The Crusades

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Not what I asked.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
No, you're mistaken about what I'm claiming.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, it's not my argument, and you are mischaracterizing my argument--unintentionally, I'm sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, that's not my argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a quick aside -- has anyone EVER accurately captured what your arguments are, in a way that satisfies you?

How many posts end with you whining about how your arguments are mischaracterized? Even when, of course, it's clear that they weren't (Remember the time you said racism is dead, but then said it wasn't -- then denied you ever said it was, even when presented with the post where you said, and I quote 'Racism is dead').

Clearly you're functionally literate and can string words together in a way that everyone understands; but okay, given that, by your own admission, it's apparently impossible to understand what the [censored] you're actually ever talking about (I think I have a pretty good idea, but you seem to think no one has ever truly understood your arguments, given how often you cry foul about being misquoted and mischaracterized), I give up.

Since you concede that no one can correctly characterize your arguments, I will now leave you to your own devices, happily ensconced in a world where you’re never wrong, just always misunderstood. Enjoy it.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
If you persist in this accusatorial-type of sham (besides derailing the thread from the matter under discussion), I will ask the moderator for assaistance, or put you on ignore, or both.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, maybe you can suspend him for being 'nitpicky' too, a 'clear' and 'objective' violation of the 2+2 T&C.

I would seriously enjoy a moderator (Cola, andy?) to point out specifically in this thread where 2+2 T&C were violated that deserves such a threat, and am more than happy to have such a discussion over PM or elsewhere.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Since you concede that no one can correctly characterize your arguments, I will now leave you to your own devices, happily ensconced in a world where you’re never wrong, just always misunderstood. Enjoy it.

[/ QUOTE ]



No, DVaut1. If you went back and reread the posts in question you would clearly see where you mischaracterized my argument. This is SIMPLE stuff. I never said the violence or totalitarian-type aspects of Islamic states were SOLELY due to Islam and the Koran (as you so erroneously posted). You just injected the "solely" into it on your own, entirely, and now you don't want to own up to your error.

Is good reading comprehension THAT hard to come by? Apparently, it is.

Maybe it's now time for me to do what I long ago swore I would do on this forum: never have a debate with anyone who has an IQ under 150, minimum. Come to think of it that's really not such a bad idea; it will save a lot of aggravation, that's for sure.

OK, done.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
No, DVaut1. If you went back and reread the posts in question you would clearly see where you mischaracterized my argument. This is SIMPLE stuff. I never said the violence or totalitarian-type aspects of Islamic states were SOLELY due to Islam and the Koran (as you so erroneously posted). You just injected the "solely" into it on your own, entirely, and now you don't want to own up to your error.

Is good reading comprehension THAT hard to come by? Apparently, it is.

Maybe it's now time for me to do what I long ago swore I would do on this forum: never have a debate with anyone who has an IQ under 150, minimum. Come to think of it that's really not such a bad idea; it will save a lot of aggravation, that's for sure.

OK, done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, losing the opportunity to discuss things with you, given your demonstrated wisdom (lol) and penchant for rational and consistent discourse concerning issues like Islam (ha!) would be such a terrible loss (truth be told, you're very consistent in your stance on Islam; unfortunately, Islam is the only religion your standard applies to - curious, to say the least).

But where does life go from here?

I don’t know. I shudder to think of it.

...please don't shut out peons like me, M! Where would I get my weekly "As Ibn Warraq says 'There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam is not moderate'" quote from? And repostings of Islamo-phobic editorials from various right-wing propaganda outfits? That's one of the highlights of my day! Not sure what I'll do now that you'll be shutting us off from the same 5 or 10 points about Islam you recycle over and over (and over and over). Since I've pretty much committed them to memory (as I've read them no less than 15 or 20 times), I guess I'll just be left enjoying the nostalgia of it all.

I hope I can recover.

[MMMMMM]

I should amend my statement to: I will not have debates with people who do not have good reading comprehension and logical thinking skills. IQ is really not the issue.

Unfortunately, there are several people (at least) on this forum who have serious weaknesses in both areas, and as such it is often futile and aggravating to attempt a reasoned discussion with them. You, DVaut1, may take solace in the fact that you are far from the weakest link in this regard;-)

Best wishes (sincerely),

M

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I do disagree with, and what I'm fairly certain M is wrong about, is that Islamic states have a natural or inherent tendency to be evil, totalitarian, or fascistic.

And I'm even more certain that even if they are, that it's not due to anything regarding the nature of Islam.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but your opinion flies in the face of theose who have lived, breathed and studied Islam all of their lives--the Muslim imams, the mullahs, and the madrassas teachers: THEY believe man's only rightful freedom is to worship Allah and to behave as prescribed in the Koran. What's more, they say so. Of course they don't see that as evil but as good: but regardless of the question of evil or good, it is clearly totalitarian--and you and I (I should think), consider thatto be a bad rather than good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I've spoken with Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell about the nature of Christianity, and they've got a few fascistic things to say about the place of women in the house and the rights of gays. Listen, people that have lived, breathed and shitted Christianity have called for theocracies. I used to read the bible extensively and the harsh, murderous tone of it is one reason (although a minor one [long story]) why I gave it up.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
I should amend my statement to: I will not have debates with people who do not have good reading comprehension and logical thinking skills. IQ is really not the issue.

Unfortunately, there are several people (at least) on this forum who have serious weaknesses in both areas, and as such it is often futile and aggravating to attempt a reasoned discussion with them. You, DVaut1, may take solace in the fact that you are far from the weakest link in this regard;-)

Best wishes (sincerely),

M

[/ QUOTE ]

My, my.....The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
you're just repeating the same nonsense you cite over and over and over again

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're catching on, D.

What you're witnessing, in action here, is the difference between "rational argument" and "propaganda".

M and his crew are practitioners of the latter.

Blatantly.

They aren't here to engage in a reasoned exchange of views. They aren't here to learn from mutual dialogue. They are here to "guide you to the truth" -- with "the truth" being whatever their Party Leaders tell them today.

They repeat the same talking points 10 times on the same thread because that's what they're here to do. They dismiss all disagreement with rhetorical games and personal attacks because that's what they're here to do.

Rational discourse presumes a level of good faith that these people are not practicing.

They are not here to listen to opposing views and weigh arguments. They are here to repeat their talking points forever until you "finally see the light". (Don't agree with them yet? Well, you must not've listened properly. Here, let's repeat the Party Talking Points again ...)

Second point: it really doesn't matter what's being "debated", because a propagandist doesn't engage in actual "debate". A propagandist is purely and shamelessly a salesman, and that's ALL they're there to do: sell you on their product. Their talking points might as well be slogans from a marketing brochure -- that's the depth of "reason" that they represent.

In short, the propagandist is there to sell a product, not to debate the product on the merits.

Expecting rational discourse from such a person is like expecting a used car salesman to rationally debate the merits of the lemon he's trying to sell you. Ain't gonna happen. All you're going to get is the same tired old sales pitch, repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated for as long as the salesman can keep you listening.


q/q

[BluffTHIS!]

You are a joke and have the situation reversed. You are clearly in fact a practitioner of the ultimate level of propaganda, i.e. constantly taking the BIG LIE to the next level. DVaut and his crew have denied the logical implications of the facts, and then when that failed, denied the facts themselves. You only have to read above regarding the words of the Koran on war, and realize that what is important is how Moslems understand and act on same and NOT how a non-Moslem apologist for their actions and political systems could choose to interpret them in the best, albeit false, light.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you're just repeating the same nonsense you cite over and over and over again

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're catching on, D.

What you're witnessing, in action here, is the difference between "rational argument" and "propaganda".

M and his crew are practitioners of the latter.

Blatantly.

They aren't here to engage in a reasoned exchange of views. They aren't here to learn from mutual dialogue. They are here to "guide you to the truth" -- with "the truth" being whatever their Party Leaders tell them today.

They repeat the same talking points 10 times on the same thread because that's what they're here to do. They dismiss all disagreement with rhetorical games and personal attacks because that's what they're here to do.

Rational discourse presumes a level of good faith that these people are not practicing.

They are not here to listen to opposing views and weigh arguments. They are here to repeat their talking points forever until you "finally see the light". (Don't agree with them yet? Well, you must not've listened properly. Here, let's repeat the Party Talking Points again ...)

Second point: it really doesn't matter what's being "debated", because a propagandist doesn't engage in actual "debate". A propagandist is purely and shamelessly a salesman, and that's ALL they're there to do: sell you on their product. Their talking points might as well be slogans from a marketing brochure -- that's the depth of "reason" that they represent.

In short, the propagandist is there to sell a product, not to debate the product on the merits.

Expecting rational discourse from such a person is like expecting a used car salesman to rationally debate the merits of the lemon he's trying to sell you. Ain't gonna happen. All you're going to get is the same tired old sales pitch, repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated for as long as the salesman can keep you listening.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

POTY as far as I'm concerned.

You're describing the essense of the political 'evangelist' whose core values are saturated with a 'Do as I say, not as I do' ideology which is blatantly hypocrital for those who care to examine it.

It is fraught with psuedo-intellectual logical fallicies intended to hammer their ideological opponents into submission, and when someone dare retaliate with the same tactics, they run home whining 'foul' to their mommies.

....Pathetic.