as “Soon they will fear not to tell a smoker that they are damaging their health” does not prove the authors point but is once again serves only to patronise.

    This will be only reply to the authors article because I have neither the time nor the inclination to debate the issues raised in my Facebook post further.

    Like

  6. It’s not often I get an angry comment that is actually worth replying to. I only hope the reply will be read (even if not replied to)
    You have not been the first and will not be the last to correct my English, for two reasons: I write my pieces (usually) in a flare of anger. After the work is published it usually takes a few days for me to iron out all the mistakes (grammar wise). Also, I am not degree educated in the subject due to sadly having to leave my studies for health concerns – but it is my greatest joy to learn new things, so I thank every single correction (If only with the person who I am replying to could take corrections on board as thankfully as I).
    “I would however point out that anyone who has read the Quran in English translation is reading an interpretation of a book and not the book itself and I am told from a close family member who has studied ancient Greek, and read ancient Greek literature in English translation; this tends to be problematic. !””
    This is false, and here is why…
    The Quran was not written in Greek (she knows this, and should know it wasn’t an actual correction). It also was not translated and transcribed like The Bible has been. The Islamic faith not only wins by default due to its truth in historicity (The Prophet clearly existed – Jesus not so) but by the fact its word has not been diluted. The person who wrote the reply (let’s call her Stacy) is wearing the glasses of a Christian upbringing and lifestyle to view her argument. I am tainted by no such thing. The Quran has not been changed since its creation, the language – even in English is the best possible outcome and this is not verified by white anglo-saxon-once-christians like I, but by Islamic scholars. Therefore, there is no issue with translation here. That claim is simply false. Any Islamic scholar with stand by the words of the Quran, the same words I quote; they might interpret them differently, but in most cases – I have found, they agree with my interpretation. Sources can be supplied for this.
    “Perhaps the author should not proclaim other people to have no authority to comment on Islam when his own (assumed) authority to do so is based on reading a version of a text rather than the text itself.”
    In my wildest dreams I would never fall into an argument from authority logical fallacy; that is amateur. I didn’t commit one. Again, the text I use regarding The Bible and Torah is translated, words have been changed, the Quran does not suffer this – it is unique in that sense. I have read the text – not a diluted version – the only version.

    “Where the author becomes mistaken here, however is his assumption that because I have brought race into a statement about a religious conflict (or at least a conflict that the author concludes to be religious),”
    The killers held Islamic banners, used Islamic phrases, professed they killed for Islam, and had joined with ISIS. This was a religious killing – any attempt at pretending it is not is idiotic. My conclusion is correct. A man can beat his wife to death for cheating on him, the judge makes a statement on how he was jealous and insecure, that the killing was due to his reaction to her infidelity – but if you dare kill for a god, state that you did so, explain why you did so, explain what God will give you in return – then Stacy will post a status saying “nothing to do with religion … Probably george Bush’s fault.”

    “therefore I could not tell the difference between race and religion. !”
    Incorrect, I understood she knew the difference between the two, but she sadly could never mention Islam with referring to race, therefore must have been struggling with the idea between them.
    “I believe it is possible (and I would say likely) that some racist people and groups around the world will jump on the bandwagon now, by using this terrorist attack in order to stoke racial tensions, this is true even though Muslims are not a race. The false interpretations drawn from my post by the author is evidence that they are letting their own bias cloud there judgement.”
    This is correct, and as we see from above the numbers are pretty mild at best – not an issue. No bias as of yet.
    “The author arrogantly, then goes on,”
    Not all paragraphs in the piece were about you Stacy, if you read my pieces before you can see I am rehashing old corrections. So when I describe words or races, it is not specifically because you need the help, it is because others do. That is the whole point of an article or blog – I don’t write for an audience of one, I have to address other peoples’ concerns too.
    “If the author is going to criticise others’ usage of words, perhaps they should steer clear of making up words as idiotic sounding as “muslimy.”
    I think the humour and light heartedness went over her head. I’m pretty sure she understood the statement I was making.
    “(another example of this is when he later uses the word “normy,”) If the author had the ability to actually convey their argument in a coherent way, they would have rephrased the whole sentence.”
    Sad for Stacy that not only was the argument coherent, it was correct. Inclusions of jokey phrases or stereotypes used by right wing ukip voters was actually a smart way of addressing the types of people that may get a kick out of this piece but for the wrong reason. The same people she alluded to earlier.
    ““What she really means is…” I found this particularly patronising and wholly arrogant that the author thinks they are able to state, definitively, what another person “really” means from there original writing. I find it worrying when people try to re-work original text to fit it into their own agenda.”
    Worry not, you actually agreed the sentence before that I had correctly understood what you meant, so this point is useless. Don’t make light of arrogance that I actually know what you mean, when two sentences earlier you concluded that I in fact knew what you meant.
    “This is from a person who ironically, has previously told me I am ignorant (that I ignore the facts). !”
    You are; and have ignored facts. I can screenshot discussions where this is evident.
    “Using the term “random brown people” I’d also like to add, serves only to make the writing of this piece seem even more childish and amateur which is unfortunately consistent throughout the article.”
    Again, the use of specific language has went over the head of Stacy. Spend 5 minutes on a ukip comment board, she will soon see the point made here.
    “In 2013 there were 500 reported anti-muslim hate crimes reported, in 2012 the figure was 336 “
    Hold the phone and stop the presses, did you say 500? My dearest, in a world of 6/7 billion people, 500 anti-muslim attacks is a very weak point. Let me put this into perspective, Muslims can carry out 11,000 terrorist attacks in 2009 – this is not an issue to be discussed further – but 500 people have been involved in “hate crimes” (one of them was attaching bacon to a mosque door – how terrifying) What planet are we living on when it is wrong to make a claim about a religion that carries out 11,000 terror attacks, but it is perfectly normal to counter balance it with the evidence of 500 “hate crimes” Utter nonsense.
    “These figures may not concern the author but as someone who likes to live a peaceful society, they concern me, and they will certainly concern those communities who suffer the affects of anti-Muslim hate crimes.”
    You’re correct, they don’t concern me at all. The numbers are so small I almost believe there must have been more anti-Muslim hate crimes pre 9/11 than there are now. How dare someone who apologises and makes excuses for Islam say THEY want a peaceful society? Please join me in being a secular humanist who hopes that one day not one child is abused by religion. I put my life on the line fortnightly against the tyranny which would have acid thrown in my face and the Quran’s pages attached to my heart by knife-point. I don’t write this for praise, I write to use my voice against the war and anger that has plagued the very peace I stand for. Those who suffer stupid anti-Muslim attacks might finally look at their holy book and understand why such attacks take place. If I had my way none of these people would live in fear – and gladly many of them do not (what is 1.6 billion divided by 500?)

    “PREVENT programme which serves to target individuals at risk from extremism both from the religious end of the spectrum to the far right inciting racial hatred by preventing these individuals from committing these crimes before they happen. !”
    I will look over the two grammatical mistakes that precede this comment. Preventing Islamic violence is a must, although I find in most cases it is futile as the faith will always create madmen. The Prevent seems like an okay attempt at stopping the problem – sadly I doubt it will be successful.
    “I will move onto where the author accuses me of “false equivalence logical fallacy,” in regards to my comparison of paedophile catholic priests and Islamic terrorists. The author states the bible does not advocate raping young boys whilst the Quran does advocate killing. The author seems to be arguing that because one is advocated and one is not, the two points cannot be compared (false equivalent). I was not morally comparing the crimes or saying the two examples were actually the same (or were equivalent) rather pointing out that you cannot judge the actions of the wider group by the actions of the minority of its members.”
    I know, and this is a logical fallacy, named “false equivalence”.

    “I simply believe, all large religious groups will have people who do bad things in the name of their religion but that does not make the whole group bad.”
    You do simply believe, and that is the problem. As soon as someone says the whole Islamic world is bad, you will have a point, until then…
    You seem to have fallen into another simple ideology that because I stand against Islam I must think all Muslims blow up schools – how simple indeed. If I believed that was the case, I would surely say it.
    “I could have said the Islamic extremist do not represent Islam in the same way a worker in Tesco who steals from the tills for no justifiable reason represent the whole work force of Tesco (of course my original example is better because they both come from the world of religion). Of course the crimes are not equivalent but I can give two separate examples and this does not invalidate the reasoning behind my argument.”
    Yes it actually does, this again is a fallacy. You are forgetting that Tesco does not ask its employees to steal from the tills, Islam however asks for the death of apostates. I am not patronising you, but you simply don’t understand the logical fallacy you have committed.
    “After this the author goes on a rant about how Islamic Terrorists cannot be called extreme, just for doing what their religious text(s) tells them to do. I could go into why I believe that this is incorrect,”
    I wish you would…
    “but I am not concerning myself herein with my opinions regarding what I believe to be the authors’ flawed arguments regarding Islam. I am focusing on their flawed interpretation of my Facebook post. I only mention this rant, as nowhere in my post did I mention extremists.”
    So the only part of your comment where you refuse to correct is where you cannot? How convenient? Yes, you did not mention extremists (I think) but only a tiny part of this blog post was about you – you are not the centre of the argument.
    ““she – like many millions out there are afraid to say boo to a goose in case they offend.” The author does not know me well. Whilst I have always been liberal in my views I have never shied away from an argument or if I believe in something, hold back my opinions in case I cause offence. I found it slightly insulting that the author seems to assume so much about what I am like and what I really mean to say, even if its not what I actually said.”
    Please don’t be offended, I only take you at your word, if you are some kind of activist let me know and I will include it next time. Whilst I write to defend people from religious nonsense, or write books about how women are treated unfairly I must have been too busy to see your protest marches. There is nothing liberal about defending honour killings, your words are helping right-wing lunatics and they know it – sadly you do not.
    “The author continues, “because Russel (sic) Brand told them.” I am assuming (and here I could be wrong) that this is a reference to the fact that I have posted several times about Russell Brand on Facebook”
    You are wrong, I’m glad you can actually type it – for a second I thought those letters must have been broken on your keyboard or why else would you omit it for so long?
    Like the majority of the post, it was not about Stacy – I had no idea she even liked Russel Brand. But I made an educated guess, and it paid off as she has the same views as him. Sometimes I do actually hate being right.

    “but I am not in anyway the type of person to simply be fed an opinion by anyone. Using ridiculous examples such as “Soon they will fear not to tell a smoker that they are damaging their health” does not prove the authors point but is once again serves only to patronise.”
    You are, just like religious people say they are not brainwashed – I cannot believe them either. On all fronts you are singular minded, in the sense that you are intelligent enough that you speak for yourself. I have no doubt that in all respects you may be right (including politics – as we have agreed on much in the past) but on Islam or religion in general you are simply being misled. I understand it is patronising to be told this, but it cannot be explained any other way. You have been tricked into believing such a falsehood that you would post absolutely ZERO statuses about Islamic killings in the hundreds of thousands, but as soon as 500 people are victims of some bad language or beatings you speak up with vigour. This must be addressed, this must be realised! How could it not be?
    “This will be only reply to the authors article because I have neither the time nor the inclination to debate the issues raised in my Facebook post further.”
    I can assure all that we have both.
    As pointed out in the blog, the person is intelligent and bla bla bla. She has overreacted to a blog that I wrote with her consent. She knew what she was in for. As exposed above my only failure is in grammar and arrogance. My argument is valid and has yet to be confronted by anything close to a counter-argument. I wish there was an easier way of explaining that someone is wrong without them being offended, but there isn’t. Once again I hope she reads this and understands her faults regarding this topic as I have regarding my arrogance and language.

    I fear only one of them can be changed.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s