Coevett wrote:
No, I've wasted too much time already today on this forum trying to defeat stupidity. I'm not going to even read all of your post but just answer two bits of stupidity I scanned.
Change is hard.
Coevett wrote:
You actually are defending Islam on the basis that life in the 6th century wasn't a socialist paradise???
Is that what I wrote? You don't know anything about this and that's your biggest problem. You don't know that the Middle East has been a very conservative place for a very long time. It was that way before Islam was created and it's that way now. This is one reason why social life in Saudi Arabia is far more restrictive than in a place like Azerbaijan or Indonesia (the semiautonomous Aceh province notwithstanding), despite both being overwhelmingly Muslim.
You don't know that both Pakistan and Bangladesh elected female heads of government before the United States or Canada.
Coevett wrote:
Oh - Khan claims he is banned exposed female flesh in support of feminism.
Those 'feminists' themselves want such posters banned simply because they're jealous fatties.
Can you please walk around Albert Square tomorrow with a sign that says this?
Coevett wrote:
Do you understand that it's possible that a person might not be publicly honest with their motivations? Images of slim women turn girls into anorexics? Oh, but increasing images everywhere of size 18 models are fine, and you're a body shaming sexist if you say otherwise, despite 100x more teenage girls suffering ill health through obesity rather than anorexia (which is a complicated mental health problem unlikely to be caused simply by images of bikini models).
Is this your professional opinion?
Do you think that Khan is secretly a radical Muslim hellbent on subversively tilting London and the UK towards a more conservative stance? While prominently supporting same-sex marriage?
Coevett wrote:
What's the next step? All attractive women in London must cover themselves in the hijab, otherwise it might cause insecurity and eating disorders in young girls?
Slippery slope fallacy?
Can I assume that because didn't comment on any of my other points that you agree that you were mistaken?
That there are many factors that go into homophobia and violence against the LGBT community and that they aren't limited to one particular area of the world?
That it's wrong to judge a billion Muslims on the actions of a few radicals much as it would have been wrong to judge all Irish on the actions of a few that were bombing buses and bars or how it would have been wrong to judge all Catholics on the actions of a few heinous ones that murdered 300,000 Serbs in their religious zealotry?
That complete personal safety is a noble but impossible goal in a free society?
That Sadiq Khan had nothing to do in any way with any 9/11 defendant?
That Alan Turing would never have been arrested for having consensual sex with a man in Turkey in 1952?