9
   

AP FACT CHECK: Trump falsely claims historic turnaround.

 
 
vikorr
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2018 04:45 am
@Setanta,
Ah the attack....I take it you reread the link and realised just how much of a hypocrite you were? So you resort to lying to cover up your apologising for evil done in the name of Islam by using comparison to evil done in the name of Christianity? No evil done in the name of either religion is acceptable
Quote:
on a bogus "bad scripture makes bad men" thesis

I'd call that bogus as well, and you cannot show a single quote where I said such.

My position has always been that the ideology contributes to the violence done in the name of the religion. I'm pretty sure I've said that around 40 times during that thread, though you did reply very early in the piece.

Quote:
Let Indonesia stand as an example. As of the July, 2017 census, the population was well in excess of two hundred sixty million ( all demographic statistics from the CIA World Fact Book). Muslims make up slightly more than 87% of the population. I'll do the math for you, that's in excess of two hundred twenty-five million. Your idiotic ten percent figure gives us well of 22,000,000 screaming, violent, murderous fanatics--all because of bad scripture. The putative fanatics of Indonesia have been remarkably quiescent.
Sweet. Out of the large list I wrote about my issues with the religion of Islam...you replied to with a single line about Christianity...at least this time you actually offered something specific that you disagreed with. Last time I asked you for something you found to be wrong, yielded no results.
vikorr
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2018 05:03 am
@vikorr,
In terms of extremists, the term is often confused with fundamentalist (and visa versa), and it's definition affects the percentage. Your definition would reduce the percentage to well below 1% (I don't know if anyone has an exact percentage, and it no doubt varies from country to country). Below is one of the definitions that results in a higher percentage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_extremism
Quote:
Islamic extremism has been defined by the British government as any form of Islam that opposes "democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs."[1] Related terms include "Islamist extremism" and Islamism.[2]

In any event, this isn't a thread about Islam. I'm just correcting some of your statements.

As I previously mentioned - anyone can read for themselves what you did, said, how you said it, and make up their own minds if you were hypocritical, or not.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2018 07:06 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

In any event, this isn't a thread about Islam.


No it's not, so take your Islamophobic bigotry elsewhere. As you've made perfectly clear your dislike of Islam is not limited to terrorists, jihadists or even fundamentalists, but all Muslims. Maybe you'd like to look up the British governments definition of hate speech, because a lot of your posts would qualify.

I'm no friend of Setanta's but he's right about you.
McGentrix
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2018 09:21 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Good work, Blickers, but McG's swipe at Obama can be ignored. That's a tu quoque fallacy. This thread is about Plump, not Obama. Moral turpitude on the part of one individual does not excuse moral turpitude by another.


Is that all you got from my statement? Huh.

You didn't see that it was an example of the level of "lies" that have been fact checked? That the lies were mostly useless and immaterial to anything pertinent? You don't see that it was a metaphor of how one sides "lie" is another sides "truth"?

Instead, you took the easy route, raised your nose and read along as a simpleton instead of the intellectual you've tried to portray.
vikorr
 
  0  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2018 03:45 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
As you've made perfectly clear your dislike of Islam is not limited to terrorists, jihadists or even fundamentalists, but all Muslims.
You've been trying that particular lie out forever (and it is a lie of yours, as I've corrected you around 20 times). It's certainly something worth opposing. My dislike is of the violent aspects of the ideology. There are plenty of good, decent muslims. You simply hate anyone who criticises the ideology in Islam's founding texts.

I've often wondered about your motivation for this desperately repeated lie of yours. Perhaps you follow Islam? It would certainly explain your fixated need misrepresent my position, despite so many corrections.

Certainly the extensive hate and vitriol that you've thrown at me, has not been returned to you by me. You have never been able to work out why, have you?
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2018 04:01 pm
@McGentrix,
No, I didn't see it that way. I've already explained how I see it, and your statement here supports the view.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2018 04:07 pm
Quote:
My position has always been that the ideology contributes to the violence done in the name of the religion.


Yes, exactly--bad scripture makes bad men. That is your thesis. I've not posted 40 times in that hateful thread. Even at the level of one percent, that would be more than ten million violently murderous Muslims in the world. Not much evidence of that. I see you failed to address my remark about individuals and their religious fanaticism. It doesn't matter if it's King Henry V of England or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi--those individuals are far more influential, and dangerous than scripture. I consider that you are eaten up by anti-Muslim prejudice. Deal with it.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2018 04:17 pm
@vikorr,
You're less extreme than Oralloy, big deal. I'd be hard pressed to name anyone who isn't. I'm not interested in your chats with him but in what you said to me. You don't like Muslims, you don't like any of them. I stand by what I posted earlier.
vikorr
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2018 04:17 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
bad scripture makes bad men
You are using two absolutes:
- you are using make (which results in 100%), rather than contributes to (which can result in 1+%)
- and you're are using 'bad men, rather than bad actions (If you don't understand the absolute of that - even men who commit evil actions have good in them).

Perhaps you didn't understand the difference between makes, and contributes to, or actions and people. Hopefully, from here on, as you imply that you value intellectual honesty, you will not keep on this line.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2018 04:20 pm
@vikorr,
That attempt at critique does not alter that you ignore any possible effect that the bible would therefore have had on Christians. That is why I will "keep to this line." I see you still ignore the pernicious influence of individuals.
vikorr
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2018 04:25 pm
@izzythepush,
Rolling Eyes Not that you can provide any quotes to back up your position.

For both you and Setanta, if you wish to keep this discussion up, you could take it to the end of the thread I referenced. This is the current last post That way this thread doesn't have to be further diverted.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2018 04:28 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
That attempt at critique does not alter that you ignore any possible effect that the bible would therefore have had on Christians.
Ah, the diversion by comparison again.

Though let's play that game. What evidence do you have to say that I ignore any possible effect that the bible would have had on Christians? (the answer is, none)

If you read through that thread, you will see where this has been raised, and I have discussed it. Christianity too, has ideology that has contributed to violence in it's name. I am more than happy to acknowledge any such examples, because to me, no violence in the name of any religion is acceptable.
Quote:
I see you still ignore the pernicious influence of individuals.
You've never seen me talk about personal responsibility and contributing circumstances?

So, perhaps you'd care to post in the actual thread - if you wish to continue this discussion. That way, this thread can get back on topic.

Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2018 05:36 pm
@vikorr,
The topic here is sufficiently exhausted. I am certainly not going to venture into that cesspool of your Muslim hatred. As far as evidence goes, I don't see you providing any evidence on the scope of either violence by Muslims, or by Christians . . . or Hindus, or Jains, or Sikhs, or Parsee, or Buddhists, or Daoists, or Rastafarians, or animists. In short, you are obsessed with defaming Muslims, just because they are Muslims.
vikorr
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2018 06:18 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
I don't see you providing any evidence on the scope of either violence by Muslims
Generic violence by Muslims? No. Never have, never will. Generic violence is committed amongst all people, of every culture, in every country in the world. I've made it very clear (in the other thread) that has not been a discussion point of mine, for obvious reasons (everyone has that problem).

Violence done in the name of Islam, and the violent aspects of their holy texts that contribute to that violence - I've provided hundreds of examples/evidence in the other thread. So once again, you are wrong.

Personally, I have an issue with any intolerant ideology - and that is what you will find all my posts have been aimed at (the intolerant ideology, and what it contributes to).

Unlike some:
- I don't try to excuse any intolerant ideology through comparison
- I don't try to silence criticism of intolerant ideology through diversion

In attempting to silence criticism of intolerant ideology, you are enabling it. One would have to wonder why you defend intolerant ideology. If you wish to stick up for intolerant ideology (and what it contributes to), go ahead, but call a spade a spade.

Though seriously, there is another thread you can post replies in. You say this discussion is sufficiently exhausted, but you keep posting here.
vikorr
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2018 06:46 pm
@vikorr,
Quote:
In attempting to silence criticism of intolerant ideology, you are enabling it. One would have to wonder why you defend intolerant ideology. If you wish to stick up for intolerant ideology (and what it contributes to), go ahead, but call a spade a spade.
My apologies, that should read:
Quote:
In attempting to silence criticism of intolerant ideology, you are enabling it. One would have to wonder why you enable intolerant ideology. If you wish to enable intolerant ideology (and what it contributes to), go ahead, but call a spade a spade.
Both modified words/phrases weren't necessarily accurate, as they alluded to intentions that may not exist.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  3  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2018 02:32 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote McGentrix:
Quote:

Is that all you got from my statement? Huh.

You didn't see that it was an example of the level of "lies" that have been fact checked? That the lies were mostly useless and immaterial to anything pertinent?

But the reason nobody is taking your comments on lies seriously is that you used as an example of a lie Obama's statement that you could keep your doctor under the ACA. The problem with that is, Obama's statement was actually the truth, that if you liked your plan when Obamacare went into effect, you could keep it. I explained that in this post.

Since your complaint about lies itself contained a lie, nobody was terribly interested in pursuing your ideas about lies. Hope this clears it up.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  4  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2018 02:38 pm
It took only eleven responses for the conservatives to turn this thread about Trump's false claims of turning the economy around to a discussion about Muslim terrorism.

Nice work, conservatives.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2018 03:27 pm
@Blickers,
StormFronters all.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2018 05:44 pm
@vikorr,
I still don't see you providing evidence on the scope of violence by any religious confession. It is typical of your rhetorical style to chop up my post into those parts, even parts of sentences, which you are willing to address. You are distorting, willfully distorting, my point. At no time did I attempt to excuse anything, by any means. The comparison was to emphasize your bigotry. No one silences you here; after all, you're still blathering on. Now, though, you're beginning to sound like Hawkeye, who whined about his rights of free speech, all while droning on, and on, and on, and on, and on . . .
vikorr
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 30 Oct, 2018 02:52 am
@Setanta,
Not sure what you meant by 'religious confession'.

I actually keep categorised links to evidence I've posted - which evidence is all in the other thread. I keep links to evidence I've posted because the most common accusation I get for my opinion is 'you have no evidence'.

If you wish to ask your question in the other thread, please put it in terms other than religious confession (because I don't know what you mean by that). I am happy to cut and paste those links to evidence for you.

This is a link to the end of the other thread. That way, you can still get your evidence, and let this thread get back to it's original subject
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/15/2019 at 10:26:55