You seem to say that it would not be all right to call a poster a fanatic, but it seems all right to say someone “comes across as a fanatic” since you, as a moderator, would never break the rules, I am certain.
Does this work for other insults? For example, do you make the same distinction between saying someone is an asshole and saying he “comes across as one?”
I simply said they did not show up at the demo. Ten non-Muslims cared enough about Raif Badawi to show up. You supply the reasons if you have them.
If you want to know how many prosecutions for murder there were last year in the USA or England, it’s easy to find out. The governments collect the statistics and make them available. I doubt that Sudan or Afghanistan do the same thing for apostasy and blasphemy prosecutions. First, those countries are rather primitive. Second, the culture in that part of the world values statistics a lot less. Third, evil and corrupt governments generally are not too keen on letting everyone know what they’re doing.
I would very much like to have such statistics but I doubt they have ever been gathered. We can, however, look at Pew’s list of Countries with Very High Government Restrictions on Religion and see that Islamic countries dominate the list. It seems a pretty safe assumption that more people are prosecuted under apostasy and blasphemy laws than merely those who get lots of attention here.
I think it would be wise for everyone to back away from personal remarks.
It would also be a good idea for posters to use the report function to call attention to possible rule violations rather than publicly whining about such supposed violations.
[ /Moderating ]
You seem to imply that it would not be all right to call me a fanatic, but you yourself then said I come across as a fanatic. Were you in violation of your own rules or are you saying it is all right to say someone “comes across” as something you would not normally be allowed to call him?
Dodge and weave and move those goalposts. There is plenty of evidence in your own links that imposing the death penalty for apostasy is exceedingly rare. Any such execution is too many and too many countries laboring under a Salafist version of Islam do have such laws on the books. However, you do your argument no good when you wave around inflated claims for rare events (or potential events) that are not representative of anything more than paranoid fantasies.
Valteron, do yourself a favor and save your breath.
If you come onto SDMB and criticize Islam you are going to get lambasted with thinly-veiled personal attacks along with a deluge of accusations of fanatical bigotry.
For what it’s worth, you have come across as being very respectful to others. But you won’t win this battle. You chose the “wrong opinion” on a topic near and dear to the Doper faithful.
Come join me in the exclusive club of Islamophobic-bigoted-racist pricks. It’s a sort of badge of honor.
I have not implied that you come across as a fanatic. Do not impose your inferences on my words.
If you have further comments on this issue, take them to ATMB.
[ /Moderating ]
If one comes to the Straight Dope and posts nonsense, pretending that a billion people act with a hive mind in clear contradiction to facts, your views will be rightly ridiculed as being in conflict with those facts. If one wishes to proclaim their opposition to facts and then declare that support of ignorance as a “badge of honor,” that speaks for itself.
What the what?
Valteron has come across as many things in this thread, but “very respectful” is not at the top of the list. His complaints would perhaps carry a little more weight if he avoided such insults himself.
Thank you, Stringbean. I do get kind of tired of personal attacks. We have a saying in French that insults are the preferred weapons of he who has no arguments.
I think I will let this matter drop, but in the meantime, I will leave you with a bit of black humour. I don’t know if you can see the attached picture (I am a dolt when it comes to technology):
In case you can’t see it, it is the world famous picture of the 9/11 falling man. The poor devil had jumped (perhaps rather than be burned) and almost certainly died. Somebody with a morbid sense of humour had once proposed a photo-caption contest in which participants would supply his last words in a thought balloon. I refused to participate, but I could not help but wonder how many of the thousands of victims of Islamist attacks from the WTC to Nigeria to London, to Paris, to Israel to Mumbai had as their last words “Well, as I am about to die I take consolation that the majority of Muslims are peaceful.” I wonder if the falling man would have been consoled by that thought. Have a good evening and thanks again for lifting my spirits a little.
So, Valteron, have you come up with any citations of the gay community opposing NAMBLA?
I am sorry, but that is an untrue statement. I do not say you lied, but please explain the contradiction in your statements:
Statement 1) Earlier in this thread you said: “That said, I don’t see that elucidator called you a fanatic. He did suggest it strongly, and **truth be told you certainly do come across as one.” ** (emphasis mine)
Statement 2) “I have not implied that you come across as a fanatic.”
Stement 2 is clearly untrue in light of statement 1. Can you please explain the contradiction?
First, I think you realize you put your foot in it when you claimed you never implied I came across as a fanatic when your said precisely that in an earlier post. You are now pulling out red herrings to keep from dealing with that.
Secondly, the gay community and NAMBLA have no relevance to ISIS and Islam. You are only bringing them up as a form of personal attack because I am gay. If you or anyone else really wants to discuss NAMBLA and the wider issues of LGBT, are you not always the one who suggest that a separate subject matter belongs in a separate thread?
For example, if someone wanted to discuss child genital mutilation (circumcision and clitorectomy) and to challenge the religions that claim they can do it for religious reasons, would you want that appended (no pun) to the ISIS and Islam discussion or do you think it should have its own thread?
Wham, warning.
Take it to ATMB or drop it. Your call. But don’t do it here again.
Tom, I just realized it is my mistake. I just found, to my utter embarrassment, that the first statement was not yours but that of Andros. You did not contradict yourself, and I fucked up badly. My only explanation is that I had so many comments coming at me that I got mixed up on who said what.
Sincere regrets.
No. I am pointing out quite clearly that you are inconsistent in your arguments.
Here are the two positions we each hold:
Valteron: There is a large demographic population. Some members of that population do evil. It is right to mock, chastise, and condemn that entire population for not stopping the evil parties that are identified with it.
tomndebb: There is a large demographic population. Some members of that population do evil. It is not right to mock, chastise, or condemn that population for not stopping the evil parties that are identified with it.
You are right that I cite NAMBLA because you are gay. It demonstrates that you are willing to switch your position depending on where you stand within the identified population. I am sure that you can find dozens of reasons why you are not in full fledged battle with NAMBLA and similar groups. I am equally certain that for any Muslim who presented the identical arguments that you use to explain why you are not expending more effort to oppose NAMBLA to explain their failure to oppose “bad” Islam, you would simply dismiss as not relevant to the issue. You have a hate on for Islam, mostly based on irrational fear, and you are willing to be inconsistent and illogical in pursuing that hatred.
If you come here, use logic or expect to have your arguments trashed.
The two situations are only analogous in your imagination. You have no idea where I stand regarding NAMBLA.
**Start a thread **that says “It is up to gays” (just gay men or lesbians too?? Some of those dykes are STRONG!) to catch and string up all NAMBLA members (or how about all pedophiles, because pedophilia is not gay or straight.)
Anyhow, if you want to discuss this start a thread. It is a separate subject.
No, his comparison is precisely on point. And starting a thread on the subject would be stupid, because “Gays need to call out NAMBLA” is not a position tom supports. He’s bringing it up up in this thread because it very neatly demonstrates that your argument is not based on logic or rationality, but purely on prejudice. You do not like Muslims, and so you use a different and much harsher standard to judge their behavior than you do with groups to which you either belong, or strongly support.
I doubt that you have any favorable view of NAMBLA and nothing I have posted suggests otherwise. My point was the general position regarding condemnation of large groups for having smaller evil groups identified with them. The positions are not analogous; they are equal.