In addressing the comments of (most certainly) Australia's greatest thinker, I decided that in the interest of time and my level of interest, it would be best if I simply went with my initial reaction.
So with that, I present, The Great Soggy!
"Nice coming from someone who's entire repetoire (sic) is comprised of unfounded Muslim bashing."
And right off we encounter deflection, speculation, and the assumption of facts not in evidence and the denial of other facts that are. Why does something tell me there's a Muslim connection in SOG's background.
"Comments such as yours, which was effectively "Everywhere that there are Muslims there is war and corruption" only serve to fan the rather pointless flames."
Incorrect characterization, I said "trouble," and trouble means trouble…. And it's right here in River City.
And every flame I've ever seen has a point.
"don't just target Muslims. Go for everyone"
Unnecessary and… um… it fans rather pointless flames.
"I chose Aethiesm (sic) (sic) because I realised (sic) that all religions contain much falsity and hypocracy (sic)."
A rather pointless reason to choose atheism, some would say. Me, I just call it absurd in concept, and insane if true.
"I also realised (sic) that they were the major cause of war since their inception."
Another reason to choose atheism? The reasoning seems rather disjointed, but I don't want to accuse Soggy of not trying, I'll just say he's an idiot.
"I have no degrees."
Aren't people with no degrees what they used to call dead?
But seriously folks, it doesn't matter how many degrees a person has, what matters is how well he can reason. And SOG, you have "no degrees" there either.
"Guess what age person you are insulting?"
OK, I'm not good at this, so please allow me a year or two either way, but nine?
And it's curious that he's insulted yet he still expects to play guessing games with me.
"True enlightenment, from a Republican?"
Again assumes facts not in evidence.
'Someone who believes in the War in Iraq, tougher border protection, the death penalty and the protection of "Christian" values. HAHAHAH."
That's what we call an "aside," but it appears to be what passes for sane and rational argument in Australia.
"P.S. You would make an excellent forum troll. Join WoW. Just not Jubei…'
Now this is interesting. Soggy leaves three unsolicited, rambling and incoherent comments, and he thinks I'M the troll?
"I invite you to clean up your countries (sic) act before attacking anyone else."
Even assuming there's anything to "clean up," the comment is rather pointless, and it shows the defendant has low self-esteem. Because he seems to assume I can't do both simultaneously?!?
"I also ask that you persecute (sic) Jews and Christians with your anti-religious tirades."
My comments about Muslims "fan rather pointless flames," but they'd be OK if I was fair and balanced?
Well, unfortunately, I am.
"For Jewish problems one need look no further than the strife in their homeland – the combined Israel-Palestine."
Jewish problems? The Jews have problems all right, none of which are their own doing, but somehow I think that Soggy means the Jews are -causing- problems, don't you?
"For Christian problems look to the American midwest (sic)"
Non-specific and again assumes facts not in evidence. Still, it might be fun… what problems are Midwest Christians causing, do you suppose? Any threats of violence? Any beheadings? Bombings? Wanton slaughter of civilians? Refusing to let people leave the religion, maybe?
"or, to stretch it a tad, the historical context of Christianity; the sweeping bloodbaths that were the crusades (sic), then the witchburnings (sic)"
But why stop at the Crusades? I mean how about the pagan Romans? The Jews in Egypt and Babylonia? And why are we conveniently overlooking Hitler and Stalin, SOG?
"and even recently the murder, brutall (sic) murder, by Christians of black people. Ahh… Americans, so hypocritical."
Aside from being irrelevant and immaterial, Your Honor, we submit that comment as evidence of the defendant's mental impairment. "Christians… Americans." Yes, one and the same to be sure, but the problem is that even if Soggy's comment was relevant, many Americans, even American Christians, have no ties whatsoever to such events because their ancestors weren't Americans at the time of occurrence. So while some Americans might indeed be hypocrites SOG's generalization is, at best, well, hypocritical.
Furthermore, you take all the murders in the history of America that could remotely be attributed to Christians, and they wouldn't amount to a hill of hummus in Muslimwille…
"one must consider the Christian and Jewsih (sic) laws, especially those in the old testament (sic), which brutally subjucate/d (sic) women and gay people."
Non-specific and irrelevant, although I must admit that my mother was "subjucateid" because she had to wear a hat to church.
"If you like, Christianity is currently only a slightly more commercialist (sic), older brother of Islam."
If I like? Then no, it isn't. Moe is more the older brother of Jim Jones.
"But that is not the point."
Thank God, now we might be getting somewhere…
"I would ask you to cease making sweeping generalisations (sic) about a largely peacefull (sic) religion"
How about a "largely" spit-take here?
"that you so-clearly know nothing about."
To paraphrase Phil Gramm, I have all the knowledge I need, but way more than I want…
Myself, I am an aethiest (sic), but I have taken the time to study many religions to see if they were the right ones for me."
I see his dilemma, I, too, don't know which religion is right for an atheist, but I heard good things about Unitarians???
"I urge you to study religions before you attack them in such a grandiose and generalised (sic) way."
And I urge Old SOG to remove his head from the sand… although, to paraphrase Phil Gramm, he can remove his head from the sand, but he can't remove the sand from his head…
But what would possess Soggy, do you suppose, to be so concerned about a religion he'd like to see eradicated? I mean, does he want it both ways – he decries "religious values," but he likes the "largely peaceful" ones?
Then why doesn't he like the rather wholly peaceful ones of better religions? Anyone been exterminated in the name of Judaism lately?
"It would make me happy if you attacked all religion (especially the Abrahamics) on the basis of their lack of truth and the way they contradict themselves, however, this current display of ignorance makes you seem insignificant and slightly idiotic."
Confucius say, "Better to be idiotic than dead."
And I'm no Confucius.
But now… Abrahamics? Isn't that a form of aerobics? Or what a magician says?
"I'm sorry for the rant."
Not, however, sorry enough that it overcame his desire to inflict it on us. And yet he still doesn't see the need for religious discipline?!?
"I am not an anti-semite (sic). I am anti-every (sic) religion"
OK, except there's one small problem – being an anti-Semite has nothing to do with religion….
"I wasn't blaming the Jews for the problems in the Middle East, however I was blaming the Israelis…"
"and the Palestinians for hundreds of thousands of needless deaths."
I submit there's nothing like that many deaths, but if there aren't, then I, too blame the Israelis… because there should have been. (I refer you to my Palestinian Solution offered sometime back)
"However, the main aim of the rant was to point out that every religion creates problems, especially violent ones."
Amazingly, that was the only part of the rant that I got, and coincidentally, the closest SOG came to making sense… while still not.
"Christianity has many problems, from (b)ombing abortion clinics to
the (c)rusades (sic)."
Or as such things are called in Islamistan, "Just another Muslim Monday."
But OK, that's only B and C, what happened to A through Z?
Seriously folks, that's the best Soggy can do. And he equates isolated past events attributable to some few Christians with everyday, present-day occurrences brought to you courtesy of the religion of peace – for example, the 80 or so dead in a mosque bombing yesterday.
Why I bet even Aput would like to behead this guy?
"I agree that my generalisations (sic)… were out of place… (how about) this specific American, such a hypocrite."
OK, here's the overriding problem. Soggy apparently thinks I'm a Christian. So the question is, if I'm something else like, say, an atheist, am I still a hypocrite?
Which also brings up another overriding problem – Soggy apparently thinks atheism is an enlightened state.
"But then again, perhaps not, considering the polls which show 50%+ of Americans to be "from somewhat to a great extent" living in fear and hatred of Muslims."
Only 50? Man, those wacky liberals never learn. But now I wonder if SOG saw the poll that says 25% of American Muslim youths can justify suicide bombings?
And does he agree that percentage would approach zero if the religion was doing its "peaceful" work??
"I was going to put in something asking you to read the holy texts of many and varied religions, however I am not going to waste my time."
Well, how many more words would it have taken before his time was officially wasted? I mean considering that, with minimal reworking, that sentence could have been put in the form of a request?
"I ask that, instead of attempting to fix the problems that everyone else has, fix your own first."
Interestingly, most Americans would be only too happy to do that, but the world won't leave us alone. "Fix Kuwait," "Fix Bosnia," Fix "Kosovo." "Fix Darfur." See the pattern here? And granted they didn't ask us to fix Afghanistan, but I haven't found anyone who's unhappy with that intervention – except the Taliban, maybe,
Although Aput did try to blame us for not doing the job to his liking…
"I'm not British. I'm Australian."
Then I offer my apologies to the British for the smear.
"I dislike your corruption of the English language."
We are the English language. In fact, I heard a song that says we are the world.
"I realise (sic) that you believe Christianity not to have any "fascism and chaos" inherent within it"
Objection: assumes facts not in evidence, and defendant is again engaging in rather pointless speculation since neither is Christianity on trial here (except in Soggy's even soggier mind) nor am I a Christian.
"which shows not only your lack of political understanding but also of history."
Political? I thought we were talking about religion?
And history? How about Current Events? maybe they don't get them in Australia?
"Islam can be likened to a semi-evolved Christianity"
By whom? By Soggy?
And I wonder how Muslims would like that characterization? But beyond that, I'm left to wonder further… why such a frantic defense of the indefensible Islam?
"in fact, its (sic) currently going through a period highly simmilar (sic) to the crusades (sic), where the Christians rained down on the Arab holy lands in an attempt to reclaim the sacred sites and purge the "heathen scum".
Huh? The only thing that made sense there was "heathen scum"
For example, how can they be "Arab holy lands" when Christians are attempting "to reclaim the sacred sites?"
And if, in fact, Islam is merely going through a phase, is it impolite to ask them to speed it up a tad?
And one last thing… for a guy who takes pride in his parochial dialect, is it just me or is Soggy awfully careless in his implementation of it?