So the atheist "movement"...

[Tree]

And thus the value of feelings in determining truth is yet again exposed......

Which is what Sparhafoc has, it is a fitting response to his laughable implication that he's in any position whatsoever to objectively judge my reasoning faculties.

At least I'm open about my biases about Sparhafoc, based on my limited interactions with him I think he's a reprehensible human being. And while I can't say for certain how smart or dumb Sparhafoc is, it's not like I can quiz him or give him an IQ test or even know what his level of education is, he certainly hasn't demonstrated any ability beyond the average bum of the street. He likes to talk a lot about logic and reason and thinks he can lecture people on it, yet he makes a lot of mistakes like thinking being endorsed by white supremacists means you're also one of them. That doesn't follow. At all. I explained why and he keeps insisting on the issue with no rebuttal.

 

[Steelmage99]

And thus the value of feelings in determining truth is yet again exposed......

Which is what Sparhafoc has, it is a fitting response to his laughable implication that he's in any position whatsoever to objectively judge my reasoning faculties.

At least I'm open about my biases about Sparhafoc, based on my limited interactions with him I think he's a reprehensible human being. And while I can't say for certain how smart or dumb Sparhafoc is, it's not like I can quiz him or give him an IQ test or even know what his level of education is, he certainly hasn't demonstrated any ability beyond the average bum of the street. He likes to talk a lot about logic and reason and thinks he can lecture people on it, yet he makes a lot of mistakes like thinking being endorsed by white supremacists means you're also one of them. That doesn't follow. At all. I explained why and he keeps insisting on the issue with no rebuttal.

Yes. I am sure that is how you feel about it.

 

[Sparhafoc]

And thus the value of feelings in determining truth is yet again exposed......

Which is what Sparhafoc has, it is a fitting response to his laughable implication that he's in any position whatsoever to objectively judge my reasoning faculties.

What a funny attempt that is.

The problem is that your reasoning faculties have been on display in this very thread, as well as the others you've engaged in here. People are free to come to their own conclusions about your capacity to engage reasonably, and you have no say over the impression they form beyond your own discoursive conduct.

Remember, no one obliged you to call me a Muslim apologist, a North Korean sympathizer, or that I was aiding and abetting the enemy - and that's just a very short list of the stupid ad hominem you've made - they're your fetid crap proclamations and they are very indicative of the kind of mind at play.

That's the problem you're facing here. People here actually do care about reason through cogently argued written exchanges. Waving your whanger around may have netted you some accolades on Breitbart, but you're going to need to raise your game considerably before you're taken seriously.

At least I'm open about my biases about Sparhafoc, based on my limited interactions with him I think he's a reprehensible human being.

:lol:

You're doing it again, Tree. This is what makes your reasoning faculties wide open to judgment because when someone doesn't grasp that making such statements really just reflects on them (and their biases they're blind to) it produces a whole new context for all those confidently asserted claims you emoted at other topics.

And while I can't say for certain how smart or dumb Sparhafoc is, it's not like I can quiz him or give him an IQ test or even know what his level of education is, he certainly hasn't demonstrated any ability beyond the average bum of the street.

Because, as we all know, it's Tree who determines based on his feelies whether someone's intelligent or not.

Of course, it's also a great way of showing how serious your rational discourse is by repeatedly asserting that your interlocutor is too stupid to understand and that's the reason they disagree with you, rather than the dozens of cogent arguments made against your proudly produced effluent.

Regardless, Hack called it way back - it's just concern trolling. Pro tip though, if you want to play Fifth Column, you should at least some minimal attempt at fitting in first because all this lashing out really puts a spotlight on who is the more reprehensible when it comes to discursive competence.

He likes to talk a lot about logic and reason and thinks he can lecture people on it,....

Awww, it's clearly struck a nerve, hasn't it Tree? Don't like being schooled, do you?

.... yet he makes a lot of mistakes like thinking being endorsed by white supremacists means you're also one of them.

Shame that Tree's supposedly superior comprehension is routinely exposed as just strawman he manufactured out of thin air.

That doesn't follow. At all. I explained why and he keeps insisting on the issue with no rebuttal.

Stop lying Tree - everyone can read what I wrote and no one is obliged to swallow the repeated falsehoods you feel the need to toss out.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Not the same thing. Part of being a Muslim is supporting the Quran and hadiths which do in fact promote terrorism and criminal activity. More specifically fighting unbelievers, see Surah 9:5, 9:29 or 9:111.

The fact that some Muslims are either not aware of this information or pretend it doesn't exist does not concern me. Everyone is responsible for their choices in life, ignorance - not an excuse. We cannot afford to excuse ignorance anymore after all the lives lost and the trillions spent.

Notice that you will not answer the question:

Do every christians perpetuate the ideology along with all the crimes their ideology instigates people to commit?

Would I be wrong to interpret your position as the above does not apply to christians? Because?

I've left two comments that were left without any answers and others raised the issue as well.

yet he makes a lot of mistakes like thinking being endorsed by white supremacists means you're also one of them. That doesn't follow. At all. I explained why and he keeps insisting on the issue with no rebuttal.

You explained why this position doesn't follow but from Sparhafoc's comment, it isn't a position he holds.
What I've seen he keeps on insisting on isn't what you claim.

based on my limited interactions with him I think he's a reprehensible human being

Why do you think that more than one person has reached the same conclusion about you?

 

[Sparhafoc]

One thing I always find intriguing is that in this world of widely disparate ways of being Muslim, all the different sets of beliefs held by all the different schools, creeds and nations... far-right xenophobes always latch desperately onto the most violent exegesis of the Quran as believed only by extremist, violent fucknuts.

It will never cease to amuse me that in so doing they show how every society has a problem with the literal minded, there'll always be 10% or so of every population completely immune to even the most unarguable nuance.

While reality is unquestionably more complicated than the simplistic would have us believe, the solution here isn't.

If I am supposed to judge and decide which is the correct Islam between an extremist's fanatically violent exegesis, or a moderate's wooly revisionist wank, I am obviously going to throw my full support behind the latter.

This is exactly the same as when some Christian numpties declare that homosexuality is immoral, while some Christians have no problems with it.... the latter are the 'true Christians' in my book, not because I care which group's exegesis more accurately reflects the original intent of some ancient written doggerel (naturally, I think it's all a load of bollocks), but because the latter represent a superior society comprised of more tolerant individuals than the former. I don't care who's 'right' according to fanatical religious certainty, but rather I care about the outcome such beliefs result in.

There's no rational need to engage in doctrinal partisanship (certainly no to the point Tree's arrived at where he's claiming that most Muslims possess inferior understanding of their own religion comparative to him lol), and I find it highly suspicious each time I hear someone say this. Not least because they're always trying to tell us that we should see all Muslims as the same, regardless of the fact that the terrorists are a tiny fraction and that those terrorists, thanks to those same stupid fanatical exegesis, tend to be more interested in enforcing ideological purity through violence on otherwise peaceable living Muslims.

I struggle to comprehend whether people like Tree really do possess such a pinprick of vision on the world, or whether there's something else at play.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Incidentally, as it's a passing amusement while discussions ensue about how I am dumb as a rock...

If we take on board the psychological effect discovered by Dunning and Kruger - illusory superiority, meta-cognitive constraints, and consequent analytical miscalibration - and apply it to a hypothetical scenario - namely, person A judging person B's IQ, wholly in the absence of any systematic IQ test, and based solely on the impressions of that one person.

How would person A go about judging someone's IQ in such a scenario? Presumably, in the absence of any coherent metrics or standardized test, they'd be obliged to use their own intelligence to do so.

Now let us assume, for the moment, that person A's intelligence was itself sub-normal, below the mean distribution of IQ's, which is, as with all biological traits in a group, factually accounts for about 30% of any population.

Accordingly, due to possessing such poor intellectual capabilities, person A would consequently be shit at intuiting IQ's. They would lack the requisite intelligence to achieve any degree of accuracy in judging intelligence, and consequently their judgement would say a lot more about them than person B's IQ.

Of course, if hypothetical person A was instead of superior intelligence to the norm, then they'd know their judgment wouldn't be accurately reflective of the other person's IQ, because they'd possess the intelligence to understand the integral component of actually testing such a specific measurement with robust metrics over emoting an IQ out of thin air.

 

[Deleted member 619]

A passing comment: As somebody with something of a reputation for an ability to judge reasoning, and also as somebody who's had the pleasure of interacting very regularly with Sparhafoc for over a decade, his ability to judge reasoning ability in presented arguments is, to my mind, among the most consistent.

Just sayin...

 

[Tree]

Do every christians perpetuate the ideology along with all the crimes their ideology instigates people to commit?

Would I be wrong to interpret your position as the above does not apply to christians? Because?

Every choice comes with responsibility in life. That said, I don't agree that Christianity instigates any crimes. There is an imperative to spread the faith, it doesn't say you should do it using violence and it doesn't say you must have a theocracy.

There may be some violence inherent to certain Christian cults, in which case, yes, Christians publicly declaring their allegiance to those cults do bear some level of culpability, same as people who publicly endorse bad fire safety advice are culpable to some degree if something bad happens as a result of that advice being followed. (Like telling people to use the elevator during a fire cause it's faster to evacuate. Don't believe it, don't do it.)

The problem with Islam isn't just Islamic cults, it isn't just AQ or the Islamic State, it's not just Wahhabism and it's not "Islamism" (a made up word that represents nothing) it's the regular form of Islamic doctrine. Sunni and Shi'ite forms are violent and theocratic and that applies no matter what school of jurisprudence you pick. It's constantly said Islam is not a monolith, that is true, but the differences are trivial and certainly nowhere near what it's implied when deluded apologists say "it's not a monolith".

You explained why this position doesn't follow but from Sparhafoc's comment, it isn't a position he holds.

Because he's in denial. He implied that Sargon of Akkad is alt-right and then used white supremacist endorsement of him as evidence of Sargon being alt-right.

I even asked him "How is Sargon alt-right?"

At this point he could have said "Sargon isn't alt-right" or "you're mistaken, I don't believe/know if Sargon is alt-right" instead he doubled down and tried to use Spencer's support of him as evidence. This is completely fallacious reasoning simply based on the fact that endorsements aren't always mutual. Just like love. Just cause random person loves you doesn't mean you love her back.

Why do you think that more than one person has reached the same conclusion about you?

I don't care what conclusion you reach about me, and you want me to take your conclusions seriously too after you just pulled an ad populum on me?

Wow, more than one person reached the conclusion that Nazism is a good ideology for society to be based on, guess it must be good. Oh wait. Not.

A passing comment: As somebody with something of a reputation for an ability to judge reasoning, and also as somebody who's had the pleasure of interacting very regularly with Sparhafoc for over a decade, his ability to judge reasoning ability in presented arguments is, to my mind, among the most consistent.

Just sayin...

None of this is even remotely verifiable except for your obvious friendship with the guy. And that disqualifies you from being taken seriously as an objective judge of character here.

In fact if you were an actual judge and your friend was on trial, you'd have to recuse yourself as you would not be expected to judge objectively.

The fact that you don't even seem to know this is, well, "problematic".

One thing I always find intriguing is that in this world of widely disparate ways of being Muslim, all the different sets of beliefs held by all the different schools, creeds and nations

Yes, let's talk about it.

Keeping in mind Sunni Islam is the most common form of Islam with almost 90% of the Muslim world being Sunni and it is separated into 4 schools of jurisprudence - which school do you believe is compatible with the American way of life? Or the western way of life in general?

I'll give you a hint: you're wasting your time

Zugzwang! Your move.

This is exactly the same as when some Christian numpties declare that homosexuality is immoral, while some Christians have no problems with it.... the latter are the 'true Christians' in my book, not because I care which group's exegesis more accurately reflects the original intent of some ancient written doggerel

And this betrays your superficial understanding of religion in general. While I don't believe Christianity commands the killing of gays for being gay, it does in fact say that homosexuality is immoral. All the major denominations view it as a sin and the few theologies that don't are statistically insignificant. Just deviations from the average.

"Some Christians have no problem with it," sure, and I'd bet a lot of money that almost all of them are neither theologians nor theologically grounded.

If an ideology bothers you and you want to combat it, the least effective tactic is waiting around like a retard, hoping members of that ideology are too ignorant and complacent to care.

(naturally, I think it's all a load of bollocks),

Lord of the Rings is bullshit too (factually speaking I mean as none of it happened being fiction and all), that doesn't mean there isn't reliable literary analysis of it or that the plot isn't coherent or that all opinions about what the plot is about are equally valid.

but because the latter represent a superior society comprised of more tolerant individuals than the former. I don't care who's 'right' according to fanatical religious certainty, but rather I care about the outcome such beliefs result in.

The truth of a proposition is not dictated based on the outcome.

While reality is unquestionably more complicated than the simplistic would have us believe, the solution here isn't.

I never said it is easy.

You're the simpleton who seems to think we should just live with it and in fact you don't even believe there should be any borders whatsoever.

Tell me, what's your solution to the problem? Let's hear it Mr. Great Statesman and hopefully it will be something better than cliches and platitudes about tolerance and "just getting along" singing Kumbaya.

regardless of the fact that the terrorists are a tiny fraction and that those terrorists, thanks to those same stupid fanatical exegesis, tend to be more interested in enforcing ideological purity through violence on otherwise peaceable living Muslims.

Okay, a tiny fraction are terrorists, what is your point? Do you think any of the dead 3000 9/11 victims would somehow be comforted by knowing this?

Being tiny doesn't exclude the possibility of tremendous damage being done.

And maybe I just don't think that damage is worth the benefits anymore. Please explain how self-preservation is irrational? Please explain what are the unique benefits of mass Islamic migration that are worth sacrificing 3000 people over + trillions in damages and costs spent fighting Islamic terrorism + 50 people in that night club and so on. I don't give a shit about tolerance for the sake of tolerance and I'm certainly not tolerant of the ones who are intolerant first.

And if you propose that we simply judge Muslims 100% individually, then I assume you also have a very reliable method of distinguishing moderates from extremists. Newsflash there isn't. Most Muslims fall under Sunni Islam, there isn't "moderate Islam A" denomination and "extremist Islam B" another denomination. Nothing like that.

You keep forgetting the supremacist aspect of it as well. Terrorism isn't the only problem, but highly retrograde values being brought into society and the fact that all Muslim majority nations struggle with democracy if they even have it. Mass migration from the Islamic world can only create a permanent class of perpetually unsatisfied people because there's never enough Islam. This is a major source of strife that people who care about self-preservation would rather not deal with. Do you understand?

 

[Tree]

I'm still not sure why Sparhafoc is bigoted against white supremacist neo-Nazis just because they're different.

 

[Sparhafoc]

You explained why this position doesn't follow but from Sparhafoc's comment, it isn't a position he holds.

Because he's in denial. He implied that Sargon of Akkad is alt-right and then used white supremacist endorsement of him as evidence of Sargon being alt-right.

I even asked him "How is Sargon alt-right?"

At this point he could have said "Sargon isn't alt-right" or "you're mistaken, I don't believe/know if Sargon is alt-right" instead he doubled down and tried to use Spencer's support of him as evidence. This is completely fallacious reasoning simply based on the fact that endorsements aren't always mutual. Just like love. Just cause random person loves you doesn't mean you love her back.

I invite everyone here to go back to the relevant page and read this for themselves.

I believe the first thing they'll notice is that this thread of conversation actually originates in one of Tree's numerous red herrings where he seeks to change topics.

What actually happened is that Tree declared that I believe SoA is alt-right, then demanded I provide 'proof' of it. /shrug

In reality, I made a number of cautious statements that Tree ignored because he's not really interested in what's written, only insofar as he can use it to push a vapid agenda. Regardless, each and every time Tree tried one of these stunts, I made note of it, then proceeded with it. It wasn't until 5 or so pages back that I stopped responding to his innumerable red herrings because it became clear that he was using them for exactly this reason above.

Why do you think that more than one person has reached the same conclusion about you?

I don't care what conclusion you reach about me, and you want me to take your conclusions seriously too after you just pulled an ad populum on me?

/facepalm

Dude, you really need to learn what these terms mean before tossing them out. MarsCydonia in no way suggested that a contention was true because of the number of people who agree with the contention.

Rather, MarsCydonia made note that your endless litany of juvenile abuse towards me hasn't resulted in other people agreeing with you, rather that it's made more people see what a tit you are.

But go on - do your typical red herring distraction thing and lie about what was said - it just evidences my point!

Wow, more than one person reached the conclusion that Nazism is a good ideology for society to be based on, guess it must be good. Oh wait. Not.

This is why you either lack even the most elementary capacity for reason, or you're a troll.

The format of your red herring argument here in no way mimic the format of MarsCydonia's comment.

A passing comment: As somebody with something of a reputation for an ability to judge reasoning, and also as somebody who's had the pleasure of interacting very regularly with Sparhafoc for over a decade, his ability to judge reasoning ability in presented arguments is, to my mind, among the most consistent.

Just sayin...

None of this is even remotely verifiable except for your obvious friendship with the guy. And that disqualifies you from being taken seriously as an objective judge of character here.

Whereas the 10 minutes you've known me, coupled with the endless barrage of juvenile hostility and anger makes your judgment of my character objective?

Oh wait.

In fact if you were an actual judge and your friend was on trial, you'd have to recuse yourself as you would not be expected to judge objectively.

The fact that you don't even seem to know this is, well, "problematic".

The fact that your completely irrelevant red herring results in X doesn't make something 'problematic'. Of course, Hack never suggested he was here to 'judge' in the sense of a trial (not least because I am not on trial), and the notion that someone's personality/intelligence could be so judged is just deranged nonsense you've tossed out to distract because you refuse ever to back down on any point at all.

Also, laughably, you've forgotten the role of character witnesses in your specious foray into distraction.

One thing I always find intriguing is that in this world of widely disparate ways of being Muslim, all the different sets of beliefs held by all the different schools, creeds and nations

Yes, let's talk about it.

Keeping in mind Sunni Islam is the most common form of Islam with almost 90% of the Muslim world being Sunni and it is separated into 4 schools of jurisprudence - which school do you believe is compatible with the American way of life? Or the western way of life in general?

I'll give you a hint: you're wasting your time

Zugzwang! Your move.

Your repeated assertions are irrelevant to me: Tree does not emote reality, regardless of his inability to determine that truth.

In factual reality, all schools of Islam are compatible with American/Western life as can be seen by the numerous Muslims who live in the US and the West and succeed in those societies.

Again, this is just blind prejudice on your part. You've never lived in an area with Muslims, but you're ideologically in fear of them, so you demonize them all. In reality, the vast majority of Muslims living in the US and the West in general are just normal people with normal concerns like family, crime and thriving and normal aspirations like job promotion, economic stability and achieving success. Just because Tree is afraid of them, it doesn't make them demons.

This is exactly the same as when some Christian numpties declare that homosexuality is immoral, while some Christians have no problems with it.... the latter are the 'true Christians' in my book, not because I care which group's exegesis more accurately reflects the original intent of some ancient written doggerel

And this betrays your superficial understanding of religion in general.

I doubt it. It just betrays the fact that you're desperate to argue but have never learned to do so with any degree of faculty.

While I don't believe Christianity commands the killing of gays for being gay, it does in fact say that homosexuality is immoral. All the major denominations view it as a sin and the few theologies that don't are statistically insignificant. Just deviations from the average.

What a laughable non-sequitur.

How does your sentence thereby show I have a superficial understanding of religion?

Of course, it doesn't.

As usual, Tree shows he can make assertions by stringing words together into sentences, but fails to comprehend that the mere act of writing a sentence does not thereby lend it validity.

Ironically, after tossing out an attempt to poison my well by claiming I don't understand religion, you then proceed to show you haven't done the requisite homework when it comes to making assertions about Christianity.

Do feel free to look into Leviticus 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

:roll:

But it doesn't really matter, because Tree will simply pivot and spin like he always does. The reasons he uses to argue for X, will be rejected when he wishes to argue against Y.

"Some Christians have no problem with it," sure, and I'd bet a lot of money that almost all of them are neither theologians nor theologically grounded.

A typical irrelevance.

If an ideology bothers you and you want to combat it, the least effective tactic is waiting around like a retard, hoping members of that ideology are too ignorant and complacent to care.

Silly man. If an ideology bothers you, then harping on about it to random strangers on the internet is not going to result in any greater outcome, plus you make yourself look a tit in the process.

(naturally, I think it's all a load of bollocks),

Lord of the Rings is bullshit too (factually speaking I mean as none of it happened being fiction and all), that doesn't mean there isn't reliable literary analysis of it or that the plot isn't coherent or that all opinions about what the plot is about are equally valid.

Feel free to read my argument rather than making up a strawman of what I said.

but because the latter represent a superior society comprised of more tolerant individuals than the former. I don't care who's 'right' according to fanatical religious certainty, but rather I care about the outcome such beliefs result in.

The truth of a proposition is not dictated based on the outcome.

Are you unable to read the sentence I wrote? Only, you appear to have selectively edited out the position I clearly took to pretend that my position was something other than I wrote. This is quote-mining and it's manifestly duplicitous - such actions are what make people here judge your capacity for reasoned discourse, Tree.

What I actually wrote was....

the latter are the 'true Christians' in my book, not because I care which group's exegesis more accurately reflects the original intent of some ancient written doggerel (naturally, I think it's all a load of bollocks), but because the latter represent a superior society comprised of more tolerant individuals than the former. I don't care who's 'right' according to fanatical religious certainty, but rather I care about the outcome such beliefs result in.

Trying stuff like this makes you look like a Creationist in terms of integrity and discursive honesty.

Also, the truth of many propositions are based on outcomes, Tree - to deny that is to deny scientific method.

While reality is unquestionably more complicated than the simplistic would have us believe, the solution here isn't.

I never said it is easy.

And I never said you said it was easy. Instead, I said you have simplified it. It's right there in the text you're supposedly quoting.

You're the simpleton who seems to think we should just live with it and in fact you don't even believe there should be any borders whatsoever.

Either I'm the simpleton who doesn't get anything, or Tree's ability to judge intelligence is not robust and actually says a lot more about the quality of his reasoning that he thinks that repeatedly calling his interlocutor stupid is going to reflect on someone other than himself.

Tell me, what's your solution to the problem? Let's hear it Mr. Great Statesman and hopefully it will be something better than cliches and platitudes about tolerance and "just getting along" singing Kumbaya.

What problem?

And for clarity, regardless of whether I have a solution to a problem or not, that wouldn't then lend your solution any validity after it's been shown flawed.

regardless of the fact that the terrorists are a tiny fraction and that those terrorists, thanks to those same stupid fanatical exegesis, tend to be more interested in enforcing ideological purity through violence on otherwise peaceable living Muslims.

Okay, a tiny fraction are terrorists, what is your point? Do you think any of the dead 3000 9/11 victims would somehow be comforted by knowing this?

You ask what my point is by making a point so far removed from reason it can only be called a non-sequitur. Do I think dead people would be comforted? Um no. They're dead.

Regardless, it doesn't change my point - we do not ascribe criminal blame on people collectively. That's backwards by centuries. If you are supposed to be representing the gloriously advanced West, why do you not comprehend one of the most fundamental aspects of our societies' advance: justice?

Being tiny doesn't exclude the possibility of tremendous damage being done.

Red herring. We're not talking about 'damage done' - we're talking about laying the blame for criminal activity at the feet of people who have not committed criminal activity. That is the actual argument, regardless of your hyperactive need to change the point to half a dozen other things.

And maybe I just don't think that damage is worth the benefits anymore.

I don't give a fuck what you think, not least because what you think has been shown to be based on so many faulty premises.

Please explain how self-preservation is irrational?

Please explain whether you take mind-altering drugs which then explains why you can't maintain a thread of conversation and need to continually produce these red herrings.

I'll answer that question the moment you show where I have said anything that would counter it.

For everyone else, this is how all of Tree's strawmen start. Also, when I refuse to answer it, he'll assume that I've taken then contrary position, then in 10 pages he'll be telling everyone that I disputed the above.

Please explain what are the unique benefits of mass Islamic migration that are worth sacrificing 3000 people over + trillions in damages and costs spent fighting Islamic terrorism + 50 people in that night club and so on. I don't give a shit about tolerance for the sake of tolerance and I'm certainly not tolerant of the ones who are intolerant first.

No. First, you'll need to show that there is a connection between Muslim immigration (you still haven't looked up the term 'mass migration' you're repeatedly misusing) and 9/11, because I don't need to contend against something with hasn't been shown worth consideration.

Of course, any such argument will be an evasion because we are not addressing whether all Muslims are responsible for 9/11 just because some small number of Muslims carried it out. Your position would necessarily be in the affirmative there, while I think most people would consider that idiotic crackpottery.

And if you propose that we simply judge Muslims 100% individually, then I assume you also have a very reliable method of distinguishing moderates from extremists.

Of course I propose we judge criminality individually - anything else would be deranged and wholly contrary to the values our societies have developed for the last 1000 years or more.

My utterly reliable method of distinguishing criminals from non-criminals is that the criminals do criminal things, while the non-criminals don't.

Amazing, huh?

Yep, it's at the foundation of our justice system and predates the foundation, even the discovery of the Americas by Europeans, by hundreds of years.

People aren't criminals just because you declare them so, Tree. To be a criminal, they actually have to commit an act that breaks the law.

Newsflash there isn't.

Newsflash: your argument from ignorance represents only paucity of imagination and understanding on your part.

Most Muslims fall under Sunni Islam, there isn't "moderate Islam A" denomination and "extremist Islam B" another denomination. Nothing like that.

Which, of course, no one said there was.

You keep forgetting the supremacist aspect of it as well.

Do I? I think you keep forgetting that this isn't a fish market, and consequently we don't know the price of fish.

Terrorism isn't the only problem, but highly retrograde values being brought into society and the fact that all Muslim majority nations struggle with democracy if they
even have it.

Why's that a problem? Democracy is itself a struggle.

As for regressive values, considering you're a supposed true-blooded American, you're espousing values that would reverse 800 years of Western jurisprudence by collectivizing guilt onto innocents.

As I've pointed out before. I am less worried about the supposed horde of barbarians allegedly at the gates (not least because they don't seem to be there when one looks) so much as I am worried about the swivel-eyed xenophobes in our own nations using fear and hatred to roll back our fundamental liberties and essential rights.

Mass migration from the Islamic world can only create a permanent class of perpetually unsatisfied people because there's never enough Islam.

Learn what mass migration means because every time you use it inappropriately, you look like a complete fucking fruitcake.

Plus, no one's interested in your crystal ball proclamations.

This is a major source of strife that people who care about self-preservation would rather not deal with. Do you understand?

As I've already responded above:

Oh... and the reality is that the crystal ball which keeps telling us about how North Korea's going to nuke us (so we'd better bomb them first), and that Mexicans are going to rob us (so we'd better kick them out first!), and that Muslims are going to murder us in our beds (so we'd better collectively demonize them first) is ironically, in each case's allegedly justified advance reaction, apparently designed to cause the very friction it supposedly seeks to pre-emptively address.

The much vaunted Western values don't need to be destroyed by the faceless hordes at the gates supposedly out to destroy our way of life if we let hate-mongering numpties pervert those values beyond recognition in desperately trying convince us to stay permanently afraid of the other.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I'm still not sure why Sparhafoc is bigoted against white supremacist neo-Nazis just because they're different.

In the same way as I am not sure why you are sexually attracted to children.

 

[Deleted member 619]

None of this is even remotely verifiable except for your obvious friendship with the guy. And that disqualifies you from being taken seriously as an objective judge of character here.

Except that it's a matter of extensive public record although, in this case, since Sparhafoc was known by a different moniker, it would be up to him to tell you how to find it.

In fact if you were an actual judge and your friend was on trial, you'd have to recuse yourself as you would not be expected to judge objectively.

This overlooks several things. First, we're not in a court of law. Second, judging objectively is the subject in question, and my ability to be pragmatic is also a matter of extensive public record, which you can verify by searching my username for yourself.

The fact that you don't even seem to know this is, well, "problematic".

I know what I need to know, wanksplat, and you are definitely NOT in a position to judge what I know.

Anyhoo, back to treating you with the contempt of silence which you so clearly deserve. If you were being a bigot in a more public manner, I'd take the time to take you to pieces. As it is, your audience here isn't large enough to matter and is sufficiently well inoculated against the toxic, mindless guff you have to offer for me not to have to concern myself with it, so bye, cockrabbit.

 

[Tree]

I laugh at the accusations of "red herring" coming from you, the guy who, in a topic about North Korean nuclear ICBM capacity, instead of discussing the actual issue went on a tirade about how America did this crime or that crime 70+ years ago. You have one of the worst cases of projection I've ever seen all year and this is what irritates me the most about your character. On to your post...

I invite everyone here to go back to the relevant page and read this for themselves.

I believe the first thing they'll notice is that this thread of conversation actually originates in one of Tree's numerous red herrings where he seeks to change topics.

What actually happened is that Tree declared that I believe SoA is alt-right, then demanded I provide 'proof' of it. /shrug

In reality, I made a number of cautious statements that Tree ignored because he's not really interested in what's written, only insofar as he can use it to push a vapid agenda. Regardless, each and every time Tree tried one of these stunts, I made note of it, then proceeded with it. It wasn't until 5 or so pages back that I stopped responding to his innumerable red herrings because it became clear that he was using them for exactly this reason above.

No. I posted the exchange where you try to argue that Sargon is alt-right and then you list a bunch of "reasons" such as him being endorsed by the alt-right.

Need I remind you of the earlier exchange:

I said: "We really need to stop this trend of accusing people of racism and sexism on flimsy evidence. It's getting silly and it makes you look like the boy who cried wolf."
You replied: "What we need to do is counter the trend of alt-right fuckheads being racist and sexist then whining when their behavior is accurately labelled as such."

Context reminder: This was about Sargon of Akkad.

Given the context this implies you think Sargon of Akkad is alt-right. Do not deny it.

You also said about Sargon: "If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and shits all over everything that ducks shit on... then even if it has a bad day where it doesn't want to be a duck, it's still a fucking duck." This was in response to me dismissing the notion of him being alt-right. So yet again, claiming he's alt-right.

I also asked clarification:

"In what way is he alt-right?"

You could have just said something to the effect of "he is not alt-right" or "I don't believe he's alt-right" but instead you provided more useless information that doesn't prove anything.

You can fool your friends and your echo chamber all you want, you're not fooling me.

Dude, you really need to learn what these terms mean before tossing them out. MarsCydonia in no way suggested that a contention was true because of the number of people who agree with the contention.

Rather, MarsCydonia made note that your endless litany of juvenile abuse towards me hasn't resulted in other people agreeing with you, rather that it's made more people see what a tit you are.

Okay. I don't give a fuck.

This is why you either lack even the most elementary capacity for reason, or you're a troll.

The format of your red herring argument here in no way mimic the format of MarsCydonia's comment.

Just FYI, echo chambers are hard to persuade in general. I could probably go to Stormfront and argue with them against white nationalism and one of them could just as easily ask "Why do you think more than one person has reached the same conclusion that you're a cuck race traitor?"

Do you think I give a shit that echo chamber X or Y doesn't like to hear what I have to say?

Whereas the 10 minutes you've known me, coupled with the endless barrage of juvenile hostility and anger makes your judgment of my character objective?

Oh wait.

I never said I was objective about you. I fully admit my bias about you. That said, I'm entitled to my opinion based on the info I'm aware of. Life's too short to give a comprehensive evaluation of everyone I interact with.

The fact that your completely irrelevant red herring results in X doesn't make something 'problematic'. Of course, Hack never suggested he was here to 'judge' in the sense of a trial (not least because I am not on trial), and the notion that someone's personality/intelligence could be so judged is just deranged nonsense you've tossed out to distract because you refuse ever to back down on any point at all.

The point is, your friends have a bias in favor of you, so the idea that they can objectively judge your character or that their opinion matters is laughable.

It is just as important to me as everyone's opinion that their wife is the most beautiful woman in the world.

Your repeated assertions are irrelevant to me: Tree does not emote reality, regardless of his inability to determine that truth.

In factual reality, all schools of Islam are compatible with American/Western life as can be seen by the numerous Muslims who live in the US and the West and succeed in those societies.

No. That doesn't follow because Islamic schools of jurisprudence were determined by theologians, not by laymen. If you want to know what an Islamic school of jurisprudence says about anything, you go consult one of the many manuals of that school of jurisprudence.

At best all it proves is that the Muslims in question are either not fully practicing their religion or want to but cannot fully practice their religion because they don't (yet) have the strength in numbers or institutions. People behave very differently if they're either relatively new to a country or in the minority or both.

So for a better impression, you go see what countries with Islamic majorities are like, places where strength in numbers or institutions isn't an issue. There you see the true colors of Islam in practice as well.

In factual reality, all schools of Islam are compatible with American/Western life as can be seen by the numerous Muslims who live in the US and the West and succeed in those societies.

Btw, with a simplistic understanding like that of the issue, in order to be intellectually consistent, you would also have to agree that fascism including Nazism is compatible with the American or Western life as can be seen by the "numerous Nazis who live in the US and the West and succeed in those societies". Plenty of Nazis like that, they could be your manager, your IT technician, your plumber, anyone. You wouldn't know about it if you only interacted with them professionally and nothing more, not knowing what they do or support in their free time.

Again, this is just blind prejudice on your part. You've never lived in an area with Muslims, but you're ideologically in fear of them, so you demonize them all.

I never lived in an area with Nazis either, but I can still criticize Nazism and say it's incompatible with American values.

Do you need to be infected with MRSA before you know how nasty it is?

In reality, the vast majority of Muslims living in the US and the West in general are just normal people with normal concerns like family, crime and thriving and normal aspirations like job promotion, economic stability and achieving success. Just because Tree is afraid of them, it doesn't make them demons.

And that's only possible because many Muslims are ignorant of what Islam says. For some, it only takes someone pointing out the teachings of Islam to make them theocratic or terrorist. For others who are already closeted radicals, it only takes an opportunity to show it, like having the confidence in the strength of numbers.

That's not a viable long term strategy for peaceful or harmonious coexistence. It would be like saying your marriage is viable because your wife is ignorant of your cheating (even though that information is easily accessible because you're too inept to clear your browsing history or you tell all your friends). Well, that may be technically true, but it can only work for so long. Once that information is exposed, it's game over. The charade you built in a life time will be destroyed in minutes and your marriage will never be the same again.

The idea that I can co-exist with an assassin roommate, I just have to hope he never opens the envelope with instructions to kill me or if he does he never goes through with it (because reasons?), is utterly laughable.

I doubt it. It just betrays the fact that you're desperate to argue but have never learned to do so with any degree of faculty.

Like it or not, Christian doctrine is clear on homosexuality being a sin. Anyone who says it isn't, including Christians, are being theologically unsound.

What a laughable non-sequitur.

How does your sentence thereby show I have a superficial understanding of religion?

Because you don't have the first clue about theology.

If you want to know what Christianity or Islam or Judaism or any religion and its branches and sub-branches say about anything, you go consult their theology. You don't assume that whatever any layman Christian or Muslim does is in accordance with Christianity or Islam.

I can say Lord of the Rings is a story about a bunch of midget Polish gnomes having a grand all time traveling Europe and pissing in a volcano for the lulz and beating up homeless people - but that wouldn't be even remotely accurate would it? Just because it's fiction doesn't mean everyone's opinion about it is equally valid and you can treat it with utter superficiality cause it's "all bollocks" so who cares. There are sound and unsound ways to have a literary analysis and the same is true for religion.

Ironically, after tossing out an attempt to poison my well by claiming I don't understand religion, you then proceed to show you haven't done the requisite homework when it comes to making assertions about Christianity.

Do feel free to look into Leviticus 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

That's only your failure to understand those laws were given to ancient Israelis. Apart from fringe cults which are statistically irrelevant, no Christian theology says you must apply Leviticus while all the main branches of Islam say you must govern according to Sharia.

Do you understand now?

What I actually wrote was....

the latter are the 'true Christians' in my book, not because I care which group's exegesis more accurately reflects the original intent of some ancient written doggerel (naturally, I think it's all a load of bollocks), but because the latter represent a superior society comprised of more tolerant individuals than the former. I don't care who's 'right' according to fanatical religious certainty, but rather I care about the outcome such beliefs result in.

Okay, then we have fundamentally incompatible values you and I.

If your way to building a "superior society" is through WILLFUL denial of reality (literally ignoring the exegesis that makes most sense because it doesn't lead to the outcome you want), I want no part of it because it's not a viable long-term strategy. It is as viable as a marriage built on lies, or a business partnership based on the ignorance of one party. Sooner or later, it's going to come out.

What I would say instead is that it ultimately doesn't matter if Christianity doesn't like homosexuality (it doesn't, that's barely even up for debate), as long as it leaves them alone. You would have a far easier time convincing Christians to leave homosexuals alone than convincing Christians that their theology says something other than what it actually says. There is no way to reconcile Christianity with homosexuality no matter what mental gymnastics you try.

What problem?

The problem of Islamic terrorism and theocracy.

And for clarity, regardless of whether I have a solution to a problem or not, that wouldn't then lend your solution any validity after it's been shown flawed.

It's been showed to be flawed how? Did you try it?

Well, come to think of it Eastern Europe has tried it, works very well. Less Muslims - less Islamic terrorism. In fact some countries haven't had a single successful Islamic terrorist plot because they refuse mass immigration and refugee quotas.

You ask what my point is by making a point so far removed from reason it can only be called a non-sequitur. Do I think dead people would be comforted? Um no. They're dead.

I'm asking a hypothetical, simpleton.

If that's too much for you, ask the same about the maimed survivors or the families of the deceased. Do you think they give a shit that only a fraction of Muslims act out this way? The damage is done and all thanks to Islam and its doctrine of jihad without which 9/11 would never have happened.

Regardless, it doesn't change my point - we do not ascribe criminal blame on people collectively. That's backwards by centuries.

I didn't say anything about criminal blame. That implies a trial with specific criminal charges. I don't want Islam to be illegal, same as I don't want Nazism to be illegal, I just think they should be shunned from polite society. There's a difference.

Do you understand that responsibility can be moral or legal and there are different degrees to them as well?

If you are supposed to be representing the gloriously advanced West, why do you not comprehend one of the most fundamental aspects of our societies' advance: justice?

Justice isn't a license for open borders.

And American law makes it very clear Congress can set laws for immigration and the President has broad executive powers to exclude anyone who's not a citizen he doesn't trust. If you want to argue these powers are unjust fine, it is however more unjust to demand entrance in a country you're not a citizen of and where the representatives of the people don't want you because they don't trust you. Trust has to be earned and that's difficult when you subscribe to a totalitarian ideology.

Red herring. We're not talking about 'damage done' - we're talking about laying the blame for criminal activity at the feet of people who have not committed criminal activity. That is the actual argument, regardless of your hyperactive need to change the point to half a dozen other things.

Again not talking about criminal blame, but moral blame.

And if you're going to propagate an ideology that says you must make war upon outsiders of that ideology, then sorry but you're at least in part responsible for any outcome, even if it's just a small 0.000000001% fraction of responsibility. Just as if you were to promote a book on fire safety that had BAD advice (like "during a fire, use the elevator to get out faster") you'd have your fair share of blame if someone died as a result. Maybe your contribution wouldn't be enough to warrant an actual manslaughter charge, but you should definitely not be sleeping well at night and you shouldn't be respected by anyone.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I laugh at the accusations of "red herring" coming from you, the guy who, in a topic about North Korean nuclear ICBM capacity, instead of discussing the actual issue went on a tirade about how America did this crime or that crime 70+ years ago. You have one of the worst cases of projection I've ever seen all year and this is what irritates me the most about your character. On to your post...

You always laugh when you supposedly see the things you have been charged with in other people. Unfortunately, no one's distracted by your diversion, and the fact still remains that either something is or isn't a red herring, and you waving your hands around doesn't change that.

Perhaps you could instead attempt to understand why it is a red herring rather than opting for a tu quoque? Not only that, but amusingly it's also contained within a genetic fallacy, that because I say something, it must be wrong because I held X position elsewhere. What a funny chap you are!

Regardless, how exactly would it hurt you to understand why you are having such a hard time making any impact here? Perhaps if you stopped beating your chest for a moment, you could improve your knowledge and cease making such mistakes in the future? Because make no mistake, people here are well versed in discoursive norms, including being able to see through obvious attempts to deflect conversations. So you can either keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result, or you could try doing something different.

Finally, of course, if someone were to go and read that thread you've appealed to, they'd quickly discover that your rendition of the thread of conversation diverges wildly from reality, and that the point being discussed was whether we needed to fear North Korea bombing other people, and the current US's government hypocritically stating we do when it is only the US which has ever dropped a nuclear bomb on another nation. Facts may be inconvenient for you, but that doesn't make them a red herring.

But it's nice to know that you realize your rebuttals in that thread were insufficient and consequently felt the need to try again by bringing it up here.

I invite everyone here to go back to the relevant page and read this for themselves.

I believe the first thing they'll notice is that this thread of conversation actually originates in one of Tree's numerous red herrings where he seeks to change topics.

What actually happened is that Tree declared that I believe SoA is alt-right, then demanded I provide 'proof' of it. /shrug

In reality, I made a number of cautious statements that Tree ignored because he's not really interested in what's written, only insofar as he can use it to push a vapid agenda. Regardless, each and every time Tree tried one of these stunts, I made note of it, then proceeded with it. It wasn't until 5 or so pages back that I stopped responding to his innumerable red herrings because it became clear that he was using them for exactly this reason above.

No. I posted the exchange where you try to argue that Sargon is alt-right and then you list a bunch of "reasons" such as him being endorsed by the alt-right.

Manifestly a lie.

What actually occurred is that you declared that my position, then asked me 'in what way' could it be argued, so I offered a list of arguments. It's right there - anyone can read it.

Need I remind you of the earlier exchange:

Only if you actually cite the context and the content of my posts, and in this case, my rebuttal to your rendition - otherwise you're just trotting out assertions already shown false.

I said: "We really need to stop this trend of accusing people of racism and sexism on flimsy evidence. It's getting silly and it makes you look like the boy who cried wolf."

You replied: "What we need to do is counter the trend of alt-right fuckheads being racist and sexist then whining when their behavior is accurately labelled as such."

Context reminder: This was about Sargon of Akkad.

That 'context reminder' is your strawman. I was making a general point just as you were making a general point.

You've already tried this several times, and in each instance another member of this forum has dropped in to point out that you are asserting components of my text that are factually not in what I wrote.

Ergo, this is, at kindest reading, a mistake on your part. But it's not a mistake at all, is it? It's intentional. How can we know? Because it's far from a single instance, but rather, this is the norm for your poo-slinging.

Given the context this implies you think Sargon of Akkad is alt-right. Do not deny it.

The context in your mind - I don't deny that.

Of course, as I've informed you dozens of times already, I will inform you of my position, and if you think you will inform me of my position then you need to pop your head back out of your arse and smell some reality.

You also said about Sargon: "If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and shits all over everything that ducks shit on... then even if it has a bad day where it doesn't want to be a duck, it's still a fucking duck." This was in response to me dismissing the notion of him being alt-right. So yet again, claiming he's alt-right.

See the actual thread of conversation as to why Tree feels the need to render this without linking to it.

I also asked clarification:

"In what way is he alt-right?"

Um no. That is in fact where you made an assumption on my behalf, I called you out for it, then proceeded to go along with it anyway as that's the standard form I use when addressing strawmen, red herrings and the like.

You could have just said something to the effect of "he is not alt-right" or "I don't believe he's alt-right" but instead you provided more useless information that doesn't prove anything.

Rather, as anyone honest can read, I said multiple times that I am not claiming that SoA is alt-right or sexist, but rather that his spiel is alt-right and sexist, what his motivations are for this are not within my purview. It could well be that he is alt-right and sexist, or he could just be a stupid fucking little 4chan-style troll who uses such arguments for the lulz, or whatever.

Regardless, as I wrote this several times in the relevant portion of this thread, your insistence on repeatedly removing it shows why you were whining about bad faith. If you selectively edit out parts of my posts, then you can't make arguments based on the bits you want to respond to - you're obliged to note the parts of my post which contradict your notion.

Finally, as I've told you many times, it's genuinely perverse of you to think that you can convince me to accept that my position is X because you say so. I'll take my own positions, thanks all the same, and if you don't like it, feel free to go fuck yourself.

You can fool your friends and your echo chamber all you want, you're not fooling me.

You're the only fool here, Tree.

Love the notion of an echo-chamber - it's like you're play Canard Bingo, but given how you've concern trolled your way through your brief tenure here, that's no surprise.

Dude, you really need to learn what these terms mean before tossing them out. MarsCydonia in no way suggested that a contention was true because of the number of people who agree with the contention.

Rather, MarsCydonia made note that your endless litany of juvenile abuse towards me hasn't resulted in other people agreeing with you, rather that it's made more people see what a tit you are.

Okay. I don't give a fuck.

We know you don't give a fuck about honesty, discoursive integrity and the like - that's why you're meeting resistance. You can, of course, opt to blame everyone else for your failings, it would be sad as fuck, but seemingly appropriate for you.

This is why you either lack even the most elementary capacity for reason, or you're a troll.

The format of your red herring argument here in no way mimic the format of MarsCydonia's comment.

Just FYI, echo chambers are hard to persuade in general. I could probably go to Stormfront and argue with them against white nationalism and one of them could just as easily ask "Why do you think more than one person has reached the same conclusion that you're a cuck race traitor?"

And another red herring. No one is accusing you of holding any particular position - instead, they're saying that your arguments are fucking shit.

So a real metaphor would be if you went to a tennis club, couldn't play tennis, then all the members of that tennis club pointed out that you were shit at playing tennis.

Yeah, like that.

Do you think I give a shit that echo chamber X or Y doesn't like to hear what I have to say?

Yes, I think you do. This is obvious in the level of emotional drama you're exhibiting right now, not content with repeatedly throwing abuse at me, now you need to explain your own failings by making silly accusations about the entire forum's membership.

We're all so blind and stupid, that's why your perfectly rational arguments aren't floating.... amirite?

How about the fact that you're the common denominator, Tree?

Whereas the 10 minutes you've known me, coupled with the endless barrage of juvenile hostility and anger makes your judgment of my character objective?

Oh wait.

I never said I was objective about you. I fully admit my bias about you.

No, you declared I was thick many times.

See the numerous posts above that you ignored mocking this behavior.

That said, I'm entitled to my opinion based on the info I'm aware of.

You are indeed, pathetic and ill-formed as those opinions may be.

What you need to grasp is the fact that your opinions do not dictate reality. Whether I am intelligent or not isn't contingent on your opinion, and when you think your opinion is sufficient to make assertions, then you find that people here reject those opinions.

So do of course feel free to have opinions - no one has suggested, of course, that you're not entitled to them - but learn quickly and learn well that your opinions, when so poorly informed, indict your capacity to reason. This is when you emote the world, Tree. I've been talking to you about this since you started, but you don't want to hear any criticism. Please do feel free to continue as you have been, but also note that I am free to continue doing as I have been - pointing out that the Gospel of Tree is a pretty poor source of information.

Life's too short to give a comprehensive evaluation of everyone I interact with.

Life also possesses the requisite of not assuming that Tree possesses any degree of competence at comprehensively evaluating anything until some legitimacy is shown in that regard.

The fact that your completely irrelevant red herring results in X doesn't make something 'problematic'. Of course, Hack never suggested he was here to 'judge' in the sense of a trial (not least because I am not on trial), and the notion that someone's personality/intelligence could be so judged is just deranged nonsense you've tossed out to distract because you refuse ever to back down on any point at all.

The point is, your friends have a bias in favor of you, so the idea that they can objectively judge your character or that their opinion matters is laughable.

In actual fact, I only have one friend here, so you're making silly assumptions because they are useful assumption to make, not because they stand up to scrutiny. Other people who have agreed have done so not out of amicability with me, but because your arguments were total fucking shit.

And while you're playing the victim card here, remember what it is we're supposedly discussing? Oh yeah, your repeated assertions that I am thick. Did you want cheese with that whine?

It is just as important to me as everyone's opinion that their wife is the most beautiful woman in the world.

It's important enough for you to have imagined and used as a distraction in this thread of distractions.

Your repeated assertions are irrelevant to me: Tree does not emote reality, regardless of his inability to determine that truth.

In factual reality, all schools of Islam are compatible with American/Western life as can be seen by the numerous Muslims who live in the US and the West and succeed in those societies.

No. That doesn't follow because Islamic schools of jurisprudence were determined by theologians, not by laymen.

A complete non-sequitur that has no bearing on what was said at all.

If you want to know what an Islamic school of jurisprudence says about anything, you go consult one of the many manuals of that school of jurisprudence.

Red herring, Tree. Whine all you like about me accurately pointing out your endless red herrings, but this has nothing to do with what I wrote at all. My argument is sitting right there: the reason we know most Muslims are compatible with American/Western life is because they are already there, partaking in those societies, and doing sufficiently well for themselves. Just because you live in a bunker, doesn't mean others are going to join in your demonization.

At best all it proves is that the Muslims in question are either not fully practicing their religion or want to but cannot fully practice their religion because they don't (yet) have the strength in numbers or institutions.

It says nothing of the sort, and the last sentence looks like psychotic paranoia.

Muslims are already fully practicing their religion as they see it, and unsurprisingly, none of them thought to check with Tree first to make sure he approved of their practices.

Secondly, the notion that they will have 'strength in numbers' is typical delusion right-wing xenophobic bollocks that is also scientifically illiterate and complete fucking numptyism. Under no population demographic model ever created do Muslims replace or even become a majority of any European nation, or the US, or any other nation which doesn't historically have a large number of Muslims.

If you wish to contend this, you'd better bring something other than swivel-eyed assertions because population dynamics is a very robust discipline.

Also, we're back to the same stupid contention made earlier, that they'll all be out to get us just the moment we turn our backs.

This really just shows how far removed from reality you are, Tree. You clearly live somewhere where there's no Muslims and you're allowing your vacuous prejudice to guide you towards nonsensical claims.

As I've already told you - I live in a large Muslim minority area. The only really annoying thing about it is the fucking mosques' call to prayer. Aside from that, you wouldn't know they're Muslim except there's no pork products for sale, and women cover their hair.

On my little side-street there are 6 households. 3 of them are Muslim families, 2 are Buddhists, and there's me. Not only do I not have my Muslim neighbours trying to force their beliefs on me in any way, shape or form, but they also don't seem in the slightest bit inclined to do me violence.

Well, fancy that, Tree's Gospel is being tested against reality, and as usual, it's been shown empty of utility.

Your patter is just small-minded xenophobia, Tree. Perhaps you don't see it that way, but for those of us who have actually lived relevant experiences, we know you're talking out of the wrong end of your digestive tract - your position is wholly derived from ignorance.

People behave very differently if they're either relatively new to a country or in the minority or both.

Muslims have been here for hundreds of years; they're not foreigners, let alone newly arrived ones, ergo what the fuck are you wittering about?

Your sermon on the mount just isn't going down well, Tree. Perhaps you might want to find some undereducated clowns to monger fear and hatred at instead?

So for a better impression, you go see what countries with Islamic majorities are like, places where strength in numbers or institutions isn't an issue. There you see the true colors of Islam in practice as well.

Which obviously you have... right? :lol:

Stop pretending your'e a fucking expert when you're clearly completely clueless.

Secondly, no. When we're talking about the alleged threat of Muslims in our societies, then we never need to compare to Muslim dominant societies because there is no path which could result in our own societies becoming Muslim dominant.

In factual reality, all schools of Islam are compatible with American/Western life as can be seen by the numerous Muslims who live in the US and the West and succeed in those societies.

Btw, with a simplistic understanding like that of the issue,...

Of course, by now we are all used to your juvenile provocations where you call something simplistic then go on to show you don't even have a passing shot at grasping the point...

... in order to be intellectually consistent, you would also have to agree that fascism including Nazism is compatible with the American or Western life as can be seen by the "numerous Nazis who live in the US and the West and succeed in those societies".

First of all, no that doesn't stand to reason. Just because one group is compatible, it isn't therefore a logical requirement that all groups are compatible, so much for me being simplistic!

Secondly, of course Nazism and white supremacy has a foothold in our nations, not least because it originated there and has only ever really existed there - it is, sadly, a factor of our societies, but not a desirable one.

Note the second point spells out a notion you have trouble grasping: the difference between prescription and description. Do let me know if you need some help understanding the difference.

Incidentally, your obsession with making room for white-supremacist neo-Nazis in our society is really quite intriguing. I wonder whether that's because it's better the devil you know - at least they're our fucknuts - or because you espouse so many positions consonant with them.

Plenty of Nazis like that, they could be your manager, your IT technician, your plumber, anyone. You wouldn't know about it if you only interacted with them professionally and nothing more, not knowing what they do or support in their free time.

No Tree, they really, really couldn't be. :lol:

But it's a good example of how you emote reality at other people. In actual fact, your assertions in this regard couldn't be further removed from reality for me, and presumably the same could be said for many Jews and African Americans in your country. What Tree sees or fails to see does not restrain other people's vision.

Again, this is just blind prejudice on your part. You've never lived in an area with Muslims, but you're ideologically in fear of them, so you demonize them all.

I never lived in an area with Nazis either, but I can still criticize Nazism and say it's incompatible with American values.

You can say anything you like - have you not grasped this elementary notion yet? No one is contesting your ability to put words into syntactically correct sentences; the value of what you say isn't founded merely on the process of doing so, but rather by seeing how well the semantic content of that sentence corresponds with reality.

As has already been explained to you: you can do anything you want when it comes to criticism or stating your opinion - no one has suggested otherwise - but the mere fact that you can do so doesn't lend any validity to those criticisms or opinions. No one is obligated to take your opinion as gospel.

Of course, if we were to follow the context of your argument - something you work hard to ensure people don't do - then we'd have to say that the conclusion of your sentence there should then be that we should treat all Christians as potentially dangerous terrorists because the KKK and other white-supremacist movements in the US are inextricably entwined with Christian beliefs.

Do you need to be infected with MRSA before you know how nasty it is?

Again, this is just irrelevant nonsense. What you are trying to do is show that Muslims are dangerous, but you can't actually show it, so instead you ramble about other things. Nothing more than emoting reality.

In reality, the vast majority of Muslims living in the US and the West in general are just normal people with normal concerns like family, crime and thriving and normal aspirations like job promotion, economic stability and achieving success. Just because Tree is afraid of them, it doesn't make them demons.

And that's only possible because many Muslims are ignorant of what Islam says.

God your abject hubris.

Yep, because of course Tree knows what Islam says better than all those peaceable Muslims, and because he's right and they're wrong, they're actually all dangerous people ready to slit our throats while we sleep.

For some, it only takes someone pointing out the teachings of Islam to make them theocratic or terrorist. For others who are already closeted radicals, it only takes an opportunity to show it, like having the confidence in the strength of numbers.

Whereas for most, they hold a very different interpretation of their religion than Tree's acceptance of extremist exegesis.

That's not a viable long term strategy for peaceful or harmonious coexistence.

As I said, of course it's not when you're agitating for conflict by demonizing a minority. We've seen how harmonious such regimes are.

It would be like saying your marriage is viable because your wife is ignorant of your cheating (even though that information is easily accessible because you're too inept to clear your browsing history or you tell all your friends). Well, that may be technically true, but it can only work for so long. Once that information is exposed, it's game over. The charade you built in a life time will be destroyed in minutes and your marriage will never be the same again.

No, no, no... it would be like a crimson cod... no wait, like a scarlet salmon... no hold on, like a burgundy bass... no? Well, some sort of red coloured fish, regardless!

The idea that I can co-exist with an assassin roommate, I just have to hope he never opens the envelope with instructions to kill me or if he does he never goes through with it (because reasons?), is utterly laughable.

It is indeed utterly laughable at what passes for serious conversation with you.

At which point in your apparently drug-induced flight of fancy did Muslims become assassins waiting to murder you while you sleep?

Only, you seem to have missed that bit out! :lol:

I doubt it. It just betrays the fact that you're desperate to argue but have never learned to do so with any degree of faculty.

Like it or not, Christian doctrine is clear on homosexuality being a sin. Anyone who says it isn't, including Christians, are being theologically unsound.

I've already addressed all this. Do feel free to re-read my post for my response to this repetition.

I also note how you've avoided acknowledging your error regarding how Christian dogma calls for the death of homosexuals, so presumably your argument now is that all True Christians should be seeking the death of homosexuals?

No?

Tell me more about consistency.

What a laughable non-sequitur.

How does your sentence thereby show I have a superficial understanding of religion?

Because you don't have the first clue about theology.

>>you have a superficial understanding of theology
<<how does my sentence show that?
>>because you don't have the first clue about theology


How thoroughly incompetent you are at discourse, Tree.

You're so far up your own arse, no wonder all you see is the shit you've produced.

Your assertions do not dictate reality. Read that sentence enough times until you grasp this elementary fact.

If you want to know....

Who says I want to know anything?

You're the one pretending to be superior than my 'simplistic' understanding of religion, so do feel free to show that is so, or else you'll be treated like a clown.

....what Christianity or Islam or Judaism or any religion and its branches and sub-branches say about anything, you go consult their theology. You don't assume that whatever any layman Christian or Muslim does is in accordance with Christianity or Islam.

Gods save us from literalists.

So come on Tree, given that all the Christians can't agree whose interpretation is correct, how exactly do you propose that a non-Christian divine which is the One True Exegesis? :lol:

Secondly, praxis IS absolutely essential in determining what is - in fact, in the vast majority of cases, it doesn't matter that the Bible says you should stone a child that speaks back because most Christians simply would not accept that, nor would the laws of the nation they reside in. It's only those few lunatic outliers who turn this doggerel into danger. But we don't accuse and imprison all those other Christians of similarly stoning children to death just because some numpty felt the Bible justified them to do it.

Funnily, that's what you want to do with Muslims and it's absolutely not coincidence that they happen to be foreign. I've talked about the psychology behind this before, but it really is the most brutal element of human society.

.I can say Lord of the Rings is a story about a bunch of midget Polish gnomes having a grand all time traveling Europe and pissing in a volcano for the lulz and beating up homeless people - but that wouldn't be even remotely accurate would it? Just because it's fiction doesn't mean everyone's opinion about it is equally valid and you can treat it with utter superficiality cause it's "all bollocks" so who cares. There are sound and unsound ways to have a literary analysis and the same is true for religion.

This doesn't follow from anything that's been said, and you've chucked in a strawman for good measure.

Again, for clarity, there are thousands of Christian sects who dispute details about Christian theology, so who exactly do you think you're going to convince that you are the One True Arbiter?

Flap your willy about as much as you like, but your contention that you're in some way more capable than others of doing this appears to be nothing other than overweened hubris, and consequently provides no reason for me to accept any of your witterings, not least in light of all the other stupid assessments of reality you've made.

Ironically, after tossing out an attempt to poison my well by claiming I don't understand religion, you then proceed to show you haven't done the requisite homework when it comes to making assertions about Christianity.

Do feel free to look into Leviticus 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

That's only your failure to understand those laws were given to ancient Israelis. Apart from fringe cults which are statistically irrelevant, no Christian theology says you must apply Leviticus while all the main branches of Islam say you must govern according to Sharia.

No Christian theology says you have to abide by Levitical laws? Are you smoking crack? :lol: Actually, the truth is that you're epousing an ideologically partisan viewpoint, founded in Lutheranism, and pretending it's the only one.

Matthew 5:17 alone puts paid to that claim in terms of sheer theology, but it's nice to see that you're moving on to using American Protestant theology - smells Baptist to me - it provides a little jot of confirmation for a notion I've been dicussing!

Just in the US alone, there must be 2 or 3 dozen sects of Adventists - the World Church being a particularly good example, there are the Noahides, then there's groups like the Messianic Jews, who even spell out their doctrinal obligations by making it part of their name, and of course, there are the oriental orthodox churches and so on.

Again, your absolute confidence in your assertions runs smack face first into contradiction in reality, and what do you then do about it? Squirm, that's my prediction - lots of squirming.

Do you understand now?

Do I understand your error, yes, but that doesn't excuse the tone of your assertion. Less confidence, more content.

What I actually wrote was....

the latter are the 'true Christians' in my book, not because I care which group's exegesis more accurately reflects the original intent of some ancient written doggerel (naturally, I think it's all a load of bollocks), but because the latter represent a superior society comprised of more tolerant individuals than the former. I don't care who's 'right' according to fanatical religious certainty, but rather I care about the outcome such beliefs result in.

Okay, then we have fundamentally incompatible values you and I.

No, really? :lol:

If your way to building a "superior society" is through WILLFUL denial of reality (literally ignoring the exegesis that makes most sense because it doesn't lead to the outcome you want), I want no part of it because it's not a viable long-term strategy. It is as viable as a marriage built on lies, or a business partnership based on the ignorance of one party. Sooner or later, it's going to come out.

What makes our values incompatible is your wilful ignorance, and arrogant obtuseness.

Just because X makes most sense to you, that doesn't mean it is the fucking gospel. You really are so far up your own crack you must be a total ass to live with. When all you do is 'my way or the highway' you show why the highway is a vastly preferable place to be.

As we've already established dozens of times in this thread, Christian doctrine is also comprised of utterly horrifying notions, and occasionally, some deluded crackpot swelled up on their own arrogance will perform some horrifying action and justify it by appealing to the Bible.... but what we don't do thereafter is accuse ALL Christians of having committed that act, we don't claim that Christians are a real and present danger to us just because some of them arrive at a violent exegesis of their scripture.

The laughable notion that you want to do this to Muslims is made even more transparent by your need to side with fundamentalist terrorists as the true authority on their doctrine, while somehow having a thousand ways to explain away why you don't do that with Christians too.

Fear-mongering, hate-mongering, abject fucking idiocy.

What I would say instead is that it ultimately doesn't matter if Christianity doesn't like homosexuality (it doesn't, that's barely even up for debate), as long as it
leaves them alone.

No, you're not allowed to take that stance because that's what I argued and you rejected. It doesn't matter what Christianity says, so long as Christians don't commit crimes they claim are justified through their Bible.

The exact same goes with Muslims. The violent extremists who cherrypick the violent verses to justify their idiocy get treated as violently, dangerous criminals... and the Muslims who cherrypick the peaceable verses and don't act in a criminal way are treated as normal human beings who have not committed a crime.

Funny how you can't bring yourself to that comprehension when it's about the foreigner: see tribalism.

You would have a far easier time convincing Christians to leave homosexuals alone than convincing Christians that their theology says something other than what it actually says. There is no way to reconcile Christianity with homosexuality no matter what mental gymnastics you try.

Another manifestly stupid assertion by Tree which directly contradicts reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_Anglican_Communion#Church_of_England

Again, Tree emotes the world then wonders why other people don't accept it.

What problem?

The problem of Islamic terrorism and theocracy.

So it's my obligation to solve Islamic terrorism and theocracy on a message board?

Is that what you're saying?

Luckily, at the moment I am doing a two-for-one, and I'll chuck in a cure for cancer for free.

And for clarity, regardless of whether I have a solution to a problem or not, that wouldn't then lend your solution any validity after it's been shown flawed.

It's been showed to be flawed how? Did you try it?

Well, come to think of it Eastern Europe has tried it, works very well. Less Muslims - less Islamic terrorism. In fact some countries haven't had a single successful Islamic terrorist plot because they refuse mass immigration and refugee quotas.

I would have thought that the first time you made this point and had it pointed out as being silly would have made you not wish to repeat it, but here we are again.

Also in other shocking logic news, if you wipe out elephants, there'll be no more cruelty towards elephants!

You ask what my point is by making a point so far removed from reason it can only be called a non-sequitur. Do I think dead people would be comforted? Um no. They're dead.

I'm asking a hypothetical, simpleton.

A hypothetical question about what the dead would think?

Probably best if you keep that word to yourself, chap. Each time you use it, people ever more conflate it with you.

If that's too much for you, ask the same about the maimed survivors or the families of the deceased. Do you think they give a shit that only a fraction of Muslims act out this way? The damage is done and all thanks to Islam and its doctrine of jihad without which 9/11 would never have happened.

If they don't give a shit about justice, then why would their position be relevant?

One can feel sympathy with a victim without joining in with any ideas they have of collectivized revenge.

Regardless, it doesn't change my point - we do not ascribe criminal blame on people collectively. That's backwards by centuries.

I didn't say anything about criminal blame. That implies a trial with specific criminal charges. I don't want Islam to be illegal, same as I don't want Nazism to be illegal, I just think they should be shunned from polite society. There's a difference.

Not really as you've been claiming they're out to murder us. Did you swallow your dog-whistle or something?

Regardless, that is exactly what you've tried to argue, that all Muslims are culpable for the actions of some Muslims who are distinguishable from the rest by the very action that makes them undesirable.

Amusingly, given all your willy-waving, you don't seem remotely capable of grasping how you repeatedly contradict yourself. Sauce is only good for the goose, right?

Do you understand that responsibility can be moral or legal and there are different degrees to them as well?

No, I don't understand your sentence, not least because it's a red herring, but also because it's grammatically opaque - what does the pronoun 'them' stand for there?

While we're there, let's check you understand that your moral responsibilities are yours alone, and if they are enforceable, then their legal. There's a clear distinction but perhaps it escapes you.

If you are supposed to be representing the gloriously advanced West, why do you not comprehend one of the most fundamental aspects of our societies' advance: justice?

Justice isn't a license for open borders.

And a red herring.

That is not the point being discussed.

The point, of course, was about how you've been trying unsuccessfully to argue that all Muslims bear responsibility for the actions of Muslim terrorists. Your arguments would reverse hundreds of years of Western jurisprudence.

And American law makes it very clear Congress can set laws for immigration and the President has broad executive powers to exclude anyone who's not a citizen he doesn't trust. If you want to argue these powers are unjust fine, it is however more unjust to demand entrance in a country you're not a citizen of and where the representatives of the people don't want you because they don't trust you. Trust has to be earned and that's difficult when you subscribe to a totalitarian ideology.

The bit in red is a red herring.

Red herring. We're not talking about 'damage done' - we're talking about laying the blame for criminal activity at the feet of people who have not committed criminal activity. That is the actual argument, regardless of your hyperactive need to change the point to half a dozen other things.

Again not talking about criminal blame, but moral blame.

No one recognizes your moral blame, shove it back up your self-aggrandizing rectal passage from which you proudly produced it.

And if you're going to propagate an ideology that says you must make war upon outsiders of that ideology, then sorry but you're at least in part responsible for any outcome, even if it's just a small 0.000000001% fraction of responsibility.

And if you promote an ideology that doesn't say you must make war on outsiders, then sorry but you're not in the least part responsible for any outcome where someone who disagrees with you tries to do just that.

Just as if you were to promote a book on fire safety that had BAD advice (like "during a fire, use the elevator to get out faster") you'd have your fair share of blame if someone died as a result.

:lol:

Dude, it's toke, toke, PASS.

Maybe your contribution wouldn't be enough to warrant an actual manslaughter charge, but you should definitely not be sleeping well at night and you shouldn't be respected by anyone.

So you're saying the author of the Quran is responsible? Yes, to that I agree.

Of course, the real context of your analogy would be people who had just read that book and took something very different from it than you, never having seen it as a book on fire safety.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Water is definitely not wet, you utter simpleton!

But that makes no sense, the word wet is exactly what we use to describe such liquids

Look, two plus two is four and the capital of Montenegro is Podgoricaa which means 'below hills' so you'd have to agree it's hilly there!

 

[Tree]

Rather, as anyone honest can read, I said multiple times that I am not claiming that SoA is alt-right or sexist, but rather that his spiel is alt-right and sexist,

That's bullshit too. His spiel is not alt-right nor sexist.

So a real metaphor would be if you went to a tennis club, couldn't play tennis, then all the members of that tennis club pointed out that you were shit at playing tennis.

Yeah, like that.

Oh you think of yourself as a part of a club of reason now? How cute.

The closest thing to a reason club is Mensa, at least they have something to show for it since you need a very high IQ to be allowed into Mensa, while any bum on the Internet can claim they're for reason and logic or pretend to be an authority on them. I am not impressed by you. You're all talk with nothing to show for it.

but learn quickly and learn well that your opinions, when so poorly informed

Elaborate.

No. That doesn't follow because Islamic schools of jurisprudence were determined by theologians, not by laymen.

A complete non-sequitur that has no bearing on what was said at all.

Yes it has.

How do you propose discussing any religion seriously without discussing the theology behind that religion?

So when you say that a school of Islam, let's say the Shafi'i school as an example, is compatible with American values what that means is there are no contradictions between Shafi'i values and American values.

It is trivial to show that's not the case so just a short list of issues they conflict on:

- equality of people before the law due to the dhimma
- cruel and unusual punishment (execution for apostasy, adultery, homosexuality, cutting off limbs for theft, flogging fornicators)
- anti-liberty (no pork, alcohol or fornication), the individual doesn't have a right to pursue happiness, only an obligation to follow Allah's will
- no freedom of religion (dhimma for non-Muslims, execution for ex-Muslims)
- flagrant double standards including severe legal discrimination when it comes to men and women
- anti-capitalist aspects (a complete ban on interest)

http://www.mijnkerk.com/files/Reliance_of_the_Traveller.pdf

What was that you said about Sharia only applying to Muslims? Btw:

012.1
The legal penalty is obligatorily imposed upon anyone who fornicates or commits sodomy (A: provided it is legally established (def: nll.2(0)) when they; (a) have reached puberty; (b) are sane; (c) and commit the act voluntarily; no IT.atter whether the person is a Muslim, non-Muslim subject of the Islamic state, or someone who has left Islam

Red herring, Tree. Whine all you like about me accurately pointing out your endless red herrings, but this has nothing to do with what I wrote at all. My argument is sitting right there: the reason we know most Muslims are compatible with American/Western life is because

You said all Islamic schools of jurisprudence are compatible, that's ideology, not people, but go on...

they are already there, partaking in those societies,

How does this prove they genuinely love the American/Western way of life? After all, Nazis, Communists and even Elliot Rodger (at least before he showed his true colors) also had to partake in these societies, in order to have a comfortable life you need to get up and work or go to school or whatever and at least pretend to get along with people and put up that fake smile if you can't do a genuine one.

How do you even know that all these neighbors you claim are moderate are in fact moderate? Are you that close enough that you actually know what their political positions are? Have you asked them if they support Sharia law and even if you did, how do you know you got an honest answer? Are they telling you the truth or just telling you what you want to hear because they have no choice for the time being?

There is unfortunately no reliable way to confirm someone's true loyalties if they publicly pledge their support for a doctrine completely antithetical to your way of life.

Too bad, it's not my duty to trust people, it's people's obligation to earn my trust if they want it. Call me a bigot all you want, I have no reason to trust someone who supports a book that says I have to be subjugated under a theocracy or be killed. I don't care if they're malicious or just ignorant because they never looked into the belief system they claim to uphold. In no other circumstance would this be acceptable.

and doing sufficiently well for themselves.

So is Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Affluence doesn't lead to an embrace of Western values.

Just because you live in a bunker, doesn't mean others are going to join in your demonization.

The data does not support the idea of an overwhelming moderate Muslim majority and even if it did, it doesn't make Islamic doctrine moderate.

I'll take the Pew data over 'my neighbor is a great guy because I feel he is'.

Secondly, the notion that they will have 'strength in numbers' is typical delusion right-wing xenophobic bollocks that is also scientifically illiterate and complete fucking numptyism. Under no population demographic model ever created do Muslims replace or even become a majority of any European nation, or the US, or any other nation which doesn't historically have a large number of Muslims.

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/

That's only because nobody has modeled it beyond 2050, last I checked, time doesn't suddenly stop in 2050. The Pew model for 2050 is 14% Muslim Europe (if you have a high immigration), 11.2% (medium immigration). That's not a majority but it's far more than the present 5% or the 3.8% before 2010. Even with no migration it would still rise to 7.4% due to different fertility rates, but at least 7.4% is easier to manage than 11.2 or 14, especially if the culture as a whole take action and stop pandering to this ideology and starts encouraging apostasy.

And that's just the average, some countries will be affected more than others. Under the worst case scenario Sweden could be 30% Muslim in 2050. They can also do damage without being a majority, it's a gradual problem, it's not like 0-49% harmless 50-100% harmful. There may also be unexpected factors that disprove the model, don't count on it.

This only displays your own ineptitude that you can't think for yourself unless an expert spoon feeds you all the information.

Let's say I'm on a vessel, at sea, I notice a crack and water pouring out in the hull.

Do you think I need an expert to tell me that I'm in deep shit and that I should head back to shore ASAP and get it plugged or maybe just call the coast guard if that's not possible? Do you think I need precise calculations to know I'll eventually sink unless that hole is plugged? Does it matter if it takes 20 minutes or 10 hours for the vessel to fill with enough water to sink? Either way I still sink.

A constant stream of Muslim immigration can only dilute the non-Muslim population, particularly when that non-Muslim population is also declining on its own.

First of all, no that doesn't stand to reason. Just because one group is compatible, it isn't therefore a logical requirement that all groups are compatible, so much for me being simplistic

That's not what I argued, Strawmanohoc.

I merely applied your own standards for what a group has to do to qualify as compatible with American values.

So let's see:

- the Nazis are already here
- they partake in society (they get jobs, family blah blah blah)
- they are doing sufficiently well for themselves

Did I miss anything?

Oh yeah, in case there's any doubt, most of them are "peaceful". Not because Nazism is peaceful, but because they have no choice for the time being since they'd go to jail in a heartbeat if they raised their hand against anyone.

Secondly, no. When we're talking about the alleged threat of Muslims in our societies, then we never need to compare to Muslim dominant societies because there is no path which could result in our own societies becoming Muslim dominant.

Some European countries could, and not that far into the future either.

This poses a major problem for the US, will a more Islamic Europe still be a reliable US ally? Doubt it.

Incidentally, your obsession with making room for white-supremacist neo-Nazis in our society is really quite intriguing. I wonder whether that's because it's better the devil you know - at least they're our fucknuts - or because you espouse so many positions consonant with them.

Whatever gave you that impression, Strawmanohoc? I oppose all of them: Islam and white supremacism and neo-Nazim and white supremacist neo-Nazism and anything in between.

Christian doctrine is also comprised of utterly horrifying notions

Though I don't agree with your point AT ALL and you're theologically unsound and I'm tired of explaining the same point to a brick that Christianity doesn't mandate violence to spread itself, I'm willing to offer you a hypothetical and just say that if we already have one crazy violent religion is our society we don't need to welcome another crazy violent religion and make the problem of crazy violent religions exponentially worse.

We can't get rid of Christianity, it's too prominent to oppose. We've been stuck with it since the west's inception. We can however ensure Islam never becomes prominent in our society.

[/end of hypothetical]

Another manifestly stupid assertion by Tree which directly contradicts reality.

Again, Tree emotes the world then wonders why other people don't accept it.

They don't oppose celibate same-sex relations.

So basically you can be gay as long as you're not acting gay. That's not an acceptance of homosexuality.

So it's my obligation to solve Islamic terrorism and theocracy on a message board?

Is that what you're saying?

Luckily, at the moment I am doing a two-for-one, and I'll chuck in a cure for cancer for free.

Okay now you're just being a douche. Fuck off.

Come back when you're ready to discuss more honestly.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I will obviously come back later to gently poke all the rest of the juvenile bullshit and watch it fall to pieces, but before sleep I have to quickly make note (read 'fun') of something incredibly idiotic - i.e. typical of xenophobic hate-mongers:

... there is no path which could result in our own societies becoming Muslim dominant.

Some European countries could, and not that far into the future either.

This is abject fucking crackpottery of the lowest order imaginable. This more than anything else shows that behind the bluster and self-preening, you don't have a fucking clue what you're wittering about.

Go on lad - cite your source!

 

[Tree]

You haven't been paying attention. Go read the other post again.

 

[Sparhafoc]

You haven't been paying attention. Go read the other post again.

You misunderstand - to anyone with any relevant knowledge, this is absolute fucking idiocy. It's like when Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils to a palaeontologist.

Funny how you've suddenly got coy though, but it doesn't matter - shut your flap trap and start citing your source, gibberer.

 

[Sparhafoc]

... there is no path which could result in our own societies becoming Muslim dominant.

Some European countries could, and not that far into the future either.

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/euro ... opulation/

That's only because nobody has modeled it beyond 2050, last I checked, time doesn't suddenly stop in 2050. The Pew model for 2050 is 14% Muslim Europe (if you have a high immigration), 11.2% (medium immigration). That's not a majority but it's far more than the present 5% or the 3.8% before 2010. Even with no migration it would still rise to 7.4% due to different fertility rates, but at least 7.4% is easier to manage than 11.2 or 14, especially if the culture as a whole take action and stop pandering to this ideology and starts encouraging apostasy.

And that's just the average, some countries will be affected more than others. Under the worst case scenario Sweden could be 30% Muslim in 2050. They can also do damage without being a majority, it's a gradual problem, it's not like 0-49% harmless 50-100% harmful. There may also be unexpected factors that disprove the model, don't count on it.

This only displays your own ineptitude that you can't think for yourself unless an expert spoon feeds you all the information.

So, Tree contends that Muslims will replace us and become the dominant population in 'some European countries'.

He then cites a series of immigration models, even the highest of which results in the Muslim population of Europe being 14%. For those similarly challenged as Tree, pro tip 14% is not 'dominant', it's still firmly a minority.

Completely straight faced after citing a source that completely destroys his claim, he then declares any number of Muslims to be a danger, before finally pretending that he is thinking for himself.

Of course, we can do the projections. :lol:

Sadly for our little vacuous troll here, he doesn't realize that this is my field and that I am one of those experts and consequently knew he was talking out of his rectum the instant he started this right-wing supremacist wet-wankery.

There is no path beyond conquest and annihilation of populaces that would result in Muslims being the dominant group in any nation in Europe - to claim otherwise is to publicize one's ignorance of population biology.

This is abject fucking crackpottery of the lowest order imaginable. This more than anything else shows that behind the bluster and self-preening, you don't have a fucking clue what you're wittering about.