RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events So we'll intervene in Libya for "humanitarian" reasons, but we're gonna turn away from Egypt.

BEEEE-YOU-TEE-FUL!!

Hurm...

Screw Egypt. They aint done anything good for the world since all those Mummy movies a few years back.

Above all else, the hypocrisy of the European and North American governments is the emphasis here. But there's a more prevalent issue manifesting here.

The old me would have said yes: let the Middle East baste in its own diseased fanaticism. The pre-9/11 Pariah--whom it did not occur to that Western culture could be affected by Islamic elements--would have pointed and laughed.

But there is a reoccurring pattern here: every fucking non-Islamic culture that is infiltrated....Excuse me, settled within by Muslims turns to shit. This is what happens when you allow Shariah law and Islam in general to establish itself in any country: it eats every other philosophy and religion until only it is left. And despite its violent and misogynist history, it is continuously and incessantly apologized for. WHY?

Political correctness? I agree in that I find it distasteful the Muslim Religion doesn't loudly, and widely rebuke their extremist element. Of course, the Christians are guilty of the same -type of looking the other way to their abortion bombers. At the same time, I concede that Christianity isn't widely expressed in a violent manner. Not as much as Muslims are. And Christianity, while presenting a hardline view of stoning people in the Old Testament, the New Testament (which practically reduces the Old to a history text), makes amends by Jesus' preachings of peace and forgiveness.

Yes, Muslim Extremists are very violent, and the Sharia Law is inherently violent or oppressive to others that don't share their beliefs. Moreso than Christians seem to have proven in at least the last century. Going backwards in history, though, you find more and more atrocities at least linked to the Christian Religion/Roman Catholic Church. But, just due to the very fact the Western culture seemed to jump a couple stages ahead of Third World countries in the 19th/20th centuries, would suggest that it might be possible for Muslims, and Sharia Law, to find some moderation in the decades to come. Certainly, if nothing else, the violent expression of their culture and religion will eventually erode any and all Political Correctness barriers, leading to a consensual rebuke by free societies.

Also, I have no idea why we'll bomb Libya and not go in to assist the Egyptian Revolution. I guess it's kind of why the US intervened in Libya, "supported" freedom revolts in other countries, but seems to be turning a deaf ear to the American Revolt against Big Business. It's all about who has the money, and who's paying...

I use alot. I bet JLA hates me right now...

Correct.

When your religion has, at least, 1300 years (see, Constantinian Dynasty to 17th century wars of religion...at least) of Christian on Christian, Christian on Pagan, Christian on Jew, and Christian on Muslim violence...please...save me your righteous indignation. Who knows, they are about 1300 years into their violent history too. Maybe, they'll just say "Fuck it" like most of Christianity did in the seventeenth century.

Way to repeat my point, Iggy.

I've confirmed Pariah's HIVEMIND! suspicions!

Yeah, all the Muslims did in their first 400 years was exterminate the Coptic Christians of the Middle East and North Africa, then seize parts of Italy, all of Spain and Portugal, the Southern portion of France, and the Balkans and Eastern Europe, until they were pushed back at the gates of Vienna.

It's not like the Muslims did anything bad to provoke a Crusade or two after centuries of persecution.

Christianity was born and spread for hundreds of years peacefully throughout the Roman Empire, before it was finally co-opted by Constantine, that Christians accepted because it made them legally able to practice their religion throughout the Roman Empire without persecution.

Islam was born in violence, spread by violence, and remains the most intolerantly violent culture in the world.



I would care a lot less if they kept their fanaticism outside of the Western world. But they wage violence in the Balkans, In India, in China, in the Phillipines, Armenia, Chechnya, Russia, and increasingly, every other corner of the West.

Where they are immigrating to.
As Pariah said.

"CHRISTIANS DO IT TOO!!"

Uh, okay. Not sure what brought that on. I didn't even mention--

"LEAVE THE MUSLIMS ALONE!!"

.....Hmmm.


....Uh...Okay. Abortion clinics:

I acknowledge your concession that Christianity doesn't generally manifest itself in a violent manner. However, it's simplistic to compare them to Muslims by claiming that they shrug off instances of abortion bombings. I've never heard any major Christian religious leader say anything to that effect. I'm sure people love to speculate on peoples' feelings when they hear that an abortion clinic has been blown up, but that doesn't really quantify anyone's opinion.

I'd go so far as to say that there's very little precedent for mentioning these instances of violence in the context of this issue since Muslim demographics, in every country where the Islamic religion has taken root, do more than shrug off Muslim on [insert religion here] violence. They applaud it.I mean, we're not seeing consistent clinic-bombings or widespread support of such. We're not seeing Christian gangs formed for the purpose of setting fires to schools, hospitals, or opposing places of worship. We're not seeing groups of Christians loitering in the street looking for non-Christian women to rape or just looking to rough up or kill non-believers in general.

Christians have never done anything like this. There is no historical precedent for such a claim. Muslims on the other hand, have done these kinds of things for well over a dozen centuries at least. Their traditions have demanded it.

So please dispense with the 'your extremists v. their extremists.' As far as "Christian extremism" is concerned, you need look no further than Mother Theresa or the Pope for typical examples of "extremism" on the part of Christians. You can't even pin violence on Falwell or Robertson.

Inversely, practicing Shariah law is extreme Muslim behavior because it is the religion. And what's more, the religion is the culture. So there really is no point in distinguishing "extreme" Muslims from the general Muslim belief system. In which case, "moderation" as you conceive it is impossible; the day Shariah law is abolished is the day the entire religion is done away with.

If Christianity was historically evidenced to be as insidious, violent, and coercive as Islam, we would be seeing a far different Europe right now. One that either stymied its growth in the continent by proselytizing through rape and violence or simply preventing Islamic immigration altogether.

But rather, since modern Western culture was founded on Christian elements and principles, you're seeing exactly the opposite. The Christians of the country have practiced tolerance and kept to themselves while Muslims have become increasingly aggressive--which is exactly what their religion commands them to do. One of the most disgusting things I've actually witnessed for myself is male Muslims targeting Christian/Hindu/Sikh/Jewish women for the sake of forcibly recruiting them into Islam--and this was ordered of them by their religious leaders no less.

The end result of what you're suggesting is that, essentially, all cultures are equal because they can all coexist under the caveat of amputating certain parts of their doctrine. But if you're deforming them for the purpose of uniforming their approach to society, then they all become apart of the same culture in the first place, effectively assimilating. And, I'll once again point out, the most prevalent example of civilized cultural coexistence is founded on Christian principles; assimilating religions will end up making Christian concessions. So in reality, there is no equality to behold; some cultures are in fact inferior to others.

Now, onto zealotry.

From your description of what you believe to be "moderate" v. "extremist," you would simply categorize the former as non-violent whereas the latter would be referred to as violent--regardless of the particular belief systems involved. But as I mentioned earlier, one form of philosophical extremism is not comparable to another. You couldn't compare a Catholic extremist like Bishop Fulton Sheen to an Islamic extremist like Bin Laden--both of which are praised by the patrons of their respective religions for their zealousness. However, at the risk of sounding bias, I will also go so far as to say that a violent Christian zealot cannot be held in the same esteem as a violent Muslim zealot. In the case of the former, while I will not disown the person as a Christian, I will concede that his or her zeal has provoked misguided actions that run counter to his or her preferred doctrine. In the latter case with a violent Muslim, he or she is not necessarily violating Shariah law since it advocates violence. So I'd like to take this moment to distinguish a "zealot" from a "fanatic." I realize they're both synonyms, but I think the latter tends to have more negative connotations than the former.

Anyway, all of this to say that I will refer to wrongheaded Christians as fanatics to offer up some orienting distinction amidst the two religions because I lack a better term for the job.

Historically relevant Christian fanatics consist of inquisitors--Protestant and Catholic alike--and the occasional abortion-clinic bomber (there wee also corrupt officials more interested in profit and influence, but they stand apart from fanatics). While I concede that the Old Testament has references to inquisitions carried out thousands of years ago in Israel, the progression up to the New Testament replaced these methods with evangelizing and converting. Inquisitors had no doctrinal authorization to carry out attrition, interrogations, or executions which ranged from 2-3000 over the span of several centuries (accounting for numbers under the Catholic Church; I'm not sure how many people died under Protestant inquisitions).

Then we have Islam. A religion the doctrine of which has endorsed honor killings since the time of its conception--and countless numbers of these have been carried out over the centuries...And they're still going on. This isn't even mentioning their aggressive methods of conversion.



Are you honestly going to assert that the Crusades were provoked by Europe? Really? REeeeeaaallly??? The Byzantines would disagree with you.



"Maybe?" So it's all in the hands of fate huh?

Islam was founded on violence (which is still running strong). Muhammed had to carry out sectarian war with his converts against the Meccans to give his religion a foothold in Medina. Trying to pin corruption and isolated incidents of fanaticism on a school of thought diametrically opposed to Islam doesn't really make your point sound reasonable.

By the by, I didn't bring up Christianity. Your boyfriend did.

To put a finer point on the fallacy of singling out instances of violence surrounding religion for religion's sake (I was only referring to the one philosophy of Islam myself), I will now direct your attention to the French Revolution--a very secular movement of slaughter that led to millions of deaths over the span of a decade. Not even the infamous inquisitions can compare in terms of bloodshed.



BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT......

Here's the only quote that even remotely addressed the issue:



This sounds more like, "I don't know. I don't care. Let's talk about Occupy Wallstreet! Why aren't you paying attention to Occupy Wallstreet!!?"

Regardless, Obama and Biden offered up commentary and support of Egyptian protesters prior to Mubarak stepping down, but no money was involved then. What does that tell you?

It never will, because the concept of individual rights and freedom are a rarity in the muslim world. Submission to Allah and Sharia law is the priority, not freedom. Our concept of freedom and human rights is decadence to them.



Abortion bombings are so rare, and so widely condemned by Christians worldwide that it renders that point ridiculous. It is clearly not a Christian tenet. As opposed to Muslim violence, that is cheered in the streets.



Thank you for that much.



Yes. What you describe in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament while Jesus was alive, was Judaism. A different standard of forgiveness held after Jesus' death and the spread of his ideas, which became Christianity after His death.
Jesus was the guy who stopped the stoning of a prostitute, and said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".




I can go along with that. Christianity has changed, and evolved, particularly after mass printing of Bibles began 500 years ago. At which point scripture could be read by many, and the distortion of Christianity became more difficult.
I don't think the British and the French can be blamed for the atrocities inflicted by Spain and Portugal, though. Their treatment of Native Americans was vastly different.
Brazil under Portugal, for example, accounted for 40% of all slavery in the Americas. Spain worked their natives to death, which required the importing of black slaves to replace the exterminated natives.

And in full disclosure, europeans never ventured into Africa beyond the coast. It was blacks who enslaved other blacks, and enriched themselves by selling them to the Europeans. It was blacks who created slavery, not europeans, not Christians. And the inherent contradiction to Christian principles made europeans the first to free their slaves without being conquered by someone else.
Slavery in Africa existed for hundreds of years before Europeans were involved, and went on hundreds of years after, and still exists today in Sudan and elsewhere in the black/muslim worlds.



No.
Christian teachings have these inherent principles of the sanctity of life and human rights. As I've said often, the contract between God and Man in the Old and New Testaments were the inspiration for our Declaration and Constitution, a contract government with guaranteed right.
In Islam, God is unknowable. The very idea that God would talk to man, or that God would have a son in human form (Jesus) is hated blasphemy in the muslim world.

As for an evolving freedom in the muslim world, that is well-wishing fantasy. The model to look at in the muslim world is the one demonstrated in China. Superior technology in a culture that does not value human rights , simply translates to a more effective and consolidated police state.
Where it is far easier to track and round up dissenters.

Bible prophecy says that in the end times a false religion will take hold worldwide, everyone (believer or not) will be forced to wear the Mark of the Beast, and anyone who doesn't accept this will be beheaded. I've thought for several years that beheading is a uniquely muslim practice, at least in this age. And that combined with even the Pope acknowledging that Islam has surpassed Christianity as the wold's largest religion, with rising isslamic tides in Europe, North America, Australia, Africa and even China, islamic dominion is a real possibility, and seems to me a possible contender the rise of the AntiChrist, and the conditions of the Tribulation.
We already have a world on the verge of global economic collapse, a situation just 5 years ago I would have thought inconceivable in my lifetime. I'm not saying this is absolutely the way it goes down, but it certainly seems to follow the prophetic model.




Because Libya has virtually no army, and the land is indefensible against any real military.

Egypt has an army. Syria has an army.

And given the pathetic display by the U.S. and Europe in their plodding ineffective ability to even defeat Gadhaffi, for months now, this appears to be the last gasp of European power. We (U.S. and Europe) have no money, are both deep in debt, and would have already collapsed by now without the printing of fiat currency. Printing of dollars is the last bubble in our economy. When the dollar ceases to be the global currency, our ability to stay afloat by printing dollars is gone.

Our ability to prevent wars and prevent their spread over larger reagions will also be gone.

First, there is no such group as the Byzantines. Please, quite living living in a Western European dominated way of thinking. It was the eastern half of the Roman Empire. You are already showing a prejudice against historical reality. Spare me, please.

You mean the same Roman Empire that Christian Crusaders sacked in 1204?

Further, let's be clear, a large part of the call for the First Crusade was in response to the loss of Armenia and Anatolia to the Seljuk Turks afrer the Battle of Manzikert. This battle did not need to take place and only did because Romanos violated the terms of peace between them from a year prior. Also, the historical record shows that the Alp Arslan proposed a treaty that was highly favorable to the Romans prior to the battle but that it was rejected by Romanos. So, the battle took place. The Eastern Roman armies were crushed. And, the Seljuks took hold of large tracts of land in the aforementioned territories. It was in regard to the settling of these former Roman territories, which saw rather large scale Seljuk mirgration in the decades following 1071, that Alexios Komnenos called upon Urban to raise the crusader army.

So, yes, I guess that is what I'm saying.



Sources please. Show me millions. I can only grant you that if I grant smallpox revolutionary status.



That the ouster of Mubarak didn't turn into quite the war that Gaddafi's ouster did?

If you can't address points without going CAPSLOCKED crazy, don't expect a polite reply to your attempts at starting trolling points. You brought up the subject of Islam and Sharia Law. A comparison between western religion and theirs is needed in a discussion that wishes to explore the true, nonobjective sentiment of your points. That is, if you were actually trying to start a rational thread, and not just a Pariah-Rants thing.



And I've never heard any major Muslim leader support terrorist bombings. Not saying they haven't, just like I'm not saying the Christians support their own Extremists. There are Muslim Terrorists, and there are Christian Fanatics. There are outspoken anti-Christian zealots (some of them not American atheist reactionaries) and there are the Westboro Baptist Church nutbags. There are those in the Muslim community who cheer bombings, and there are those who condemn them. Depends on whether you only listen to one side of the debate. Comparing and contrasting the two is a functional tool in trying to suss out and narrow down the elements that may or may not personify Muslim Extremists as inherently worse than any other Extremist group.



As yours don't quantify the spectrum of the Muslim community.



Who "applauds it"? The Extremist leaders of their factions? Certainly not leaders in the Western Culture. I've never heard anyone "applaud" Muslim violence except for the violent Muslims. Everyone else has condemned violence.



What country are you talking about? I assume you mean in the Middle East and Third World countries? Because none of that is happening in America. And I haven't heard about any roaming rape-gangs in England or such.

Tell you what, take any of those countries, magically advance them up to our cultural, economic, and technological level. I guarantee you would see the same Capitalistic overtones take hold as they have in the Western world. Once money gets involved, anyone's religion is suppressed (i.e. Christianity in this country). And they would evolve into us. Because that's all it is. Lack of education. Lack of social evolution. Poverty. Oppression. How could a world like that not begat violence? To judge them is to judge our own history.



You have obviously been studying revisionist Christian propaganda. Christian history is one of the bloodiest in any culture's history. The Crusades and the Massachusetts "witch hunts" alone would certainly disagree with your claims.



It's not about "pinning" anything. It's about the facts of life and history. I'm sure your strict-religious doctrine demands you believe in the perfection of man's expression of Christianity (otherwise you think you'll "burn in hell"). But, the truth is, Christianity at one point was the world's "Muslim Extremism". No amount of denial on your part changes the facts. History is written by the victors, and the Christians did a lot of Crusading and conquering. Were all Christians extremists? Absolutely not. Just like the Muslims now.



If that were actually true, we would be fighting Muslim armies in the streets right now. Hyperbole does not serve your argument.



Kind of like how people felt when they tossed the Old Testament for the New Testament as the Christian focal point?



Did you contact your Columbian Drug Lords to help her? Or did you and SEAL Team 6 go in and save her?



Your arrogant racism is noted and proven. I'm not sure there's any point in continuing to attempt a dialogue with you. You have already made up the fantasy-enemy in your mind.



If you can't actually address the issue, why are you bothering trying to discuss this? Or is it because I gave you a rational, logical, polite answer, and you can't handle it? Either way, makes you look childish. No change there.



That they are Corporate shills following the will of whatever money tells them to do. Same as any and every politician the world over. Partisan lines keeps you distracted, confused, and angry. Let go of "Us vs Them" and try to find unity where it exists.

Dave, I'll get to you. Busy today.

Yeah, I just had to respond to a few key points in Pariah's thread and, since it wasn't exactly addressed to me, I'm leaving Wondy's alone. More important things to do than focus on their psychobilly, internet dissertations.

Is that big word speak for "looking for booby pics"?

So all of this to grudgingly admit that the Seljuk Turks provoked the war in a "gotcha" manner that allows you to flex you amateur wiki-historian muscle.

"I know history PA-RAI-AH!! *smile*"

Not quite.

Aside from your admission that Armenia and Anatolia was annexed without provocation from the Byzantine Empire (prior to your "yeah, but...Alps' peace treaty!"), Islamic culture had been expanding north since 636 AD. You really think it was going to stop on account of a peace treaty in the midst of a weakening empire? With time, it would just keep going.



Ah. Okay.



If I were counting small pox I would have just given a solid number of 5 million.

The book escapes my grasp right now. I will look for it. But to clarify and ammend: at least 1 to 2 million were killed or simply executed either through mob behavior or the Napoleonic attempts to spread the revolution throughout Europe. I distinctly remember reading up on a number closer 2 million.



I can use quote boxes next time if you like. And instead of parodying you parodying MEM, I can just parody you saying, "Oh they're just religious. They'll get over it eventually."

The only reason you've broken your graemlin streak is because you think you have an easily addressed "you're prejudice" issue where you can just make claims of generalization while tossing out an "Occupy Wallstreet" reference here and there. So beg pardon for noticing.



Actually, since Western culture's religions haven't followed a similar pattern and since Christianity doesn't have a kind of Shariah law combating governments the countries of which Christians occupy, no comparison is needed.



Before I pull up the names of influential leaders in the Muslim community that endorse terrorism, What do you define as a Muslim leader exactly? For instance, I imagine you're the kinda guy who'd deny members of the Palestinian parliament who're apart of Hamas could be categorized as leaders simply because you don't know them.



"SHADES OF GREY!!"

Whoops. There goes the caps again.

I guess this skepticism on your part would mean you'd have absolutely NOOOO problem walking through one of the "Muslims only" sectors in Europe with your wife. You'd certainly see it as no different than walking through a Christian community since...you know, every religion has its share of "extremists" and we can't assume that any one is more filled with "extremists" than the other just because there's more prevalent examples of violence. That would be closed-minded......yeah.

In which case, might I suggest Albania as a vaction spot?



I don't have to speculate on consistent cases of violence and the subsequent cheering-on of violence carried out by Muslims against other religions in both Europe and the Middle East.



Funny but sad: anyone who applauds it will be considered an "extremist" to you. And according your definition, that automatically puts them in a small minority.



Uh....Yeah. That's generally the people who would cheer on Muslim violence; other Muslims. Good on you for noticing Pro.



Who is "everyone else?" CAIR? [insert lol here]



Aside from Northern Middle Eastern countries--which are in fact on the same economical level as many countries in Europe--It's happening most notably in Sweden, Britain, Germany, and France right now.........Yeah. You've just made an ass of yourself.

And yes, currently in Egypt, Coptic Christian women are being raped with impunity by gangs of Muslims. This is on top of the burnings and such. And really, do you think Egypt lives in some kind of rut? That they're not subject to Capitalistic Western influences?



The Crusades were a series of territory disputes fought in a religious venue. And the Salem witch trials didn't include honor killings, gang violence, and rape. They're apart of the inquisition violence I already referred to.

By the by, nice hyperbole their: "one of the bloodiest." Very weasel-wordy of you.



Again, this can't be proven doctrinally. You can say that a bunch of Christians killed some people at some place at some time. But you can't say they did it as "extremist" Christians (At least not in the way you've defined "extremist"). However, since violence is apart of the Muslim doctrine, you can say it about them. And you also can't use any historical references to compare Christian methods/intentions to Muslims--and certainly not a body count.



Reductio ad absurdem.

Sweden jails are overflowing with Muslim gangs right now with individuals arrested for arson, rape, and battery. Similar stories are being told in France, Germany, and Britain--and throughout Europe really. This is on top of terrorist attacks in general. You don't need an all out militia to have influence--as Youtube/Twitter/Facebook has shown us (see also: Anwar al-Awlaki's online sermons).

Dozens upon dozens of cases of honor killings are popping up throughout the continent to boot. It mostly has to do with daughters being tortured and killed for being too Westernized. This has happened in America as well.

Crime and civil unrest is more subtle and effective this day and age than war and insurrection.

UK judge endorses Sharia Law

Apparently capitalism and a relatively strong economy has made some great progress in leveling off Muslim belief systems in Europe after all!



I think you mean "Jewish focal point" since there were no Christians prior to Christ fulfilling the Covenant. But I suppose your desperation to criticize them will drive you to even greater feats of retardation than usual.

Interesting commentary though: so you're expecting a second coming of Muhammed to build on the Qu'ran?



Yes. You are that predictable.

I'm really not surprised that you'll outright deny that Muslims target women of other religions for the sake of rape, conversion, and coercive marriages simply because I told you I've seen it for myself. rkmb memes are always an easy out for you after all.



Race? Where did I mention race? We've been talking about culture and religion. If you don't know the difference, than it's no wonder you have such a difficult time grasping the topic at hand.



"Regardless, Obama and Biden offered up commentary and support of Egyptian protesters prior to Mubarak stepping down, but no money was involved then. What does that tell you?"

I point out a non-sequitur on your part; you get pissy. Roger.

Yeah, it's pretty clearly just a few extremists.
Definitely not, y'know, everyone in the West bank and Gaza.

I'll say it again: I used to be more sympathetic to the Palestinians than the Israelis. This display on 9-11 enraged me. After all the billions in aid we have given them, after all the negotiations on their behalf, after the grief we all felt on 9-11, this was deeply painful to watch.

After this display --cheering thousands of Palestinians in the streets, jubilant at news of 3000 deaths in the U.S on 9-11-- Israel could reduce these two territories to twin smoking nuclear craters, and I would not object in the slightest.

This is how the "few extremists" celebrate the terrorism death of any Israeli, American, or any other "infidels" who don't share their particular islamofascist beliefs. And not just Palestinians. Saudi Arabia has Jerry-Lewis-like telethons to raise money for suicide bombers. The newly-liberated Egyptians burning churches, gang-raping CNN reporter Lara Logan as a hated "Jew" (despite her Christianity, which makes clear their threat to any westerner, not just Jews), the genocide of Christians throughout the muslim world, the regularly shouting crowds of Pakistanis, the Chechens, Mindanao in the Phillipines, East Timor...
As I pointed out in a previous topic, between 30 and 50% of the population of most muslim countries (according to an article I posted from the Washington Post) boycott U.S. products and businesses since 9-11, in solidarity with the Al Qaida terrorists. And this, despite their own governments discouraging the boycotts.

And as an article I posted from the anti-defamation League also makes clear, violence toward Jews, gang-raping of women, even desecration of Jewish graves, follows muslim immigration to every nation in the world.

The endorsement of violence throughout the muslim world is overwhelmingly the rule, not the exception.
And can only be compared to Christianity through the most distorted of arguments. There is not cheering in the streets when an abortion clinic is bombed, it is very difficult to find any Christian who does not react with sadness and embarassment at news of such a bombing. Even anti-abortion activists will say this is not the way to advance their cause.
Likewise, regarding the Westboro Baptists (a "church" with about 5 members, that any other Christian scorns as both hateful and ridiculous) comparing them to other Christians is about as fair as saying the Weather Underground is representative of most U.S. liberal Democrats. And given liberals' endorsement of proletariat revolution (in contrast to the revulsion most Christians feel for the Westboro Baptists) claiming ideological unity between liberals and the Weather Underground would by far be the more fair comparison.

Jeez Pariah. I take the time to respond to you, completely civil, and all you can do is immediately start about that time I embarrassed you in front of everyone in the Racism Thread you're so obsessed with? For fuckssake kid, grow up. Let it go. You can't win them all. And in your case, not at all.

If you refuse to meet me even halfway on anything we're discussing, I can only come to two conclusions:

1) You cannot readily address any of the issues without demanding that the entire debate be framed in the moral and philosophical environment you require to prove any points. Therefore, you refuse to consider any alternative to your per-conditioned Ayn Rand ideas.

2) You have no interest--and never have--in having an actual discussion of ideas. You're just butthurt. Like normal.

So, either way, that was your chance. Back to the kid's table for you.



A weak mind cannot see more than two sides to anything: "Good" and "Bad". Each is subjective, and therefore, fashioned to inherently benefit whichever side is championed. Therefore, you expose yourself as insecure, requiring a definitive moral pattern in which to feel validated. No shades of grey for you. Just the absolute, pillow-clenching "certainty-illusion" that you are "right".


"Roger."

Actually, I'd say my responses addressed everything you commented on rather well albeit in a snippy manner. What few insults I used are easily ignored considering I didn't actually skimp on addressing your arguments. You just have no prayer of actually responding to it beyond repeating a consistent stream of, "well, maybe some but not all," "all religions are the same," and "you and your Colombians."

As for its acid edge...Well, one patronizing post deserves another. Especially since no amount of even-handed speak on my part is going to encourage any amount of actual civility from you. Do you honestly believe anyone considers your nuance to be civil?

Whenever you make an argument, there's a distinct lack of any sort of speculative virtue to it; you just state a conclusion you claim is rooted to common sense or a popular view of history and figuratively assert that the opposing view is wrong without any real discussion on the matter. I mean, none of your conclusions even bother to follow or trace an etymology of reason. You just expect your view to be recognized as common knowledge and won't hear a word against it. Quite frankly, I think you do it on purpose so that when other people call you on it, you can just say, "You're not being civil with me! I'm walking away from this conversation!"



Meeting you halfway is exactly what I was doing. I responded to your passive-aggressive and judgmental hostility by pointing out how retarded it is when you attempt to undermine what I say using your usual kneejerks. And then I responded to whatever argument you were making directly after that.

An example of not "meeting you halfway" would be for me to make up an excuse about you lacking civility, and thus causing me to leave the conversation altogether....Basically what you're doing right now.

See? You have no interest in attempting an equal perspective on things. This isn't a discussion for you. It's an "I'm so angry at Pro and I will use any and every possible means to fight him" thing. If you cannot even consider the world in a compassionate frame of perspective, then what hopes do we have of meeting on ideas? You expect an etymological dissection of every nuance and notion expressed, while at the exact same time grasping--without the slightest concession--onto a preconceived sociopolitical doctrine you consider unapproachable and airtight. Much like hardline religious zealots, you offer no 'second possible option' to what you proclaim with all superiority as 'the truth'. Almost like, say, a Muslim Extremist?

Unfortunately, I require multiple levels of consideration, Pariah. Not just what your poli-sci teacher taught you, FOX Newspoints required you to memorize, or what you learned in Sunday School. Spin it however you like.

Again, responding to your patronizing tone at all, I'd say, is an attempt at equal perspective. But you ignored the part of my post that pointed out your usual antics anyway, so...

Are you willing to consider a difference between a Muslim and a Muslim Extremist?

Are you willing to consider that the word "extremist" is used incorrectly in the context of religious beliefs as I have argued?

No, Pariah. I am not willing to allow you to "redefine" the word "extremist" to fit your criteria. Unless I can "redefine" the laws of "good" and "bad" in the universe, and make the sky green while I'm at it...

Not sure why you quoted "redefine." I didn't say that.

I did however, point out that being extreme in something is not necessarily conducive to violent tendencies.

As such, the only one "redefining" anything is you since you claim that extremism is conducive to violence.

noun
1.
a person who goes to extremes, especially in political matters.
2.
a supporter or advocate of extreme doctrines or practices.

extremist (ɪkˈstriːmɪst) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
1. a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in being politically radical

— adj
2. of, relating to, or characterized by immoderate or excessive actions, opinions, etc

Unsurprisingly, any reference to an inherent violence on the part of someone who's extreme in something is absent.

So, once again, reality has made a fool of you....Or rather you made a fool of yourself by trying to manipulate reality according to your own bias. Either works.

Haha!

Pro can't handle reality so he morphs his perception of it.

Now on the other hand, if violence had actually been apart of the definition, Pro would have jumped on it like a crazed, aging hippie leftist jumps on acid in the middle of an anti-capitalist protest orgy....

....But it wasn't! So now he's back to graemlins and quote boxes.

Give the guy a break, his wife did just leave him.

Time for another round, I see? Here we go...

Obama should support the rebellion in Mongo against Ming the Merciless!

http://youtu.be/uh8KVG8j68I

Well, USA is already at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there's pirates outside the coast of Somalia, but most importantly, I believe, is that it would look "bad" for the Arabian spring movement to look like it was dependent on USA and Europe. It should also be mentioned that Muammar Gaddafi is much worse than Hosni Mubarak, even though both are authoritarian.

Will be interesting to see how it's like in Saudi-Arabia in a few years...

These countries don't need our help. They've got this guy...