[desertdude]

Brenda Brenda:

To put it another way, if you only tell me the facts of the case and leave out who did the action, if I can correctly guess the group behind the action then that's enough for group labeling.

So every Catholic is a child molester?
Every black man is a thief (or a thug, whichever you prefer),
Every Mexican is a drug dealer,
Every black woman is ghettofabulous,
Every white man in a suit is white collar criminal?[/quote]

Yup. thats pretty much it, oh, and also anyone overly apologetic is Canadian

D

[N_Fiddledog]

martin14 martin14:

Just another day for the religion of peace.

I agree with the sarcastic mock there. That's all I'm saying.

From the article in the OP...

$1:

Eyewitnesses said some of the victims were burned alive in the attack, in Mamudo town, Yobe state.

Dozens of schools have been burned in attacks by Islamists since 2010.

Did you notice that last sentence?


If a sarcastic mock is not allowed there the first guy in trouble for sarcastic mocking based on something less than inarguable statistic evidence (if such a thing exists) is the one whining about the mocking of the "religion of peace".

[N_Fiddledog]

Here's an open challenge.

Anybody wanna prove Islam does not deserve a mocking for the label "Religion of Peace", on the grounds it endorses too much not-peace?

Open a thread. Pick a religion. You post links to current articles and such of violence perpetrated under the mantle of that religion. I'll do the same for Islam. Most examples loses the right to call themselves the religion of peace, and concedes to the right of others to mock them for using it.

Nobody ever accepts this challenge. Let's be honest. Of course you'd lose. The only response I've ever got to it, "That's dumb. You're a big dumbhead", or the equivalent.

[Gunnair]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Here's an open challenge.

Anybody wanna prove Islam does not deserve a mocking for the label "Religion of Peace", on the grounds it endorses too much not-peace?

Open a thread. Pick a religion. You post links to current articles and such of violence perpetrated under the mantle of that religion. I'll do the same for Islam. Most examples loses the right to call themselves the religion of peace, and concedes to the right of others to mock them for using it.

Nobody ever accepts this challenge. Let's be honest. Of course you'd lose. The only response I've ever got to it, "That's dumb. You're a big dumbhead", or the equivalent.

I'm not sure what you expect since you tapped out of my challenge.

You've proved you're no different than anyone else save for the fact that you seem to have a certain enjoyment of latching on to whatever tragedy in the world that occurs which suits your agenda here.

You don't like Muslims. Got it.

[Gunnair]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

martin14 martin14:

Just another day for the religion of peace.

I agree with the sarcastic mock there. That's all I'm saying.

From the article in the OP...

$1:

Eyewitnesses said some of the victims were burned alive in the attack, in Mamudo town, Yobe state.

Dozens of schools have been burned in attacks by Islamists since 2010.

Did you notice that last sentence?


If a sarcastic mock is not allowed there the first guy in trouble for sarcastic mocking based on something less than inarguable statistic evidence (if such a thing exists) is the one whining about the mocking of the "religion of peace".

If by sarcastic mock you mean winding up for another beating of your "I hate Islam" dead horse you mean. As far as unarguable statistic evidence, well, you scurried away for providing that proof faster than a cockroach from a flashlight.

[Brenda]

desertdude desertdude:

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

To put it another way, if you only tell me the facts of the case and leave out who did the action, if I can correctly guess the group behind the action then that's enough for group labeling.

So every Catholic is a child molester?
Every black man is a thief (or a thug, whichever you prefer),
Every Mexican is a drug dealer,
Every black woman is ghettofabulous,
Every white man in a suit is white collar criminal?

Yup. thats pretty much it, oh, and also anyone overly apologetic is Canadian

D

I'm sorry DD.
I'm also sorry you fucked up the quotes

[Gunnair]

Brenda Brenda:

desertdude desertdude:

Brenda Brenda:

So every Catholic is a child molester?
Every black man is a thief (or a thug, whichever you prefer),
Every Mexican is a drug dealer,
Every black woman is ghettofabulous,
Every white man in a suit is white collar criminal?

Yup. thats pretty much it, oh, and also anyone overly apologetic is Canadian

D

I'm sorry DD.
I'm also sorry you fucked up the quotes

I'm sorry you didn't make me a sammich, or pour me a beer, all the while dressed in a bikini and wearing your wooden shoes!

[PluggyRug]

How many atrocities undertaken by the 'religion of peace' will it take for that moniker to dropped?.
If the teachings of Islam are peaceful then why are acts like the one above undertaken in it's name?

Maybe someone wth a deep understanding of religious issue can answer these questions.

[N_Fiddledog]

Gunnair Gunnair:

If by sarcastic mock you mean winding up for another beating of your "I hate Islam" dead horse you mean.

Don't be silly. Where did you get the idea I hate Islam? You mean the religion Islam, right? Not the radical ideology that deals with matters other than worship. I hate radicalized Islam, and the effects of that ideology. I have no problem with the religion of Mohammed of Mecca. I might have a problem with the ideology of Mohammed of Medina.

$1:

As far as unarguable statistic evidence, well, you scurried away for providing that proof faster than a cockroach from a flashlight.

No. I stayed on topic. The topic was is it OK to mock the term "religion of peace" as a description that includes the violent ideology endorsed by selective gatherings from Islamic texts and used as an endorsement from Islam. I say it is. It doesn't require studies to show that, so why should I provide them? If a thing is made obvious by obvious examples such as the one provided in the OP article it's suitable for mocking.

You seemed to have a different topic in mind. I forget what it was. I've proved my point though, so sure, we can move on to yours. What was it you wanted a study for again. Something like a study showing large portions of people under the banner of Islam have been radicalized, was that it? I know I've heard of 4 American studies that dealt with radicalization of mosques from external forces. If I can find one, will that do, or did you want something else?

[Gunnair]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Gunnair Gunnair:

If by sarcastic mock you mean winding up for another beating of your "I hate Islam" dead horse you mean.

Don't be silly. Where did you get the idea I hate Islam? You mean the religion Islam, right? Not the radical ideology that deals with matters other than worship. I hate radicalized Islam, and the effects of that ideology. I have no problem with the religion of Mohammed of Mecca. I might have a problem with the ideology of Mohammed of Medina.

$1:

As far as unarguable statistic evidence, well, you scurried away for providing that proof faster than a cockroach from a flashlight.

No. I stayed on topic. The topic was is it OK to mock the term "religion of peace" as a description that includes the violent ideology endorsed by selective gatherings from Islamic texts and used as an endorsement from Islam. I say it is. It doesn't require studies to show that, so why should I provide them? If a thing is made obvious by obvious examples such as the one provided in the OP article it's suitable for mocking.

You seemed to have a different topic in mind. I forget what it was. I've proved my point though, so sure, we can move on to yours. What was it you wanted a study for again. Something like a study showing large portions of people under the banner of Islam have been radicalized, was that it? I know I've heard of 4 American studies that dealt with radicalization of mosques from external forces. If I can find one, will that do, or did you want something else?

I think you're lying here. You don't take jihadis to task, you take Islam to task because of jihadis. When you mock the 'religion of peace' you ensure you do it in the widest possible way with firing arcs just shy of 360 degrees.

Honesty ain't in ya. You could show the courage to at least admit to your convictions instead of pulling your head inside your shell while chanting, "I am not a bigot. Muslims are bad. I am not a bigot."

On top of being dishonest, you appear lazy as well. I'll repost my challenge from a whole page before:

$1:

I guess what I might challenge you to provide is a case study to support your assertion. What is the percentage of Muslims participating in extremism compared to the number of Muslims as a whole who are not? You see, it's easy to cherry pick stories about evil jihadists and their nasty doings, but how do their numbers compare to the roughly 1.6 billion other Muslims?

What's the criteria for labeling the group? 50%, 25%, 5%, 1%, .05%?

[Brenda]

Gunnair Gunnair:

You don't take jihadis to task, you take Islam to task because of jihadis.

That is perfectly worded.

[Xort]

Brenda Brenda:

So every Catholic is a child molester?
Every black man is a thief (or a thug, whichever you prefer),
Every Mexican is a drug dealer,
Every black woman is ghettofabulous,
Every white man in a suit is white collar criminal?

We are talking about group lables.

The only statements that likely would apply in the context of every member of a group would be statements that define the group by the exclusion of non conforming characteristics.

[Brenda]

Xort Xort:

Brenda Brenda:

So every Catholic is a child molester?
Every black man is a thief (or a thug, whichever you prefer),
Every Mexican is a drug dealer,
Every black woman is ghettofabulous,
Every white man in a suit is white collar criminal?

We are talking about group lables.

The only statements that likely would apply in the context of every member of a group would be statements that define the group by the exclusion of non conforming characteristics.

Let me rephrase then.

So Catholics are child molesters, (and child molesters are Catholic only)
black men are thieves (or thugs, whichever you prefer), (and thieves are black men only)
Mexicans are drug dealers, (and drug dealers are Mexican only)
black women are ghettofabulous, (and ghettofabulous are only black women)
white men in a suit are white collar criminals (and white collar criminals are only white men).

Better?

[Gunnair]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

How many atrocities undertaken by the 'religion of peace' will it take for that moniker to dropped?.
If the teachings of Islam are peaceful then why are acts like the one above undertaken in it's name?

Maybe someone wth a deep understanding of religious issue can answer these questions.

I dunno. How many violent acts are still being taken in the Christian name?

[N_Fiddledog]

Brenda Brenda:

Gunnair Gunnair:

You don't take jihadis to task, you take Islam to task because of jihadis.

That is perfectly worded.

Also untrue.

You Progressive types can't be telling me I can't tell you what you believe (I hear this all the time), then start telling me what I believe.

I believe there is a radical side of Islam that selects passages from Muhhamad's days of rape, pillage and murder at Medina, as opposed to his discussions with the angel in the cave outside Mecca.

So to me there's Mecca Muslims, and Medina Muslims. Radicalized Islam is Medina, and it's not about God. It's about who should be raped, who should be killed, who should be enslaved, when to behead, and when to just lop off an arm, stuff like that.

So I'm for Mecca Muslims, and against Medina Islam, but it's easier just to say 'radical Islam'. Jihad is part of radical Islam. It isn't the totality of radical Islam, so of course it is not the totality of all Islam.

Now as far as a comprehensive worldwide survey of who believes what, and how much does this or that person believe of this or that, Gunnair is correct as far as I know nothing like that exists. I don't see how such a survey would even be possible. However there are surveys of different regions dealing with specific areas of radicalization. That's the best I can do. Trust me though, from what I remember you won't like the results.