Merged Terror attack on German Christmas market

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Possibly, but all events mentioned regardless of their being regional and/or global can be rooted to the interpretations of deemed holy books and beliefs.

These holy books and beliefs therefore contain scripts that are interpreted to validate violence, killings, rapes etc.

That being so, they do not deserve any respect.

They dont. No more than any other ideology but you cannot assume a Muslim supports these things simply by being a Muslim. No more than you can assume a Christian thinks the earth is flat and 6000 years old.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You respect cherry picking.

Actually I dont. I think it requires some degree of intellectual dishonesty at times to maintain these modern positions on religions. In some ways I admire the fundies for being more direct.

On the other hand if people dont hold backwards views thats a good thing and they shouldnt be punished for it.

I mean if a christian admits the earth is round im not going to try to argue them into thinking its flat.

 

[McHrozni]

I mean if a christian admits the earth is round im not going to try to argue them into thinking its flat.

Nitpick, but the myth of a Christian flat Earth is just that - a myth, which probably arose in the 19th century (and possibly earlier). The fact Earth is indeed round was prevalent in Europe since about 6th century B.C. There were some works in the 12th and 13th centuries that spoke of a flat Earth, but they were a minority and not the prevailing opinion among the educated.

It was China where the flat Earth hypothesis was essentially established as fact, essentially unquestioned until 16th century contact with European explorers of you know which faith.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

Christianity had it's issues with science - particularly about what is the center of the universe, but also whether lifeforms change through time and how and so on, but a flat Earth isn't among them.

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

Well if you disagree with it you're claiming they don't have to denounce the validity of their religion at all. Why are you against it then?

McHrozni

Disagree with what?

 

[Craig B]

Let's do a little thought experiment. Suppose you're completely right and no level of protest would help. Suppose further that Muslims still take it up, and commit themselves to monthly rallies. Let's say they only do it in Europe, for 12 months, with an average attendance of 1 million people.

What? I thought they all had to come out once. And after that they had to demonstrate once a year. But it has to happen every month for ten years! Why not every week, or every day? Or they could remain permanently on demonstration, eternally cursing their own holy books.
Of course none of this implies collective guilt, according to you.

 

[McHrozni]

Disagree with what?

If you disagree that denouncing the terrorists and teachings justifying the terrorists constitutes denouncing Islamic religion as a whole, what is this big problem about denouncing the two anyway?

You guys make it such a big thing and then deny it even exists. Which one is it? You can't have it both ways.

You might do well to answer the question I posed in another post as well. You seem to claim there is no level of protest that would suffice and further that you don't claim there is no level of protest that would suffice, which leaves me a bit stumped. Which one is it, Darat?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

What? I thought they all had to come out once.

Do you remember all those times I asked you to read my posts for a change?

Well, that.

One of my posts even included several different scenarios of how demonstrations could be scheduled with falling numbers of necessary participants for more frequent events. You may have even replied to that exact post, I don't know for sure.

What I do know for sure is that if you had red my posts, rather than just searched for soundbites in them to reply to, you'd know that.

Learn some shame will you?

But it has to happen every month for ten years! Why not every week, or every day?

It's hard to organize daily demonstrations. Monthly is probably the most we can realistically hope for, although weekly is on the edge of plausibility. More frequent rallies would have more effect, but they would also require far more energy to organize and keep going than less frequent ones. I think that cost/benefit ratio is at it's optimum if they were held monthly. You're free to dispute that, it's indeed little more than an opinion.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Nitpick, but the myth of a Christian flat Earth is just that - a myth, which probably arose in the 19th century (and possibly earlier). The fact Earth is indeed round was prevalent in Europe since about 6th century B.C. There were some works in the 12th and 13th centuries that spoke of a flat Earth, but they were a minority and not the prevailing opinion among the educated.

It was China where the flat Earth hypothesis was essentially established as fact, essentially unquestioned until 16th century contact with European explorers of you know which faith.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

Christianity had it's issues with science - particularly about what is the center of the universe, but also whether lifeforms change through time and how and so on, but a flat Earth isn't among them.

McHrozni

Further nitpick. I'm not talking about what Christians believe I'm talking about what the direct interpretation of the Bible should lead you to believe. But if it bothers you pick any other cosmological inconsistency in the Bible.

 

[Darat]

If you disagree that denouncing the terrorists and teachings justifying the terrorists constitutes denouncing Islamic religion as a whole, what is this big problem about denouncing the two anyway?

You guys make it such a big thing and then deny it even exists. Which one is it? You can't have it both ways.

Are you saying non terrorist Muslims should denounce Muslim terrorists? If so why do you think I would think that was wrong? I'm all for everyone denouncing terrorism.

You might do well to answer the question I posed in another post as well. You seem to claim there is no level of protest that would suffice and further that you don't claim there is no level of protest that would suffice, which leaves me a bit stumped. Which one is it, Darat?

McHrozni

Again I don't accept your premise. Why you find that hard to understand is totally beyond me.

 

[McHrozni]

Are you saying non terrorist Muslims should denounce Muslim terrorists?

Yes, that's what I was saying all the time. If you didn't know that by know you really should start reading my posts.

If so why do you think I would think that was wrong? I'm all for everyone denouncing terrorism.

So you do accept my starting premise now? Interesting. And just before claiming you don't, no less.

Can you please decide which one it is and try to maintain consistency at least within the thread? I realize this may be difficult, seeing as how you denounce yourself in two consecutive sentences, but it's sort of necessary you know. It's not really that hard, just decide on which option you're in favor of, and stick with it. The rest of us manage fine, I'm sure you can too.

Again I don't accept your premise. Why you find that hard to understand is totally beyond me.

Well, one variant of my premise is that denouncing Islamic terrorism is a good thing that will help solve problems it causes

If you don't accept that, you claim the opposite is true. But now you claim this isn't it. Then you claim you agree with my premise.

I have to congratulate you for managing to simultaneously hold three mutually exclusive opinions about a question which has only two possible answers. Not many would manage that, I certainly couldn't. Not that it is a good thing mind you, but it's still rather impressive.

Let me guess about what the truth is: you have no premise, opinion or anything else and are just trying to provoke me again, like you were doing with those silly "why do you get to set the appropriate level of protest" questions, don't you?

Is stiffing discussions that brings up topics you find troubling really that important to you that you have to resort to such underhanded tactics? It's clearly not working, but I can give you pointers of how to do this a whole lot better if you want.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

Learn some shame will you?

It's hard to organize daily demonstrations. Monthly is probably the most we can realistically hope for, although weekly is on the edge of plausibility. More frequent rallies would have more effect, but they would also require far more energy to organize and keep going than less frequent ones. I think that cost/benefit ratio is at it's optimum if they were held monthly. You're free to dispute that, it's indeed little more than an opinion.

To atone for my remisness in this matter, may I suggest that the entire Muslim communities should be compelled to walk endlessly from place to place, and in each town perform ritual flagellation to punish the sins of their religion, as was done by certain fanatics during the Black Death. It would make good TV too. You could follow them around to make sure they were lashing themselves hard enough.

 

[McHrozni]

To atone for my remisness in this matter, may I suggest that the entire Muslim communities should be compelled to walk endlessly from place to place, and in each town perform ritual flagellation to punish the sins of their religion, as was done by certain fanatics during the Black Death. It would make good TV too. You could follow them around to make sure they were lashing themselves hard enough.

You mean like in the Ashura, which is attended by up to 45 million Muslims in a record year, and over 20 million regularly attend it on an annual basis?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...slamic-world-religious-festival-a7354271.html

I think that compelling people to do something like that is just awful.

McHrozni

 

[fagin]

Where do you read that anyone is compelled?

 

[McHrozni]

Where do you read that anyone is compelled?

Here:

(...) I suggest that the entire Muslim communities should be compelled to walk endlessly from place to place (...)

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Further nitpick. I'm not talking about what Christians believe I'm talking about what the direct interpretation of the Bible should lead you to believe. But if it bothers you pick any other cosmological inconsistency in the Bible.

An stationary Earth would be a better choice. There was at least this big religious trial with a threat of execution about it back in the 17th century.

But yeah, fairly irrelevant.

Not as nitpicky: believing Earth is flat and beheading non-believers a deed that gets you into heaven are not equivalent. There is nothing illogical or improper to fully tolerate one and ignore it and fight against the other.
Not all crazy beliefs are alike and different beliefs warrant different attitudes of those not believing in them. Who would've thought.

McHrozni

 

[fagin]

Here:



McHrozni

You do realise that there's a difference between Craig B taking the piss out of you, and people voluntarily flagellating themselves?

 

[McHrozni]

You do realise that there's a difference between Craig B taking the piss out of you, and people voluntarily flagellating themselves?

Yes. Do you realize I was saying CraigBs' proposal (or better: his pitiful attempt at sarcasm) is awful?

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

Yes, that's what I was saying all the time. If you didn't know that by know you really should start reading my posts.



So you do accept my starting premise now? Interesting. And just before claiming you don't, no less. ...snip...

What follows your "so" is a non sequitur and then I've snipped the personal insults that followed your non sequitur as they are just silly.

If you don't accept that, you claim the opposite is true. But now you claim this isn't it. Then you claim you agree with my premise. ...snip...

That is what is known as a false dichotomy. And no I still don't agree with your premise. I've also snipped out the silly insults that followed.

And since you brought it up again: why are you the one to set the appropriate level of protest for over a billion people?

 

[McHrozni]

What follows your "so" is a non sequitur and then I've snipped the personal insults that followed your non sequitur as they are just silly.

There is nothing personal about it. I am genuinely ignorant of what you believe now. I have three competing theories, which I wrote down above, each of the three is mutually exclusive with the two others and evidence for each of the three is comparably strong. You also refuse to say clearly what do you believe. It's neither a personal nor insult nor a non sequitur to say so.

It is, however, a non sequitur to answer with what you don't believe in again, as you undoubtedly will soon enough.

One more thing, since you claimed my conclusion is a non sequitur, can you explain to me what system of logic do you use?

You see, it goes like this:

Statement A: I think everyone should denounce Islamic extremists.
Statement B: I think non-extremist Muslims should denounce Islamic extremists.

If A is true so is B in every system of logic I'm familiar with, but not with yours, apparently. Can you please explain what is this system of yours and how it operates, what are it's rules? Is it what suits you in that particular moment, or does it have some consistency maybe?

That is what is known as a false dichotomy. And no I still don't agree with your premise.

If you're going to claim it's a false dichotomy you're free to present alternatives to the options I see. In fact, I'm sure I asked you this several times - trust me, I'm all ears. Thus far you're basically just saying what you don't believe and let me guess what you do believe, and whine I misrepresent your opinions when your position is shown to be ridiculous.

Why that is is actually getting more obvious by the post: desperate for your lack arguments you resort to trying to provoke me into rule violations, so you can shut me up.

Way to be a great skeptic. You're a true paragon of good argumentation and higher thought.



It's trivially easy to prove me wrong: post what you do believe. If you can't do it I'll also welcome an explanation as to why you can't do it. It should be good.

And since you brought it up again: why are you the one to set the appropriate level of protest for over a billion people?

Can you tell me how many times to I need to answer this, so I can use the trusty ctrl+c, ctrl+v please? If you do, you'll get your answer, STAT.

McHrozni

 

[fagin]

Yes. Do you realize I was saying CraigBs' proposal (or better: his pitiful attempt at sarcasm) is awful?

McHrozni

I thought it was quite funny. It would only be awful if he meant it, and one would have to be a bit dim to think that.