[BartSimpson]

mentalfloss, islamowankers =/= all muslims.

[mentalfloss]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

mentalfloss, islamowankers =/= all muslims.

Okay, fair enough. But it shouldn't be muslims or islamists either. It should be terrorists, irrespective of their background. And that's why we needed covert ops to get in there and find out who the real baddies are - not a full on war where innocent civilians (as well as allied forces) are dying.

[Gunnair]

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Nice try.

Suggesting the bet was that DD could cherry pick words in a post, craftily rearrange them, then throw them in quotations and attribute them as a statement by a poster in order to create a post that Bart 'loved Muslims' is absolutely ridiculous.


You might want to read up a bit more on those definitions.

The definition states that you simply have to wrap any text in quotes - the original significance from where that text originates is irrelevent. And that's all that DD did. I never expected DD to actually find a legitimate quote where Bart did indeed love all Muslims -- anyone who actually believed that would be the case is pretty dense.

But it was pretty obvious to his point that quoting does not have to frame the context of the origins of that quote. And manipulating those words only strengthened (not weakened) his argument.

Bullshit.

You are not quoting a person who states "I love the idea of Big Macs being outlawed" when you cherrypick the words "I love being outlawed" or "I love Big Macs" or "Mac loves big outlaws" and wrap quotation marks around them. That's not even out of context. That's just plain lying.

[Gunnair]

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

We should openly start killing innocent civilians at the next KKK uprising.

Really? You honestly believe this?

Or were you quoted out of context?

Or, did somebody cherry pick some words you said and rearrange it into a blatant lie?

Which is it, sport?

[BartSimpson]

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

mentalfloss, islamowankers =/= all muslims.

Okay, fair enough. But it shouldn't be muslims or islamists either.

Islamists are to terrorists as crew members are to a cargo ship.

Hopefully, you did not miss out on that kind of relational logic when you were in Grade 1.

In any case, Islamists are the logistical support network for jihadis and are therefore legitimate targets for both prosecution and sanction and the policies and actions of my government and yours reflect this reality.

So if you want to call me names for equating Islamists with terrorists then be sure to write a letter to your MP who undoubtedly does the same thing.

[mentalfloss]

Gunnair Gunnair:

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Nice try.

Suggesting the bet was that DD could cherry pick words in a post, craftily rearrange them, then throw them in quotations and attribute them as a statement by a poster in order to create a post that Bart 'loved Muslims' is absolutely ridiculous.


You might want to read up a bit more on those definitions.

The definition states that you simply have to wrap any text in quotes - the original significance from where that text originates is irrelevent. And that's all that DD did. I never expected DD to actually find a legitimate quote where Bart did indeed love all Muslims -- anyone who actually believed that would be the case is pretty dense.

But it was pretty obvious to his point that quoting does not have to frame the context of the origins of that quote. And manipulating those words only strengthened (not weakened) his argument.

Bullshit.

You are not quoting a person who states "I love the idea of Big Macs being outlawed" when you cherrypick the words "I love being outlawed" or "I love Big Macs" or "Mac loves big outlaws" and wrap quotation marks around them. That's not even out of context. That's just plain lying.

Umm.. that's kinda the point, son. Something out of context is just as bad as plain lying. I would refrain from both in the future.

Gunnair Gunnair:

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

We should openly start killing innocent civilians at the next KKK uprising.

Really? You honestly believe this?

Or were you quoted out of context?

Or, did somebody cherry pick some words you said and rearrange it into a blatant lie?

Which is it, sport?

Sorry I crapped in your cornflakes yesterday. Maybe we can gloss over another definition you can't accept tomorrow?

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

mentalfloss, islamowankers =/= all muslims.

Okay, fair enough. But it shouldn't be muslims or islamists either.

Islamists are to terrorists as crew members are to a cargo ship.

Hopefully, you did not miss out on that kind of relational logic when you were in Grade 1.

In any case, Islamists are the logistical support network for jihadis and are therefore legitimate targets for both prosecution and sanction and the policies and actions of my government and yours reflect this reality.

So if you want to call me names for equating Islamists with terrorists then be sure to write a letter to your MP who undoubtedly does the same thing.

I never realized you were a politician's puppet. All this time I was under the impression you had a mind of your own.

Every nation and every religion is in some fashion a 'logistical support group' for extremists and terrorists. That still does not justify outright conflict with the entire religion or nation that they are linked with.

[Gunnair]

mentalfloss"]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Bullshit.

You are not quoting a person who states "I love the idea of Big Macs being outlawed" when you cherrypick the words "I love being outlawed" or "I love Big Macs" or "Mac loves big outlaws" and wrap quotation marks around them. That's not even out of context. That's just plain lying.

$1:

Umm.. that's kinda the point, son. Something out of context is just as bad as plain lying. I would refrain from both in the future.

You ought to.

Gunnair Gunnair:

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

We should openly start killing innocent civilians at the next KKK uprising.

Really? You honestly believe this?

Or were you quoted out of context?

Or, did somebody cherry pick some words you said and rearrange it into a blatant lie?

Which is it, sport?

$1:

Sorry I crapped in your cornflakes yesterday. Maybe we can gloss over another definition you can't accept tomorrow?

Unlikely. You'd need to have some basic comprehension of the definition first before you can assume I'm glossing over it.

Good luck with that.

[BartSimpson]

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Islamists are to terrorists as crew members are to a cargo ship.

Hopefully, you did not miss out on that kind of relational logic when you were in Grade 1.

In any case, Islamists are the logistical support network for jihadis and are therefore legitimate targets for both prosecution and sanction and the policies and actions of my government and yours reflect this reality.

So if you want to call me names for equating Islamists with terrorists then be sure to write a letter to your MP who undoubtedly does the same thing.

I never realized you were a politician's puppet. All this time I was under the impression you had a mind of your own.

You really are not able to grasp that the people paying for terrorism are as guilty as those who carry it out? Really?

[mentalfloss]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

You really are not able to grasp that the people paying for terrorism are as guilty as those who carry it out? Really?

Could you elaborate on that point? I don't mind changing my stance if you can show directly funded terrorism from a nation's leader or significant religious director. I will give you bonus points if you can also do that conversion into U.S. funds.

Keeping up with 'harbouring terrorists', I would also urge you to read this interview with Noam Chomsky regarding the U.S. as a leading terrorist state:
--
http://monthlyreview.org/1101chomsky.htm


Also, a late edit from my last reply:
--
Every nation and every religion is in some fashion a 'logistical support group' for extremists and terrorists. That still does not justify outright conflict with the entire religion or nation that they are linked with.
--

I would also like to add to that that it technically could justify conflict if it can be found that the nation harbouring terrorists is a serious threat to peaceful nations. And I stress, serious threat. Despite the events of 9/11, terrorists are not a serious threat to us - not enough to warrant full out war.

[BartSimpson]

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

Bart Bart:

Islamists are to terrorists as crew members are to a cargo ship.

Hopefully, you did not miss out on that kind of relational logic when you were in Grade 1.

In any case, Islamists are the logistical support network for jihadis and are therefore legitimate targets for both prosecution and sanction and the policies and actions of my government and yours reflect this reality.

So if you want to call me names for equating Islamists with terrorists then be sure to write a letter to your MP who undoubtedly does the same thing.

I never realized you were a politician's puppet. All this time I was under the impression you had a mind of your own.

Causality is not something you're familiar with. See the bolded comment and read it again.

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

Every nation and every religion is in some fashion a 'logistical support group' for extremists and terrorists. That still does not justify outright conflict with the entire religion or nation that they are linked with.

What a pathetically...pathetic...moral equivalence argument that is! Are you really equating Iceland, Estonia, or Samoa with Iran, North Korea, or Saudi Arabia? And you're really equating violent jihadist muslims with Jehovah's Witnesses and those hyper-violent Amish? Oh, puhleeze.

[mentalfloss]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Islamists are the logistical support network for jihadis and are therefore legitimate targets

1.) I would like you to flesh out the full extent of this logistical support network. Please provide all of these islamic leaders, the parties they are funding, and exactly how many terrorists they harbour.

2.) Please show a justification for how terribly they can actually harm peaceful nations.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

Every nation and every religion is in some fashion a 'logistical support group' for extremists and terrorists. That still does not justify outright conflict with the entire religion or nation that they are linked with.

What a pathetically...pathetic...moral equivalence argument that is! Are you really equating Iceland, Estonia, or Samoa with Iran, North Korea, or Saudi Arabia? And you're really equating violent jihadist muslims with Jehovah's Witnesses and those hyper-violent Amish? Oh, puhleeze.

I'm not making any moral equivalence. I'm simply acknowledging the fact that these past two wars were not justified - either a priori or after the fact. None of the parties involved are in a better position as a result. I'm simply following basic war etiquette here:

The right for a nation to go to war with another nation should be justified based on an appropriate level of threat to the security of the nation declaring war. And so, I would be in full agreement with you, if you can show that justification.

So far, you're just pulling the usual set of logical fallacies.

[BartSimpson]

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Islamists are the logistical support network for jihadis and are therefore legitimate targets

1.) I would like you to flesh out the full extent of this logistical support network. Please provide all of these islamic leaders, the parties they are funding, and exactly how many terrorists they harbour.

You mean you want me to provide you with a level of information equal to that of which your CSIS acts on?

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

2.) Please show a justification for how terribly they can actually harm peaceful nations.

You've not paid any attention to anything over the past decade, have you?

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

Every nation and every religion is in some fashion a 'logistical support group' for extremists and terrorists. That still does not justify outright conflict with the entire religion or nation that they are linked with.

What a pathetically...pathetic...moral equivalence argument that is! Are you really equating Iceland, Estonia, or Samoa with Iran, North Korea, or Saudi Arabia? And you're really equating violent jihadist muslims with Jehovah's Witnesses and those hyper-violent Amish? Oh, puhleeze.

I'm not making any moral equivalence. I'm simply acknowledging the fact that these past two wars were not justified - either a priori or after the fact. None of the parties involved are in a better position as a result. I'm simply following basic war etiquette here:

The right for a nation to go to war with another nation should be justified based on an appropriate level of threat to the security of the nation declaring war. And so, I would be in full agreement with you, if you can show that justification.

So far, you're just pulling the usual set of logical fallacies.

I disagree. The theory of gradually escalating warfare (as in Vietnam) leads to higher casualties on both sides while the use of overwhelming force reduces casualties on both sides by forcing a quick capitulation on the part of the loser. Feel free to join your military and attend a war college to get a better understanding of these theories.

And, yes, you are making moral equivalence when you say that every nation and every religion supports terrorism to some degree or another. It's also a fallacy as many nations and many religions are pacifist.

[mentalfloss]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Empty threats and ad hominem attacks.

Get back to me when you want to discuss this seriously.

[commanderkai]

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Empty threats and ad hominem attacks.

Get back to me when you want to discuss this seriously.

What threats and attacks?

[EyeBrock]

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Islamists are the logistical support network for jihadis and are therefore legitimate targets

1.) I would like you to flesh out the full extent of this logistical support network. Please provide all of these islamic leaders, the parties they are funding, and exactly how many terrorists they harbour.

2.) Please show a justification for how terribly they can actually harm peaceful nations.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

Every nation and every religion is in some fashion a 'logistical support group' for extremists and terrorists. That still does not justify outright conflict with the entire religion or nation that they are linked with.

What a pathetically...pathetic...moral equivalence argument that is! Are you really equating Iceland, Estonia, or Samoa with Iran, North Korea, or Saudi Arabia? And you're really equating violent jihadist muslims with Jehovah's Witnesses and those hyper-violent Amish? Oh, puhleeze.

I'm not making any moral equivalence. I'm simply acknowledging the fact that these past two wars were not justified - either a priori or after the fact. None of the parties involved are in a better position as a result. I'm simply following basic war etiquette here:

The right for a nation to go to war with another nation should be justified based on an appropriate level of threat to the security of the nation declaring war. And so, I would be in full agreement with you, if you can show that justification.

So far, you're just pulling the usual set of logical fallacies.

What are you talking about? Is English a second language? If so I apologise as you are not making sense.