Merged Terror attack on German Christmas market

[Delphic Oracle]

Who does this sound like?

Didn't say that!

*provides quote*

Nope, out of context!

It was the whole quote...

FAKE!

No, it's not fake, you can even scroll up and s-

FAKE!

You're seriously undermining your own credibility here...

Personal attack! SO UNFAIR!

 

[marplots]

Who does this sound like?

Didn't say that!

*provides quote*

Nope, out of context!

It was the whole quote...

FAKE!

No, it's not fake, you can even scroll up and s-

FAKE!

You're seriously undermining your own credibility here...

Personal attack! SO UNFAIR!

OMG, it's obvious now!

At least we now know where he hangs out when he isn't on Twitter.

Mr. Trump? You've been outed.

 

[McHrozni]

Did I truncate your quote?

Then it wasn't a quote mine, was it?

You also admit the new version is 'what you meant' so it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

"I'm making a correction, but I want it understood that there's no need for me to make any correction."

Certainly. Context is your friend, if you take my statements as if they're made in a vacuum, you might misunderstand them. Incidentally, quote mining usually means taking sentences out of a context provided by a broader text to give the illusion of the quoted part agreeing with your position. This is what you did. Truncating quotes is just the obscene version of that.

You never answered my question by the way. Are you happy with my modified quote or not?

The first part is my expressing dismay at your tendency to use two different words with clearly different meanings or two statements that indicate different outlooks and proclaim they are the same thing.

Really? Can you cite an example where I proclaimed two different things to be one and the same?

The rest was an overview of repeatedly making broad-brush condemnations as predicate for your 'what all Muslims have to do to get me to stop verbally pissing all over them' plan. Then you'll dance away from the condemnation somewhat 'oh, I didn't mean it like that!' which of course then removes your entire supporting rationale for why they have to do that.

This is again a gross mischaracterization of what I'm saying. Islamic terrorism is a problem, Muslims can help significantly mitigating the problem in the manner I described. Furthermore, that is the only way to meaningfully mitigate the problem. You guys like to pretend there are other options, but have yet to present one that isn't blatantly false, which leads me to believe your views are not based in reality.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Who does this sound like?

Didn't say that!

*provides quote*

Nope, out of context!

It was the whole quote...

FAKE!

No, it's not fake, you can even scroll up and s-

FAKE!

You're seriously undermining your own credibility here...

Personal attack! SO UNFAIR!

This sounds like you. Your point?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

No, you take the time to individually tell us that every event is special when it doesn't feature Muslims. Your dedication is at least to be admired in that regard.

I apologize for seeing through your generalizations. I didn't realize I wasn't supposed to argue your points when you got them wrong

I shall continue to do so however, out of spite.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Plus, of course, McHrozni lauding the idea of instantly expressing empathy while with his own words announcing it was probably ultimately their own fault anyways.

It wasn't their own fault, this is your fabrication. Clearly it's the terrorist who carries most of the blame, plus whatever it was that pushed him into situation where he wanted to kill people.

That said, Muslim actions could markedly reduce such instances from happening in the first place. That doesn't mean they deserve it when something like that happens in my humble opinion. What probably confuses you is that this opinion is actually slanted in favor of Muslims, and you probably think I'm incapable of that, and the cognitive dissonance makes you come to the wrong conclusion.

I'll try to make it easier for you: there is no secret message I'm trying to convey. Try to understand it exactly as it is written: Muslims do not deserve to be indiscriminately shot at and killed in their houses of worship, regardless of what they do. Muslims can however take steps to make such attacks less likely to happen.
Once you realize these two sentences are in no conflict whatsoever my position will become clear to you.

McHrozni

 

[Delphic Oracle]

It wasn't their own fault, this is your fabrication. Clearly it's the terrorist who carries most of the blame, plus whatever it was that pushed him into situation where he wanted to kill people.

Does he live in a region of dozens of countries peppered with American drone missile fragments and hundreds of thousands of dead countrymen?

Then don't even try to false equivalence this one.

I know, I know. The white man's burden knows no equal. I'm trying to work on not forgetting that, please forgive!

That said, Muslim actions could markedly reduce such instances from happening in the first place. That doesn't mean they deserve it when something like that happens in my humble opinion. What probably confuses you is that this opinion is actually slanted in favor of Muslims, and you probably think I'm incapable of that, and the cognitive dissonance makes you come to the wrong conclusion.

That said, women's actions could markedly reduce such instances from happening in the first place...

That doesn't mean they deserve it when something like that happens in my humble opinion. What probably confuses you is that this opinion is actually slanted in favor of women...

That you think saying Muslims don't deserve to be killed in cold blood is an opinion slanted in favor of Muslims pretty much takes the cake (which you will also be eating, as well).

What is the 'neutral' opinion then? That maybe they do deserve it?

I'll try to make it easier for you: there is no secret message I'm trying to convey. Try to understand it exactly as it is written: Muslims do not deserve to be indiscriminately shot at and killed in their houses of worship, regardless of what they do.

See that? Stop right there. You're golden. Preach that to the world.

Muslims can however take steps to make such attacks less likely to happen.
Once you realize these two sentences are in no conflict whatsoever my position will become clear to you.

McHrozni

Nope, you ********** the dog again. So close this time.

A person who has done no harm to others should not have to 'take steps' to make attacks less likely. The people who do harm to others are the ones who need to change.

So once again, let's see if this works both ways or not. Should western countries denounce the west for it's evils? If we do not, aren't we failing to do what we can to make terrorist attacks against us less likely?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Really? Can you cite an example where I proclaimed two different things to be one and the same?

Yes, it was only about 3 hours ago:

Denouncing Islamic terrorists by a Muslim and denouncing Islam by a Muslim are one and the same.

This is the problem with lying through your teeth at a rate of more than once per sentence. It gets hard to remember them all.

This is again a gross mischaracterization of what I'm saying. Islamic terrorism is a problem, Muslims can help significantly mitigating the problem in the manner I described. Furthermore, that is the only way to meaningfully mitigate the problem. You guys like to pretend there are other options, but have yet to present one that isn't blatantly false, which leads me to believe your views are not based in reality.

McHrozni

They are "blatantly false" solutions for Muslims but then about 2 or 3 posts later when someone points out the same thing from non-Muslims, you agree it is adequate and workable. Then 2 or 3 posts later when the blatant double standard is called out, you say it isn't a double standard.

This sounds like you. Your point?
I know you are but what am I

McHrozni

FTFY

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

This is again a gross mischaracterization of what I'm saying. Islamic terrorism is a problem, Muslims can help significantly mitigating the problem in the manner I described.

Actually if I recall you yourself have argued that this is NOT what you are saying. You do seem to have flip flopped at times but as I understood your argument Muslims could NOT help significantly in mitigating the actual problem os Islamic terrorism but instead were being asked to participate in 'denouncement theatre' so that the deplorables would see their actions and suddenly realize that Muslims are just like us and don't deserve the gas chambers after all.

It was round about the time when you made the weird argument that deplorables hated Muslims because they don't do enough to combat terrorism but that Nazis hated Jews because they were jealous of them.

 

[A'isha]

McHrozni's constant special pleading, repeated self-contradictory shifting of his arguments, and bizarre denials of things he's said (and been quoted as saying) are why I stopped bothering with him.

 

[McHrozni]

Does he live in a region of dozens of countries peppered with American drone missile fragments and hundreds of thousands of dead countrymen?

Did I claim that was the case? No?
Then maybe you should quit with your straw man.

That you think saying Muslims don't deserve to be killed in cold blood is an opinion slanted in favor of Muslims pretty much takes the cake

It's slanted towards Muslims because I'm not blaming them even though they provide a powerful covering narrative through hate speech for the terrorists. Their religion is full of it, their religious practice is full of it.

Do try to pay attention, will you?

A person who has done no harm to others should not have to 'take steps' to make attacks less likely. The people who do harm to others are the ones who need to change.

He shouldn't be forced, which is why I don't advocate making Muslims do so at gunpoint. That said, if he has the ability to make such attacks less likely or at least less dangerous without major cost to him, he is still morally obligated to do so. That doesn't mean he's guilty of the attack as you continuously falsely imply.

What I described is certainly not a massive cost for the Muslim community, in fact I fully expect the Muslim community would greatly benefit from it. There is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't do it. The best you can do is that they shouldn't be forced to do it, which is not what I propose in the first place, and would be counter-productive anyway.

To use your false equivalence with rape, what would you say to a rape victim that was walking around a construction site with foreign workers (away from their families) naked and flirting? "Don't do that" is a good start, I think. Does that imply she deserved to be raped? No. Should the perpetrators be punished? Yes. Should she be punished? No. Should she act differently in the future? Yes.

If you can agree with me on this you see my point on Islam.

So once again, let's see if this works both ways or not. Should western countries denounce the west for it's evils? If we do not, aren't we failing to do what we can to make terrorist attacks against us less likely?

You mean like denouncing colonialism as an evil not to be repeated for example?

http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/declaration.shtml

Yes, we should, and manifestly do so. What about it?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Yes, it was only about 3 hours ago:

This is where we'll have to agree to disagree. Islamic faith is clear on few things, but it is clear Muslims should always side with other Muslims against non-Muslims, no matter what. Denouncing Islamists amounts to denouncing a portion of Islam, and denouncing any portion of Islam by a Muslims amounts to apostasy.

You're free to disagree, but this is my view, based on the Islamic scriptures. I'm sure A'isha will quickly try to dispute it, but it's a bit futile to try to prove I'm obviously wrong because Islam can be interpreted in many ways ... which incidentally means my reading is at least as valid as those other readings she proclaims to be true.

They are "blatantly false" solutions for Muslims but then about 2 or 3 posts later when someone points out the same thing from non-Muslims, you agree it is adequate and workable. Then 2 or 3 posts later when the blatant double standard is called out, you say it isn't a double standard.

Why yes, I do think different problems require different solutions. Thus far the "Muslim ban", which targets just over 10% of worlds' Muslims and also impacts non-Muslims hasn't killed anyone. The incident in OP killed 12 innocents and wounded many more, and it wasn't the only attack like that in that year. I daresay they are not equal and what is good enough for one incident doesn't imply what is needed for another.

If you want to claim all incidents are equal and thus require equal treatment you're free to do so. Good luck supporting that argument though.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Actually if I recall you yourself have argued that this is NOT what you are saying. You do seem to have flip flopped at times but as I understood your argument Muslims could NOT help significantly in mitigating the actual problem os Islamic terrorism but instead were being asked to participate in 'denouncement theatre' so that the deplorables would see their actions and suddenly realize that Muslims are just like us and don't deserve the gas chambers after all.

I'm afraid the deplorables are a lost cause already, now it's about people who do not belong among deplorables, but side with them nonetheless. Deplorables will need to die of old age, Muslims have waited for far too long for them already. I just hope they haven't set the snowball rolling to the point where it is unstoppable.

As for flip-flopping, there were always two parts to my argument. The bigger issue is the one you described, the opinion of non-Muslims about Muslims. The smaller issue is that sufficiently strong rejections would also reduce the recruitment pool and make terrorist attacks less likely.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11654275&postcount=322

I might also mention you knew this because you quoted it and claimed it was an "unsupported assertion" back then. Now it's apparently an unsupported assertion I never made, so you can accuse me on flip-flopping. It's rather funny how you want to have you cake, eat it, leave the tab to me and tell everyone I wanted to have the cake and eat it you know.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Why yes, I do think different problems require different solutions. Thus far the "Muslim ban", which targets just over 10% of worlds' Muslims and also impacts non-Muslims hasn't killed anyone.

Apparently not true if what I read this morning is correct. A woman waiting for medical treatment in the US died thanks to the ban.

So far Muslims not protesting in exactly the way you want hasn't killed anyone either. But lets keep harping on at the people who have done nothing wrong and give the deplorables a free pass.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I'm afraid the deplorables are a lost cause already, now it's about people who do not belong among deplorables, but side with them nonetheless. Deplorables will need to die of old age, Muslims have waited for far too long for them already. I just hope they haven't set the snowball rolling to the point where it is unstoppable.

As for flip-flopping, there were always two parts to my argument. The bigger issue is the one you described, the opinion of non-Muslims about Muslims. The smaller issue is that sufficiently strong rejections would also reduce the recruitment pool and make terrorist attacks less likely.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11654275&postcount=322

I might also mention you knew this because you quoted it and claimed it was an "unsupported assertion" back then. Now it's apparently an unsupported assertion I never made, so you can accuse me on flip-flopping. It's rather funny how you want to have you cake, eat it, leave the tab to me and tell everyone I wanted to have the cake and eat it you know.

McHrozni

No it was an unsupported assertion that you backtracked on when asked to support it. As usual. Now it suits your argument you are back to making it again. I know its hard to follow your own argument but if you can't do it then how the hell do you expect the rest of us to?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

To use your false equivalence with rape, what would you say to a rape victim that was walking around a construction site with foreign workers

What the actual ****???

 

[McHrozni]

No it was an unsupported assertion that you backtracked on when asked to support it.

Where did I backtrack on this? Can you provide a link?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

What the actual ****???

There is an explanation in parentheses as to why I picked foreign workers which you deleted. Try not to rely on reflexes so much.

I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with them being foreign. The point is the workers haven't even seen an actual human female in the past few months and that they can get away with martial infidelity. Male hormones do the rest.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

There is an explanation in parentheses as to why I picked foreign workers which you deleted. Try not to rely on reflexes so much.

I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with them being foreign. The point is the workers haven't even seen an actual human female in the past few months and that they can get away with martial infidelity. Male hormones do the rest.

McHrozni

I'll say it again for emphasis. What the actual ****?

If it has nothing to do with them being foreign why write the word foreign?

 

[McHrozni]

I'll say it again for emphasis. What the actual ****?

If it has nothing to do with them being foreign why write the word foreign?

Which word would you use to convey the meaning? The point is they haven't been laid in at least several weeks, have little prospect to do so and can get away with infidelity. Foreign workers, working long hours to send money home, are a perfect match, so I used foreign and explained why I used that qualifier in the parentheses. Do you have a better proposal?

McHrozni