I don’t have a side. I have facts and reality. If you’re arrayed against that, I see your problem. However, pointing out your rampant hypocrisy isn’t something that necessitates commentary on your current snit.
Oh shit, I’ve typed the word hypocrisy. That’s like Bricker’s bat-signal. 
Dadouchi,
I saw that you came back. I also saw that the thread is about to go to another page so I thought I’d do you the favor of reposting some funny shit here so you don’t have to deal with hitting the “back” button.
So, it appears that Dadouchi Ajashi does indeed know how a debate works. And will even attempt to lecture others on it. But for himself? No, different rules apply.
At least now his dishonesty and lack of character have been revealed and are beyond clear.
Thanks for the good work, Dadouchi!
[/QUOTE]
Glad to help.
But in a recent thread you seem to be concerned as to how a poster might stand up to being wrong. I guess I was wrong about that. My deepest apologies. :dubious:
Absolutely no doubt that it happens openly. Sometimes, though, you get a DA with a hard on about “the children” who suddenly decides consensual S&M is a threat to the well being of society. Its position in the law is very tenuous at best. It’s something I have wanted to write on when I get a chance.
Strictly speaking for myself, I’d like this thread to continue for at least another 14 pages.
What better ad for an Iphone – 3GS owner myself. Though I must confess, not even close to Frothy’s use of them as I haven’t written a single response to this thread on one as I happen to have a number of 'puters available any time I am at work/home.
But hell’s bells should Job’s think of hiring him right quick! Best Apple ad at work I’ve seen.
If you insist that its such a big deal, here you go,(from a 25 page thread, I can’t believe I spent the time to prove to you something you already knew), but you can search through the entire thread where you say we should filter for muslimness to weed out the good muslims from the bad ones. How exactly do you weed out the good ones from the bad ones without investigating them? In any event its at least as racist as suspecting Jews of running Hollywood.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13482910&postcount=1197
Oh and heres a post where you say its the Koran that makes muslims all terroristy.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13456535&postcount=621
This sort of shit is repeated over and over again in several threads. You play the harsh realist that tries to get it through our think liberal skulls that we just have to start by looking at every muslim in the country, we know that some muslims are radicalized so we have to look at every last one of them to make sure that we don’t miss any.
If its not your position now then you have changed your position. Which is perfectly fine but when you act like you never said any such thing, it compels me to use my weak ass search fu.
So wait, what debate are we talking about here? I didn’t realize there was any debate except in YOUR mind that you were a racist. I mean haven’t there been entire pit threads on the subject?
Wait. Are you quoting yourself (from the same thread no less) now in an effort to point out how witty you are? Its like you think people didn’t reply with “kudos” is because they missed you the first time you quote a posted of mine from last year (that you just casually ran across) where I engaged yet another racist. So you had to repeat it because you were so sure people didn’t laugh the first time around because they didn’t notice the 40 Font first line.
Wow, thats fucking sad.
Good luck with your life dude, I hope things get better.
Interesting. Now I’m stuck trying to figure out if you are more dumb than you are dishonest, or more dishonest than you are dumb. Oh well. Look, you dishonest dumbbell, you claimed that it was my position that we should “investigate all Muslims” in the U.S. Let’s show your stupidity again. Though I’m tempted at this point to just call it a lie:
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
Magellan, it is beyond clear that your position is that we should investigate ALL muslims to see if they warrant even FURTHER investigation. Your position has been that “muslimness should be the first filter”
[/QUOTE]
For the umpteenth time, that is not my position, and has never been my position. And the cites you managed to find simply do NOT support what you claimed. I do not advocate “investigating all Muslims”. Why can’t you get that through your hollow head. Oh, because you spouted some shit and now don’t want to own up to it? You’re one weak mofo.
Maybe you don’t understand the words you type. Do you know what a filter is? Here’s a clue you dumb bastard, it’s not “an investigation”. Let’s say someone commits a hit and run in Manhattan and puts a pedestrian in the hospital. There’s a witness that says, “I saw the car, it was a dark colored sedan”. With that type of information do you really think that the cops are going to INVESTIGATE ALL DRIVERS OF DARK COLORED SEDANS IN MANHATTAN? IN NYC? IN THE TRI-STATE AREA? No, dumbbell, they won’t. But they will be happy to have A FILTER! A filter that allows them not so much act at that point, but eliminate people who drive SUVs, Smart Cars, Zipp Cars, Vans, Volkswagens, sports cars, motorcylces, buses, trucks, white, sedans, pink sedans, yellow sedans, etc. You get the idea yet dummy? Now, that filter isn’t of much use now, but maybe another witness pops up and says oh I saw that the car had New Jersey plates. Now we have two filters, both made much more valuable by the existence of the other. and then someone else says that he saw that car was a BMW. and another says that he saw a sticker for a high school honors roll. You get it yet, you dumb, dishonest bastard?
In the remote possibility that this little education has sunk in through your thick, Chia-pet thatch, take these wise words to heart: (emphasis mine—again)
No, no, Dadouchi The Dumb, that’s not the debate. As I’ve said, your free to conclude that I am a racist or anything else your little mind desires. If that helps you in the world, knock yourself out. I hope that, given my estimation of you, you might understand that I don’t care much for what you think. But the debate—it’s amazing that you don’t even know what it’s about—the debate is about a specific position you’ve attributed to me One that I do not, and have not held. and one that you have STILL be unable to provide a cite for.
Hope that helps, Dadouchi.
:rolleyes: As much as I appreciate you going for the trifecta of Dumb & Dishonest, if you had the brains to:
read the reason I provided for posting it twice, and
noticed by the time stamp that I did so within nine minutes,
…you might realize your attempt at being witty here fails miserably. But I’m not optimistic. You really are weak all around, aren’t you?
:rolleyes:
I haven’t read any of the threads that Damuri links to, and I’m not about to, but I will note that in a post made something like 17 minutes and two posts before the first one Damuri links to, Magellan says:
It seems as if Damuri is trying to cast one element of a criminal profile as a call to investigate all Muslims. Now I don’t know what else was said and I’m not going to go looking, but being that Magellan falsified Damuri’s claim in a post right before the one he cited, I don’t trust Damuri’s version of events.
I will say that Magellan seems to be making the point he’s trying to make with a bit less specificity than I’d like, but absent another cite there doesn’t seem to be a problem with having a criminal profile for Islamic terrorists that says something like “Muslim, devout, supports violence for religious goals, etc…” Just like if you had Christian militias in Montana (or whatever) you might build a criminal profile like “Christian, in Montana, associated with a militia, endorses anti-governmental violence…” without investigating or suspecting every Christian, or every person in Montana, or what have you.
I do think that magellan is wrong and that there’s nothing in the Koran that promotes/enables violence any more than similar ancient nonsense in the Tanakh or the Christian Bible or the philosophy of Marx (Groucho, Chico, Harpo or Karl) , and while I do find that attitude troubling, I’d have to read more to say whether or not I thought it was based on a sort of bigotry. There’s a difference between saying “a specific holy book is bad” and “those who follow the religion are bad”, and Magellan seems to be saying the former rather than the latter.
Standard disclaimer: I haven’t and don’t intend to read the larger context. If it’s something like “The Koran is a bad holy book” or “the Torah sucks” or “the Gospels are retarded” then I don’t really see a problem with that. If it was something like “You can’t trust any Muslims because the Koran tells them to be bad” or “You can’t trust Jews because the Talmud is evil” or “All Christians are immoral because the bible says to stone adulterers” (or whatever) then of course it’s bigoted and wrong, but I haven’t seen anything to that effect cited. Even Damuri’s second cite seems to be linking to Magellan saying that wackjobs find something in the Koran to glom onto but that the problem isn’t with Islam. Personally I disagree with that and think that Magellan is confusing causation, and that certain wackjobs gravitate to more extreme religious views because they condone or encourage their violent desires and they’d find another issue of Purity of Essence to kill for, but I do not think that saying that a holy book is easier to exploit for nefarious ends than other holy books is, in and of itself, a statement about all practitioners of that religion. Especially when it’s explicitly denied that it’s about all practitioners of that religion.
And since it’s coming from Damuri, chances are it’s fictional due to him being stupid, dishonest, or both.
Actually, leaving the question of degree aside, I agree. And I’ve made that specific point many times. But the question I raise is: given the very fact that one can look at many religions and find the sort of ignorance-based violence one finds in the Koran, why does so much of today’s actual ignorance-based violence that can be justified by an old text sprout from the Muslim community? I also said I don’t know the answer. And that it must not be a necessary component of the religion, as millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of Muslims manage to practice their religion without stooping to barbarism that might have been more acceptable 1,400 years ago.
The fact the remains, though, that it’s not Quakers blowing up innocent children. It’s not Buddhists who mutilate their young women. It’s not Mennonites who excuse the rapists of young girls and then whip the girls to death. It’s not Mormons who stone women to death for adultery. It’s not Catholics who, in the name of their religion (because it is also their law) conclude that the just punishment for a girl being seen walking home from school with a boy who is not a male relative is to have the boy’s sister raped by the male members of the girl’s family. It’s not Jews who behead three ten-year-old girls walking home from their Catholic school. It’s not Hindu’s who behead journalists. It’s not the Shinto who try to blow up innocent people in Times Square or the World Trade Center—twice. No, these people tend to be Muslim. And—and this is important—while people of all religions are indeed guilty of similarly heinous crimes, they don’t tend to do it in the name of their religion. There is something about the religion, or the Koran, or the combination of Islam and the Koran and the Muslim experience in today’s world that is more likely to drive one to barbarism. Why this is the case I do not know. And while it would be nice to figure out why, in the meantime I think it sensible to try to stop as much of it as we could. And I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that future barbarism done in the name of Islam, complete with an “Allah Akbar”, will be done by radicals who are [drumroll] Muslim.
You have correctly gleaned from the few passages that all I have advocated is using Muslimness as the first filter. This seems like such a logical, sensible, unremarkable notion that I find it almost comical that anyone would bristle at its mention. (See example above involving the hit and run.) But I’ve learned to accept being shocked on these boards.
And now, let’s get back to your pitting, shall we? My apologies for the hi-jack. But now that I’ve explained my position, I will comment no more on the topic of violence done by radical Muslims. People are free to read those threads themselves. I will, however, continue to act as a prism so that every iota of stupidity and dishonesty that Dadouchi spews will be shown in it’s full four-color glory.
I did not understand you position to be “lets use muslimness alongside all these other things to determine if someone is a terrorist” because then the threads would have revolved around the argument of why the muslim filter was necessary when it is actually all these other things that actually indicate radicalization. In fact several people ppinted out to you that this si exactly what we do. But you insist that we would miss some terrorists if we didn’t look at muslimness FIRST:
So how do you figure out whether or not to cross any of these muslims off the list? I guess I assumed that investigation was part of teh process by which you would separate the good muslims from the bad ones.
In fact your position has been that there is something wrong with Islam itself that generates terrorists in ways that other erligions do not. Your use of muslimness as a filter is not a case of “the car that ran me down has a bumper sticker” You are imputing some sort of culpability to the muslimness itself.
I know it stings to be told you are being racist especially when you think there is a good reason for your racism so you haev somehow convinced yourself, you are just being a realist but there is a reason you get pitted as a racist.
No matter how much you think its helps your argument to declare victory, it doesn’t.
Dabouchi? Oooh that burns so much, make it stop. :rolleyes: What are you in 3rd grade?
You’re not a racist because i think you are, you’re a racist because of your apparently deeply held beliefs.
And btw, you can’t say I didn’t provide a cite that you advocate for the investigation of all muslims when i provide a cite that you advocate for the investigation of all muslims. Sure, you don’t say “we should investigate all muslims” but what else do you ge when you START with a filter of all muslims and then narrow it down from there. How do you determine a particular muslim is one of the “good” ones?
So perhaps you couldn’t think ahead enough to realize that advocating the use of all muslims as a preliminary filter was in effect the same thing as advocating for the investigation of all muslims but since it has been pointed out to you several times now, would you care to rephrase the whole “lets use msulimness as the preliminary filter for finding the terrorists” because there is something about Islam itself that causes terrorism.
Don’t worry man, life will improve for you someday and you won’t have to be so afraid and angry anymore.
Oh well, if I must…
God, you’re a dumb one. Let’s say, as you advocated, that we look to people who have traveled to the Middle East. Well, that’s good, but if you start there you miss those radicalized Muslims who have not traveled to the Middle East. The first filter should be sure to capture as many terrorists as possible.
Here’s the crux of the problem. When you apply a filter of Muslimness you do not seek to cross people off the list one by one. The pool is too big, even in the U.S. You eliminate large swaths of people—as large as possible—in order to focus resources on as small a group as possible. The first filter removed about 294,000,000. LNow X resources can be devoted to 6 million. Let’s say that of that 6,000,000 half are women, now your down to 3M. And of that 3M, half are either children or elderly, now you’re down to 1.5M. and then we can look at things like affiliation with a mosque known to be more radical, or trips to the Middle East, or relatives who are known terrorists, etc. You use filters to make the pool smaller and smaller. And only when you have a very small pool do you even think about starting to investigate individuals.
Say this out loud: “Applying a filter does not equal doing investigations.” In fact, it’s what you do when it makes no sense to investigate individuals.
This is a different issue. Read my response to FinnAgain.
Sting? No. Certainly not by the likes of you and other knee-jerkers around here. It’s more a commentary on your weak mind and even weaker debating skills.
Help? Help what? Did you skip medication with Nurse Ratchitt because you were too engrossed in that poker game with Martini.
No. Dadouchi, as in douche bag.
:rolleyes: Wrong again. See my previous post to you.
THIS is your comeback to what I wrote? THIS is your response to having your dumb point eviscerated? Man, you bring some weak shit. There should be a telethon for people like you.
Did I say that we should limit the inquiry to people who traveled to the middle east and never look at anyone else? The FBI actually has a list of red flags that includes things visiting Pakistan and Afghanistan; it also includes things like corresponding with known terrorists and going to certain mosques.
How do you know none of those women, children or elderly aren’t going to turn out to be terrorists? Why can’t you use the finer filters to start with? Oh yeah, I forgot, this would only catch MOST of the terrorists so just to be sure we have to use muslimness as the first filter. But then you go ahead and apply these finer filters without chekcing to see if these filters catch all the terrorists. So once again, what is the benefit of putting all the muslims in a pool to begin with when you can aplpy the finer filters from the very start?
THAT is why you are a racist, your instinct is to first point fingers at Muslims generally and then sort out the good ones from the bad ones.
Say this out loud: It makes no sense to apply a coarse filter when you already have finer filters available that can be used without any problems, that is unless you are a racist.
Its a lot easier to figure out who has gone to Pakistan recently than it is to gather information on who is a muslim and then determine which of those muslims have gone to Pakistan recently.
[/quote]
This is a different issue. Read my response to FinnAgain.
[/quote]
Sure its a separate issue but its still evidence of your racism. When you can point to a religion that has a history that is no more violent or barbaric than other religions and then say terrorism is beign caused by the Koran while ignoring all the other factors that might be generating terrorism in that population, its more evidence of your racism.
How much terrorism was that part of the world exporting before 1948? How much terrorism do we see from Nation of Islam muslims? How much terrorism do we see from non-middle eastern muslims generally?
So basically everyone on this board is a kneejerk liberal? Look back at that thread and see who was on your side of the argument. How many7 of the board moderates chimed in one your side of that argument?
Well generalyl speaking, when someone presents no arguments and instead simply calls the other guy stupid, it indicates either a weak argument or a weak arguer. You resort to childish measures like calling me Dadouche (I might as well call you Magdouche for all the sense it makes, all you did was take the first two letters and added douche, at least be creative in your childishness) and constantly repeating how stupid I am (no doubt a habit you picked up from the Finn Again school of debating tactics) as if saying someone is stupid will somehow strengthen your argument.
I don’;t call you stupid because there is no need, anyone can read your posts and come to their own conclusions, you don’t try to hide it. I call you a racist because you try to hide your racism by saying you are just being a realist and fighting political correctness and just saying stuff that needs to be said, when in fact you are simply a scared racist (funny how those two things go together so frequently).