DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on March 26, 2011, 12:14:22 PM
-
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz032511dAPR20110325014522.jpg)
-
SIRS....funny and sad at the same time....
Plane thinks Biden would be worse.....I dont.
Biden is bad....like really bad....but Obama is much worse....Obama is actually dangerous!
We are gonna look up in a year or two and see
the Muslim Brotherhood running Egypt, Iran armed with Nukes, al-Qaida running Libya, & Taliban running Afghanistan
Cally-Fate?......nahhhhhhhhhh dat couldn't happen! ::)
(http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032511/content/01125106.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg)
(http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032511/content/01125106.Par.39917.ImageFile.jpg)
-
and ?
Next thing you know Jews will run Israel
-
I'm a little confused Bt. Are you inferring that if a country wishes to blossom into a terrorist nation then we should sit on our hands and wait.....for the next 911?
What do YOU, personally think led to 911? Where was our breakdown?, and how so?
-
I think you confuse the religion of islam with the act of terrorism. And because of that confusion, you are scared.
Let the Caliphate perform acts of terror and meet it with a non proportional response, but lets not say they are guilty before they act.
Clear enough for you?
-
I think you confuse the religion of islam with the act of terrorism. And because of that confusion, you are scared.
And YOU would be wrong, as wrong can be. That's your continued flawed effort to try and brush those who criticize Islamic terrorists/extremists as supposedly criticizing all of Islam. So, not not clear yet
Let the Caliphate perform acts of terror and meet it with a non proportional response, but lets not say they are guilty before they act.
Which again begs the question that remains unanswered.....What do YOU, personally think led to 911? Where was our breakdown?, and how so?
-
What does 9/11 have to do with a caliphate?
Seems to me you are trying to conflate the issue.
Perhaps we can avoid this confusion by telling the class , why in your mind, the decision of an arab country to establish a government based on their religious values scares the bejesus out of you , and yet you don't seem to have a problem with nations built on judeo-christian values.
-
Lemme try 1 more time....What do you, personally think led to 911? Where was our breakdown?, and how so? Who was behind it, and how'd they manage it?
-
Lemme try 1 more time....What do you, personally think led to 911? Where was our breakdown?, and how so? Who was behind it, and how'd they manage it?
Try to deflect all you want. Please show me the link between a caliphate and terror.
And for bonus points, please explain the similarities between Bin Ladens distaste for infidels and their influence in the holy lands vs your particular feelings towards illegal immigration.
-
Please answer my question 1st, then we can delve into your deflection efforts
-
I think you confuse the religion of islam with the act of terrorism. And because of that confusion, you are scared.
Let the Caliphate perform acts of terror and meet it with a non proportional response, but lets not say they are guilty before they act.
Clear enough for you?
To concur, my thought is if I were oppressed but could get some weapons from some bad guys then so be it. For example, here in the US when our weapons are confiscated the only choice we will have, if we want weapons, will be to barter with the bad guys (as in criminals) to get some. Because we all know that the police won't be able to get them from criminals but they we pick on law-abiding citizens because they are easy targets.
-
Please answer my question 1st, then we can delve into your deflection efforts
Your question is irrelevant to the linkage of a caliphate to terror.
Methinks you are just trying to change the subject.
-
My question, in this, a debate forum, is my question, despite your rationalization efforts to ignore it. I can only assume at this point, that you're pleading the 5th. So be it
-
So you have no real reason to link a caliphate to terror. Should have just said so to begin with.
-
Let the Caliphate perform acts of terror and meet it with a non proportional response,
but lets not say they are guilty before they act. Clear enough for you?
Clear? Are you kidding?
We are to greet al-Qaeda fighters in Libya with an "open mind"?
Lets not say they are guilty before they kill us?....Just wait until they do?
Lets not prejudge the Taliban since they only sheltered Bin Laden before 9/11?
Ridiculous analogies to Jews in Israel....hardly!
Since when have radical Jews crashed planes into the World Trade Center?
Since when have radical Jews blown up Russian schools, trains, planes full of innocents?
Since when have radical Jews attacked hotels in India and massacred targeted innocent people?
Since when have radical Jews blown up trains targeting innocents in Spain and England?
Since when have radical Jews blown up nightclubs in Bali?
Since when have radical Jews attempted to ignite underwear bombs on planes full of people?
Since when have radical Jews attempted to ignite shoE bombs on civilian airlines?
Since when have radical Jews attempted to blow up Times Square?
Since when have radical Jews attempted to blow up buildings in Dallas?
Since when have radical Jews crashed planes into the Pentagon?
Since when have radical Jews crashed planes in fields in Penn?
Since when have radical Jews attacked girls schools just because they were in school?
Since when have radical Jews beheaded reporters and others innocents on camera?
Since when have radical Jews killed thousands of Americans in a Jihad?
Since when have radical Jews chanted Death To America?
Ect...times 10,000
-
So if the rebels win in Libya you are saying that Al Queda will be the de facto leadership of the new country?
-
So you have no real reason to link a caliphate to terror. Should have just said so to begin with.
Since your premise is flawed, so too is your conclusion. Best if you just keep pleading the 5th
-
How is my premise flawed. What in your opinion is my premise?
-
So if the rebels win in Libya you are saying that Al Queda will be the de facto leadership of the new country?
I am saying that the leader of the rebels just was quoted as saying Al Queda members are "good Muslims" and they are helping him oust Ghadfi and I find that very worrisome. Don't you? Should we rejoice when we see someone possibly taking over a gold mine that appears to love Al Queda?
-
How is my premise flawed. What in your opinion is my premise?
We can start to answer that by you anwering my original question. That continues to be the biggest stumbling block you have in this, a debate forum
Or continue to plead the 5th, or plead ignorance, whatever floats your boat
-
How is my premise flawed. What in your opinion is my premise?
We can start to answer that by you anwering my original question. That continues to be the biggest stumbling block you have in this, a debate forum
Or continue to plead the 5th, or plead ignorance, whatever floats your boat
Hows about i just ignore you attempts to lead the topic astray.
-
I am saying that the leader of the rebels just was quoted as saying Al Queda members are "good Muslims" and they are helping him oust Ghadfi and I find that very worrisome. Don't you?
Are Al Queda members good Muslims? Is it possible to use terror and still believe in God?
I'm not convinced that Al-Queda's help will get them a dominant seat at the table if the rebels prevail, and if they don't prevail then Al Queda will have sacrificed a lot of manpower for nil.
-
Remember that reference to flawed premise?...........you're doing it again. Whatever. I guess I'll debate with someone who actually wishes to debate
-
Remember that reference to flawed premise?...........you're doing it again. Whatever. I guess I'll debate with someone who actually wishes to debate
Please do. Be sure to pick someone who is willing to follow you down rabbit holes.
-
Where was our breakdown?
The breakdown was allowing the hijackers to stay in this country after their visas had expired. Or it could have been allowing them into this country in the first place.
, and how so? Who was behind it,
Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organization was behind it.
and how'd they manage it?
They outsmarted the security systems that were in place at the time. I think all these answers are pretty well documented.
-
Remember that reference to flawed premise?...........you're doing it again. Whatever. I guess I'll debate with someone who actually wishes to debate
Please do. Be sure to pick someone who is willing to follow you down rabbit holes.
Naaa, I'll actually pick those who wish to debate, in this, a debate forum
-
as you wish
-
Cool, thanks
-
no problem
-
Are Al Queda members good Muslims?
Not in my opinion, but feel free to give them the "benefit of the doubt" if you wish.
Is it possible to use terror and still believe in God?
Human beings can pretty much believe anything they wish to.
I am pretty sure Hitler believed he was doing good...probably Manson as well.
-
Let the Caliphate perform acts of terror and meet it with a non proportional response,
but lets not say they are guilty before they act. Clear enough for you?
Clear? Are you kidding?
We are to greet al-Qaeda fighters in Libya with an "open mind"?
Lets not say they are guilty before they kill us?....Just wait until they do?
Lets not prejudge the Taliban since they only sheltered Bin Laden before 9/11?
Ridiculous analogies to Jews in Israel....hardly!
Since when have radical Jews crashed planes into the World Trade Center?
Since when have radical Jews blown up Russian schools, trains, planes full of innocents?
Since when have radical Jews attacked hotels in India and massacred targeted innocent people?
Since when have radical Jews blown up trains targeting innocents in Spain and England?
Since when have radical Jews blown up nightclubs in Bali?
Since when have radical Jews attempted to ignite underwear bombs on planes full of people?
Since when have radical Jews attempted to ignite shoE bombs on civilian airlines?
Since when have radical Jews attempted to blow up Times Square?
Since when have radical Jews attempted to blow up buildings in Dallas?
Since when have radical Jews crashed planes into the Pentagon?
Since when have radical Jews crashed planes in fields in Penn?
Since when have radical Jews attacked girls schools just because they were in school?
Since when have radical Jews beheaded reporters and others innocents on camera?
Since when have radical Jews killed thousands of Americans in a Jihad?
Since when have radical Jews chanted Death To America?
Ect...times 10,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing)
-
Are Al Queda members good Muslims?
Not in my opinion, but feel free to give them the "benefit of the doubt" if you wish.
Why not? What would the definition of a good christian or jew be that would differ from that of a good muslim.
Is it possible to use terror and still believe in God?
Human beings can pretty much believe anything they wish to.
I am pretty sure Hitler believed he was doing good...probably Manson as well.
That wasn't my question. The question was whether religious beliefs Christian, Jewish, Muslim would be in conflict with acts of terror.
-
The Bible describes all sorts of murders, massacres and exterminations of entire tribes (such as the Malekites) that were carried out presumably on the orders of Jehovah. The Koran does the same.
Belief in God does not pose a deterrence to murder. I hardly think that WWI and WWII were exclusively carried out by atheists.
-
But there's your problem BT
And it is a deadly one for your continued flawed logic of moral equivalence to defend the undefendable
Scores count.....
OK BT you can with a google search come up with one example.....
The score of Radical Islam targeting innocents is something like 10, 0000 to 1 (over 50 years ago!...lol)
maybe with more Googling you can come up with even a 10,000 to 10 score
Thats still a horrible score thus a horrible analogy
Your analogy logic doesn't work because reality is what it is.
Next?
-
But there's your problem BT
Actually i'm not the one with the problem.
You want to equate the actions of members of a group as indicative of the group as a whole. I don't.
Let me give you an example.
You are worried that because the Libyan protesters have some Al Queda soldiers in their ranks that it follows that the "revolution" in Libya is an Al Queda takeover. I disagree.
During the American revolution we had French help.
Do we speak French?
Polish Nobleman Casimir Pulaski saved Washington's life. Was a America then a Polish Colony?
BTW what was the terror history of the Ottoman Empire, the last real Caliphate.
How does it compare to the reign of the Holy Roman Empire?
Does history really back your preconceived notions?
-
"Christians" appears to have a rather provincial view of world politics. To him, it seems to be us (the civilized) vs. them (the evil terrorists) for each and every issue.
-
Why not? (Al Queda members good Muslims?)
Why are Al Queda not "good Muslims"?
I dunno BT you tell me....lol
Maybe they are.....if Al-Queda are "good Muslims"...I guess that says alot about Islam...no?
BT Was it "good" to fly airplanes into the World Trade Center?
and to borrow a phrase from you...if it was not "good"..."why not"?
Like I said.... Hitler thought he was a "good German".
Some people (Islamist) think "good" is targeting and killing innocent people.
obviously some people (Islamist) see it as "good" flying planes into the World Trade Center
obviously some people (Islamist) see it as "good" blowing up innocent people at schools, hotels, trains, airports
obviously some people (Islamist) see it as "good" beheading Infidels (people that dont accept Islam)
What would the definition of a good christian or jew be that would differ from that of a good muslim.
It would not differ....(if in fact Islam is a religion which I am still not sure about)
That wasn't my question.
I answered your question.
You are now altering or changing the question which I will be glad to answer again.
But dont tell me that wasn't the question & then add a different question pretending that was there the first time
"The question was whether religious beliefs Christian,
Jewish, Muslim would be in conflict with acts of terror"
Ok this is the new altered question.
And once again basically the same answer.
Human beings are free to believe whatever they want.
There are a handful of "Christians" that use violence against abortion doctors....and they dont see a conflict.
But it's a Christian handful vs an Islam thousands....again recent history score isnt even close.
Thats why Islam has a MAJOR problem as compared to other religions.
But you wanna pretend the score doesnt matter...that a few is eqivalent to thousands....
It's bogus analogy....in an attempt to defend the undefenable.
The headlines everyday...day after day....weaken your argument.
-
Actually i'm not the one with the problem.
Yeah you have a HUGE problem of defending the undefendable.
You want to equate the actions of members of a group
as indicative of the group as a whole. I don't.
I want to equate reality with reality.
Islam does have a MAJOR violence problem within it.
If 10,000 Republicans started blowing up schools, weddings, planes, nightclubs, trains,
and after every bombing stated they were doing it because they were motivated by
Republican ideals.......dont you think Republicans would have a MAJOR problem?
You are worried that because the Libyan protesters have some Al Queda soldiers in their ranks
that it follows that the "revolution" in Libya is an Al Queda takeover. I disagree.
No not really.....The Libyan rebel leader obviously views Al Queda favorably
to me and most Americans I would think....that is very worrisome.
During the American revolution we had French help.
Do we speak French?
No but we have been and are pretty close with the French
Most Americans would not cheer people taking over countries that view Al Queda favorably
BTW what was the terror history of the Ottoman Empire, the last real Caliphate.
How does it compare to the reign of the Holy Roman Empire?
I live in 2011....thats what matters to me
Violence in 2011 matters to me and most citizens......not what happend hundreds of years ago
Does history really back your preconceived notions?
Recent history...ya know the world we actually live in....does
Dont believe me....pick up a newpaper everyday and read the front section
You'll see Islamics saying they are motivated by their religion killing a bunch of people
There is no other religion equivalent.....current day reality is what it is.
-
"To him, it seems to be us (the civilized) vs. them (the evil terrorists) for each and every issue.
please provide examples "for each and very issue"?
-
BT Was it "good" to fly airplanes into the World Trade Center?
and to borrow a phrase from you...if it was not "good"..."why not"?
1. Where did I say it was good?
You are getting as bad a sirs.
If 10,000 Republicans started blowing up schools, weddings, planes, nightclubs, trains,
and after every bombing stated they were doing it because they were motivated by
Republican ideals.......dont you think Republicans would have a MAJOR problem?
There are 1 billion Muslims. What percentage are are involved with terror acts?
If 10k Republicans started blowing up buildings would that represent a larger or smaller percentage of the whole?
Yeah you have a HUGE problem of defending the undefendable.
What exactly am I defending?
No not really.....The Libyan rebel leader obviously views Al Queda favorably
to me and most Americans I would think....that is very worrisome.
Why? They are proven soldiers. The US was allies with the Soviets during WWII.
Would Germany have been defeated without their help?
No not really.....The Libyan rebel leader obviously views Al Queda favorably
to me and most Americans I would think....that is very worrisome.
I believe what he said was that they were good Muslims.
Just as I'm sure Eric Rudolph considered himself a good Christian and the IRA considered themselves good Catholics.
Just to be clear, i consider terror a political act, not a religious act. Perhaps that is where we part ways.
No not really.....The Libyan rebel leader obviously views Al Queda favorably
to me and most Americans I would think....that is very worrisome.
Most Americans would not cheer people taking over countries that view Al Queda favorably
Violence in 2011 matters to me and most citizens......not what happend hundreds of years ago.
Majority does not equal right. The majority elected Obama. Does that mean they were right?
Dont believe me....pick up a newpaper everyday and read the front section
Genocide comes in many flavors. Pol Pot wasn't a Muslim. Neither were the Rwandans.
-
BT Was it "good" to fly airplanes into the World Trade Center?
and to borrow a phrase from you...if it was not "good"..."why not"?
1. Where did I say it was good?
You are getting as bad a sirs.
Which of course, Bt will be unable to follow-up with any substantive example. But the accusation is out there, and that's all that apparently matters, or is needed, in this form of "debate".
Where as I can provide numerous examples of gross misrepresentation (advocation of conservative bias in the media, Muslim intolerance/bigotry), on his part. But we'll leave that for another thread
-
please provide examples "for each and very issue"?
=========================================
Gimme a break. No.
You tend to see every issue discussed here as entirely right (your side) and totally wrong (anyone else's side). But there have been too many issues mentioned to name them all.
Christians are good. They even want less government, just like you. Jesus made no comments on the appropriate size of the government, so it is hardly a Christian belief.
Muslims are evil. They want to kill you and all the rest of the Christians. The world would be better off without them or Islam.
Capitalism is inherently good, socialism is inherently evil.
Black people are generally evil (like Obama) unless they agree with you.
Condi Rice, Alan Keyes, Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell and Allen West are all good Black people, because they agree with you. The other 90% of Blacks that disagree with you politically, they are just stupid, deluded puppets.
-
I'll leave it to you to determine how many times you inferred my meaning instead of just reading my meaning as written and intended.
You do not control my meaning or intent. I do. Your perception of my meaning and intent is on you.
So when you say you inferred my meaning to = x, that does not mean my intent nor meaning = x, and insisting your perception equals the truth is a misrepresentation of my meaning.
-
As we can see, don't expect any examples of Bt's latest accusations aimed at sirs
-
Sirs appears to have the goal of attaining both perfection and utter vagueness simultaneously, and in a manner that can be described as uniquely snide.
-
As we can see, don't expect any examples of Bt's latest accusations aimed at sirs
That's because you have a severe lack of honesty.
-
1. Where did I say it was good?
You are getting as bad a sirs.
But there you go again BT
You are wrong again.
The interesting part is are you going to admit it?
I did not say you "said it was good"
I asked you "if it was a good thing?"
You owe SIRS another apology
-
You tend to see every issue discussed here as entirely right (your side) and totally wrong (anyone else's side).
This might be the funniest and most ironic thing XO has every stated.
"Pot Calling the Kettle Black" maximum alert!
XO you are the absolute worst on this entire message board about never giving the Republicans any credit.
I have repeatedly given credit to Obama for increasing drone attacks on IslamoNazis in Pakistan.
I gave Obama credit for allowing US Seals to blow the brains out of IslamoNazi Pirates.
I give Obama credit for not closing Gitmo.
I give Obama credit for signing an extension of the Patriot Act.
I give Obama credit for increasing troops in Afghanistan.
I gave Obama credit for choosing General David "BeTrayUs" Petraeus to run the Afghan War.
I gave Obama credit for keeping Bush Defense Sect Robert Gates.
I give Obama credit for expanding the size of both the Army and the Marine Corps.
I give Obama credit for giving the green light to resume military trials of terror suspects at Club Gitmo
I give Obama credit for increased secretive operations to disrupt terror in places such as Yemen & Somalia
I gave President Clinton credit for signing Welfare Reform.
I gave President Clinton Credit for signing the Defense of Marriage Act
I gave President Clinton for a great strategy of no ground troops in the Kosevo War.
Lets see the guy (X0) wrongly calling me out as "blind to the other side" match my kudos
for recent Democratic presidents with his list a specific kudos for recent Republican presidents!
-
1. Where did I say it was good?
You are getting as bad a sirs.
But there you go again BT
You are wrong again.
The interesting part is are you going to admit it?
I did not say you "said it was good"
I asked you "if it was a good thing?"
You owe SIRS another apology
Why ask the question?
-
1. Where did I say it was good?
You are getting as bad a sirs.
But there you go again BT
You are wrong again.
The interesting part is are you going to admit it?
I did not say you "said it was good"
I asked you "if it was a good thing?"
You owe SIRS another apology
Why refuse to show cause and effect between a caliphate and terror?
Why accuse me of defending the indefensible.
Who and what am i supposedly defending?
i don't owe sirs anything.
-
As we can see, don't expect any examples of Bt's latest accusations aimed at sirs
That's because you have a severe lack of honesty.
Notice also the lack of any examples to yet another false allegation.
Don't worry C, I'm not expecting any (apology), from our chairman. At this point, with the credibility meter so used up, far easier to just throw out the accusations, and pray no one asks for any back-up. And if they do, just throw more accusations out
-
Why ask the question?
Because I want to know....is that not allowed?
You asked if al-Qaida are "good Muslims"
So I assume if you ask a question....you dont know the answer.
And if you have not arrived at the conclusion that al-Qaida is bad
then I want to know if you think al-Qaida flying planes into the WTC is bad?
To be honest I am shocked at some of the stuff you post these days.
Your attempts at giving cover by moral equivalence stretches the imagination.
And yes you are "giving cover" by pretending Islam does not have a MAJOR MAJOR problem within it.
BT is there any other religion currently that has the huge problem of everyday
major headline violence from people claiming their motivation is their religion?
-
As we can see, don't expect any examples of Bt's latest accusations aimed at sirs
That's because you have a severe lack of honesty.
Notice also the lack of any examples to yet another false allegation.
Don't worry C, I'm not expecting any (apology), from our chairman. At this point, with the credibility meter so used up, far easier to just throw out the accusations, and pray no one asks for any back-up. And if they do, just throw more accusations out
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/the-truth-the-whole-truth-and/msg84991/?topicseen#msg84991 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/the-truth-the-whole-truth-and/msg84991/?topicseen#msg84991)
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/az-congresswomen-shot-dead-betcha-a-lib-did-it (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/az-congresswomen-shot-dead-betcha-a-lib-did-it)!/msg116572/#msg116572
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/todays-faster-communications-allow-enemy-to-exploit-loopholes/msg32096/?topicseen#msg32096 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/todays-faster-communications-allow-enemy-to-exploit-loopholes/msg32096/?topicseen#msg32096)
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/more-of-the-new-%27civility%27-from-the-left-gt-death-threats-against-republicans/msg119979/?topicseen#msg119979 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/more-of-the-new-%27civility%27-from-the-left-gt-death-threats-against-republicans/msg119979/?topicseen#msg119979)
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/we%27re-on-a-task-from-god/msg74729/?topicseen#msg74729 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/we%27re-on-a-task-from-god/msg74729/?topicseen#msg74729)
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/interesting-spin/msg77368/?topicseen#msg77368 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/interesting-spin/msg77368/?topicseen#msg77368)
Referring to the center as a Mosque is as disingenuous as referring to someone's home as a latrine because it has a bathroom in it.
so...lemme see if I have this straight...you think of a Mosque as ...... a bathroom?? a toilet??
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/rarely-has-there-been-a-charge-so-wreckless/msg116881/#msg116881 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/rarely-has-there-been-a-charge-so-wreckless/msg116881/#msg116881)
Quote from: BT on October 21, 2010, 10:31:44 PM
Hasan was an American of Palestinian descent. Do you think he might have some legitimate grievances? Would they be equal to those grievances of the Jews? Do you understand his conflicting emotions? Do you recognize that understanding does not equal condoning?
Do you recognize justification of evil is justification of evil.
-
Because I want to know....is that not allowed?
Certainly
You asked if al-Qaida are "good Muslims"
Yes I did
So I assume if you ask a question....you dont know the answer.
Not always.
And if you have not arrived at the conclusion that al-Qaida is bad
Being bad and being a bad muslim are not nec3eessarily the same thing.
then I want to know if you think al-Qaida flying planes into the WTC is bad?
Anyone, including Al Queda, flying airplanes into the WTC to instill terror would be bad.
To be honest I am shocked at some of the stuff you post these days.
Your attempts at giving cover by moral equivalence stretches the imagination.
And yes you are "giving cover" by pretending Islam does not have a MAJOR MAJOR problem within it.
BT is there any other religion currently that has the huge problem of everyday
major headline violence from people claiming their motivation is their religion?
Are you aware that countries with majority muslim inhabitants have the lowest per capita murder rates in the world?
Let's try again. What makes a good muslim?
-
Capitalism is inherently good, socialism is inherently evil.
Well yes , I would say this agrees with the facts as I know them.
As to whether Black people are only good if they agree with me , sure, but not just white ones and black ones any color of person who really wants to be good has to be in agreement with me to be so.
Who do you think is bad , that is in agreement with you?
-
Because I want to know....is that not allowed?
Certainly
You asked if al-Qaida are "good Muslims"
Yes I did
So I assume if you ask a question....you dont know the answer.
Not always.
...Let's try again. What makes a good muslim?
If one were to ask Osama Bin Laden, he would certainly say that the best Muslims are the ones who agree with him, includeing his declaration of war on the USA, he as said as much in plain Arabic.
He makes his case to Muslims , he staffs his organisation with Muslims being Muslim is a requirement of his terror organisation.
Most of us think of Terroristic Muslims as a subset of all Muslims , Osama Bin Laden would not be quite that generous, he really calls it a duty to be a good Muslim to join in his Jahiad.
President Bush spent a lot of effort defusing public anger at Islam in general, this probly saved a lot of innocent lives, I kinda wish that in Osama Bin Ladens world there was an equivelent of President Bush to hold forth the porpasition that not all westerners not all Christians , not all Americans share equally in the guilt that some of them might have comitted.
-
.......
Nice try.......cudos on the time you apparently had to spend on the effort though. Especially those that had nothing to do with your comments
-
.......
Nice try.......cudos on the time you apparently had to spend on the effort though. Especially those that had nothing to do with your comments
Didn't take much time. did a search on the word inference.
-
Cool....which does nothing to validate your claims of this supposed rampant dishonesty on my part. Especially in the context when better clarity is provided by that person, and subsequent improved inferring is done
But like I said, nice try. Anything to take the spotlight off yas
-
BSB: Referring to the center as a Mosque is as disingenuous as referring to someone's home as a latrine because it has a bathroom in it.
Sirs: so...lemme see if I have this straight...you think of a Mosque as ...... a bathroom?? a toilet??
What was striking about this exchange was:
The gross misrepresentation of what BSB meant
and that it was the second to last post of his in this forum.
The members of this forum, a jury of your peers if you will, can decide whether your misrepresentations rise to the level of dishonesty. Your denials notwithstanding.
-
Let's try again. What makes a good muslim?
Why try again when it has already been answered?
Humans can think anything they want.
Bin Laden thinks "good Muslims" fly airplanes into the World Trade Center.
Some Taliban Muslims think blowing up girl's schools is a "good" thing to do.
The problem you have in trying to give cover to the Muslim problem is
the score. No other religion in current times has anywhere near the problem
of people claiming the religion as their primary reason for killing so many people.
You attempt to give cover by implied equatement. There is no equatement.
When thousands of instances of violence are listed whose perpetrators claim
Islam is their motivation you come up with some rare event of Jewish and/or
Christians committing violence in the name of their religion and pretend "well
see everybody does it". That is a digrace, because it comes off with an extremely
warped sense of what reality really is. The corpse count isnt even close, but yet
you pretend "everybody does it".
BT will you admit Islam has a huge problem unlike any other religion in current time within
it midst of hardcore violent extremist?
-
"BSB: Referring to the center as a Mosque is as disingenuous
as referring to someones home as a latrine because it has a bathroom in it.
Sirs: so...lemme see if I have this straight...you think of a Mosque as ...... a bathroom?? a toilet??
Number one BSB is wrong because it would be ingenious to refer to someones house
as a latrine if that person's primary motivation and goals in life were latrines and the
spread of appreciation of latrines. I could envision a famous chef's house being referred
to as "a great kitchen". No....building a 9-11 Mosque and then surrounding it with exercise
equipment, banquet halls, and daycares still doesn't hide the fact of what it is...which is
a disgrace!
Number two...although I can't remember the sequence of the thread it appears to me
SIRS was being sarcastic or humorous....maybe both. Others can joke just not SIRS!
XO can insult and the silence is deafening, Michael Tee could insult and the silence was
pretty much deafening.....but low and behold lets dig up stuff and guilt trip SIRS!
What was striking about this exchange was:
The gross misrepresentation of what BSB meant
and that it was the second to last post of his in this forum.
Oh boo whooo someones view gets taken wrong in a political forum
and they run away for tenth time.....jezzzz this guilt trip is killing me!
It's been obvious for a long time BSB is a powder-keg that can't deal
with people with opposing views for extended periods....he gets pissed
when people return fire and then he runs away and hides for awhile.
The members of this forum, a jury of your peers if you will, can decide whether
your misrepresentations rise to the level of dishonesty. Your denials notwithstanding.
I may not always agree with SIRS, but I think he is one of the most honest
members of this forum.
-
Thanks C, I make every effort to try to be, Bt's painting efforts not withstanding. Notice who never took any effort to answer the question I posed in this thread, but all the effort taken to try and paint me as something, I'm not ???
-
BSB: Referring to the center as a Mosque is as disingenuous as referring to someone's home as a latrine because it has a bathroom in it.
Sirs: so...lemme see if I have this straight...you think of a Mosque as ...... a bathroom?? a toilet??
What was striking about this exchange was:
The gross misrepresentation of what BSB meant
and that it was the second to last post of his in this forum.
The members of this forum, a jury of your peers if you will, can decide whether your misrepresentations rise to the level of dishonesty. Your denials notwithstanding.
Ok ,but what if someone said that is a house not a latrine , there is no latrine in it!
If the Mousque is a subset of the building it is still a mosque there, I wouldn't say that you are being false , you have only fallen for a logical fallacy.
-
Ok ,but what if someone said that is a house not a latrine , there is no latrine in it!
I would examine the facts.
Islamic Zealots perpetrated 9/11.
The Sept 11 terrorist's motivation was Islam.
The terrorist are following radical Islam.
But it is still related to Islam.....not Hindu, not Christianity, not Judism...ISLAM!
No matter how hard people try to separate Islam's problem from 9-11...reality is what it is.
It is an insult to the victims & their families to put any Islamic shrine near ground zero.
The Sept 11 Ground Zero area is sacred ground.
There are millions of other places to put an Islamic Center, Mosque, Cultural Center...whateva!
And we are to think they want to put it there by accident?
They are taking cover under the auspices of a Islamic cultural center
The definition of a "mosque" is: "a place of worship for followers of Islam".
Are we to believe no worship of Islam will go on in this huge facility?
Once the people behind this saw the uproar they quickly adjusted on
how the facility should be "sold" to the American Public. But even as late
as May 2010 CBS News was calling it a "Mosque".
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=10578211 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=10578211)
that is until the political correctness and strategy took over.
-
The Sept 11 Ground Zero area is scared ground.
It is absolutely terrified ground.
But you really mean, "sacred ground", although I am not sure how many people have to die in a place and in what way that determines at what point a site becomes "sacred", which seems to be a rather mystical and vague term. Perhaps you could explain what your parameters for sacredness are.
Again, I fail to see any problem with the Islamic Center or Mosque being there.
-
Again, I fail to see any problem with the Islamic Center or Mosque being there.
Which I can assume then you have no problem with Westboro church members protesting so near to funerals. Free Speech, and all that, right?
-
Again, I fail to see any problem with the Islamic Center or Mosque being there.
Which I can assume then you have no problem with Westboro church members protesting so near to funerals. Free Speech, and all that, right?
How many times have you stated that Park51 is not a legal issue, it is a location issue.
The Westboro Church Protests is a legal issue recently decided by Scotus in Westboro's favor.
-
The Sept 11 Ground Zero area is scared ground.
It is absolutely terrified ground.
But you really mean, "sacred ground",
Thanks for spelling correction XO!
-
The Mosque or whatever is not deliberately offensive to anyone. No one from the mosque or whatever walks about with signs stating "Islam RULES!", and "You Americans had it coming to mess with us Muslims".
Fred Phelps and his group is deliberately annoying. The Mosque or whatever is not visible from "Ground Zero", and could easily be ignored. Fred Phelps at a funeral is deliberately annoying.
I do not see where they are similar in any meaningful way.
The Muslims bought the site and there is no law preventing them from building whatever they wish on it. Phelps does not own any ground on or around any of the cemeteries where he puts on his nasty little spectacles.
-
The Mosque or whatever is not deliberately offensive to anyone.
A large contingent of both America and the 911 families would disagree. IIRC, a majority in fact
Again, I fail to see any problem with the Islamic Center or Mosque being there.
Which I can assume then you have no problem with Westboro church members protesting so near to funerals. Free Speech, and all that, right?
How many times have you stated that Park51 is not a legal issue, it is a location issue.
And remains so
The Westboro Church Protests is a legal issue recently decided by Scotus in Westboro's favor.
Irrelevent, since its not a legal issue, its a LOCATION issue. Notice I didn't ask about a position on the legal ramifications. "Free speech" is simply used as a repeititon to the arguement of those who support the mosque building, based on the 1st amendment
I do wish you'd get that accurately registered, having repeated it adnauseum
-
So Park51 is perfectly within their rights to do with as they please with their building as there are no legal issues involved. I guess those who object can just go pound sand.
-
"So Park51 is perfectly within their rights to do with as they
please with their building as there are no legal issues involved"
Correct....probably......for the time being at least......
but as we all know in life....two can play any game.
"I guess those who object can just go pound sand"
Wow I would like to see you say that to the families of the victims at a Town Hall meeting.
-
So Park51 is perfectly within their rights to do with as they please with their building as there are no legal issues involved. I guess those who object can just go pound sand.
BINGO!! What do you think I, C, and so many others have been saying all this time?? THAT's undoubtedly PRECISELY the position that those behind the construction of the mosque have adopted. Sensitivity be damned, the rest of us can go pound sand. That's what I've been saying since the beginning Bt. How you managed to FINALLY grasp that now, is beyond me
-
"So Park51 is perfectly within their rights to do with as they
please with their building as there are no legal issues involved"
Correct....probably......for the time being at least......
but as we all know in life....two can play any game.
"I guess those who object can just go pound sand"
Wow I would like to see you say that to the families of the victims at a Town Hall meeting.
Fine . Set it up. I'll be glad to follow the opponents to Park51 statement that the 5k soldiers who died in response to the attack on the WTC were not fighting for freedom but locational freedom.
-
So Park51 is perfectly within their rights to do with as they please with their building as there are no legal issues involved. I guess those who object can just go pound sand.
BINGO!! What do you think I, C, and so many others have been saying all this time?? THAT's undoubtedly PRECISELY the position that those behind the construction of the mosque have adopted. Sensitivity be damned, the rest of us can go pound sand. That's what I've been saying since the beginning Bt. How you managed to FINALLY grasp that now, is beyond me
I don't speak for the builders of Park51. I speak for myself. I see no other remedy to the controversy. As you have continually stated this is not a legal issue. You have also stated that the Park51 builders are certainly withinj their rights to do as they please withe the site as long as they follow local building codes and the permit process.
So it seems to me that this is simply a difference of opinion. I doubt i will change my mind on the issue and your opinion does not lead to a change in the facts and circumstances. Best I can tell the builders have prevailed and your side hasn't. Too bad, so sad.
-
Best I can tell the builders have prevailed and your side hasn't. Too bad, so sad.
Best I can tell the 9/11 Mosque isn't built. Too bad, so sad.
-
Best I can tell the builders have prevailed and your side hasn't. Too bad, so sad.
Best I can tell the 9/11 Mosque isn't built. Too bad, so sad.
That's fine. It's not the building it is the ideal.
-
That's fine. It's not the building it is the ideal.
We can agree on that!
And don't you forget it!
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_8K6kWK2TAGU/TIpdO8tJRjI/AAAAAAAABIc/LYEVOgtkfYs/s1600/september+11,+2001+world+trade+center+twin+towers+attack.jpg)
-
That's fine. It's not the building it is the ideal.
We can agree on that!
And don't you forget it!
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_8K6kWK2TAGU/TIpdO8tJRjI/AAAAAAAABIc/LYEVOgtkfYs/s1600/september+11,+2001+world+trade+center+twin+towers+attack.jpg)
I won't and i haven't (http://www.post41.com/special/1000words.htm).
But in the meantime can you provide direct linkage between the builders of Park51 and the WTC attackers, other than they share the same religion. Perhaps i missed it.
-
But in the meantime can you provide direct linkage between the builders of Park51
and the WTC attackers, other than they share the same religion. Perhaps i missed it.
Red Herring Alert!
The September 11th terrorists justified their action on the basis of Islamic theology.
If Catholics had been behind Sept 11th claiming Catholicism was their motivation
to bring down the World Trade Center buildings and murder thousands of Americans
I would not support building a huge Catholic monument on the site.
In fact it would be an outrage.
(http://www.wnd.com/images/100824busad.JPG)
-
But in the meantime can you provide direct linkage between the builders of Park51
and the WTC attackers, other than they share the same religion. Perhaps i missed it.
Red Herring Alert!
The September 11th terrorists justified their action on the basis of Islamic theology.
If Catholics had been behind Sept 11th claiming Catholicism was their motivation
to bring down the World Trade Center buildings and murder thousands of Americans
I would not support building a huge Catholic monument on the site.
In fact it would be an outrage.
(http://www.wnd.com/images/100824busad.JPG)
Nothing red herring about it.
If i understand you correctly what you are saying is that because the builders are Muslim then they must share the guilt of those Muslims who actually did the deed.
Is that correct? If that is not what you are saying could you clarify your position a bit more for me?
-
So Park51 is perfectly within their rights to do with as they please with their building as there are no legal issues involved. I guess those who object can just go pound sand.
BINGO!! What do you think I, C, and so many others have been saying all this time?? THAT's undoubtedly PRECISELY the position that those behind the construction of the mosque have adopted. Sensitivity be damned, the rest of us can go pound sand. That's what I've been saying since the beginning Bt. How you managed to FINALLY grasp that now, is beyond me
I don't speak for the builders of Park51. I speak for myself.
I've implied nothing else, so not sure why the "clarification"
I see no other remedy to the controversy.
Then you're either purposely not paying attention, or one of those that just wants others to "go pound sand". Half to a full mile out to do
So it seems to me that this is simply a difference of opinion.
Yea, one isof senstivity to the events of 911 and how it impacted America and those family how lost loved ones, and the other of screw you, we can, and we will. Or perhaps more accurately screw you, they can, and they will
Best I can tell the builders have prevailed and your side hasn't. Too bad, so sad.
Good thing I was never arguing this as a legal issue, thus making your conclusion pretty much moot
-
If i understand you correctly what you are saying is that because the builders are Muslim then they must share the guilt of those Muslims who actually did the deed. Is that correct? If that is not what you are saying could you clarify your position a bit more for me?
You have your semantics, I have mine.
I think if Muslims want to build a Muslim Center they should build it in a million
other places besides sacred ground where Muslims in the name of their religion
carried out one of the worst terrorism acts in American history. BT I just think it
is in very poor taste to build a Muslim Center adjacent to or near Ground Zero.
And to your other point....
I think many times a larger group can feel guilt and
shame over what a minority part of their group does.
I think Whites today share a guilt of slavery with those that actually did the deed.
I think Americans are ashamed & feel some guilt when pics arise of US Soldiers cruelty.
When I saw the pics today from Rolling Stone I was angry as hell, but also ashamed/feel guilt.
As a Catholic* I am ashamed/feel guilt that the homo priests did what they did to the alter boys.
I think as a partial White American I share guilt about other Americans treatment of the Indians.
As a partial White American I felt guilt when I saw other White Americans beating Rodney King.
And I think it would be in poor taste to build a "White Pride" monument at the Rodney King beating site.
-
But in the meantime can you provide direct linkage between the builders of Park51
and the WTC attackers, other than they share the same religion. Perhaps i missed it.
Red Herring Alert!
The September 11th terrorists justified their action on the basis of Islamic theology.
If Catholics had been behind Sept 11th claiming Catholicism was their motivation
to bring down the World Trade Center buildings and murder thousands of Americans
I would not support building a huge Catholic monument on the site.
In fact it would be an outrage.
BINGO
-
THAT's undoubtedly PRECISELY the position that those behind the construction of the mosque have adopted.
Thus the need for clarification. I have nothing to do with the building of Park51.
-
I think Whites today share a guilt of slavery with those that actually did the deed.
Do you feel guilt over slavery?
I don't.
-
As a partial White American I felt guilt when I saw other White Americans beating Rodney King.
And I think it would be in poor taste to build a "White Pride" monument at the Rodney King beating site.
Really. You felt white guilt over that. Last i heard the LAPD were the ones who did the deed. Wonder if they have a precinct or patrol cars anywhere near the site and whether that presences is duly sensitive and appropriate.
-
I think Whites today share a guilt of slavery with those that actually did the deed.
Do you feel guilt over slavery? I don't.
Oh yeah sure I do feel some.
I mean it's not like I walk around weeping everyday....lol
But sure I feel bad, ashamed, indirect guilt for what my ancestors did.
And in some ways I benefit everyday and they are still suffering from those crimes of my ancestors.
But thats really a different subject.
-
I think Whites today share a guilt of slavery with those that actually did the deed.
Do you feel guilt over slavery? I don't.
Oh yeah sure I do feel some.
I mean it's not like I walk around weeping everyday....lol
But sure I feel bad, ashamed, indirect guilt for what my ancestors did.
And in some ways I benefit everyday and they are still suffering from those crimes of my ancestors.
But thats really a different subject.
Guess my lack of guilt is a benefit from having ancestors who came over in the 1880's. Irish to New York City and the Germans to PA Dutch Country.
-
THAT's undoubtedly PRECISELY the position that those behind the construction of the mosque have adopted.
Thus the need for clarification.
Wow, I was not aware you were one of those behind the construction, which the above comments referenced. My bad. Unless of course you actually read what I wrote, and weren't, in which case no clarification was needed
-
Guilt resolves nothing. The issue regarding slavery is one of understanding, not guilt.
I am neither for nor against them building the Park 51 mosque, but calling it the 9/11 mosque is just stupid bigotry. The owners of Park 51 have the same right to build whatever they wish, just as you would if you were the owner.
I do not see where any sane person can say that a place two blocks down and one around the corner is "sacred". I do not see how victims who were simply doing their jobs and unlucky enough to get murdered by fanatical morons make any place "sacred".
-
Wow, I was not aware you were one of those behind the construction, which the above comments referenced. My bad.
Showing your comprehension skills again?
-
Guess my lack of guilt is a benefit from having ancestors who came over in the 1880's.
Irish to New York City and the Germans to PA Dutch Country.
So now you are saying the horrible treatment of blacks
in the United States was over by 1880? (BT I am just ribbing you)
But glad to hear you are Irish!
-
Wow, I was not aware you were one of those behind the construction, which the above comments referenced. My bad.
Showing your comprehension skills again?
"THAT's undoubtedly PRECISELY the position that those behind the construction of the mosque have adopted." Nope, just highlighting your apparent lack of such, with an irrelevant unneeded "clarification"
-
Wow, I was not aware you were one of those behind the construction, which the above comments referenced. My bad.
Showing your comprehension skills again?
"THAT's undoubtedly PRECISELY the position that those behind the construction of the mosque have adopted." Nope, just highlighting your apparent lack of such, with an irrelevant unneeded "clarification"
Good for you
-
::)
-
Guess my lack of guilt is a benefit from having ancestors who came over in the 1880's. Irish to New York City and the Germans to PA Dutch Country.
My "ancestors" (my parents) came over in late 1960s, via Central America. Slavery per se never really existed in Austria, and even serfdom (hereditary workers) was abolished in 1848.
-
(http://images.onset.freedom.com/ocregister/gallery/livryq-b78775831z.120110330101152000g04uaman.1.jpg)
-
So what are you for?
Paying ANY price?
Bearing ANY burden?
That was nonsense when JFK said it, he did not act accordingly, he could not act accordingly, and it is nonsense today.
Libya is not Vietnam.
-
So what are you for?
Paying ANY price?
Bearing ANY burden?
That was nonsense when JFK said it, he did not act accordingly, he could not act accordingly, and it is nonsense today.
Libya is not Vietnam.
Generally or specificly?
Opening up the grand catagory of American Interventionism this qualifies as just another one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museo_Nacional_de_las_Intervenciones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museo_Nacional_de_las_Intervenciones)
http://www.mexconnect.com/articles/318-churubusco-museo-nacional-de-las-intervenciones (http://www.mexconnect.com/articles/318-churubusco-museo-nacional-de-las-intervenciones)
-
There is no caliphate. Not anywhere.
Nor all Muslims are radicals, not all Muslims commit acts of terrorism.
-
There is no caliphate. Not anywhere.
Nor all Muslims are radicals, not all Muslims commit acts of terrorism.
Ok, there is also no united Europe under a thousand year Reich. Nor were there ever a majority of Germans members of the Nazi party. The perfidious idea was still harmfull.
If one were able to gather and count all of the earths terrorists right now, what purportion of them would belong to what category's? How many of these would feel cross border kinship with other terrorists ?
Before WWII there were some Christians who despised Nazis and said so, that the Pope didn't is a criticism I have heard. Had he any duty to denounce?
-
I would say that the Pope did have a duty to denounce the Nazis, but perhaps he felt that this would simply have resulted in the end of the papacy and the Church.
I am all for opposing terrorists as terrorists, but not opposing all Muslin=ms because some Muslims are radical, and some radical Muslims are terrorists.
-
Nor all Muslims are radicals, not all Muslims commit acts of terrorism.
Good thing no one is claiming that. Way to clear that non-issue up, Xo
-
Nor all Muslims are radicals, not all Muslims commit acts of terrorism.
Good thing no one is claiming that. Way to clear that non-issue up, Xo
I'm sure some people in some locations have that confusion.
-
And some people still think Elvis is alive. It's called the Elvis Factor, I do believe
-
And some people still think Elvis is alive. It's called the Elvis Factor, I do believe
I did not know you suffered from the Elvis Factor.
-
I don't since I neither belief Elvis is alive or that all Muslims are radical terrorists. I really wish I knew what this beef you have with me is, Bt. This repetition of trying to misrepresent my position is pretty transparent, at this point
-
I don't since I neither belief Elvis is alive or that all Muslims are radical terrorists. I really wish I knew what this beef you have with me is, Bt. This repetition of trying to misrepresent my position is pretty transparent, at this point
It's really simple.
You lump muslims in with radical muslims, then deny you do it. How do i know this?
Every time you say that the WTC attackers did so in the name of Muslims everywhere you do so.
Everytime you say that non radical muslims should suffer for the sins of radical muslims you do so.
Everytime you say that non radical muslims should be sensitive to the prejudices of others concerning the acts of radical muslims you do so.
I am simply trying to help you work through your prejudices. Because I care.
-
Yea. Nice try to claim some copy of what I do. Lame, totally inaccurate, asinine conclusions, and yet another misrepresentation effort, but cute
-
Yea. Nice try to claim some copy of what I do. Lame, totally inaccurate, asinine conclusions, and yet another misrepresentation effort, but cute
Could you rephrase that.
-
All Muslims are not radical terrorists
-
All Muslims are radical terrorists
-
All Muslims may or may not be radical terrorists
(there...by BT's parameters, I'm now immune from any criticism regarding this issue, and expect Bt to fully defend anyone that tries)
8)
-
It's really simple. You lump muslims in with radical muslims, then deny you do it
It is really simple. It is quite simple, but you choose to deny reality.
You lump muslims in with radical muslims, then deny you do it. How do i know this?
No we want to lump all Muslims together because...DUH...in reality all Muslims are Muslims.
We want to admit reality.
You want to try separate reality into some myth of political correctness.
Islam has a major current violence problem unlike any other current day religion.
You want to deny it and spin some BS just like the our scumbag Attorney General.
And you sound as ridiculous as he did trying to deny reality.
Listen to this video and see this dumbass trying to wiggle around reality.
Bunch-0-Bullshit!
Eric Holder Refuses To Say "Radical Islam" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOQt_mP6Pgg#)
-
This moron Smith wants a yes or no answer to some vague question about unnamed individuals. It is pretty obvious that what he wants to do is force Holder to agree with him.
-
Smith wants a yes or no answer to some vague question
The question is not vague at all.
It is a simple direct question that is obviously very easy to answer
unless you have an agenda to avoid speaking the truth about reality.
-
It is not possible to correctly answer any question about the motives someone has about taking some action or another. This dolt Smith was simply trying to force an answer from Holder that neither he nor Holder knew was certain. Holder resisted, because the question was vague and unanswerable with yes or no.
Supposing "radical Islam" is to blame for all terrorist acts. Then what is the response? To arrest all suspected radical Muslims and put them on trial? Or just to gun them down like rabid dogs?
How does not tell the difference between a "radical Muslim" and a slightly less, possibly less dangerous, less radical Muslim?
Do the radical ones have flashing lights on their heads?
-
Brigitte Gabriel Blasts Political Correctness (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYYrWrS6fU4#)
-
It's really simple. You lump muslims in with radical muslims, then deny you do it
It is really simple. It is quite simple, but you choose to deny reality.
You lump muslims in with radical muslims, then deny you do it. How do i know this?
No we want to lump all Muslims together because...DUH...in reality all Muslims are Muslims.
We want to admit reality.
You want to try separate reality into some myth of political correctness.
Islam has a major current violence problem unlike any other current day religion.
You want to deny it and spin some BS just like the our scumbag Attorney General.
And you sound as ridiculous as he did trying to deny reality.
Listen to this video and see this dumbass trying to wiggle around reality.
Bunch-0-Bullshit!
Eric Holder Refuses To Say "Radical Islam" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOQt_mP6Pgg#)
Just to be clear, are you saying to be Muslim is to be a radical muslim?
-
All Muslims may or may not be radical terrorists
(there...by BT's parameters, I'm now immune from any criticism regarding this issue, and expect Bt to fully defend anyone that tries)
8)
Your statements are contradictory. XO's were not.
-
Again, what is to be gained by Holder stating that Radical Muslims are terrorists and should be punished, when all he needs to say is that terrorists are undesirable and should be punished?
Is anything gained by Holder attacking, or seeming to attack, Islam?
I think not. I disagree with all the basic tenets of Islam, but since nothing is gained by me publicly declaring that I consider them to be rather silly and often fanatical, I do not do so.
There is no reason for any public figure to assault anyone's religion, ever. What we do not like about radical Muslim terrorists is the terrorist part, so why not just say we are against terrorism? What is gained by including Islam, other than irritating people who there is no reason to irritate?
-
"Just to be clear, are you saying to be Muslim is to be a radical muslim?"
I am saying to be Muslim is to be a part of a specific group that currently
has a HUGE violence problem within it where enough Muslims motivated
by Islam threaten world peace & all other religions pale in comparison in 2011.
Sam Harris on Islam the Religion of Peace (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E1u9lQeAsY#ws)
Sam Harris on Islam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a8NDBiPTcs#)
-
even more sound logic on Islam (from a liberal!)
Sam Harris on Islam. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjfCWy6dmco#)
-
"Just to be clear, are you saying to be Muslim is to be a radical muslim?"
I am saying to be Muslim is to be a part of a specific group that currently
has a HUGE violence problem within it where enough Muslims motivated
by Islam threaten world peace & all other religions pale in comparison in 2011.
OK. So you are saying all Muslims share the guilt of their fellow believers who participate in radical terrorist acts? No matter their personal beliefs or record of behavior?
-
All Muslims may or may not be radical terrorists
(there...by BT's parameters, I'm now immune from any criticism regarding this issue, and expect Bt to fully defend anyone that tries)
8)
Your statements are contradictory. XO's were not.
Actually, mine are nearly identical, and using your parameters, I now have criticism immunity. I appreciate your defending that in the immediate future
-
All Muslims may or may not be radical terrorists
(there...by BT's parameters, I'm now immune from any criticism regarding this issue, and expect Bt to fully defend anyone that tries)
8)
Your statements are contradictory. XO's were not.
Actually, mine are nearly identical, and using your parameters, I now have criticism immunity. I appreciate your defending that in the immediate future
That explains a lot.
-
Nice to see we're in agreement
-
Nice to see we're in agreement
We aren't. And again that explains a lot.
-
You mean it doesn't explain alot? Funny, that's what I thought we were in agreement. Now it doesn't explain alot? Boy, I wish you would make up your mind. Getting as bad as Xo
-
You mean it doesn't explain alot? Funny, that's what I thought we were in agreement. Now it doesn't explain alot? Boy, I wish you would make up your mind. Getting as bad as Xo
No i meant it explains a lot. Apparently you can neither read nor comprehend what is written, so you just make it up as you go along.
-
OK. So you are saying all Muslims share the guilt of their fellow believers who participate
in radical terrorist acts? No matter their personal beliefs or record of behavior?
LOL BT
I did not say that.
I said Islam has a current day unequaled huge serious problem of violence within it's faith.
It's obvious this is so....hell pickup a newspaper any day of the week....
And Muslims claiming they are motivated by Islam are killing a bunch of innocent people.
Is it a problem if religious fanatics from one religion threaten world peace and keep killing tons of people?
Yeah I think that is a problem for that religion.
Here is another well known liberal discussing the same thing:
Bill Maher on Muslim violence - AC360 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj6WTSCkGCM#noexternalembed-ws)
-
OK. So you are saying all Muslims share the guilt of their fellow believers who participate
in radical terrorist acts? No matter their personal beliefs or record of behavior?
LOL BT
I did not say that.
I said Islam has an current day unequaled huge serious problem of violence within it's faith.
It's obvious this is so....hell pickup a newspaper any day of the week....
And Muslims claiming they are motivated by Islam are killing a bunch of innocent people.
Is it a problem if religious fanatics from one religion threaten world peace and keep killing tons of people?
Yeah I think that is a problem for that religion.
Here is another well known liberal discussing the same thing:
Bill Maher on Muslim violence - AC360 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj6WTSCkGCM#noexternalembed-ws)
So you avoided the original question? Which was:
"Just to be clear, are you saying to be Muslim is to be a radical muslim?"
-
You mean it doesn't explain alot? Funny, that's what I thought we were in agreement. Now it doesn't explain alot? Boy, I wish you would make up your mind. Getting as bad as Xo
No i meant it explains a lot.
Which I agreed with....which you then said you didn't. As i said, I do wish you'd make up your mind
Apparently you can neither read nor comprehend what is written, so you just make it up as you go along.
Oh, the irony. Then again, when on an apparent tar & feather sirs campaign, I suppose that's a prerequisite
-
So you avoided the original question? Which was:
"Just to be clear, are you saying to be Muslim is to be a radical muslim?"
No I did not avoid the original question, because you do not like or appreciate my
answer does not mean I avoided anything. Any religion including Islam is a
"cafeteria" of beliefs. As I have repeatedly stated humans are free to believe
whatever they want to believe. The problem is that there are enough violent
Muslims (unlike any other current day religion) that world peace is threatened
and thousands of innocent people are being slaughtered by violent Muslims
that state Islam is their motivation. Not every Muslim is flying planes into buildings
or strapping on bomb belts...just like every German didn't turn the gas on the Jews,
but enough Muslims are extremely violent and slaughter innocents that it reflects
badly on the entire group. How could it be otherwise? Would Muslims slaughtering
innocent people in the name of their religion be a positive reflection?
-
Would Muslims slaughtering innocent people in the name of their religion be a positive reflection?
No more than Catholic Priests being pedophiles would be a positive reflection on that religion. But i haven't heard the charge that all catholics are pedophiles because of those same priests, nor have i heard that all catholic priest are pedophiles because of the actions of those who are. And i certainly haven't heard that any catholic former or active should be suspected of pedophilia and treated accordingly because of the action of those who are.
-
Nor have I heard the charge that all Muslims are radical terrorists. Please Bt, show us who actually is making that claim
-
Nor have I heard the charge that all Muslims are radical terrorists. Please Bt, show us who actually is making that claim
If someone performs an act in your name then you are just as guilty of the act as if you did it yourself. How many times have we heard that?
-
I don't know. You tell us. I sure as hell haven't made that claim. I don't recall Cu4 making that claim. Care to site some sources?
-
I am saying to be Muslim is to be a part of a specific group that currently
has a HUGE violence problem within it where enough Muslims motivated
by Islam threaten world peace & all other religions pale in comparison in 2011.
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/%27who%27s-on-1st%27/msg121082/#msg121082 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/%27who%27s-on-1st%27/msg121082/#msg121082)
-
So, now you'll demonstrate that happening to be a part of that group, that Cu4 is claiming they are guilty of the crimes commited by those who use their religion to commit those crimes
I'm all eyes
-
So, now you'll demonstrate that happening to be a part of that group, that Cu4 is claiming they are guilty of the crimes commited by those who use their religion to commit those crimes
I'm all eyes
If they weren't guilty of the actions of the group why include them within the group.
As for you, you said that the location of the Park51 Mosque was an insult to the relatives of those who died on 9-11 because Bin Laden performed those actions in the name of Islam.
-
So, now you'll demonstrate that happening to be a part of that group, that Cu4 is claiming they are guilty of the crimes commited by those who use their religion to commit those crimes
I'm all eyes
If they weren't guilty of the actions of the group why include them within the group.
Because it happens to be a fact. Muslims who practice Islam and Muslim terrorists who murder in the name of Islam happen to be within the same group. It's no more simpler than that. It sure as hell doesn't translate that all Muslims, radical terrorists
Care to try again?
As for you, you said that the location of the Park51 Mosque was an insult to the relatives of those who died on 9-11 because Bin Laden performed those actions in the name of Islam.
No, IIRC, I didn't say insult, I said grossly insensitive. Let's nip that misrepresentation effort in the bud. And the fact that I've also concluded that the Mosque can pretty much be built anywhere else reinforces the point that it's not about Muslims = radical terrorists, and all about location
-
And the location objection applies to non radical Muslims, because...?
-
Because *cues the quote..."1 more time"*, its grossly insensitive to build a structure in the name of a religion, so close in proximity to where terrorists killed thousands in the name of that religion
Because if its built even a few more blocks away, this isn't an issue
The majority of the country gets that. Why you keep trying to defend a concept that's never been the case (muslims are radical terrorsts) is very telling.
-
Because *cues the quote..."1 more time"*, its grossly insensitive to build a structure in the name of a religion, so close in proximity to where terrorists killed thousands in the name of that religion
So non radical muslims are guilty, in your mind, of acts they did not commit.
The majority of the country gets that. Why you keep trying to defend a concept that's never been the case (muslims are radical terrorsts) is very telling.
The majority of the country elected Obama. That hasn't stopped you from criticizing him.
-
I don't know. You tell us. I sure as hell haven't made that claim. I don't recall Cu4 making that claim. Care to site some sources?
It was Islamic terrorists who perpetrated this act. It is Islamic terrorists and radicals we are still at war with. It is Islamic terrorists that many Islamic Religious leaders have an apparent acute difficulty in denouncing. This doesn't brand all Muslim, in any way shape or form. They simply are the unfortunate repercussions of the few that screwed it up for them.
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/just-not-there/msg109600/#msg109600 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/just-not-there/msg109600/#msg109600)
-
Well, since you're going to insist on LYING about my position, (ie Muslims are guilty of acts they didn't commit) , I think we're thru with this thread. You can opine that the lack of a response is somehow support of your lie.....that would be an egregiously wrong conclusion as well.
And it was a majority of the elecorate, who are now on level to fix that mistake of electing Obama, if you look at job approval polls. You'll now demonstrate the polling that has a majority of the country now supporting said Mosque location
Though I do appreciate you highlighting an important point to my position. Here in the Medical field me and my patients have been saddled with a ridiculously higher level of documentation and regulation requirements, than when I started as a therapist, due to those few that abused the system. apparently in your tweaked assessment, I blame all my patients.
Not off to a very good week, Bt.
-
Here in the Medical field me and my patients have been saddled with a ridiculously higher level of documentation and regulation requirements, than when I started as a therapist, due to those few that abused the system. apparently in your tweaked assessment, I blame all my patients.
Those who abused the system didn't create the regulations. So why would they be responsible for the added paperwork burden? or subject to blame?
The burden is a reaction to the actions of a few, as those few do not have the means to enact additional paperwork burdens and or regulations.
-
Here in the Medical field me and my patients have been saddled with a ridiculously higher level of documentation and regulation requirements, than when I started as a therapist, due to those few that abused the system. apparently in your tweaked assessment, I blame all my patients.
Those who abused the system didn't create the regulations. So why would they be responsible for the added paperwork burden? or subject to blame?
They're not the "subject of blame" That's YOUR egregious error. They're merely members of the same group and victims of the ever worsening regulations and documentation mandates, of those patients and medical professionals that DID abuse the system.
Which is not to say that Muslims are now "victims" either. Just highlighing how the actions of a few can impact on the whole. Move the mosque a few blocks, and there is no issue, period
-
oh come on SIRS you know if thousands upon thousands of Republicans
started targeting and slaughtering thousands of innocent people by flying
planes into buildings, blowing up wedding parties, blowing up children's
schools, beheading journalist, blowing up hotels, blowing up nightclubs,
blowing up trains, blowing up airports, blowing up buses, murdering old and young,
ect ect ect ect ect ect ect and after each rampage the radical Republicans said they
did it because of the Republican Party....now that would not make the Republican
Party look bad....nahhhhhhh not at all.....in fact I am sure there would be no
condemnation of the Republican Party.... because...well after-all.... most
Republicans are peaceful, and hey they could even call themselves
"The Party of Peace" after all the slaughter!
-
They're not the "subject of blame" That's YOUR egregious error.
Did I say they were? If you read what i wrote, and i am beginning to understand that reading is not your strong suite, you would have seen that i never assigned blame to them for the onerousness regulations placed on your workplace. The regulators would be to blame.
-
oh come on SIRS you know if thousands upon thousands of Republicans
started targeting and slaughtering thousands of innocent people by flying
planes into buildings, blowing up wedding parties, blowing up children's
schools, beheading journalist, blowing up hotels, blowing up nightclubs,
blowing up trains, blowing up airports, blowing up buses, murdering old and young,
ect ect ect ect ect ect ect and after each rampage the radical Republicans said they
did it because of the Republican Party....now that would not make the Republican
Party look bad....nahhhhhhh not at all.....in fact I am sure there would be no
condemnation of the Republican Party.... because...well after-all.... most
Republicans are peaceful, and hey they could even call themselves
"The Party of Peace" after all the slaughter!
The question is not whether the Republican Party looks bad, the question would be whether the non violent wing of the Republican Party shares the guilt of the Violent wing.
-
The question is not whether the Republican Party looks bad,
under your logic why would it "look bad"?
under your logic.....it shouldn't "look bad" should it?
if only "a few" of the greater group in fact carried out the violence
why would the Republican Party "look bad" if a bunch of Republicans
started slaughtering hundreds of thousands saying they did it for Republican ideals?
-
SIRS...I think this guy states our position pretty well
and he also calls out the "BT's" too!
The enemy within (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUiysSau8Qk#)
-
The question is not whether the Republican Party looks bad,
under your logic why would it "look bad"?
under your logic.....it shouldn't "look bad" should it?
if only "a few" of the greater group in fact carried out the violence
why would the Republican Party "look bad" if a bunch of Republicans
started slaughtering hundreds of thousands saying they did it for Republican ideals?
Under my logic the innocent should not share in the guilt of those who do the deeds.
I don't believe I said anything other than that.
Perhaps you can show me where I did.
-
They're not the "subject of blame" That's YOUR egregious error.
Did I say they were?
NO. That's what you keep claiming, incorrectly, folks like myself and Cu4 are saying/doing/implying....without 1 shred of rhetorical evidence. Merely a template of a conclusion you've come to, that apparently must be adhered to, despite all rhetorical evidence to the contrary. That's the egregious error being referenced.
And no, it's not the regulaters, its those that brought about the need for the regulators to do what they felt compelled to do......those that perpetrated the acts are to blame. For someone so supposedly grounded in indivdiual responsibility for one's own actions, you sure do give wide latitidue to certain constituencies ::)
-
The question is not whether the Republican Party looks bad,
under your logic why would it "look bad"?
under your logic.....it shouldn't "look bad" should it?
if only "a few" of the greater group in fact carried out the violence
why would the Republican Party "look bad" if a bunch of Republicans
started slaughtering hundreds of thousands saying they did it for Republican ideals?
Under my logic the innocent should not share in the guilt of those who do the deeds.
I don't believe I said anything other than that.
How ironic....so has Cu4 and myself. Have you taken some poll? Do they "feel guilty"?
-
The question is not whether the Republican Party looks bad,
under your logic why would it "look bad"?
under your logic.....it shouldn't "look bad" should it?
if only "a few" of the greater group in fact carried out the violence
why would the Republican Party "look bad" if a bunch of Republicans
started slaughtering hundreds of thousands saying they did it for Republican ideals?
*snicker*.....when David Duke was in the party, remember how the GOP was called the party of the KKK? But under Bt's parameters, WE, as in you and me, must also be blaming the rest of the GOP, claiming them as racists, that they must share in the guilt. Quite the "logic", at work
-
They're not the "subject of blame" That's YOUR egregious error.
Did I say they were?
NO. That's what you keep claiming, incorrectly, folks like myself and Cu4 are saying/doing/implying....without 1 shred of rhetorical evidence. Merely a template of a conclusion you've come to, that apparently must be adhered to, despite all rhetorical evidence to the contrary. That's the egregious error being referenced.
And no, it's not the regulaters, its those that brought about the need for the regulators to do what they felt compelled to do......those that perpetrated the acts are to blame. For someone so supposedly grounded in indivdiual responsibility for one's own actions, you sure do give wide latitidue to certain constituencies ::)
Oh so when you said:
Though I do appreciate you highlighting an important point to my position. Here in the Medical field me and my patients have been saddled with a ridiculously higher level of documentation and regulation requirements, than when I started as a therapist, due to those few that abused the system. apparently in your tweaked assessment, I blame all my patients.
You weren't claiming that was my actual position, you were claiming that was your perception of my actual position, absent any quotable facts to back up that perception. Again that explains a lot about your thought process.
-
The question is not whether the Republican Party looks bad,
under your logic why would it "look bad"?
under your logic.....it shouldn't "look bad" should it?
if only "a few" of the greater group in fact carried out the violence
why would the Republican Party "look bad" if a bunch of Republicans
started slaughtering hundreds of thousands saying they did it for Republican ideals?
*snicker*.....when David Duke was in the party, remember how the GOP was called the party of the KKK? But under Bt's parameters, WE, as in you and me, must also be blaming the rest of the GOP, claiming them as racists, that they must share in the guilt. Quite the "logic", at work
Why would you feel guilty. You aren't a Republican.
-
You weren't claiming that was my actual position, you were claiming that was your perception of my actual position, absent any quotable facts to back up that perception. Again that explains a lot about your thought process.
Yea, because your quotes of continued implied sharing the guilt & sharing the blame (minus any actual rhetorical evidence, of course), were never actually used by yourself. It was your......evil twin. Yea, that has to be it. Mystery solved
Gotcha
-
The question is not whether the Republican Party looks bad,
under your logic why would it "look bad"?
under your logic.....it shouldn't "look bad" should it?
if only "a few" of the greater group in fact carried out the violence
why would the Republican Party "look bad" if a bunch of Republicans
started slaughtering hundreds of thousands saying they did it for Republican ideals?
*snicker*.....when David Duke was in the party, remember how the GOP was called the party of the KKK? But under Bt's parameters, WE, as in you and me, must also be blaming the rest of the GOP, claiming them as racists, that they must share in the guilt. Quite the "logic", at work
Why would you feel guilty. You aren't a Republican.
But Republicans should, per your conclusions of Cu4 & myself
-
*snicker*.....when David Duke was in the party, remember how the GOP was called the party of the KKK? But under Bt's parameters, WE, as in you and me, must also be blaming the rest of the GOP, claiming them as racists, that they must share in the guilt. Quite the "logic", at work
Again you can not read. CU introduced the GOP with the evil segment and the shared guilt. Perhaps you should aim you snicker at him, unless you agree that the innocents should share in the shame of the guilty.
-
Naaaa, the snicker is spot on with your repetative demonstration of flawed logic, regarding shared guilt
-
Where have i advocated shared guilt?
-
There is such a missed point here.
If 90% of the terrorism in the world today is done by muslims , or for the sake of arguement if only 5o% were this is enough dispurportion to require examination.
If ANY(even just one) terrorist when asked the "why?" question says it is to benefit Islam, then this becomes worthy of further investigation .
In a world in which preachers of Islam are more prone to blame the problems of their homeland and their faith ,on foreign influences than on anything elese , even if this preaching population is only a strong minority then this becomes a question worthy of intense inquiry.
It is worthwile to preserve the safety and the clean reputation of the innocent , even the innocent that share some caricteristic with the guilty, ....BUT not to the politicly correct extreme at which the caricteristics that the guilty share together cannot be examined at all simply because some innocent also have the same caricteristic.
It is as if someone discovered that 80% of assissians had big hands , and could not ever say so because he had to protect the set of people with big hands who were innocents.
It is only the careless use of false syllogism that we need to avoid , not the real facts as they are.
[Yes my hands are rather small.]
-
Where have i advocated shared guilt?
Reading comprehension issues again? I never claimed you were "advocating it". I claimed it's been your ongoing, albeit wrong, conclusions/accusations aimed at folks like myself and Cu4 of using it
-
So when CU says the Religion of Islam has a problem, what he must mean is that followers of the religion of Islam have a problem, because the concepts and doctrines of a religion can not act on their own, only through the hands of its believers.
So the question then arises whether when he says the religion of Islam has a problem, he means the adherents of that religion have a problem, and if so, which ones? Some all or none of the above.
-
So when CU says the Religion of Islam has a problem, what he must mean is that followers of the religion of Islam have a problem, because the concepts and doctrines of a religion can not act on their own, only through the hands of its believers.
Not how I'd see it. Best ask Cu4 for better clarity on your part
So the question then arises...
Since the premice is flawed, from my POV, there no need to address a question that's spawned from the flaw. As I said, best seek confirmation to your conclusion, from Cu4, before asking your follow-up
-
Yeah i thought you would have a problem with that question.
-
Especially since its not about me
-
Then whatcha butting in for?
-
But Plane....last week brought a sober reminder that every religion has its
extremists, as Christian radicals burned one copy of the Quran
(and Muslim radicals attacked a half-dozen churches, burned dozens of
Bibles, and slaughtered 321 people in 26 terror attacks in just 7 days)
(http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/quran-wild.jpg)
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/)
-
Then whatcha butting in for?
A) Because you were responding to my post, with an inquiry that seemed to be aimed at me.
B) It's supposed to be a debate forum where anyone can "butt in
If not, you need to do a far better job of aiming your "then arises" question, and limiting who can respond
-
Then whatcha butting in for?
A) Because you were responding to my post, with an inquiry that seemed to be aimed at me.
B) It's supposed to be a debate forum where anyone can "butt in
If not, you need to do a far better job of aiming your "then arises" question, and limiting who can respond
Brilliant. Perhaps next time you butt in you can add something to the conversation.
-
absolutely.....when a valid question is posed, I'll be right there
-
absolutely.....when a valid question is posed, I'll be right there
Then perhaps you can explain how an idea kills.
-
It doesn't.
It can foster/facilitate someone take up a cause to kill. So what does this tangent have to do with the tea in China? Did you get your clarification/confirmation from C yet?
-
It can foster/facilitate someone take up a cause to kill.
Ah is belief in an idea passive or active?
Is a choice part of the equation?
-
Still haven't answered my question I see. But to answer yours 1 last one; passive & yes
Perhaps if you decide to illuminate the rationale behind this tangential arm of questioning, I'll be more inclined to discuss it. Until then, I'd rather debate actual issues vs philosophical ones, if you don't mind.
-
Still haven't answered my question I see. But to answer yours 1 last one; passive & yes
Perhaps if you decide to illuminate the rationale behind this tangential arm of questioning, I'll be more inclined to discuss it. Until then, I'd rather debate actual issues vs philosophical ones, if you don't mind.
How could a choice be passive?
-
I didn't say it (choice) was. You asked if a belief in an idea was ::)
-
I didn't say it was ::)
Really?
I asked this :
Ah is belief in an idea passive or active?
Is a choice part of the equation?
you answered:
But to answer yours 1 last one; passive & yes
So again how can a choice be passive?
-
I didn't say it (choice) was passive.
You asked if a belief in an idea was passive or active . I responded with "passive".
I then answered your 2nd question of if choice is part of the equation. I responded with "yes"
Since you refuse to answer my question, I'm done with with this irrelevant dance
-
How could a choice be passive?
Is no choice a choice?
-
Since you refuse to answer my question, I'm done with with this irrelevant dance
===============================================================
But irrelevant dancing is your forte, sirs.
This forum is replete with discussions that burrow ever deeper into useless vagaries, fruitless investigations and meaningless insults you have perceived others to have given you.
-
How could a choice be passive?
Is no choice a choice?
That depends.
-
Since you refuse to answer my question, I'm done with with this irrelevant dance
===============================================================
But irrelevant dancing is your forte, sirs.
Which I'm sure you'll be able to demonstrate copius examples of, since they're apparently so numerous. Your "say so" pretty much means squat now a days, unless the topic is something that requires a quick google search on your part.
So, by all means, start the path of rebuilding your credibility with .... how about 3 examples. Perhaps even 2, if its, as you say, my forte. The keyboard is yours
-
How could a choice be passive?
Is no choice a choice?
That depends.
I sure didn't realize just how hard Bt's answering of my question, was going to be. It......explains a lot
-
How could a choice be passive?
Is no choice a choice?
That depends.
I sure didn't realize just how hard Bt's answering of my question, was going to be. It......explains a lot
Thought you were done with this "irrevelant" dance. So much for your own credibility.
-
I was done answering your tangential questions to no where. I was never done in trying to get a simple answer to a simple question I posed. You want to talk about credibility issues?....best look at the reflection in your monitor
-
That depends.
Is a color blind person really color blind?
I am "color blind" but I can see colors.
So since I can see colors I am not really color blind.
So I guess lotz-o-stuff "depends".
;)
-
That depends.
Is a color blind person really color blind?
I am "color blind" but I can see colors.
So since I can see colors I am not really color blind.
So I guess lotz-o-stuff "depends".
;)
Doesn't it depend on what the definition of colorblindness is.
I sometimes have trouble distinguishing between green blue and blue green. It depends on contrast and available light.
I have never been diagnosed as color blind. I can distinguish the primary colors fine.
But back to your original point.
Again it depends on what you mean by no choice. Does no choice mean that there are not options to choose from or does it mean that the option to choose is disallowed.
So if given the choice to be colorblind would you choose it, or is colorblindness in your case not optional, it is part of your condition of being, and thus not open to choice.
-
"So if given the choice to be colorblind would you choose it"
I dunno....maybe.
I have had people tell me "oh thats too bad you are color blind".
I say "it is?"
They dont see what I see
Whose to say my world isn't much prettier?
"or is colorblindness in your case not optional,
it is part of your condition of being,
and thus not open to choice"
I think I heard there are contact lenses available that "cures" it
So maybe it is optional.
But I think I'd rather just stay the same than deal with contact lenses
sometimes/many times....the medicine is worse than the disease.
there's lots of "depends" and "maybees" in life
This reminds me of an old zen story I have always loved.....
There is a story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said sympathetically.
"Maybe", the farmer replied.
The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. "How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed.
"Maybe", replied the old man.
The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune.
"Maybe", answered the farmer.
The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out.
"Maybe", said the farmer.