Merged Terror attack on German Christmas market

[McHrozni]

This is developing along historically precedented lines. Let's go back to the ghetto epoch we were discussing previously. Jews are responsible for harming Christians. A Jew is attacked by Christians. Who is to blame? The Jew. In fact all Jews. Because they won't get together en masse and denounce their own religion. They won't admit that a scribe copying the Torah is thereby propagating "hate speech" and thus arousing the righteous wrath of the common folk.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying.

If Muslims banded together and denounced the extremists loudly and often enough, they wouldn't be suspected of secretly agreeing with them and wishing for their success. If Muslims made it abundantly clear, loudly and often, that the problematic parts of their teachings are to be ignored they wouldn't be suspected of agreeing with them but not acting upon them just yet. If Muslims made it clear sufficiently and often and loudly enough they detest terrorists, fewer young Muslims would join the ranks of terrorists. If fewer young Muslims joined the ranks of terrorists, the terrorists would do fewer atrocities, improving just about every aspect of either being a Muslim, or leaving in the general vicinity of Muslims.

None of you have ever even questioned any of this, you just ignored it.

You keep trying to insert guilt. Guilt has nothing to do with it.

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

I explained to you why this would be an appropriate level in the above post. ...snip...

I know you have set a figure and I know it's just a made up figure - you've made many posts telling us you've made it I don't dispute that but what I keep asking you is why are you the one to set the appropriate level of protest for over a billion people?

 

[Craig B]

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying.

If Muslims banded together and denounced the extremists loudly and often enough, they wouldn't be suspected of secretly agreeing with them and wishing for their success. If Muslims made it abundantly clear, loudly and often, that the problematic parts of their teachings are to be ignored they wouldn't be suspected of agreeing with them but not acting upon them just yet. If Muslims made it clear sufficiently and often and loudly enough they detest terrorists, fewer young Muslims would join the ranks of terrorists. If fewer young Muslims joined the ranks of terrorists, the terrorists would do fewer atrocities, improving just about every aspect of either being a Muslim, or leaving in the general vicinity of Muslims.

None of you have ever even questioned any of this, you just ignored it.

You keep trying to insert guilt. Guilt has nothing to do with it.

This is abject nonsense. "Abundantly" "loudly enough" "fewer" "suspected" "problematic" ... can you really not see the fatuity of such announcements?

One thing you mention: living in the general vicinity of Muslims. That is something I do, and it arouses no fears of being decapitated by scimitar-wielding fanatics shouting: Die, O infidel, as Allah commands.

 

[McHrozni]

I know you have set a figure and I know it's just a made up figure - you've made many posts telling us you've made it I don't dispute that but what I keep asking you is why are you the one to set the appropriate level of protest for over a billion people?

Anyone can make an estimate about what would be appropriate, seeing as the group "anyone" also includes me, I get to make the estimate, especially if I explain how I made it, as I have several times.

You're free to disagree, but please specify who would be qualified to make the estimate in that case.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

This is abject nonsense. "Abundantly" "loudly enough" "fewer" "suspected" "problematic" ... can you really not see the fatuity of such announcements?

No, I don't. Please explain what's wrong with them.

One thing you mention: living in the general vicinity of Muslims. That is something I do, and it arouses no fears of being decapitated by scimitar-wielding fanatics shouting: Die, O infidel, as Allah commands.

I also live across the street from a house with several Muslim families and aren't afraid of them either. Thinking this argument somehow weakens what I'm saying demonstrates you haven't grasped what I'm talking about for how many pages now? Five? Eight?

To avoid further embarrassment on your part, please recap what my argument is. I'll tell you if it's right or wrong, and we'll keep doing this until you understand what my argument is. Deal?

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

Anyone can make an estimate about what would be appropriate, seeing as the group "anyone" also includes me, I get to make the estimate, especially if I explain how I made it, as I have several times.

You're free to disagree, but please specify who would be qualified to make the estimate in that case.

McHrozni

Not at all. I can disagree and at the same time specify that nobody is qualified to make the estimate, so the whole project is fatuous - as I indicated in my last post.

 

[McHrozni]

Not at all. I can disagree and at the same time specify that nobody is qualified to make the estimate, so the whole project is fatuous - as I indicated in my last post.

The only thing you indicated in your last post is that you still have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about.

Incidentally, if no one is supposed to estimate what level of protest is sufficient, how do you determine the current level is sufficient, as you keep implying all the time?

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

No, I don't. Please explain what's wrong with them.



I also live across the street from a house with several Muslim families and aren't afraid of them either. Thinking this argument somehow weakens what I'm saying demonstrates you haven't grasped what I'm talking about for how many pages now? Five? Eight?

To avoid further embarrassment on your part, please recap what my argument is. I'll tell you if it's right or wrong, and we'll keep doing this until you understand what my argument is. Deal?

McHrozni

I've said this before. You have a "thing" expressed in many posts, that people have to write down your arguments, and recap them to you, and confirm to you that they have fully absorbed them; and they have to "keep dong this until they understand". Any comments I might feel inclined to make about that would incur the wrath of the mods, so I will simply say: no deal.

 

[Craig B]

The only thing you indicated in your last post is that you still have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about.

Incidentally, if no one is supposed to estimate what level of protest is sufficient, how do you determine the current level is sufficient, as you keep implying all the time?

McHrozni

I don't need to "determine" any such thing, because I'm "implying" nothing except that your whole project is nonsensical from start to finish.

 

[Darat]

The only thing you indicated in your last post is that you still have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about.

Incidentally, if no one is supposed to estimate what level of protest is sufficient, how do you determine the current level is sufficient, as you keep implying all the time?

McHrozni

I think that may encapsulate your problem with understanding "counterviews" I suspect Craig B and others are the same as me on this point: we don't accept your asserted starting premise.

 

[McHrozni]

I've said this before. You have a "thing" expressed in many posts, that people have to write down your arguments, and recap them to you, and confirm to you that they have fully absorbed them; and they have to "keep dong this until they understand". Any comments I might feel inclined to make about that would incur the wrath of the mods, so I will simply say: no deal.

Why yes, I do try my very best to make people understand what I'm saying, thank you for noticing it. If you think there is another way I could try please say so.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I don't need to "determine" any such thing, because I'm "implying" nothing except that your whole project is nonsensical from start to finish.

Ahem.

You have shown yourself to be unable to grasp my argument for whatever reason, continued to misrepresent it even after being corrected repeatedly, continued to insert issues in it I explicitly stated had no bear on it in order to try to discredit it, and refused to receive personalized instructions in what my "project" is when I offered them.

You are therefore not qualified to assess anything about my "project".

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I think that may encapsulate your problem with understanding "counterviews" I suspect Craig B and others are the same as me on this point: we don't accept your asserted starting premise.

Really? Do you even know what is my starting premise? I'll wager you don't know that.

Here's a link to a description of it so your job will be easier:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11655888&postcount=341

It's the long paragraph. I wager you two smiley faces and a thumbs up emoji you'll fail in telling me what my starting premise is without copy-pasting it (or equivalent). Can you write it in your own words?

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

Really? Do you even know what is my starting premise? I'll wager you don't know that. ...snip...

Unless your communication skills are very poor and you've not managed to convey it I have taken it to be that you believe there is an appropriate level of protest.

 

[Craig B]

Ahem ... unable to grasp my argument for whatever reason ... even after being corrected repeatedly ... refused to receive personalized instructions ... You are therefore not qualified ...

Ahem indeed!

 

[McHrozni]

Unless your communication skills are very poor and you've not managed to convey it I have taken it to be that you believe there is an appropriate level of protest.

Switch "appropriate" with "effective" and you have a much better approximation.

Now explain to me what is wrong with it. You clearly disagree about something there, what is that something? Admin or no, Rule 12 applies to you as much as it does to me, correct?

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

Switch "appropriate" with "effective" and you have a much better approximation.

Now explain to me what is wrong with it. You clearly disagree about something there, what is that something? Rule 12 applies, admin or no, I believe?

McHrozni

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11655916#post11655916

 

[McHrozni]

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11655916#post11655916

Yes, that is precisely what I said: you disagree with something about it. Thank you for confirming that, not that is was needed. The only thing you've found disagreeable that I know of is that I made the estimate, hence my mentioning of Rule 12.

Is that indeed your only argument against it? Was there something I missed?

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

Yes, that is precisely what I said: you disagree with something about it. Thank you for confirming that, not that is was needed. The only thing you've found disagreeable that I know of is that I made the estimate, hence my mentioning of Rule 12.

Is that indeed your only argument against it? Was there something I missed?

McHrozni

Perhaps you should read the posts in order? (It's my own words so not going to use quote tags)

I stated:

"I think that may encapsulate your problem with understanding "counterviews" I suspect Craig B and others are the same as me on this point: we don't accept your asserted starting premise."​

You then stated I didn't know what your premise was, to which I replied:

"...I have taken it to be that you believe there is an appropriate level of protest."​

You agreed with that statement of your premise (in this instance it makes not a whit of difference whether you dress it as "appropriate" or "effective")

I then pointed you back to the statement I made:

"...we don't accept your asserted starting premise...."​

So substituting my statement of what your premise is (remember you agreed with my summary description of your premise)

..we don't accept your asserted starting [premise] there is an appropriate/effective level of protest.​

As I said at the start of the current exchange you can't seem to understand that not everyone accepts your assertion that there is an appropriate/effective level of protest for the over one billion non-terrorist Muslims.

Which is why I have repeatedly asked: why do you get to set what is the appropriate level of protest?

 

[McHrozni]

As I said at the start of the current exchange you can't seem to understand that not everyone accepts your assertion that there is an appropriate/effective level of protest for the over one billion non-terrorist Muslims.

This is better in some ways, ridiculous in others.

Of course there is a level of protest among Muslims that would convince the non-Muslims that they don't really believe they should take Allah's commands seriously. The only question is what that level is, and can it be reached.

As I mentioned earlier, none of you ever disputed that, instead you opted for nonsense like:

Which is why I have repeatedly asked: why do you get to set what is the appropriate level of protest?

I answered this six times before now: I don't get to set it. I estimated it. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Do you not know the difference between the two?

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/set?
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/approximate

I agree that it is ludicrous to suggest that I get to set the appropriate level of protest. It is equally ludicrous to suggest I'm not allowed to estimate it. Why do you keep insisting I get to set it again?

Is it to make me violate Rule 0, so you can ban me from the conversation maybe?

McHrozni