Sorry if it has already been mentioned in reply to this, but it has been a struggle to get this far into the thread.
Armenian Genocide.
Nonsense. If there’s one thing I’ve learned during his short time here, Big Shiny Chromium Truth Machine is a paragon of calm, reasoned discourse, and will always admit when he’s…hang on a mo.
Dang, what a sight that is…outside my window, you should see it…a sky filled with flying pigs!
Amalgamated Umbrella Co. stock up ten points…twenty…thirty!
Actually, the most violent group of people in the world are men, all statistics verify that. The world would be a better place if we men confined our activities to running naked in the woods peeing on trees.
Way ahead of you.
(PS. all these trees are MINE)
You are quite right - I conflated the “children abandoned” with the “bodies found” later in the same sentence.
While Palin’s former (?) association with an anti-witch Christian sect is pretty darn whackadoodle in itself, I am not aware of their advocacy of abandoning children to be eaten by timber wolves. We can spot enough crazy in Sarah Palin without connecting those particular dots.
C-o-T said you win 500 dollars if you find him “saying” the “accusation” “I hate America.”
But not every instance of someone writing “I hate America” is an accusation. For example, I can accuse my mom of stealing the car, or I can quote someone else accusing her. I can do each of these using exactly the same words–but in only one instance am I “saying” an “accusation”. In the other, I’m “saying” a “quotation”.
You found an instance of quotation, but not an instance of accusation.
So no money for you.
However, I should recieve the money–or some substantial fraction thereof–for successfully defending C-o-T from having to pay up.
Damn, and I was planning to go out for a nice expensive meal on C-o-T’s tab tonight. And I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn’t for you meddling kids. 
Well, looks like we both get stiffed, because Big Shiny Chromium Truth Machine has gotten the Ban Hammer.
There is no mention of it on the ATMB. Its not official, and there is no “long form” banning notice.
It happened in Kenya.
You guys haven’t straightened out the Middle East mess yet? Chop chop, eh. Time’s a wasting.
Done.
Thanks!
I for one have always agreed with the “Islam Bad” premise, despite all the underlying complexity.
But many of the people who are pushing this meme are conservatives, and conservative tend to be mean-spirited, extremely hypocritical and extremely. And conservatives tend to embrace a lot of absurd positions, like biblical fundamentalism and all those conspiracy theories and flase accusations against their opponents.
So because conservative are so wrong and such huge jerks so often, a lot of people have a knee-jerk tendency to dispute any claims made any conservative makes.
I think Champion of Truthiness more or less won the argument about Islam here. The counter-arguments amounted to little more than quibbling and false equivalence. But when you drift afield and start spouting absurdities like birtherism or the Christian foundation of the US, or you apply a double-standard as to what constitutes a reliable source, or indeed act like a huge asshole even while you’re calling others assholes, that doesn’t help your credibility.
So as a result of C o T’s posts, how many people’s impression of Islam (or Anderson “Fucking” Cooper:rolleyes:) changed vs. how many people’s impression of conservatives changed–from bad to worse?
Well, hold on a minute. In the wall of blather that he erected over the past few days, pretty much the only factual point C-o-T made is that more religious violence is associated with Islam than with any other major religion. Of course no one seriously argued against that; it’s a simple fact, well documented and known to all, even if it grossly simplifies a number of complex local situations. But that was not in fact his primary argument.
C-o-T came out of the gate with the argument, stated in so many words, that Islam is hopelessly evil, is dedicated to eternal war with non-islamic cultures and that the world’s entire population of muslims should be forcibly converted or killed. Most of what he posted (that wasn’t pure insult or that absurd Birther hijack) was in support of that notion. Would you say he ‘won’ that argument? If you do, feel free to express your reasoning as to why, and I’ll happily listen and perhaps post a rebuttal of any points I disagree with.
We don’t really care about savagery and ignorance, if we did, we would fight poverty and ignorance. What concerns us is terrorism. Because terrorism is invariably about change, it threatens stability. Because terrorism is the weapon of the powerless, the only vehicle available for impotent rage. The Sandanistas were terrorists until they won, now they are social democrats. Would Tory Bostonians have described the Sons of Liberty as terrorist?
The savagery of the regime the Sandanistas fought against would curl your hair. Only in the left wing radical press did anybody really give a shit about the terrorism inflicted by Samoza, Uguarte, Pinochet, Trujillo, etc. etc.
The “war of civilizations” poison serves a number of agendas, but most prominently the agenda of the Islamic extremists, and the agenda of those who advance their various causes by presenting themselves as the firm enemies of “terror”. Which is to say, firm enemies of change, staunch allies of stability.
We care very little about savagery that doesn’t interfere with business. Its the other kind that is “terrorism”. Its not about innocent bystanders, we slaughtered better than a hundred thousand innocent bystanders just lately, we aren’t terrorists. Terrorism is illegitimate savagery, unsanctified by our moral bloviations. If you can afford a modern army and modern air force, you aren’t a terrorist. If you could afford them, you most likely wouldn’t resort to terrorism. Outside your own borders, that is.
OK, fine. Just no false equivalence. Islam is worse. Conservatives are worse.
“Worse” in what reference frame, and on what timescale?
I would agree that, for example, nowadays in US politics conservatives on average and overall are more irrational and destructive in their politics than liberals are. Likewise, I agree that nowadays there is more and worse religiously-motivated violence worldwide associated with Islam than with any other major religion.
However, I wouldn’t say that political conservatives throughout history have necessarily been more irrational and destructive than political liberals overall, nor would I agree that Islam has always been a more violent religion than its competitors.
Maybe that sort of qualification is what you meant by “quibbling”, but I think it’s a pretty important quibble. Ultimately, it’s the difference between, on the one hand, legitimately criticizing a particular political philosophy or religion in particular historical circumstances, and on the other hand extrapolating from that criticism to condemn the entire philosophy or religion per se, which is not so legitimate.
Ok, please explain to me why Islam is worse?
Is it because of the way Islamic theology differs from Christian theology or because of the way the Quran differs from the Bible?
Is it because that far more acts of violence, today, though not historically are committed by Islam?
If so, why do you discount the fact that Christianity has racked up a far larger body count in the past few decades?
You’ll notice that the Christian parts of sub-Saharran Africa have been far more ravaged by AIDS than the Muslim parts.
You’ll notice that thanks to the US and the Vatican much of the money dispersed throughout those regions can’t be used for the promotion or distribution of condoms.
You’ll also notice that in many parts of Sub-Saharran Africa the only information that people hear about condoms is from Christian priests who proclaim that using condoms is a sin and who deliberately spread false information about condoms.
By contrast, while with rare exceptions, most Muslim Clerics don’t have problems with married people using condoms because Muslims don’t see sex and interwined with sin and shame the way Christians do.
The closest you ever come to Muslims being against condoms is some Muslim clerics argue that only married people should be able to use them. By contrast, the Catholic Church says no one should use them.
Despite the fact that Christian theology and Christian beliefs have inarguably led to far, far more deaths in the past few decades than have ever been killed by Muslim terrorists, I object to people claiming that Islam is better.
Finally, since we’re talking over the internet and there’s nothing stopping you from using google in response to the next paragraph, I’ll ask you what you would think of someone who proclaimed Judaism was worse than Christianity and then appeared ignorant of what the Talmud was, or who proclaimed Catholicism was worse than Protestantism but then confessed he didn’t know what the difference between a “hail Mary” and an “our Father” was?
I suspect you wouldn’t think much of that person.
Similarly, I wouldn’t think much of someone who couldn’t answer a few basic questions that any ten-year-old Muslim could answer.
What are the ahadith?(hint not being able to answer that question yet having strong opinions about Islam is like having strong opinions about Judaism and not knowing what the Talmud is)
What is a Marja?(Hint, not being able to answer such a question is the equivalent of saying “What’s the difference between a Bishop and a Cardinal”).
Some Muslims pray to saints and some don’t? Who are the former and who are the latter?
Why are some vocal members of the latter group disgusted by members of the former group?(Hint, think of Moses).
If you can’t answer such questions, you really shouldn’t make such comments about Islam.
For your sake, I hope you don’t have to go to wikipedia or some other even less reliable source for the answer.
C_o_T and his brethren seem to imply that the victims of Islamic terrorism are Xtians, for example. Yet mostly they’re often other Muslims. And the West often doesn’t care, or dismisses it: “Let them all kill one another.” When we invaded Iraq, for example, we did not make adjustments to the numbers of Iraqis we let in the country: just eight hundred and some slots existed, even while the country went to shit, thanks to our intervention. And yet while we were there I got written up for yanking an MP off a man, in his own courtyard, in front of his family. The MP had his foot on the guy, and it was more than a year into the war. The derisive use of the word ‘hajji’ was common–and not concealed from Iraqi civilians, many of whom were literate and spoke English. And still, we had Iraqis who risked their lives to help us, who clung to their own decency and humanity. Or maybe it was the Iraqis who drank beer and went to mosque once a week, who carried pictures of kids and dogs and prized flowers (“My mother’s rosebush, see?”) in their wallets. C_o_T and others like him don’t care about those details.
The point I’m trying to make, in my own sleep-deprived way, is that if Islamic terrorism, so to speak, hurts everyone, how come we never care about the Muslim victims of it, even while we create situations that are powder kegs that want only a match? All it takes to douse the fuse is, as suggested above, a simple study, a polite phrase or two, and so on. Simple politeness.