the body count is probably well into the multiple millions

If so, please feel free to reply.

As can I. As could you, in the thread where that post was made. This thread is a call-out of another DUer, who might not know you are arguing with him. That's not very polite, I think.

Finally, your link leads to a reply written by me, not the poster you called out.

Avez-vous pas de honte?

In this case, it was a classic example of whataboutism.

The RCC's epidemic of child rape on a biblical scale requires a "counterpoint".

With the reply # provided.

It is a fuller discussion of the reply.

It is an additional call-out. Please do not call me out in a thread in which I am not participating. That is a somewhat rude thing to do do, akin to talking about someone behind his back.

Click your own link.

Post #70 is a post written by me in that thread. Click the link. I've copied and pasted it from your OP:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218313128#post70

The right thing to do would be to change your link so it did not link to a post of mine in that thread. That you refuse to acknowledge your error, nor to correct it is disturbing to me.

I consider it a call-out and wish you would correct your mistake, rather than denying that it was a mistake. Anyone can click on the link and see that it leads to a post by me, not the post you are discussing in this thread. Please correct that, for integrity's sake.

is that you ignored what was said by another poster that certainly appears to normalize oppression and blame the victims for the oppression.

So what does that say about your position? Do you agree with the quote by the poster?

Don't, and we won't.

Do what's right Monsieur B.

Your link is incorrect and leads to a post of mine rather than to the post you quoted. Fix that, please. Just change #70 to #75. It's easy. I'm sure you know how to edit a post.

So I'd rather just refer readers to the other, earlier post. Where I'm continuing the discussion in the original context.

As far as the above? I'd briefly note in passing that 1) I dont know how Gil knows he's getting the accurate info in China; where information gathering is notoriously hard to do. While 2) I have indeed not earlier bothered to read his other probably overidealistic posts on China. In part for the above reason.

3) My look at the one source in fact, found it very notoriously unreliable (q.v.).

4) Given precisely problems with getting reliable info from the interior of China, and from religious dogmatists, I've chosen to begin using a) the long established, known history of Christianity in China; the opium enslavement of Chinese by Christian soldiers. etc.. Then b) the known military, terrorist history of its Muslim neighbors; including most of Pakistan. Then 3) I've relied on many personal conversations with Chinese and Muslim citizens living in the United States.

In addition I use 4) Cultural Studies, Psychological, and anthropological observations on the general and specific underpinning for religions in general, and specific religions in particular. Relying in part on academic degrees; and my having lived in Muslim countries for five years.

Again, rather than continuing here, with Gil's misquotes or references, links, I'd rather refer readers back the original post.

In closing I'd note that Guil ignores some significant qualifiers in my remarks.

Thank you for that.

And you attack the posts without having read them.

Thank you for that.

As to the rest of your response, it repeats your earlier, undocumented assertions that border on Islamophobia. And includes some anecdotal evidence, if we can call it evidence, based on these many conversations that you claim to have had.

Sad to read this type of thing at DU.

It still leads to a post of mine that is not the post you quoted. Why have you not corrected that error?

It had many problems.

I did not read more

Pumped up by Trump and his base. The religious right

I've ignored it for years

Let's not.

When "oppression" is used as a prop to cover for the RCC's culture of child rape, it's not hard to figure out what this is really about.

But using the term serves some purpose for you. That is obvious.

but clumsily.

However, it now links to compose a new reply to the linked post. How odd.

In this case Loki intervened to fuck shit up.

Or so the story goes. Loki is the deity of human error, apparently. Hilarious stuff!

But, hey...if I wanted to reply to post #75, you sure made it easy for me, except I don't want to reply to it.

The point was that you posted a link to my post when you were talking about someone else's post. That was the point I raised. Well, now you've corrected that mistake, and have made a different one. If you ask nicely, though, I'll give you step-by-step instructions about how to link to an individual reply in a thread. If you don't, though, I won't, and we can be entertained again.

Perhaps the post makes some here uncomfortable about their allies.

Never mind. Just never mind. It's all there for anyone to see.

Remember the Giraudoux quote?

WTH are you talking about now?

Uffda!