EDL Leader Tommy Robinson condemns mosque burning

[Showboat]

[JDHURF]

[Showboat]

Oh dear you continue to completely missunderstand my argument. I will lay it out simply here.

Someone said Mohammad was a paedophile because he had sex with a nine year old.

Someone elsed raised the fair point that we can’t judge him by our modern standards and that his contempary westerners who were Christians had no issue with Mary being bethroved to Joseph at the age of 12.

I then argued that such an argument was invalid as Joseph can’t be considered a paedophile, as according to the story Christians believed, Mary had already given birth before he could have had sex with her as the story states it was a virgin birth. Thus she cannot have been prepubescant when they had sex. With Mohamads wife, on the otherhand, being only 9 she was almost certainly prepubescant.

I then used evidence that Roman historians, not long after the death of Jesus, looked down on paedophilia and also suggest Augustus, who was Emperor at the time of Jesus’ birth, did so also. Thus western civilisation had moral issues with paedophilia at least 600 years before Mohammad started sexual relations with a 9 year old.

You then entered the discussion saying you had no interest in educating yourself in the differences between pederasty and paedophilia which was a nuance of the argument, before calling me the idiot.

Now you’re refuting my argument that western civilisation dissaproved of paedophilia at least in 0 BC by citing sources from 1000 years earlier in a land a thousand or so miles from Italy . Possibly the biiggest non sequitur ever.

Please refer to my actual argument above before you continue with anymore nonsense.

Edit: I did use the phrase post pubescant which was wrong. Paedophilia is however the sexual interest i prepubescant children which is the reasoning that, given the lack of evidence to the contary, Mohamad did commit an act of paedophilia where as in the story of Jesus, Joseph cannot have done.

[JDHURF]

[Showboat]

Ok......

Firstly: Yes it remains a fair point that we can’t judge Mohammads behaviour on our modern standards which is why I looked for evidence of western contempary standards and of those predating Mohammad. I used evidence of Romans predating Mohammad by 600 years having moral issues with paedophilia.

Secondly: Yes you don’t care about the make belive but given that we were discussing what Mohammad’s western contemparies believed then the make believe is what we must look at. His western contemparies believed that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ, thus they cannot have believed she and Joseph ever had sex when she was prepubescant, thus they could have frowned upon Mohammad having sex with a 9 year old whilst not having an issue with Joseph having sex with a girl who was obviously of child bearing age. That is simple logic. If their moral system allowed sex with girls of child bearing age but not with prepubescant girls then a 9 year old Ashia is completely different to a 13 year old Mary mother of Jesus.

Your third point is regarding pedastry which Homer brought up. There are terms, which I forget, for describing men who like girls that arent prepubescant but are of a young age. Joseph vcould by modern standards be described using one of those but not correctly discribed as a paedophile.

The fifth claim again wasn’t an idiotic point as I rasied above as it is what Mohammads contemparies believed that is valid not what the actual facts are. There are no actual facts regarding the birth of Christ.

You are right in your 6th point that she wasnt post pubescant. She was however, according to what Christians believe, certainly not pre pubescant. Trying to argue that because a girl of 8 became pregnant means that Mohammad’s wife was not ‘almost certainly’ prepubescant is moronic. The vast majority of 9 year old girls are prepubescant so it is a valid statement in the absence of evidence to the contary. I can say a bum on the street is almost certainly not a millionaire but finding an example of a millionaire bum elsewhere wouldn’t invalidate my argument. You have any evidence hat Aisha wasn’t prepubescant at 9, like a pregnacy for example??

And your final statement is continuing your non sequitur. Evidence that 3000 year old hebrews had no qualms with paedophilia doesnt refute evidence that Romans 2000 years ago had moral issues with it. Do you have any evidence that Mohammads contemparies in Europe had rid themselves of these values and replaced them with Hebrew ones from the time of Moses?? They certainly were happily eating pork which suggests they didnt take on all the ancient Hebrew customs.

So still you’re continuing to ignore my actual argument regarding Mohammads western contemparies and their views on shagging 9 year olds.

[PoS]

[JDHURF]

[lnrw]

Caligula was hated by all. He was not a standard or a model. He was a phenomenally evil and sick character that everyone hated and was no model for acceptable standards in this regard.You can only use caligula if it's ok to recognize stalin as the man that saved soviet agriculture by starving millions of people to death.

You're picking caligula as the worst of the worst.

Mohammed is the eternal hero of Islam. The standard by which Islam proceeded.

It's not a valid comparison. Caligula is far from the best that Rome had to offer. Would a Muslim say that about Mohammed?

that's not to say that Mohammed actually shagged 9 year olds. I can't wrap my mind around that sickness. Maybe he just played Parcheesi with her. Who knows?

[eynon81]

[JDHURF]

His "point" isn't going anywhere, least of all over my head.