Re: The Crusades
I note that you don't and can't even deny the following statement from my last post:
[ QUOTE ]
The fact remains that you advocate cruelty (land confiscation, war, etc.) toward innocent members of other national, ethnic and religious groups for reasons that you would never tolerate if applied to the yourself. To take an egregious example, you have often advocated seizing land and other collective punishments from "the Arabs" -- meaning innocent others -- if any Arab commits any terrorist act. At the same time, you deny that "the Americans" should ever be collectively punished for the many depredations committed by them, even when such acts are taken not individually or lawlessly but as popular acts of a democratic state. In those cases, you dismiss the crime as a mistake, an abberation or "in the past" and therefore unworthy of concern.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your reply is yet another of your famous failures to clash with anything:
[ QUOTE ]
Chris, your personal accusations are in error, and your conclusions are intellectually vacant; moreover, you are employing the cheap tactic of attempting to steer the focus of the thread away from the subject at hand and divert it instead to personal attacks. Additionally, your gross twisting of my words is simply appalling.
[/ QUOTE ]
My accusations of your stated positions can't be "in error" because you don't deny them; and everyone here's seen you post them dozens of times. Your first post in this thread explicitly defended the first crusade on the grounds that many of the victims were descended from people that spread Islam by conquest more than 350 years earlier. My conclusion therefore isn't "vacant" but follows as a matter of iron logic. I'm not steering the focus of the thread away from the subject but pointing out specifically why your rationalizations for violence can't be taken seriously but instead are proof of group hatred animus. And since you can't point to any words of your I've supposedly "twisted" I can't be guilty of that either.
[ QUOTE ]
Par tactics for a certain type of lawyer, I suppose; but a truly sad reflection for a human being.
[/ QUOTE ]
So instead of dealing with my argument you resort to calling me a bad human being and a lousy lawyer, a classic example of substituting personal attack for argument. How can you believe that you have any business policing this forum for personal attacks?
|