• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2 Israeli Embassy staff members killed in shooting outside of event at the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, DC

I have indeed said there is no such thing as benign Islam. Islam is a totalitarian and absolutist word view with a cruel and unjust legal system, Sharia attached. It criminalises dissent or criticism. It is totally intolerant of any form of democracy. Islam oppresses all who come under its rule and seeks seeks to inflict terror on the rest. Islam is the enemy of decency and humanity and if we are so foolish to let it thrive we do so at our peril.
Exactly. So why be frail about your bigotry? Be proud of it. 😂
 
To oppose the evil that is Islam is not bigotry but rather a wise precaution.

(Where did you become infected with word 'frail'? Why not try something else for a change?
Frail is the perfect word to describe you not so proud boys. 😂
 
Master Debator you make many incorrect and out and out false statements about what I stated.

1-You stated about what I said as follows: "You're talking about an entire religion with billions of followers." No in fact I did not. In the references I used I was specific in referencing sharia law states with high illteracy rates.


2- You also stated: "To me that's what religion is. A tool for organization. People use the tools at their disposal to oppress or uplift people."

As you are also aware it can also be used to oppress people. spy on them, control them through fear, and be used because of its insitutional framework a method of operation that can perpetute and cover up sexual abuse, financial corruption and control not just of people but governments/ You again deflect from the latter to falsely assert I deny the former. I do not and did not.

3-You stated: "Correlation isn't causation. I don't have to pretend you haven't shown causation because you haven't. Did you even read that? 🤣🤣🤣 I'll quote the summary for you.🤣🤣🤣"

Perhaps if you did not keep showing me your insecurity and anxiety and feeling threatened with your emoticons and just read what you think you summarized you would see how it stated concepts where in fact it showed both correlation and causation and that to explain causation one must use correlations.


4-Next you stated: "Sharia law doesn't speak for all of Islam any more than fundamentalist Christians speak for all of Christianity."

You could not be more wrong. That is exactly what the Koran says Sharia law MUST do. I would state since you seem intent on misrepresenting what I stated that not all Muslims live in Sharia Law states, not all Sharia law states impose and interpret Islam the same way but the majority of Sharia law states implement fundamental principles of belief in regards to non Muslims, gays/lesbians/transgenders, trade unionists, women, in a manner that would be considered in violation of human rights laws and oppressive in the Western world.


5-You stated: "I'm not arguing that Islam can't be used to oppress, Im questioning the claim that it can't be benign."

In nregards to all your comments to me you have indeed argued my explanationd as to why Islam can oppress is bigoted and untrue. Anyone can your responses back.

I repeat that in regards to your responses to Sweden. Neither Sweden nor I have argued Islam can't be benign. I have said the exact opposite and given examples of the Amidyah and Ismaili Mulsims and any progressive Muslim or any Muslim that disagrees with extreme fundamental interpretation of their Koran.


6- You stated: "So your personal anecdotes is supposed to override your own scientific stidy that shows Islam can be a positive influence on growth?"

No anyone can read what I have provided and if you took the time to open your mind from its preconceived bias and slowed down and read what I stated, you would see I use personal anectdotes to both support that Islam can be used for positive influence on growth as well as preventing growth but never independently and always backed up by another source.

I never presented Muslim by itself as a negative influence on growth inherently. I argued it does have inherently bigoted and hateful passages in its Koran that can and are being used to oppress through sharia law regimes. I have then also argued because of that, the more literate Muslims become and are able to critically analyze all the passages of the Koran and not rely on extremist interpretations told to them, the more likely they will evolve to say the level of Amidyah or Ismaili or other Muslims who have reached a level of critical analysis to not lend their interpretations to rigid inflexible ones that promote intolerance.
 
I don't care if you don't agree with my interpretation, that's what subjectivity is and what I've been arguing for. Why are you pretending that's some quote of mine? 😂
It's an exact quote from your post 302. Your notion that I made it up shows your capacity to let subjective judgments sway you.
Me asking you what it means to you is an acknowledgement of the subjectivity.
What did the passage I quoted mean to you, before you forgot you'd said it?
Failed at what? A subjective interpretation? Make up your mind guy. Subjective things aren't right or wrong. My interpretation isn't wrong and yours right, they're just different. Your argument can't even remain consistent paragraph to paragraph. 😂😂😂
Nope, the joke has only one possible interpretation-- a shot at Liberal priorities. With more complicated works, subjective interpretations can indeed be dicey: "Is Moby Dick just a whale or is he a vessel of the God Ahab rejects?" But Macdonald's simple joke is too straightforward to have hidden ambiguities. You want to judge all interpretations as equally subjective, but you have to be able to demonstrate that the author meant to suggest conflicting interpretations. The burden of proof is on the person arguing for the hidden ambiguity, and you've not been able to show any.
My first comment about the joke was a question, not a declaration. I even quoted it for you. Do you need me to do it again frail pretender? 😂
No, the question was a loaded one, and I answered it, several times now. I like how you keep using the word "frail" incorrectly, BTW. In no dictionary will anyone find your DiAngelo-esque distortion, where it's "frail" or "fragile" to push back against someone else's narrative, to not accept it as Gospel truth.
So the "everyone has to receive it the same way you do" is actually your argument?
😂😂😂
Nope, the argument remains that you had no justification for your fake interpretation, and you made it for no reason but to muddy the waters.
Prove what? How I felt about the joke. I explained how I felt with my response which was to mainly be confused about whether or not I supposed to assume there were no innocent Muslims. You're the one accusing my perspective of being a lie without proof. 😂
You either did not understand the simple logic of the joke or pretended that you did not. The proof of that assertion is that you can't show, in the joke, any support for your adversarial interpretation.
Did you manage to read the question mark at the end? Guess what a question mark signifies? It's not a declarative statement. That's hint. 😉
Loaded questions always encode the false conclusions of the person who formulated them.
What is a faux interpretation? Is there only your interpretation that me must all accept? How hilariously frail of you. 🤣🤣🤣
You had the chance to demonstrate hidden ambiguity in the joke and you didn't even try to do so, because you knew there was none. Expecting others to take your word when you post nonsense remains your chosen brand of frailty.
 
To oppose the evil that is Islam is not bigotry but rather a wise precaution.

(Where did you become infected with word 'frail'? Why not try something else for a change?
I think he either got "frail" from Robin DiAngelo or some similar activist who reinterprets the established meaning of words to confuse the issues. It's a lot like how urban Blacks can call someone "scary" when they mean that the other person is frightened, not that he/she is frightening to others. It's a simple Orwellian distortion of meaning in order to gain some perceived advantage.
 
It's an exact quote from your post 302. Your notion that I made it up shows your capacity to let subjective judgments sway you.
That quote was me making fun of you for wanting everyone to see it the same way you do. I don't care if you see if differently than me. I said so in that same post! 😂
What did the passage I quoted mean to you, before you forgot you'd said it?
Its me laughing at you.
Nope, the joke has only one possible interpretation-- a shot at Liberal priorities.
^ This is what I'm laughing at you for. 😂 This frail insistance that there's only one interpretation. Yours. How frail. 😂
With more complicated works, subjective interpretations can indeed be dicey: "Is Moby Dick just a whale or is he a vessel of the God Ahab rejects?" But Macdonald's simple joke is too straightforward to have hidden ambiguities. You want to judge all interpretations as equally subjective, but you have to be able to demonstrate that the author meant to suggest conflicting interpretations. The burden of proof is on the person arguing for the hidden ambiguity, and you've not been able to show any.
The burden of proof is not on me to prove that yours is the only valid interpretation. Thats your claim so the burden of proof is yours. It's like you don't know how debate works....
No, the question was a loaded one, and I answered it, several times now. I like how you keep using the word "frail" incorrectly, BTW. In no dictionary will anyone find your DiAngelo-esque distortion, where it's "frail" or "fragile" to push back against someone else's narrative, to not accept it as Gospel truth.
That's my interpretation. There there frail one. 😂
Nope, the argument remains that you had no justification for your fake interpretation, and you made it for no reason but to muddy the waters.
What makes my interpretation fake other than your frail emotions?
You either did not understand the simple logic of the joke or pretended that you did not. The proof of that assertion is that you can't show, in the joke, any support for your adversarial interpretation.
What is the simple logic according to you? Give us an example of what you think logic is if for nothing more than our amusement.
Loaded questions always encode the false conclusions of the person who formulated them.

You had the chance to demonstrate hidden ambiguity in the joke and you didn't even try to do so, because you knew there was none. Expecting others to take your word when you post nonsense remains your chosen brand of frailty.
I never said anything at all about hidden ambiguity. That's your thing.
 
That quote was me making fun of you for wanting everyone to see it the same way you do. I don't care if you see if differently than me. I said so in that same post! 😂
And because you had lost control of this debate long ago, you tried to claim that I wasn't quoting you, when I totally was-- though I'm sure you would have changed your earlier post were it not for DP preventing posters from going back and correcting posts after a certain amount of time.
Its me laughing at you.

And the laughter remains hollow because you screwed up and would rather act frail rather than admit your incontrovertible mistake.
^ This is what I'm laughing at you for. 😂 This frail insistance that there's only one interpretation. Yours. How frail. 😂
As I've said, I don't even think you believe your "alternative explanation" of the MacDonald joke. It was just a weak-ass attempt to turn things around after I cited the joke as an example of spoofing Mad Lib priorities.
The burden of proof is not on me to prove that yours is the only valid interpretation. Thats your claim so the burden of proof is yours. It's like you don't know how debate works....
The joke has only one possible target: Libs who are more worried about backlash against Muslims rather than citizens being killed by permissive Liberal attitudes toward jihadists. Your mangling of that simple joke-logic is not a real interpretation, and this is demonstrated by the fact that you haven't even tried to defend your interpretation. Again, you imagine that you can win a debate with the clever retort, "nuh-uh."

That's my interpretation. There there frail one. 😂
Nope, you have no interpretation, and you must enjoy being doubly frail because all your dopey ad hominems bounce off me and stick to you.
What makes my interpretation fake other than your frail emotions?
The fact that you can't defend it logically, thus revealing your scariness.
What is the simple logic according to you? Give us an example of what you think logic is if for nothing more than our amusement.

Already did so. I'd say you might reread my posts, but hey, you can't even remember what you posted. :ROFLMAO:
I never said anything at all about hidden ambiguity. That's your thing.
Another sad lie, like the one where I directly quoted you and you tried to pretend I made it up.:ROFLMAO:
 
Master Debator you make many incorrect and out and out false statements about what I stated.

1-You stated about what I said as follows: "You're talking about an entire religion with billions of followers." No in fact I did not. In the references I used I was specific in referencing sharia law states with high illteracy rates.
You did that after you defended Sweden who said there was no such thing as benign Islam. You made the point about Sharia later.
As you are also aware it can also be used to oppress people. spy on them, control them through fear, and be used because of its insitutional framework a method of operation that can perpetute and cover up sexual abuse, financial corruption and control not just of people but governments/ You again deflect from the latter to falsely assert I deny the former. I do not and did not.
I haven't denied the former.
3-You stated: "Correlation isn't causation. I don't have to pretend you haven't shown causation because you haven't. Did you even read that? 🤣🤣🤣 I'll quote the summary for you.🤣🤣🤣"
I said it because it's true.
Perhaps if you did not keep showing me your insecurity and anxiety and feeling threatened with your emoticons and just read what you think you summarized you would see how it stated concepts where in fact it showed both correlation and causation and that to explain causation one must use correlations.
What insecurity and anxiety?
4-Next you stated: "Sharia law doesn't speak for all of Islam any more than fundamentalist Christians speak for all of Christianity."

You could not be more wrong. That is exactly what the Koran says Sharia law MUST do.
And religious texts aren't open to interpretations? Do all Christians have to interpret the Bible with the same ferocity as the Crusaders?
I would state since you seem intent on misrepresenting what I stated that not all Muslims live in Sharia Law states, not all Sharia law states impose and interpret Islam the same way but the majority of Sharia law states implement fundamental principles of belief in regards to non Muslims, gays/lesbians/transgenders, trade unionists, women, in a manner that would be considered in violation of human rights laws and oppressive in the Western world.
You misrepresent yourself when you defend bigots like @Sweden. Go read what they've said since about all Muslims.
In nregards to all your comments to me you have indeed argued my explanationd as to why Islam can oppress is bigoted and untrue. Anyone can your responses back.
Im okay with anyone reading my response.
I repeat that in regards to your responses to Sweden. Neither Sweden nor I have argued Islam can't be benign. I have said the exact opposite and given examples of the Amidyah and Ismaili Mulsims and any progressive Muslim or any Muslim that disagrees with extreme fundamental interpretation of their Koran.
Sweden has. I quoted them directly.
No anyone can read what I have provided and if you took the time to open your mind from its preconceived bias and slowed down and read what I stated, you would see I use personal anectdotes to both support that Islam can be used for positive influence on growth as well as preventing growth but never independently and always backed up by another source.
If they took the time to read your link they'd see that it credits Islam with helping to increase literacy rates.
I never presented Muslim by itself as a negative influence on growth inherently. I argued it does have inherently bigoted and hateful passages in its Koran that can and are being used to oppress through sharia law regimes.
If religious texts are open to interpretations then there is no inherent bigotry, just interpeted bigotry.
I have then also argued because of that, the more literate Muslims become and are able to critically analyze all the passages of the Koran and not rely on extremist interpretations told to them...
You're saying that now after I called out your defense of a bigot who did in fact say there is no such thing as a benign Islam.

Plenty of good Muslims but no such thing as benign Islam.
 
And because you had lost control of this debate long ago, you tried to claim that I wasn't quoting you, when I totally was-- though I'm sure you would have changed your earlier post were it not for DP preventing posters from going back and correcting posts after a certain amount of time.
That because you assume everyone is as frail as you. 😂 Im okay admitting I didn't recognize the quote because the quote was me paraphrasing you. Do you imagine that's some big deal for me? Why? Your own fragility? 🤣🤣🤣
And the laughter remains hollow because you screwed up and would rather act frail rather than admit your incontrovertible mistake.
Wrong again. I made a mistake about the quote because I forgot the context. And? Believe it or not I don't think about our arguments once I leave here. 😂
As I've said, I don't even think you believe your "alternative explanation" of the MacDonald joke. It was just a weak-ass attempt to turn things around after I cited the joke as an example of spoofing Mad Lib priorities.
You believe whatever you need to but you're the one calling people who simply have different priorities than you Mad Libs and insisting your interpretation is the only valid one. I'll leave it up to audience to decide which of those mentalities is weak. 😂
The joke has only one possible target: Libs who are more worried about backlash against Muslims rather than citizens being killed by permissive Liberal attitudes toward jihadists. Your mangling of that simple joke-logic is not a real interpretation, and this is demonstrated by the fact that you haven't even tried to defend your interpretation. Again, you imagine that you can win a debate with the clever retort, "nuh-uh."
What makes my interpretation not real other than your frail emotions? By the way my interpretation isnt me trying to speak for author of the joke who's meaning I expressed confusion over, it's just how I received the joke. Is there only one real way to receive that joke? Is that what your frail psyche needs you to believe? 😂
Nope, you have no interpretation, and you must enjoy being doubly frail because all your dopey ad hominems bounce off me and stick to you.
I have none because you say so? Why shouldn't I think that position frail? Why shouldn't everyone? 😂
The fact that you can't defend it logically, thus revealing your scariness.
I absolutely can defend differing perspectives with reason and logic. 😂 We are not a hive mind. We have our own individual sensors and processing device (the brain). See i just did with me reason and logic than whatever the **** you're doing here.... 😂
Already did so. I'd say you might reread my posts, but hey, you can't even remember what you posted. :ROFLMAO:
And even with the little attention and brain power I use in exchange with you I still make more logical arguments. 😂
Another sad lie, like the one where I directly quoted you and you tried to pretend I made it up.:ROFLMAO:
Quote me saying anything about hidden ambiguity. 😂
 
That because you assume everyone is as frail as you. 😂 Im okay admitting I didn't recognize the quote because the quote was me paraphrasing you. Do you imagine that's some big deal for me? Why? Your own fragility? 🤣🤣🤣
Admitting your failing is only half the solution, as is seen from your attempt to downplay it. I don't care what is or isn't a "big deal" to you, and the only "fragility" on display is you trying to claim that your error just wasn't important. Take out the beam in your own eye before going after the motes in the eyes of others.
Wrong again. I made a mistake about the quote because I forgot the context. And? Believe it or not I don't think about our arguments once I leave here. 😂
I'm sure "not thinking" is a specialty of yours both during and after debate. :sleep:
You believe whatever you need to but you're the one calling people who simply have different priorities than you Mad Libs and insisting your interpretation is the only valid one. I'll leave it up to audience to decide which of those mentalities is weak. 😂
Let's play your fake interpretation game with another subject. When Robin DiAngelo claims that it's "fragility" that makes a White person resist being blamed for the actions of their ancestors, she really didn't mean what she said she meant. She was secretly pointing out the stupidity of Libs who would believe such an absurdity. This is the sort of reversal you projected onto the MacDonald joke. I don't believe the reversal of Di Angelo any more than you believed your reversal. But by your inconsistent credo, DiAngelo COULD have meant to satirize the attitudes of credulous race-baiters, desperate to accept any flawed argument to shore up their fragile egos.
What makes my interpretation not real other than your frail emotions? By the way my interpretation isnt me trying to speak for author of the joke who's meaning I expressed confusion over, it's just how I received the joke. Is there only one real way to receive that joke? Is that what your frail psyche needs you to believe? 😂
See above, and see if you can make a new argument I haven't already demolished.
I have none because you say so? Why shouldn't I think that position frail? Why shouldn't everyone? 😂
Everyone should perceive that your use of the term "frail" is as meaningless as the reversal you don't really believe.
I absolutely can defend differing perspectives with reason and logic. 😂 We are not a hive mind. We have our own individual sensors and processing device (the brain). See i just did with me reason and logic than whatever the **** you're doing here.... 😂
You haven't cited reason or logic yet. Keep trying though.
And even with the little attention and brain power I use in exchange with you I still make more logical arguments. 😂
I agree that you only use a little brain power in these exchanges: I doubt that you have any more than you have displayed.
Quote me saying anything about hidden ambiguity. 😂
Hidden ambiguity is the only possible defense of your fake contrarian reading.
 
Admitting your failing is only half the solution, as is seen from your attempt to downplay it. I don't care what is or isn't a "big deal" to you, and the only "fragility" on display is you trying to claim that your error just wasn't important. Take out the beam in your own eye before going after the motes in the eyes of others.
It's not important to me. If it's important to you that's only funny to me. 😂
I'm sure "not thinking" is a specialty of yours both during and after debate. :sleep:

Let's play your fake interpretation game with another subject.
Again, what's fake about how that joke landed with me? You're confusing the speakers intent with my feelings for the sake of your frail argument but carry on... 😂
When Robin DiAngelo claims that it's "fragility" that makes a White person resist being blamed for the actions of their ancestors, she really didn't mean what she said she meant. She was secretly pointing out the stupidity of Libs who would believe such an absurdity. This is the sort of reversal you projected onto the MacDonald joke.
I didn't make any reversal of the MacDonald joke. I said and then quoted again later me saying I don't know what was meant by the joke. What I gave you was how the joke landed with me.
I don't believe the reversal of Di Angelo any more than you believed your reversal. But by your inconsistent credo, DiAngelo COULD have meant to satirize the attitudes of credulous race-baiters, desperate to accept any flawed argument to shore up their fragile egos.
😂

I'm not attempting to speak for either one of them. This is just your frail strawman. Do I need to quote myself saying I don't know what MacDonald meant a second time? Aren't you embarrassed to trot this same strawman out again?
See above, and see if you can make a new argument I haven't already demolished.
😂

God damnit you are going to make me quote myself again. Ok hold up while I find it...

I don't know what MacDonald meant by that joke and he isn't around to tell me.

Demolished what? 🤣🤣🤣
Everyone should perceive that your use of the term "frail" is as meaningless as the reversal you don't really believe.
Trying to tell everyone how to feel is so frail.... 😂😂😂
You haven't cited reason or logic yet. Keep trying though.
Is that why you had no counter for my we are not a hive mind argument? There there.... 🤣🤣🤣
I agree that you only use a little brain power in these exchanges: I doubt that you have any more than you have displayed.

Hidden ambiguity is the only possible defense of your fake contrarian reading.
So no actual quote then? Who didn't see that coming? 😂😂
 
You did that after you defended Sweden who said there was no such thing as benign Islam. You made the point about Sharia later.

No I did not although you may believe that.


I haven't denied the former.

Yes you did and in my opinion are being intellectually dishonest and lazy in trying to deflect from the points Sweden or I made to label them as bigoted. Sweden and I use the exact same standards of criticism in regards to extremist Christianity and Judaism and any other extremist and violent ideology.
I said it because it's true.
No you said it because you disagree with what Sweden or I argue and rather than debate, simply throw out the labels "true" and "untrue". We can all now see "true" as you apply it means only your subjective opinions are to be accepted and "untrue" means any position you think you disagree with can not be accepted. Anyone can read that back to see how you use the labels true and untrue.
What insecurity and anxiety?
Your need to pose as the only person telling truth.

And religious texts aren't open to interpretations? Do all Christians have to interpret the Bible with the same ferocity as the Crusaders?
No one has argued texts aren't open to inyterpretations. In fact Sweden and I have argued when those interpretations are extremist they lead to oppressive beliefs.


You misrepresent yourself when you defend bigots like @Sweden. Go read what they've said since about all Muslims.
What I have read and what I do quote and what I do argue has never once claimed to apply to all Muslims and in fact I go out of my way to explain the specificity and context of what I argue or contend to avoid doing that.


Sweden has. I quoted them directly.
In fact when you have responded to my words or Sweden;s you have removed them from their full context and references so as to change their meaning.

If they took the time to read your link they'd see that it credits Islam with helping to increase literacy rates.
You clearly did not read them in their entirety and try remove them from their full context so as to change their meaning. The links I provided indicated there are different kinds of literacy-one kind enables someone to read at a literal level, i.e., functional and the level of functionality is determined by how much it helps the person know how to engage in the specific function explained in the writings. It goes on to explain further levels of literacy called intellectual literacy then deal with whether the reader has learned to can see more than just one literal meaning to the words and can interpret the words in different ways when applying them to different fact situations. The situation as those sites explained are that if there are no wide spread levels of intellectual literacy in the society examined, the less likely its people will be able to question any ideology imposed upon them and os develop a country rich in variable approaches required to develop a nation.

If religious texts are open to interpretations then there is no inherent bigotry, just interpeted bigotry.

That makes no sense. An interpretation that is fundamentalist and literal can be bigoted from the get go or become applied in a bigoted manner and passed on-bigoted interpretations passed on to others through tradition or cultural accepted norms are then inherent. If someone invents anew form if bigoted interpretation that has not yet been passed on to be used in a widespread manner and accepted in a society as a cultural norm, yes you could argue is not inherent.


You're saying that now after I called out your defense of a bigot who did in fact say there is no such thing as a benign Islam.

No I am still arguing Sweden is not a bigot and its lazy to call him one because by calling him a bigot, you think it enables you to not have to debate what he actually said.
 
No I did not although you may believe that.




Yes you did and in my opinion are being intellectually dishonest and lazy in trying to deflect from the points Sweden or I made to label them as bigoted. Sweden and I use the exact same standards of criticism in regards to extremist Christianity and Judaism and any other extremist and violent ideology.

No you said it because you disagree with what Sweden or I argue and rather than debate, simply throw out the labels "true" and "untrue". We can all now see "true" as you apply it means only your subjective opinions are to be accepted and "untrue" means any position you think you disagree with can not be accepted. Anyone can read that back to see how you use the labels true and untrue.

Your need to pose as the only person telling truth.


No one has argued texts aren't open to inyterpretations. In fact Sweden and I have argued when those interpretations are extremist they lead to oppressive beliefs.



What I have read and what I do quote and what I do argue has never once claimed to apply to all Muslims and in fact I go out of my way to explain the specificity and context of what I argue or contend to avoid doing that.



In fact when you have responded to my words or Sweden;s you have removed them from their full context and references so as to change their meaning.


You clearly did not read them in their entirety and try remove them from their full context so as to change their meaning. The links I provided indicated there are different kinds of literacy-one kind enables someone to read at a literal level, i.e., functional and the level of functionality is determined by how much it helps the person know how to engage in the specific function explained in the writings. It goes on to explain further levels of literacy called intellectual literacy then deal with whether the reader has learned to can see more than just one literal meaning to the words and can interpret the words in different ways when applying them to different fact situations. The situation as those sites explained are that if there are no wide spread levels of intellectual literacy in the society examined, the less likely its people will be able to question any ideology imposed upon them and os develop a country rich in variable approaches required to develop a nation.



That makes no sense. An interpretation that is fundamentalist and literal can be bigoted from the get go or become applied in a bigoted manner and passed on-bigoted interpretations passed on to others through tradition or cultural accepted norms are then inherent. If someone invents anew form if bigoted interpretation that has not yet been passed on to be used in a widespread manner and accepted in a society as a cultural norm, yes you could argue is not inherent.




No I am still arguing Sweden is not a bigot and its lazy to call him one because by calling him a bigot, you think it enables you to not have to debate what he actually said.
Here's the full quote from Sweden, no context taken out.

Plenty of good Muslims but no such thing as benign Islam.
Is there or isnt there such a thing as benign Islam? Yes or No. Its real simple. And if No, what do you call it when you make a blanket statement about an entire religion with billions of people who have disagreements among themselves? Is that not bigotry?
 
Master you also stated in response to me:

“I said it (correlation is not causation) because it's true.”

A correlation refers to measuring, determining or establishing a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things,.

This means if the correlation establishes that mutual relationship because of a causal connection, i.e., a cause and effect relationship, one causes or triggers the other, then necessarily the two are one and the same which means your statement is false. So had you stated, a correlation between two things does not always prove a causal connection between the two, I would not have questioned what you said. In the specific sites I gave you the sites discussed both he correlation and cause and effect of intellectual literacy rates and oppressive regimes and lack of development in Muslim states.

You quoted these words from Sweden:

“Plenty of good Muslims but no such thing as benign Islam.”

You have then argued the above words have only one way to be interpreted and that is they mean Sweden is a bigot.

I again argue if he was he would not acknowledge that there are plenty of good Muslims. By saying that he clearly establishes that he does not use his belief that Islam as a religion is not benign to assume all Muslims are not benign. That clearly shows he is not using his belief in a discriminatory way to assume all Muslims are incapable of being benign or good.

The term “benign” refers to the concept of being gentle and kind.

I could argue there are passages or modern interpretations of the Koran that would lend to applying its belief in a kind and gentle manner, and I specifically gave examples of the Amidyah and Ismaili approaches that lend to that. Kindness and gentleness ultimately are inherent human traits and unfortunately to argue homo sapiens as a species is gentle and kind would be absurd.

We are the only specifies that indiscriminately kills. (studies now appear to also suggest chimpanzees and orcas (killer whales) have demonstrated indiscriminate killings but that is still under review)/

Now given the above and what Sweden and I are arguing is anything human made can not inherently be benign because our savagery is in fact inherent not our goodness. In otherwords we create religions or beliefs to try repress our savagery and in so doing to date, history has shown is all religions have been used to codify savagery and not erase it but try repress it by another form of savagery-any words we have written necessarily have become subjectively interpreted to enable our savagery to be controlled and contained but not erased precisely because our natural predisposition takes over in everything we do.

This means people like Sweden and I argue all religions are not benign. We also argue some are more savage or violent than others because of the stage of evolution they are at and that stage depends on how its followers apply its rules and precepts.

The older a society becomes, hopefully the more its rules evolve to provide less brutal interpretations. We have argued that the more intellectually literate a society becomes, the more likely it has the tools to offer non violent cultural norms and beliefs and so evolve past oppressive and repressive rituals and rules.

In your case you deflect and refuse to acknowledge the actual current reality on the ground in day to day life in Muslim theocracies compared to Western democracies and how that has impacted on expressing differences of opinion and causes more oppression and containment of individual human rights and expressions of thought in Muslim states than in Western ones.
 
I have indeed said there is no such thing as benign Islam. Islam is a totalitarian and absolutist word view with a cruel and unjust legal system, Sharia attached. It criminalises dissent or criticism. It is totally intolerant of any form of democracy. Islam oppresses all who come under its rule and seeks seeks to inflict terror on the rest. Islam is the enemy of decency and humanity and if we are so foolish to let it thrive we do so at our peril.
Sorry, to say it bae. You are wrong on Islam. Islam, for a long time, has been hijacked by extremists who dislike other Muslim tribes-so, it makes sense to call others 'terrorists' even for them. So, the tribe does not 'dilute'.

But, I do believe in Him. And that Him is Saladin. A great worshipper of Islam and representative of Islam. Islam is meant to be very welcoming of individuals and to show them extreme hospitality. But, it is when they are suppose to live on Islamic lands they have to practice Islam. So, Islam has been perverted by those that seek to profit from it once again.
 
It's not important to me. If it's important to you that's only funny to me. 😂
I'm sure your mistakes are never important to you, and that, as much as denying them, proves that Frailty is Thy Middle Name.
Again, what's fake about how that joke landed with me? You're confusing the speakers intent with my feelings for the sake of your frail argument but carry on... 😂
As I said, you created the contrarian reading of the joke just as a lame comeback to my putdown of your skewed priorities. You, not I, are confusing your false interpretation with the clear intent of the comedian.
I didn't make any reversal of the MacDonald joke. I said and then quoted again later me saying I don't know what was meant by the joke. What I gave you was how the joke landed with me.
And I repeat that you reversed the obvious meaning of the joke as a lame comeback

😂

I'm not attempting to speak for either one of them. This is just your frail strawman. Do I need to quote myself saying I don't know what MacDonald meant a second time? Aren't you embarrassed to trot this same strawman out again?

Your supposed ignorance of the joke's meaning is proven by the fact that you only considered the most outrageous possible interpretation, rather than considering the countervailing interpretation: a satire of Lib priorities. You can CLAIM that you don't know what MacDonald meant, but you only considered the most unlikely interpretation for sake of a comeback. Your obviously fake interpretation remains the only strawman.
😂

God damnit you are going to make me quote myself again. Ok hold up while I find it...



Demolished what? 🤣🤣🤣
See above, though I'm sure you'll continue to pointlessly defend your fakery.
Trying to tell everyone how to feel is so frail.... 😂😂😂
Nothing's more frail than telling a lie for the sake of a lame comeback.
Is that why you had no counter for my we are not a hive mind argument? There there.... 🤣🤣🤣
I didn't remember you tossing out "hive mind" in 335 because it was just empty rhetoric. It just sounds like a dozen other Mad Lib arguments I've destroyed; you all blend together. And it's in that same post you claimed you never think about these arguments after you log off. :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
So no actual quote then? Who didn't see that coming? 😂😂
I used the actual phrase "hidden ambiguity," but you advocated its principle when you falsely claimed that more than one interpretation of the joke was possible. To make a case for more than one meaning, you have to be able to point to ambivalent content. You showed none.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, to say it bae. You are wrong on Islam. Islam, for a long time, has been hijacked by extremists who dislike other Muslim tribes-so, it makes sense to call others 'terrorists' even for them. So, the tribe does not 'dilute'.

But, I do believe in Him. And that Him is Saladin. A great worshipper of Islam and representative of Islam. Islam is meant to be very welcoming of individuals and to show them extreme hospitality. But, it is when they are suppose to live on Islamic lands they have to practice Islam. So, Islam has been perverted by those that seek to profit from it once again.
Not precisely a response to your post, but I think it's very interesting that we saw some of that sectional "dislike" when Saudi Arabia helped Israel defend against a missile attack by Iran. Not that the King didn't seek to pacify intolerant elements in his own culture by scorning Israel's aggression, But Still.

 
I'm sure your mistakes are never important to you, and that, as much as denying them, proves that Frailty is Thy Middle Name.
Except I didn't deny it. Why are you this bad at discerning reality? Especially when it's right in front of your face? 😂
As I said, you created the contrarian reading of the joke just as a lame comeback to my putdown of your skewed priorities. You, not I, are confusing your false interpretation with the clear intent of the comedian.
What false interpretation? Do you think all jokes land with people the same way? 😂 Yea, that joke landed differently to me than it did to you. Welcome to subjectivity. 😂
And I repeat that you reversed the obvious meaning of the joke as a lame comeback
The joke teller isn't here to tell me what they meant by it and I expressed as much. All I can tell you is how it landed with me, which is what I did. You're carrying on like I shit on your favorite TV show. We all don't have to enjoy the same things guy.
Your supposed ignorance of the joke's meaning is proven by the fact that you only considered the most outrageous possible interpretation, rather than considering the countervailing interpretation:
Well that's demonstrably false. I believe my first response was in the form of question which if you weren't aware is an expression of confusion and uncertainty.
a satire of Lib priorities. You can CLAIM that you don't know what MacDonald meant, but you only considered the most unlikely interpretation for sake of a comeback. Your obviously fake interpretation remains the only strawman.
Other peoples perspectives arent fake, just different than yours. Why are you so frail about these differences that you have to pretend they aren't real? 😂
See above, though I'm sure you'll continue to pointlessly defend your fakery.
Again, what fakery?
Nothing's more frail than telling a lie for the sake of a lame comeback.
What lie? 😂
I didn't remember you tossing out "hive mind" in 335 because it was just empty rhetoric. It just sounds like a dozen other Mad Lib arguments I've destroyed; you all blend together. And it's in that same post you claimed you never think about these arguments after you log off. :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
You haven't destroyed anyone's arguments that I've seen. I saw you run away from providing evidence to your own claims in your own atheist thread. You don't ever have any evidence to support your claims. 😂
I used the actual phrase "hidden ambiguity," but you advocated its principle when you falsely claimed that more than one interpretation of the joke was possible.
Is your contention that everyone has to see the joke the same way as you do? There there.
To make a case for more than one meaning, you have to be able to point to ambivalent content. You showed none.
Or the existence of different perspectives. Are we all allowed to have one or just you?
 
Back
Top Bottom