The Shitstorm is back . . .

[Giliell]

i think thats a premature action. i'm trying to watch all 5 hours of it. so far, an hour into the deal, TF seems to be doing well. he is making sense so far, that is to say. the other guy seems like a conspiratorial type of guy. "its the media's fault".

What do you mean by "doing well"?
His condescneding behaviour? Seriously, a dime for every time he says "Landon" in a voice you usually reserve for people who are mentally a bit challenged and probably hysteric and I'd have at least enough money for this month's phone bill.
Him trying to get Landon to argue other people's points?
His failure to get the name of "Park 51" right throughout the whole debate?
His more than simplistic flipchart models of the world?
His idea of universal guilt shared by everybody who is remotely connected to somebody who does something wrong?
Did we watch the same video?

Whether we agree on the arguments or not, to say that TF was doing well in the debate in terms of "how to debate propperly" I think is not justified

 

[godisabullet]

I think TF wasted his time.

Landon is trying hard to come across as an intellectual and many of his arguments are blurred because of this. He side-tracks the conversation into irrelevant and vague areas of history and politics to make points that are superfluous.

Also, what about his stance that members of a democracy aren't responsible at all for the political actions of that democracy? Seriously.

 

[Pandawa]

"TF seems to be doing well. he is making sense so far, that is to say." is what i said....
reading is genius.

~His condescneding behaviour? Seriously, a dime for every time he says "Landon" in a voice you usually reserve for people who are mentally a bit challenged and probably hysteric and I'd have at least enough money for this month's phone bill.
I would be very condescending if someone wasn't geting my very obvious point and/or popping up strawmen in order to try and get out of an indefensible position.

~Him trying to get Landon to argue other people's points?
cite a postion, i haven't noticed any huge errors so far.

~His failure to get the name of "Park 51" right throughout the whole debate?
a very small criticism indeed.

~His more than simplistic flipchart models of the world?
Its called data. In regression, the answer becomes more complex and less predictive the more variable you introduce. examining the correlation/causation of one particular variable is what economists do every day in development. when causation is not found, more variables are added until the mix produces strong correlation.

~His idea of universal guilt shared by everybody who is remotely connected to somebody who does something wrong?
If you/I remain silent about a murder, the government goes after you for aiding and abetting a fugitive. whats so different here? he never says they shoulder the whole blame, but instead only suggests that Muslims, by being part of the group, are guilty in a small degree by association. its a good point, but i don't agree with him entirely. however, it is a good point, something which landon so far has not recognized.

~Did we watch the same video?
yes

~Whether we agree on the arguments or not, to say that TF was doing well in the debate in terms of "how to debate propperly" I think is not justified
finally a nice argument. this really isn't a debate, more of a conversation (lack of moderation). his arguments are good, and i would say better and more thought-out than landons, so even if you think its a debate, he would've "won".

 

[australopithecus]

I think TF wasted his time.

I think he's wasted everyones time over the last 5 months. I subbed to him because of his videos on science, not because I wanted to see him throw a fit because he can't admit when he drops the ball. His videos on Islam (DMD and Park 51) were ill thought out and just bad, his little cry baby antics over Dawhah and Coughlan were worse. I may drop in to see if he posts actual informative videos from time to time but as for actual respect for the man, that's gone, which is a shame because I'd probably wouldn't be on this forum and I'd be a hell of a lot less informed about science if it wasn't for him. A real shame.

 

[Pandawa]

I think TF wasted his time.

I think he's wasted everyones time over the last 5 months. I subbed to him because of his videos on science, not because I wanted to see him throw a fit because he can't admit when he drops the ball. His videos on Islam (DMD and Park 51) were ill thought out and just bad, his little cry baby antics over Dawhah and Coughlan were worse. I may drop in to see if he posts actual informative videos from time to time but as for actual respect for the man, that's gone, which is a shame because I'd probably wouldn't be on this forum and I'd be a hell of a lot less informed about science if it wasn't for him. A real shame.

to treat TF as a one-dimensional person is to treat him in the same way you think he is treating islam. have patience and try to understand the argument. its not as radically outside the norm as you may or may not think.

 

[australopithecus]

to treat TF as a one-dimensional person is to treat him in the same way you think he is treating islam. have patience and try to understand the argument. its not as radically outside the norm as you may or may not think.

I don't know the man. Never will. So the only frame of reference I have to go on his how he publically displays himself online, and based on that I'm no longer interested in his output. He doesn't have an argument in this case, specifically on Islam, as anyone with eyes and ears recognised that those videos (especially regarding Park 51) were a minefield of fallacy, and whatsmore when called on those fallacies he acted as if they didn't exist. How long has it taken him to man up and actually address DLandonCole's points? Too long. Meanwhile he's been playing silly buggers with Darwah (don't get me wrong, if he tried to drop TF's dox then he deserves a verbal or even legal beatdown but that doesn't excuse TF's nonsense) and Coughlan, who made several good videos (and some crap ones to be fair) but was handwavingly dismissed as someone with mental issue. Sorry, but that's not what I subbed for and that's not what I expect from a man who is suppoedly being objective or asserting objectivity. Th1sWasAtriumph's 2 latest videos are bang on the money.

I'm not treating him one-dimensionally, I'm treating him as I'd treat anyone else and if anyone else pulled the bullshit he's pulled then I'd ignore them too, and I'm not even going to bother mentioning the debacle that was his appearence on DPR's BlogTV event for MSF.

 

[Zerosix]

I watched the whole debate earlier and I've time to think about it.

Both TF and Landon had valid points and I can see were both of the them are coming from.

Judging from the comments on the vids I watched though there's still a lot of people jumping on the TF hate wagon. I think people are spending too much time whinging about how TF says things instead of what he's actually saying.

I think this was a good way to round off this drama.

 

[godisabullet]

I think TF wasted his time.

I think he's wasted everyones time over the last 5 months. I subbed to him because of his videos on science, not because I wanted to see him throw a fit because he can't admit when he drops the ball. His videos on Islam (DMD and Park 51) were ill thought out and just bad, his little cry baby antics over Dawhah and Coughlan were worse. I may drop in to see if he posts actual informative videos from time to time but as for actual respect for the man, that's gone, which is a shame because I'd probably wouldn't be on this forum and I'd be a hell of a lot less informed about science if it wasn't for him. A real shame.

I think you took my comment out of context .... or something.

I don't care whether people watch his videos (and for that matter if they like or dislike them) or not.

To clarify, I think Landon was being deliberately vague, disingenuous and overcomplicating. And to top it off he consistently (and deliberately a lot of the time imo) missed TF's points. Therefore if TF's intent was to clarify his own points it was a waste of time because Landon (and from the looks of the chat, his supporters) didn't seem to get any of them.

It's a bit silly to say that TF is wasting other people's time because no-one forces you to watch his vids.

 

[Giliell]

Wouldn't it be nice if people learned to use the quote function?
There's a button right at the top under the subject line. And even if you don't get that, you can just type the tags.

I would be very condescending if someone wasn't geting my very obvious point and/or popping up strawmen in order to try and get out of an indefensible position.

In that case you shouldn't wonder if people were reluctant to talk to you at all. I'm surely biased in favour of Landon, but TF used that simply whenever Landon disagreed with him or tried to make a point.

~Him trying to get Landon to argue other people's points?

cite a postion, i haven't noticed any huge errors so far.

Right in the beginning

~His failure to get the name of "Park 51" right throughout the whole debate?

a very small criticism indeed.

No, because it shows that he isn't interested in really arguing about the point or taking in any information. Landon clearly pointed out that TF went on raging about "Cordoba House, what an offensive name" quite some time after they had reacted to the (albeit hilarious) criticism and changed the name.
And the position that "since people took offense at the name it was clearly foreseeable" is ridiculous.

~His more than simplistic flipchart models of the world?

Its called data. In regression, the answer becomes more complex and less predictive the more variable you introduce. examining the correlation/causation of one particular variable is what economists do every day in development. when causation is not found, more variables are added until the mix produces strong correlation.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear here. I was referring more to his graphs and scales and stuff that tried to present very simple mopdels and mechanisms as if they reflected in any way a very complicated world.
As to the actual map: Yes, it showed the distribution of the two big abrahamic faiths in the world. And it was then used again to make the more than over-simplified point that Islam was the cause for the backward position of these countries in the world. And shows only corelation. That's why (I suppose) Landon asked about the same chart done for Hinduism. Because presenting only half the data because only that half supports your position is dishonest.

~His idea of universal guilt shared by everybody who is remotely connected to somebody who does something wrong?

If you/I remain silent about a murder, the government goes after you for aiding and abetting a fugitive. whats so different here? he never says they shoulder the whole blame, but instead only suggests that Muslims, by being part of the group, are guilty in a small degree by association. its a good point, but i don't agree with him entirely. however, it is a good point, something which landon so far has not recognized.

Well, what's different?
In order for your scenario to happen you have to KNOW about the murder. I remain silent on thousands of murders each day, because I have no knowledge of them. Did the average muslim know on 9/10 what would happen on 9/11? Did they have a chance to prevent it? So how can they take any blame for it? My godson is catholic, his mother is catholic. Did she know anything about the child-abuse in the catholic church? No. Is she therefore to blame for it? No. Can I argue that remaining a catholic after those events supports and institution that covered up such a scandal? Yes. Is Islam comparable in it's structure and conformity to the catholic church? No. Can I blame Lutheran for the faults of the catholic church or for the bombings of Timothy Mc Veigh? No.

finally a nice argument. this really isn't a debate, more of a conversation (lack of moderation). his arguments are good, and i would say better and more thought-out than landons, so even if you think its a debate, he would've "won".

We just have to disagree on that.

Landon is trying hard to come across as an intellectual and many of his arguments are blurred because of this. He side-tracks the conversation into irrelevant and vague areas of history and politics to make points that are superfluous.

I personally find it rather honest to say "I don't know" and "I'm not sure". And I agree with him that history and politics ARE necessary to understand the complicated affairs within the islamic world and between the islamic and the non-islamic world. And often they were necessary to deal with points that TF presented as "facts" and "truths" and that were simply wrong, as in the Yugoslavia example.

Also, what about his stance that members of a democracy aren't responsible at all for the political actions of that democracy?

Well, I didn't vote for the current government, I do everything I can to protest and fight against certain aspects of their politics, so where's my guilt?
And anyway Islam isn't a democracy nor even an institution.

 

[lrkun]

I watched the whole debate earlier and I've time to think about it.

Both TF and Landon had valid points and I can see were both of the them are coming from.

Judging from the comments on the vids I watched though there's still a lot of people jumping on the TF hate wagon. I think people are spending too much time whinging about how TF says things instead of what he's actually saying.

I think this was a good way to round off this drama.

An argument should be analyzed, not the person saying it. Most people fail to be logical in this situation though. >.< It suggests they may have had nothing to do at that time.

 

[Pandawa]

"Well, what's different?
In order for your scenario to happen you have to KNOW about the murder. I remain silent on thousands of murders each day, because I have no knowledge of them. Did the average muslim know on 9/10 what would happen on 9/11? Did they have a chance to prevent it? So how can they take any blame for it? My godson is catholic, his mother is catholic. Did she know anything about the child-abuse in the catholic church? No. Is she therefore to blame for it? No. Can I argue that remaining a catholic after those events supports and institution that covered up such a scandal? Yes. Is Islam comparable in it's structure and conformity to the catholic church? No. Can I blame Lutheran for the faults of the catholic church or for the bombings of Timothy Mc Veigh? No."

Notice that I argued that knowledge is the key. Strawmen galore, I must say. Pre- and post-9/11 Muslims around the world, maybe not all of them but a clear majority, knew about the radical elements within their faith. This is evident by the fact that Egypt all the way back in the 20's and 30's banned Islamist groups from running candidates in elections (a la Muslim Brotherhood). Because they knew about it, and chose to remain in that institution, they shoulder a small part of the overall burden. They are guilty by association, because the 9-11 hijackers committed the atrocity because they were "Muslim", whatever their individual interpretation of that word might have meant to them. They are not the majority, but killing in the name of religion tars members of that religion with the same brush.

Catholics, by choosing to remain in the institution, are likewise guilty in a small degree of aiding and abetting criminals (child abusers). Not only do they remain silent, but they finance this organization through their giving. A vast majority have not committed the crime, but since no effort of worldwide reform has taken place, the average Catholic is complacent in regards to child abuse, and is therefore guilty of aiding and abetting child abusers. Failing to act is a failure on the average Catholic's part, and this is where I choose to shoulder blame. If someone at my University was doing something as illegal as the Catholic Church, not to mention as sickening, and the University administrators and faculty and community acknowledged it but didn't reform, I'd leave immediately. My own sense of duty to myself requires that I do this. I may end up leaving alot of organizations this way, but in the end I don't think they'd be organizations worth remaining in.

Tim McVeigh did not kill out of his Lutheran faith, but as a response to the Waco shootout 2 years prior. Catholic priests have abused children, due in large part to the practice of celibacy within the priesthood. Muslims have committed terrorist acts because of features within their religion that make it easier than other religions to kill, and because the majority remain silent on the world stage. That is to say, that Muslims outside their own community aren't heard denouncing these people in times of relative calm. (I haven't heard a peep since 2003, and I actually read newspapers/blogs/magazines, which means i'm probably more informed than the average US population, who typically don't.)

And by the way, Hindus also commit terrorist acts, particularly in India and Pakistan. However, to introduce them into an argument about Islam is counter-productive. If the argument was, say, that religion is correlated with higher levels of violence than rationalism, that would be a valid point to bring up.

However, since TF's comments relate to the hypocrisy of Muslims expecting to be treated in America the exact opposite way than their religion dictates, I'd say that introducing side-arguments would cloud the argument even more than he already has (he's not the best philosopher). The Sunni government of Saudi Arabia takes their prohibition of non-Muslim entry into Mecca strait from the Qur'an.

"O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.
,Qur'an, Sura 9 At-Tawba, ayah 28"

Their religion enshrines discrimination in their holiest book, the last and most perfect testament of Allah. This is the -DEFINITION- of hypocrisy, and I for one will not be lectured by Muslims bitching about intolerance. This is not to say they shouldn't build on their own property. However, they should be more self-aware about their own standings in relation to tolerating people of different religions/nonreligion. Save me the crocodile tears.

 

[Prolescum]

Notice that I argued that knowledge is the key.

Not in this post you haven't.

which means i'm probably more informed than the average US population

Evidently not. Below is a pile of arse.

They are guilty by association, because the 9-11 hijackers committed the atrocity because they were "Muslim", whatever their individual interpretation of that word might have meant to them. They are not the majority, but killing in the name of religion tars members of that religion with the same brush.

Had you even looked at wikipedia, you'd see this:

The motives for the attacks include the presence of the U.S. in Saudi Arabia, the support of Israel by the U.S., and the sanctions against Iraq. These motives were explicitly stated by Al-Qaeda in proclamations before the attacks, including the fatwā of August 1996, and a shorter fatwā published in February 1998. After the attacks, bin Laden and al-Zawahiri published additional video tapes and audio tapes, some of which repeated those reasons for the attacks. Two particularly important publications were bin Laden's 2002 "Letter to America", and a 2004 video tape by bin Laden.

That is why they committed the atrocity. Saying it's because they were Muslim is EVIDENTLY not the case.

I disagree with America's support of Israel often too, I've even protested some Israeli actions; does that make me partly responsible for 9/11? Guilt by association, right? Or does it only apply if we share a religion?

You seem to have been infected with the same T-virus that turned Thunderf00t into a mindless poster boy for bullshit.

A vast majority have not committed the crime, but since no effort of worldwide reform has taken place, the average Catholic is complacent in regards to child abuse, and is therefore guilty of aiding and abetting child abusers.

I hope you have some way of qualifying the statement that no effort of worldwide reform has taken place and that the average Catholic is complacent about child abuse. I'd be interested to read about that.

Tim McVeigh did not kill out of his Lutheran faith, but as a response to the Waco shootout 2 years prior.

Oh, you mean he had a *gulp* political motive? Lucky he wasn't a Muslim as well then otherwise you'd remember him as just another angry Islamist who hated America...

Muslims have committed terrorist acts because of features within their religion that make it easier than other religions to kill, and because the majority remain silent on the world stage.

Tell that to the Irish. Besides, Muslims of any ilk don't have a monolithic organisation like the Catholic church does. There is no leader who can come out and publicly denounce those actions, so we're left with the option that all Muslims should come out and publicly condemn the actions of some radicals from some other place with motives that they are not party to. All atheists should be apologising for Stalin by this logic.

I will have to watch this debate and see if Thunderf00t actually used any of this utter gibberish. I sincerely hope not.

 

[lrkun]

Taliban's Interpretation of Islam

The Taliban is widely known as the government that harbored Osama bin Ladin and many terrorist groups. It is the Islamic group that formerly ruled Afghanistan and imposed strict and unreasonable laws on Afghanis, made apparent through intense media coverage. The laws imposed by the Taliban greatly reduced Afghani freedom and the punishment for breaking a law was generally severe. Why were the Taliban's laws so constrictive? Why were the Taliban's punishments so severe? The tight bond between the religious beliefs and the government of the Taliban is the culprit. The religious beliefs of this Islamic group originate greatly from Deobandism, a part of the popular Sunni sect of Islam, and partially from traditional Pashtun (major ethnic group in Afghanistan) customs.

The rest can be found in the link. It's worth a read.

 

[Pandawa]

~Not in this post you haven't.
Scroll up?

~Evidently not. Below is a pile of arse.
You're funny.

~Had you even looked at wikipedia, you'd see this:

The motives for the attacks include the presence of the U.S. in Saudi Arabia, the support of Israel by the U.S., and the sanctions against Iraq. These motives were explicitly stated by Al-Qaeda in proclamations before the attacks, including the fatwā of August 1996, and a shorter fatwā published in February 1998. After the attacks, bin Laden and al-Zawahiri published additional video tapes and audio tapes, some of which repeated those reasons for the attacks. Two particularly important publications were bin Laden's 2002 "Letter to America", and a 2004 video tape by bin Laden.

That is why they committed the atrocity. Saying it's because they were Muslim is EVIDENTLY not the case.
I disagree with America's support of Israel often too, I've even protested some Israeli actions; does that make me partly responsible for 9/11? Guilt by association, right? Or does it only apply if we share a religion?
You seem to have been infected with the same T-virus that turned Thunderf00t into a mindless poster boy for bullshit.

Lol thats funny. If they were doing it for purely political reasons, why on earth did they reportedly scream "God is Great" when they attacked the WTC? Odd don't you think? Oh, and blind opposition to contrary positions is the definition of being dogmatic. And we wouldn't want that, since it'd make us as bad as creationists in that regard, no?

~I hope you have some way of qualifying the statement that no effort of worldwide reform has taken place and that the average Catholic is complacent about child abuse. I'd be interested to read about that.

The opposite of reform in response to a scandal is what? A coverup perhaps? Funny, I seem to remember....http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of-child-abuse-by-priests.do An agent of an organization that commits a crime legally speaking is the organization committing a crime, along with its paying members. Its simple agency theory people.

~Oh, you mean he had a *gulp* political motive? Lucky he wasn't a Muslim as well then otherwise you'd remember him as just another angry Islamist who hated America...

When did I ever say politics isn't a factor? Wow, you seem to have cornered the market on strawmen today.....

~Tell that to the Irish. Besides, Muslims of any ilk don't have a monolithic organisation like the Catholic church does. There is no leader who can come out and publicly denounce those actions, so we're left with the option that all Muslims should come out and publicly condemn the actions of some radicals from some other place with motives that they are not party to. All atheists should be apologising for Stalin by this logic.

Stalin was not an atheist. He was nearly ordained an Orthodox priest pre-Revolution, and kept his faith private until the end of his life. Read "In the Court of the Red Tsar" for more info. Its quite lengthy (1400pgs+) but a good read.
There is de-facto leadership, but its not Islam-wide. The clerics of the Sunni and Shiite sects are the leaders of their particular area, but they do sahre a common authority, the Quran. Their "pope", it can be said, is the Quran. Is not formal interpretation, mind you, but they are a unified group. This is why we call the 2 sects "muslim", instead of designating different names for them.


~I will have to watch this debate and see if Thunderf00t actually used any of this utter gibberish. I sincerely hope not.
As a result of this conversation i'll bet you won't change your mind.

 

[Prolescum]

Lol thats funny. If they were doing it for purely political reasons, why on earth did they reportedly scream "God is Great" when they attacked the WTC?

Because they were Muslims. They say it all the bloody time. 5 times a day at least.

Odd don't you think?

On the contrary.

Oh, and blind opposition to contrary positions is the definition of being dogmatic. And we wouldn't want that, since it'd make us as bad as creationists in that regard, no?

Are you accusing me of blindly opposing your canards?

The opposite of reform in response to a scandal is what? A coverup perhaps? Funny, I seem to remember....http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of-child-abuse-by-priests.do

Oh, I don't deny that the Catholic church has dragged its heels and tried to hush it up, but that's not what you stated. This is:

no effort of worldwide reform has taken place

You also stated with apparent gusto that

the average Catholic is complacent in regards to child abuse

which I'm pretty certain has no data behind it either.

An agent of an organization that commits a crime legally speaking is the organization committing a crime, along with its paying members. Its simple agency theory people.

So if a member of the Catholic clergy is responsible for, say, directing a bombing campaign a la Osama Bin Laden, the Catholic church is responsible for that?

When did I ever say politics isn't a factor?

When you made the spurious allegation that

They are guilty by association, because the 9-11 hijackers committed the atrocity because they were "Muslim"

This is clearly not the case when they themselves have stated their reasons. It was because they objected to facets of American foreign policy. Bin Laden wasn't considered a terrorist (by America) when he was fighting to get the Russians off Afghan land previously, right?

Do the Chechen 'rebels' attack Russian targets because they're Muslim or because they want the Russians to piss off out of their country?

Their religion has little to do with it.

Wow, you seem to have cornered the market on strawmen today.....

As you horde all the utter bollocks, what else am I to do?

Stalin was not an atheist.

Yes, that's somewhat of an in-joke. Sorry.

There is de-facto leadership, but its not Islam-wide. The clerics of the Sunni and Shiite sects are the leaders of their particular area, but they do sahre a common authority, the Quran. Their "pope", it can be said, is the Quran. Is not formal interpretation, mind you, but they are a unified group. This is why we call the 2 sects "muslim", instead of designating different names for them.

:facepalm:

As a result of this conversation i'll bet you won't change your mind.

Actually, as a result of this conversation, I've spent too long typing and not enough time watching the debate.

 

[Andiferous]

Padawa, that's like saying that because you know people can be serial killers, you're guilty for knowing it. In fact, you are guilty for knowing that religions are corrupt and kill people, because they're humans, and you are too, erg. How do you handle that one? By the way, I probably could find you a site selling horse-hair shirts.

 

[Pandawa]

~Because they were Muslims. They say it all the bloody time. 5 times a day at least.

They were Muslims, we agree. Are you telling me that Islam had no part to play whatsoever?

~Are you accusing me of blindly opposing your canards?

Your choice of vocabulary demonstrates your dogmatism.

~Oh, I don't deny that the Catholic church has dragged its heels and tried to hush it up, but that's not what you stated. This is:

no effort of worldwide reform has taken place

You also stated with apparent gusto that

the average Catholic is complacent in regards to child abuse

which I'm pretty certain has no data behind it either.

You have not showed any such occurence to me. I'm saying it doesn't exist. Prove me wrong by demonstrating a worldwide effort to reform the Catholic Church in regards to child abuse and I will turn that picture around and send it to you with a vial of my tears at having lost. I don't think you can, nor could anyone. However, it is a falsifiable claim.

~So if a member of the Catholic clergy is responsible for, say, directing a bombing campaign a la Osama Bin Laden, the Catholic church is responsible for that?

Uh yes. Its even clearer in that case. a catholic priest directly caused the death of 9 people and the church knew about it and covered it up. the average catholic, not knowing about this, is not culpable, since they had no knowledge. Knowledge and silence is the key.

When did I ever say politics isn't a factor?

When you made the spurious allegation that

They are guilty by association, because the 9-11 hijackers committed the atrocity because they were "Muslim"

~This is clearly not the case when they themselves have stated their reasons. It was because they objected to facets of American foreign policy. Bin Laden wasn't considered a terrorist (by America) when he was fighting to get the Russians off Afghan land previously, right?

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter (its not an objective term). However, he was a radical Islamist since his teens when he studied Sayyid Qutb's works. While politics may change depending on the present situation, the constant factor was his own brand of radicalized Islam, a type of Islam allowed by the Quran.

~Do the Chechen 'rebels' attack Russian targets because they're Muslim or because they want the Russians to piss off out of their country?Their religion has little to do with it.

My argument doesn't apply to the Chechens. *strawman fail*

~As you horde all the utter bollocks, what else am I to do?

Look at the argument? Disprove me with evidence instead of mean words? Take your pick...

~Actually, as a result of this conversation, I've spent too long typing and not enough time watching the debate.

thats your first problem. Watch the 5 hours of video, as I have, then type.


@Andiferous This is my fault, my argument was vaguer than necessary. The difference between a church/organization and "humanity" is that you choose (absent children) to be in a church. you're born into "humanity". This makes a large difference. If I have a free choice to be part/apart from an organization, the continuance of membership after knowledge of heinous crimes is guilt by association. The existence of rapists shows a failing in humans, but doesn't prove guilt by association since people have no choice about whether or not to be associated. The existence of pedophiles in the Catholic Church doesn't indict me because I choose to reject the Church. For a Catholic that chooses to continue association, guilt by association exists.

 

[australopithecus]

 

[Giliell]

I could now type a lengthy post, but Prolescum was so kind to do it for me

 

[Prolescum]

~Because they were Muslims. They say it all the bloody time. 5 times a day at least.

They were Muslims, we agree. Are you telling me that Islam had no part to play whatsoever?

Islam was involved in that they were Muslims. Their issues were political, specifically to do with American policy. This has been stated repeatedly by them. Like the Catholic IRA blowing up British stuff, it was British policy on Ireland that provoked their (E)ire.

What exactly, in your view, does being Muslim have to do with it? Which dynamic of the Islamic faith is it that provoked them into flying aircraft at skyscrapers or driving a boat into the USS Cole? Bin Laden and his cadre of idiots spent the best part of a decade blowing up American stuff. It wasn't because they were Muslim.

~Are you accusing me of blindly opposing your canards?

Your choice of vocabulary demonstrates your dogmatism.

No it doesn't.

~Oh, I don't deny that the Catholic church has dragged its heels and tried to hush it up, but that's not what you stated. This is:

no effort of worldwide reform has taken place

You also stated with apparent gusto that

the average Catholic is complacent in regards to child abuse

which I'm pretty certain has no data behind it either.

You have not showed any such occurence to me. I'm saying it doesn't exist. Prove me wrong by demonstrating a worldwide effort to reform the Catholic Church in regards to child abuse and I will turn that picture around and send it to you with a vial of my tears at having lost. I don't think you can, nor could anyone. However, it is a falsifiable claim.

Here's one example from America, but I can't be arsed to do your homework. You seem to think this is some sort of debating contest, it's not. That you think it is makes me chuckle.

~So if a member of the Catholic clergy is responsible for, say, directing a bombing campaign a la Osama Bin Laden, the Catholic church is responsible for that?

Uh yes. Its even clearer in that case. a catholic priest directly caused the death of 9 people and the church knew about it and covered it up. the average catholic, not knowing about this, is not culpable, since they had no knowledge. Knowledge and silence is the key.

So swap Catholic church for Al Qaeda, Catholic priest for terrorist and average Catholic for average Muslim and an epiphany can be yours for free!

When did I ever say politics isn't a factor?

When you made the spurious allegation that

They are guilty by association, because the 9-11 hijackers committed the atrocity because they were "Muslim"

~This is clearly not the case when they themselves have stated their reasons. It was because they objected to facets of American foreign policy. Bin Laden wasn't considered a terrorist (by America) when he was fighting to get the Russians off Afghan land previously, right?

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter (its not an objective term). However, he was a radical Islamist since his teens when he studied Sayyid Qutb's works. While politics may change depending on the present situation, the constant factor was his own brand of radicalized Islam, a type of Islam allowed by the Quran.

Heh, you're quite the funny one. There was another constant factor; the plight of his Muslim brothers and the blight of Western hegemony talked about specifically in Qutb's work.

~Do the Chechen 'rebels' attack Russian targets because they're Muslim or because they want the Russians to piss off out of their country?Their religion has little to do with it.

My argument doesn't apply to the Chechens. *strawman fail*

You like that word don't you... It is a point of comparison and it applies to my argument. Their cause is much the same as Al Qaeda's was at the time of 11/9, the removal of a foreign government's hegemony.

~As you horde all the utter bollocks, what else am I to do?

Look at the argument? Disprove me with evidence instead of mean words? Take your pick...

That was a joke, I wasn't conceding to having built strawmen.

~Actually, as a result of this conversation, I've spent too long typing and not enough time watching the debate.

thats your first problem. Watch the 5 hours of video, as I have, then type.

My issues are with your words on this thread, not thunder00t in his debate. I'll probably get round to that at some point.