Westminster attacker
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Straw-man argument, I didn't say they were.
Hypersensitivity. I didn't say you did.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Not to you, no.
Drink much coffee?
NoNotThatBob wrote:
Hypersensitivity. I didn't say you did.
Quote:
perhaps not all Muslims are terrorists, after all.
The "after all" part of your comment suggests you did.
-
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
it just seems to me that islam has a dramatically higher percentage than any other religion
Because of the political situation in the Middle East. It seems to me that "The West" has deliberately kept the Middle East in a state of confusion and frustration. Initially, the terrorists were radical "Communists". Having failed, they have been replaced by radical "Islamists". (Similar to Iran, secular Left-leaning Government overthrown by the USA & UK, puppet dictator installed, and all "Communist" opposition destroyed. Consequence - puppet overthrown by organized religious right rather than secular left.)
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
it's teachings can be twisted to meet their needs much easier than most others.
They don't need to be twisted - Semetic religions preach violence. The "Peace" bit comes when you have submitted. (Except you then find that there are two and seventy jarring Sects - and yet more violence, 'cos all the other Sects have got it wrong.) It is Christian terrorists who have to totally ignore their Prophet's teachings in order to drop bombs from 30,000 feet on innocent Muslims, to bring a Dictatorship to its knees.
NoNotThatBob wrote:
It is Christian terrorists who have to totally ignore their Prophet's teachings in order to drop bombs from 30,000 feet on innocent Muslims, to bring a Dictatorship to its knees.
I'm assuming you are talking about the US Air force, which make that statement bloody stupid. USAF is not a religious organisation.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
NoNotThatBob wrote:
It is Christian terrorists who have to totally ignore their Prophet's teachings in order to drop bombs from 30,000 feet on innocent Muslims, to bring a Dictatorship to its knees.
I'm assuming you are talking about the US Air force, which make that statement bloody stupid. USAF is not a religious organisation.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
He's more likely referring to Blair and Bush.
-
Yeah, what about that communist manifesto and it's preachings that non-Communists should be killed, rape victims should be killed, homosexuals should be killed, women should have no rights. Thank God all those commies have gone, huh?
The quotes around Communist and Islamist indicate a label of convenience. The "Communists" were Muslims who wished for a modern, secular, Muslim state. Some of these had Socialist leanings - hence the label. The "Islamists" are Muslims who wish for a mediæval, religious, Muslim state. Some of these carry out the Prophet's teachings to the letter - hence the label.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Yeah, what about that communist manifesto and it's preachings that non-Communists should be killed, rape victims should be killed, homosexuals should be killed, women should have no rights.
You may have time to waste for reading political Victoriana, I haven't . If what you say is true, all these punishments (except the treatment of rape victims) are present in the Old Testament. (As are those performed by extreme Muslims.) Thank God nobody reads the Bible any more, huh?
-
NoNotThatBob wrote:
It is Christian terrorists who have to totally ignore their Prophet's teachings in order to drop bombs from 30,000 feet on innocent Muslims, to bring a Dictatorship to its knees.
I'm assuming you are talking about the US Air force, which make that statement bloody stupid. USAF is not a religious organisation.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
USAF is not a religious organisation.
So, all servicemen are secular? Not a (nominal) Christian among them?
-
NoNotThatBob wrote:
Hypersensitivity. I didn't say you did.
Quote:
perhaps not all Muslims are terrorists, after all.
The "after all" part of your comment suggests you did.
Quote:
Apologists already out in force to plead that not all Muslims are terrorists.
That did not imply that you believe all Muslims to be terrorists. It does imply that you consider those who write "not all Muslims are terrorists" to be apologists. Hence
Quote:
perhaps not all Muslims are terrorists, after all.
-
He's more likely referring to Blair and Bush.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Blair and Bush.
Those too, but the bombs would not have fallen without the USAF crews. Many of whom claim to be Christian.
-
Quote:
Apologists already out in force to plead that not all Muslims are terrorists.
That did not imply that you believe all Muslims to be terrorists. It does imply that you consider those who write "not all Muslims are terrorists" to be apologists. Hence
Quote:
perhaps not all Muslims are terrorists, after all.
NoNotThatBob wrote:
That did not imply that you believe all Muslims to be terrorists.
Apology accepted.
NoNotThatBob wrote:
It does imply that you consider those who write "not all Muslims are terrorists" to be apologists.
No need to imply, I'll explicitly state that's what I think :)
NoNotThatBob wrote:
Hence
It's still a straw-man argument. At no point in the discourse did anyone say all Muslims are terrorists yet it is the argument apologists cling to.
-
The quotes around Communist and Islamist indicate a label of convenience. The "Communists" were Muslims who wished for a modern, secular, Muslim state. Some of these had Socialist leanings - hence the label. The "Islamists" are Muslims who wish for a mediæval, religious, Muslim state. Some of these carry out the Prophet's teachings to the letter - hence the label.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Yeah, what about that communist manifesto and it's preachings that non-Communists should be killed, rape victims should be killed, homosexuals should be killed, women should have no rights.
You may have time to waste for reading political Victoriana, I haven't . If what you say is true, all these punishments (except the treatment of rape victims) are present in the Old Testament. (As are those performed by extreme Muslims.) Thank God nobody reads the Bible any more, huh?
NoNotThatBob wrote:
all these punishments (except the treatment of rape victims) are present in the Old Testament.
Books and passages please?
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Blair and Bush.
Those too, but the bombs would not have fallen without the USAF crews. Many of whom claim to be Christian.
Good Christians at that: crusades weren't peaceful strolls either.
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF * GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X * Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game. * I'm a puny punmaker.
-
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
it just seems to me that islam has a dramatically higher percentage than any other religion
Because of the political situation in the Middle East. It seems to me that "The West" has deliberately kept the Middle East in a state of confusion and frustration. Initially, the terrorists were radical "Communists". Having failed, they have been replaced by radical "Islamists". (Similar to Iran, secular Left-leaning Government overthrown by the USA & UK, puppet dictator installed, and all "Communist" opposition destroyed. Consequence - puppet overthrown by organized religious right rather than secular left.)
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
it's teachings can be twisted to meet their needs much easier than most others.
They don't need to be twisted - Semetic religions preach violence. The "Peace" bit comes when you have submitted. (Except you then find that there are two and seventy jarring Sects - and yet more violence, 'cos all the other Sects have got it wrong.) It is Christian terrorists who have to totally ignore their Prophet's teachings in order to drop bombs from 30,000 feet on innocent Muslims, to bring a Dictatorship to its knees.
-
On one of the original threads I wrote this
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Apologists already out in force to plead that not all Muslims are terrorists. When the media can no longer withhold information that the attacker is a Muslim already known to the police we'll be told they have a mental illness.
Attacker was a Muslim and known to police, further more it now turns out the media did have pictures of him injured after the attack but chose to only publish ones of him obscured by officers etc. Anyway, what I really want to say is that in Jane Moore's[^] column in The Sun yesterday (a "downmarket" UK tabloid newspaper) her main piece was about how the attack was nothing to do with Islam but that the attacker has a mental illness, that we shouldn't "blame IS" for these attacks but that we should blame the poor record we have of treating people with mental illnesses. This cycle of nonsense is so common now, how can we ever seriously discuss the threat of Islam when the media is constantly denying there is any problem at all.
The trouble is that, in order to perform an attack of that kind, someone has to have mental problems. There's no healthy, intelligent reasoning backing it up. Don't shoot the messenger. Oh, wait. It was the Sun. Go ahead and open fire.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
NoNotThatBob wrote:
Hey, perhaps not all Muslims are terrorists, after all.
Straw-man argument, I didn't say they were.
NoNotThatBob wrote:
None of my Muslim colleagues have ever given any indication of similar sentiments.
Not to you, no.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
NoNotThatBob wrote:
None of my Muslim colleagues have ever given any indication of similar sentiments.
Not to you, no.
So you're saying that they are really all ter'r'rists? No straw men to see around here, ladies and gentlemen. Move along, now.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Yeah, what about that communist manifesto and it's preachings that non-Communists should be killed, rape victims should be killed, homosexuals should be killed, women should have no rights. Thank God all those commies have gone, huh?
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
what about that communist manifesto and it's preachings that non-Communists should be killed, rape victims should be killed, homosexuals should be killed, women should have no rights.
Where on Earth did you find this guff? It's not even remotely true. "Better dead than red", however, was for real.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
what about that communist manifesto and it's preachings that non-Communists should be killed, rape victims should be killed, homosexuals should be killed, women should have no rights.
Where on Earth did you find this guff? It's not even remotely true. "Better dead than red", however, was for real.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
That was sarcasm :)
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
NoNotThatBob wrote:
None of my Muslim colleagues have ever given any indication of similar sentiments.
Not to you, no.
So you're saying that they are really all ter'r'rists? No straw men to see around here, ladies and gentlemen. Move along, now.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
So you're saying that they are really all ter'r'rists?
No.
Mark_Wallace wrote:
No straw men to see around here, ladies and gentlemen. Move along, now.
I dunno, your accusation above pretty sure looked like one.
-
The trouble is that, in order to perform an attack of that kind, someone has to have mental problems. There's no healthy, intelligent reasoning backing it up. Don't shoot the messenger. Oh, wait. It was the Sun. Go ahead and open fire.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
They're often making the right decision. The problem is their utility function is corrupted, it incorrectly distinguishes between world states after their death. They should all be valued zero since nothing can affect you after your death, but they've been tricked into believing that there is something after death. That is a very dangerous concept that should have been banned ages ago, since giving world states past your death a positive utility can make people decide that doing something that they will be killed for is worth doing.
-
The trouble is that, in order to perform an attack of that kind, someone has to have mental problems. There's no healthy, intelligent reasoning backing it up. Don't shoot the messenger. Oh, wait. It was the Sun. Go ahead and open fire.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
The trouble is that, in order to perform an attack of that kind, someone has to have mental problems
So you're saying that all criminals have mental health problems? That it's incapable that someone is just not a very nice person with low levels of empathy or compassion?
Mark_Wallace wrote:
Oh, wait. It was the Sun
I could at least understand why you would attempt that ad hominem attack if I was discussing news or facts, but I think I made it quite clear this was simply an opinion piece so the paper itself doesn't have a lot to do with it. Nice try though at trying to belittle the issue by criticising the source rather than facing up to the issue itself. After all, had I have said it was the Mail you wouldn't have said "Oh, wait, It was the Mail". If it was the Guardian you wouldn't have said "Oh, wait, It was the Guardian." If it was the Independent you wouldn't have said "Oh, wait, It was the Independent." If it was the Upper Middle-Marsh Telegraph you wouldn't have said "Oh, wait, It was the Upper Middle-Marsh Telegraph." I mean your post came from a genuine specific concern, you weren't going to simply try and dismiss the whole thing based on the source regardless of what that source was.......were you.....?
-
Mark_Wallace wrote:
The trouble is that, in order to perform an attack of that kind, someone has to have mental problems
So you're saying that all criminals have mental health problems? That it's incapable that someone is just not a very nice person with low levels of empathy or compassion?
Mark_Wallace wrote:
Oh, wait. It was the Sun
I could at least understand why you would attempt that ad hominem attack if I was discussing news or facts, but I think I made it quite clear this was simply an opinion piece so the paper itself doesn't have a lot to do with it. Nice try though at trying to belittle the issue by criticising the source rather than facing up to the issue itself. After all, had I have said it was the Mail you wouldn't have said "Oh, wait, It was the Mail". If it was the Guardian you wouldn't have said "Oh, wait, It was the Guardian." If it was the Independent you wouldn't have said "Oh, wait, It was the Independent." If it was the Upper Middle-Marsh Telegraph you wouldn't have said "Oh, wait, It was the Upper Middle-Marsh Telegraph." I mean your post came from a genuine specific concern, you weren't going to simply try and dismiss the whole thing based on the source regardless of what that source was.......were you.....?
-
NoNotThatBob wrote:
all these punishments (except the treatment of rape victims) are present in the Old Testament.
Books and passages please?
Levictus 20:9 He who curses his mother father must be killed. Levictus 21:17-24 Exodus 21:20-21 are also interesting.