Immanuel Can wrote:
I gave the entire context, actually. Look back, and you'll see. You have the entire paragraph there from which it came
Ok, you are obviously going to not read the thread to discover the actual contents of the conversation so I must now recap it for you. no problem...
Nick has a theory, he believes that Sharia Law is a real thing in America. He believes that the state of Michigan is on the brink of enshrining it as a legal code, and he briefly believed that the city of Dearborn Michigan already has. He also believes that American feminists are complicit in the Sharia takeover of the USA. Are you with me so far?
His basic point is an artless little dilemma which he presents in the following form. Either...
A. All the feminists (including presumably the lesbian ones) are silent on the issue of Sharia taking over the USA because they are harbouring fantasies about being brutally raped by arabs or...
B. They are silent about the impending takeover of the USA because they a heartless crones with an "agenda" (something he is convinced he himself lacks) and how could anyone be so cruel?
My response has been that Sharia law is not a real thing in America, that it is contrary to the constitution of that land, and that American feminists are not being especially lenient to this non-threat. I have made the point that feminists object to all household violence of men against women and don't need to make any special deal about whatever subset of that vast quantity of violence which occurs over there is carried out by adherents of any particular religion (I am in Britain, "over there" in context means the USA not Syria - which you would know if you had read this odious thread).
Nick's response to that (in another thread - he blatantly ignored it all the way through this one) is that the US constitution doesn't get applied when it contradicts one of these agendas. I would suggest that this is unlikely to be true in the case of somebody trying to enact an explicitly religious legal code that runs contrary to the body of US law.
I therefore submit that Nick is a moronic conspiracy theorist and his dilemma is false. Nick - as always - is of the opinion that anyone who disagrees with him about anything is one of those "blind deniers". he is blissfully unaware that he has previously given this term a very specific but worthless definition based on being the wrong type of atheist, so how that applies to disagreeing with him on this subject I cannot be bothered to guess.
If you wish to confirm any of these details for yourself, read the thread for the context
, not just a single paragraph.
Now Nick thinks you are a fan of his. So you should probably address that problem.
Incidentally, VT seldom misses an opportunity to mention America and Krsitianity in the most pejorative terms available, and seldom goes more than 3 sentences without exercising one of these itches. I don't think VT doing a thing that VT always does should be taken as indicative of what I am doing at any given time.