Why not war against Islam?

[Bill Thompson]

Interesting. Will that be in his re-election manifesto? He must be a Muslim after all! And not one of the "some of my best friends" type - more a "Mad Mullah" type.

He went on to say that the threat of nuclear arms in Pakistan or them falling into the wrong hands worried him more.

 

[FireGarden]

You don't make any sense.

Why would someone ask a question when he had the answers at hand? Wouldn't I have posted the answers instead?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

What are the answers?

Your answers are your closely guarded secrets.

Let me ask you something new. I wonder if you will ignore this as well. Do you believe that, for the most part, if we are tolerant and forgiving of Muslim, they will respond in kind towards us?

I believe that, for the most part, they would respond in kind towards us.
What do you believe, Bill? I can't know that. Nobody but you can know that. So please answer the question.

Do you think that if we treat Islam with respect and forgiveness, they will respond in kind? Do you think Israelis would think this is a plausable and realistic view? I know Israelis. They do not think this way.

I think that, for the most part, they would respond in kind towards us.
What do you think, Bill? I can't know that. Nobody but you can know that. So please answer the question.

Firegarden,

You don't make any sense.

Why would someone ask a question when he had the answers at hand? Wouldn't I have posted the answers instead?

What are the answers?

I'm sorry, Bill, that I couldn't answer your queries quickly enough. But I had to go to sleep.

 

[Foster Zygote]

False claims?

Did Lincoln hate Catholics?

Would those be my questions I ask? What is this Jeapordy where answers are given in the form of a question?

So you have no opinions of your own regarding the issues you raised, or you are unwilling to discuss them?

Do you think Islam is a good thing?

Not particularly. But I do not distinguish Islam from any other religion in this regard. Why do you?

 

[Bill Thompson]

But they were not rhetorical questions.

You don't make any sense.

Why would someone ask a question when he had the answers at hand? Wouldn't I have posted the answers instead?

I would much rather had posted the answers if I was sure.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Not particularly. But I do not distinguish Islam from any other religion in this regard. Why do you?

Because they are not all the same. Anonymous is targeting Scientology. Is that unethical? Should they be spending just as much time targeting Buddhism?

It is not logical to bring up another religion in a discussion about Islam. You seem to think it is. Why is that?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Did Lincoln hate Catholics?

Of course he did. Just because one source is debatable does not distract from the fact that there was lots of belief that the Catholic Church had promised to support the confederate army.

Why do you post unrelated stuff in your posts? I think you get off on annoying people. Do you?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Why would someone ask a question when he had the answers at hand?

Because he wanted to know what someone else thinks the answer is.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Because they are not all the same.

True, however every single aspect of Islam that you've presented (at least those aspects that haven't turned out to be false) has also been an aspect of other major religions, such as Christianity. Please name a single justification for opposing Islam that does not apply to other religions as well.

 

[A'isha]

Of course he did.

No he didn't.

Just because one source is debatable

It's not "debatable", it's an outright fraud perpetuated by a lunatic conspiracy theorist.

does not distract from the fact that there was lots of belief that the Catholic Church had promised to support the confederate army.

Not among people at the time who were in a position to know. Like Confederate Secretary of State Judah Benjamin.

And in any case, there was a hell of a lot more support, and far more overt support, for the Confederacy in France and Britain. Did Lincoln hate the French and British, too?

Why do you post unrelated stuff in your posts? I think you get off on annoying people. Do you?

That's pretty funny coming from a guy who replied to a post about the Greek/Turkish conflict with a long digression about how an Allied mission to bomb an oil refinery helped torpedo a coup against the Japanese emperor in the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[qimg]http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h292/Athono/foster_dumbass.jpg[/qimg]

Can someone please ask Bill to perhaps explain Archbishop John Hughes for us?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Of course he did.

Prove it. Provide a single actual statement by Lincoln indicating that he hated Catholics or Catholicism.

Just because one source is debatable does not distract from the fact that there was lots of belief that the Catholic Church had promised to support the confederate army.

The source isn't debatable, it is a bald faced lie. Chiniquy was a liar. There is no historical debate regarding this issue. And there were Catholics supporting the Union as well. You are just taking the goalpost away from your false statement that the Pope had promised money and arms to the Confederacy and moving it over to secessionist Catholics.

Why do you post unrelated stuff in your posts? I think you get off on annoying people. Do you?

It obviously annoys you that you asked what false claims you've presented and I responded with but one example in the form of your claim regarding Lincoln's alleged anti-Catholic sentiments.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Go look up what a loaded question is. I am not your go-to guy for dictionary questions.

There is no such thing as a bad or stupid question. Questions are not magcial poratls into someone's psyche or belief system.

For example, if I asked you if you smoke a lot of pot, this in no way implies that I think you do or if you do not.

The reason people say there are no such things as a bad or stupid questions is twofold: one is to encourage people to ask questions without worrying whether the question is 'good enough', the other is that the worst questions can be teaching opportunites. It is not literally true that all questions are not bad or stupid.

Thanks for providing the example of a loaded question. If the answer is 'yes', fine. If the answer is 'no' it could mean you smoke a medium amount of pot, a small amount of pot, or no pot. It's a valid follow-up question to the question: 'do you smoke pot' if the answer was 'yes'. Otherwise, that question can be described as 'loaded', 'bad', or 'stupid' depending on the intent of the questioner in asking it. It would definitely be loaded if you reported, based on my answer of 'no', that I don't smoke a lot of pot...it implies I smoke some pot, just not a lot. Otherwise, it's bad or stupid because you failed to consider that a 'no' answer wouldn't give you much substantial information or that a person would reasonably consider it a loaded question and would have a reason to consider you are not asking questions in good faith.

 

[FireGarden]

But they were not rhetorical questions.

You don't make any sense.

Why would someone ask a question when he had the answers at hand? Wouldn't I have posted the answers instead?

I would much rather had posted the answers if I was sure.

So you have no thoughts or beliefs on either of the questions, even though you thought to offer the opinion of the Israelis you know.

But you also accept my answers without follow up. So, clearly, I have convinced you that my answer are sufficient. There is nothing more to discuss.

There is no such thing as a bad or stupid question. Questions are not magcial poratls into someone's psyche or belief system.

For example, if I asked you if you smoke a lot of pot, this in no way implies that I think you do or if you do not.

Do you enjoy playing the fool, Bill?



In case she's still on ignore, Bill.

Can someone please ask Bill to perhaps explain Archbishop John Hughes for us?

 

[Bill Thompson]

So you have no thoughts or beliefs on either of the questions, even though you thought to offer the opinion of the Israelis you know.

Dude, I was the one that asked the questions, not answered them. I did not have an answer at hand. I am not going to play a game where I post supposition as fact. That is how you roll, not me.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Prove it. Provide a single actual statement by Lincoln indicating that he hated Catholics or Catholicism.

I paid attention in High School History class.

The Catholics were not very quiet about their support for the South during the Civil war. Lincoln was not an idiot. He would not have been kind or had anything positive about the Catholics.

You can also find quotes from Popes that they had distain for the Union. A nation for and by the people did not sit well with the catholics for a long time.

Also, I do not buy that the quoted line from Lincoln was made up that I gave earlier by someone who wrote a book. The book was written by a former Catholic who decided to come clean. One does not typically lie when the come clean.

 

[Bill Thompson]

The reason people say there are no such things as a bad or stupid questions is twofold: one is to encourage people to ask questions without worrying whether the question is 'good enough', the other is that the worst questions can be teaching opportunites. It is not literally true that all questions are not bad or stupid.

Thanks for providing the example of a loaded question. If the answer is 'yes', fine. If the answer is 'no' it could mean you smoke a medium amount of pot, a small amount of pot, or no pot. It's a valid follow-up question to the question: 'do you smoke pot' if the answer was 'yes'. Otherwise, that question can be described as 'loaded', 'bad', or 'stupid' depending on the intent of the questioner in asking it. It would definitely be loaded if you reported, based on my answer of 'no', that I don't smoke a lot of pot...it implies I smoke some pot, just not a lot. Otherwise, it's bad or stupid because you failed to consider that a 'no' answer wouldn't give you much substantial information or that a person would reasonably consider it a loaded question and would have a reason to consider you are not asking questions in good faith.

But at the same time, I would only make a statement if I was 100% sure or had proof at hand.

So posting something in the form of a question means that I kind of remember something from a reliable source but it was a long time ago and I do not remember where I heard something from.

Someone playing a game wher they are trying to get me roped into stating speculation or supposition as if i stand by it is unethical because they are not out for the truth, they are only out to demean, or belittle or harass.

Also, I have spoken to two Isrealis about what they think about Palestinians. They have said that the Palestinians are Arabs and they do not think that Arabs want peace at all. But that is just two persons. If I stated this as a fact it would show a logical fallacy known as statistics in small numbers. So I pose this in the form of a question asking what people think about how Isrealis view the islamic notion of peace making.

Still, I would believe the Isrealis I have met over the basement dwelling pretentious trolls here.

 

[Cleon]

I paid attention in High School History class.

The Catholics were not very quiet about their support for the South during the Civil war. Lincoln was not an idiot. He would not have been kind or had anything positive about the Catholics.

You can also find quotes from Popes that they had distain for the Union. A nation for and by the people did not sit well with the catholics for a long time.

Also, I do not buy that the quoted line from Lincoln was made up that I gave earlier by someone who wrote a boook later. The book was written by a former Catholic who decided to come clean. One does not typically lie when the come clean.

So no evidence, just supposition because you want it to be true.

 

[Cleon]

But at the same time, I would only make a statement if I was 100% sure or had proof at hand.

And yet, many of your statements have turned out to be completely factually wrong. How about that.

 

[Bill Thompson]

So no evidence, just supposition because you want it to be true.

I posted two bits of evidence.

It is kind of like a conspiracy theory were i am out to show Oswals shot Kennedy. People dismiss the source as unreliable.

 

[Bill Thompson]

And yet, many of your statements have turned out to be completely factually wrong. How about that.

Like what?

You are confused.

They are talking about my questions, not my statements.

 

[Bill Thompson]

So no evidence, just supposition because you want it to be true.

LOL.

Why would I care if Lincoln hated the Catholics or not? How does this support or discredit the topic of this discussion thread?

I posted two bits of evidence. You can google topics like "Catholics and the US Civil war" to see it is probably UNLIKELY that Lincoln DID NOT hate the catholics.