Cajela: No, that is not what the phrasing was. I’m wondering exactly what it would take for y’all to notice that the phrasing was, “That x DID y PROVES x is not Z.”
wring: Please be so kind as to count the number of times I’ve informed you in this thread that the phrasing was not what you’ve addressed.
Bryan: No doubt.
'bout the same number of times you reposted the phrasing just about the same way.
Just about != the same. Got it yet?
Monty. I said, some time ago that we were not effecitively communicating, even gave it the spin that “I” was unable to effecitvely explain my point to you. You came back all pissy, again, so I came back in. my bad and all.
I’ve seen your point, over and over and over again. I know that you believe that when he said “no muslim would blah blah blah” that he meant exactly zero out of all muslims in the world.
And I’ve continued to attempt to suggest that’s not necessarily an effective/accurate way of looking at things. That quite often, people will say things like he did, and really mean “generally” or “No self respecting” blah blah blah.
And, continued to attempt to point out to you that demanding a ‘cite’ when you have (in my opinion) failed to clarify that difference w/the person who uttered it, is, well, pointless.
You’ve ignored that over and over again, and keep on repeating what he said.
IOW I’ve not seen that he has made the specific assertion (as in ‘exactly zero’ rather than the rhetorical “none”).
See, I would have asked him “do you mean to say that out of the millions of muslims in the world exactly zero, not a single one, would do that? and if so, how on earth would you propose to defend that statement? Has there ever been any poll done? is there a contract muslims sign promising that they’ll never do that, or be forever banished into non-muslim land”
It’s an idiotic assertion to make (since it can never be proven at all), so, I’m left to believe that either he’s an idiot (definately possible) or he was using a rhetorical device.
If he is an idiot, to that level, no amount of screaming at him demanding a cite to prove what we all know is impossible to prove will be at all productive. Instead, another method is to simply demonstrate that it’s an unprovable assertion, and move on to the more interesting (and potentially more likely to be true) statement of “generally” or “no self respecting” or “most” muslims blah blah.
If he was using a rhetorical device, screaming at him for a cite also does nothing.
So, when we look at his behavior, either he was using a rhetorical device or he’s an idiot.
either way, you screaming at him over and over demanding a cite to prove what we all know is unproveable merely reflects poorly on you. mho and all. which, I’m sure you’ll dismiss 'cause we’re disagreeing here.
It does, however, get rather tiresome to watch. So, consequently, Monty - have the last word which you’re so fond of.
The point, though, wring, that I’m addressing is that HE SAID THE FACT THAT A PARTICULAR PERSON SAID SOMETHING PROVED HE WASN’T MUSLIM!
Go back. Look at the words. Understand the words. Be the words. Let the force lead you to the words. Or whatever it is you need to see the actual point, the actual statement, I’m questioning.
Monty, we both know, Aldebaran walks in the rarefied air, satisfied of his own absolutes. I agree with you, but I’d doubt you’ll get much out of him. He loves the excluded middle too much to give you a satisfactory answer.
wriong
And you, in turn, have ignored over and over again that he believes that the quote establishes that he was not speaking in generalities. Basically, the converstaion has been this:
M: A said that no Muslim would do this
W: A could have merely meant that most Muslims wouldn’t.
M: No, I think it’s pretty clear that he said none would.
W: But if he only meant that most wouldn’t, you shouldn’t be asking for a cite.
M: Well, as I said before, I think he meant all.
W: But if he didn’t mean all, you shouldn’t ask for a cite.
M: But he did mean all.
W: But what if he didn’t?
M: But he did.
W: You’re not listening to me. I’m saying that he might not have meant all.
M: I am listening to you. And I’m saying that he did mean all.
W: But what if he didn’t?
M: Arghhh!
I’m not clear on what you mean here. Are you saying that there is exactly zero point, or merely that there is generally not a point? :rolleyes:
Another muslim weighing in.
FWIW, If AllahAkbar were a sincere muslim trying to express his belief that God is truly Great with each and every post, I see no problem with the name. It does not seem that the intent is to identify oneself AS Allah, (Look where that got Al-Hallaj!), as would the username Al-Akbar.
My only slight problem is that the PIQ was a troll, a non-muslim trying to stir up trouble. As for offense, I don’t have the time to be offended. I believe The Creator most capable of handling Hu’s own problems.
Salaams,
Martin
P.S. Aldeberan Akhi, Ramadhan Karim and may Allah accept your prayers and fasting
I agree 100% with the OP.
It would be like saying “Monty just posts threads in the pit so he can come back and obsessively post again and again and again and peck away with his tiny little feeble fingers and pick away at semantic points and beat dead horses and split hairs and insult people.”
There MIGHT be someone somewhere named Monty that DOESN’T do this. Ours does, but yours might not.
Holy salamander!, AlahAkbar was a troll. Do you think he wasn’t? Go re-read his stupid posts and STFU.
stockton: Go to hell.
And once there, pull your head out of your ass and actually read the OP, fool.
Monty, the only way for that statement to be true is if the equivalent statement that wring and I have stated is true. You’re trying to pick nits where there are no nits to be picked. I suggest an elementary logic class.
Simplest possible proof (with predicate logic) that include the “X did Y” statement. (Stated in pain english to avoid "There exists a set Z such that all members of Z have property not-Y blah blah blah)
We know premise #2 to be true and that the claim is statement #3. The only missing premise that must be calculated to make a valid proof is #1. If #1 is true, the proof is valid. If it is not true, the proof is not valid.
How obvious does it have to be? What on earth are you trying to say?
Err, plain English. Though the typo seems fortuitous.
I’d love to try it for your silly self in plain English, cajela. As I said above, the issue is not what you–for heaven only knows what reason–can’t seem to stop pretending it is. The fact (feel free to look it up; I understand dictionaries are usually free to use) of the matter is that ol’ Aldebaran specifically said that a particular individual did a particular act proved that particular individual is not Muslim. I question that statement, that assertion. Your rewriting of the issue is not the same thing.
So, take your head out of your ass and go fucking learn something at that Logic class you suggested.
Seeing as how wring is trying to draw a distinction between “none” and “exactly zero”, I don’t think that Monty is the person to most guilty of picking nits.
Doesn’t this support Monty’s position? The proof is valid if and only if #1 is true. Therefore, statement #3 is logically equivalent, given #2, to #1. “He used the word ‘Allah’ in his name, therefore he is not Muslim” makes an implicit claim that no Muslims use the word “Allah” in their names.
Yes, the Ryan, exactly so. This is the very point with which we already agreed ages and ages ago. So WHY THE FUCK IS HE STILL ARGUING AS IF IT DOESN’T? And why is he abusing people who’ve said, “Yes, of course you’re right, obviously, indeed almost by definition. Now about this side issue which interests me a lot more, which is the probabilistic generalisation rather than the absolute…”
Monty is being obscurantist and dificult and downright insulting for no purpose whatsoever. I give up being explanatory. Monty, you are not only an arsehole, but also remarkably ignorant and stupid. My so-called “rewriting” is NOT a fucking re-write. It is an exact equivalent, as everyone except you seems to be able to comprehend. (See the Ryan’s post above)
And if you want to argue logic with me, try learning some first, and then displaying that knowledge in a coherent set of statements, rather than pretending that an insult is an argument. Fuckwit.
Because it’s not what the fuck is what the fuck was fucking said in the fucking OP, you fucking moron!
The Ryan: Perhaps you and I should quit trying eradicate ignorance from those who are in love with it.
You don’t want to get insulted, you stupid fuck, don’t commence with them yourself.
here’s a sig just calling out to be used.