I could say the entirety of evidence is readily available from the thread you quote to. But since I'm a better person than you, I'll do as you pretend to want (but fear beyond all reason), I will quote the actual post. One of them, because there were several.
I see you don't actually quote the post that I take the quote in my sig from, but an
entirely different post (one made a day and a half later than the one I quote).
It's rather difficult to claim that I'm taking your post "out of context" when the "context" apparently didn't show up until
32 hours later. But okay, let's look at your "context" for asking me if I wanted to be put in a gas chamber because I disagreed with you that "Islam" is the problem.
You don't risk being put in a gas chamber because of your opinions, where did you get that idea from anyway?
That would be the part of your initial post where you said
"A'isha, alongside many others, completely ignores the textual evidence that strongly supports the observational data and tries to use the cherry-picked observational data to conclude Islam is not a source of problems. I the approach find rather ridiculous. Does she want to end up in a gas chamber, I wonder?"
You risk being put in a gas chamber because you (appear to) follow a religion whose greatest achievement in the past several centuries is 1001 ways to make innocent everyday objects into tools to commit mass murder, and whose followers (including you) spare no effort to defend the religion and keep it as it is while making essentially no effort to fix the glaring problems with the religion.
Here you state that I'm going to be one of the ones thrown into a gas chamber not because I support and defend terrorism, but because I "spare no effort to defend the religion and keep it as it is while making essentially no effort to fix the glaring problems with the religion".
And this, by your own assertion, is the proper "context" for your posts: you thinking I "want to be put in a gas chamber" because I "conclude Islam is not a source of problems".
You know, just like I said.
My comments about gas chambers are exactly as much a threat as a climatologist warning about the disastrous climate change is a threat. I actually want to spare you from that fate, but you're listening about as much as a rich oil magnate is to the climatologist. This was explained to you before. Why do you keep misrepresenting my points?
The rather hollow nature of your disclaimer here is shown by your requirement that Muslims meet impossible demands in order to avoid this fate.
You're the one focused on head-chopping. I explicitly said I would accept a different form of execution.
Here's your entire argument when I pointed out that even Buddhism has a problem with religiously-motivated violence, from
this post: "Really? Please list Buddhist head-chopping states in existence today."
When I
called you out for "focusing on a specific method of state execution so you can handwave and minimize and ignore the violence, terrorism, and killings carried out in the name of pretty much every religion, not just Islam",
your response was
not to say you "would accept a different form of execution", but to demand "a Buddhist state that does what ISIS does and uses Buddhist teachings, and those teachings alone to justify it".
And again, I
called you out for focusing on "as with the state execution method of beheading, with the carefully wording of the request to prompt the answer you want, even if it excludes things that you have previously included when talking about Islamic terrorists," and pointed to the genocide of the Rohingya. And your response to that is this:
Close enough according to you, not according to reality. What Rohingya are doing is closer to what is happening to non-Muslims in Egypt (and a whole host of others, see Algeria in 1960s) than what is happening to minorities under ISIS.
"What Rohingya are doing?"
You either think the Muslim Rohingya are the ones rounding 130,000 people up into camps, razing villages, hacking children to death in pre-dawn raids, burning religious buildings, raping hundreds of women, and massacreing people and dumping them into mass graves (rather than, you know,
being the victims of those genocidal crimes at the hands of Buddhists), or you're confusing the victims of genocide with the perpetrators.
If you're going to claim that's comparable to ISIS, Islam just got that much worse for your to defend.
I like how my taking exception to you asking me if I want to be put in a gas chamber because I don't agree with you that "Islam" is the problem has become me somehow defending ISIS.
I never claimed Islam has no good features. My claim is only that Islam has massive bad features which effectively drown out the good features it might have.
Yeah, no. Not when you say nonsense like "If they claim they don't think their religion actually tells them to be terrorists, they already deny the validity of their religion as a whole."
Your refusal to acknowledge what that gas chambers comment said and using it to smear me with feces is a prime example of where Islam is really bad: accepting any form of criticism.
...says the guy who accuses me of defending ISIS merely because I point out that all major religions, not just Islam, have problems with religiously-motivated violence and disagree that "If [Muslims] claim they don't think their religion actually tells them to be terrorists, they already deny the validity of their religion as a whole."
The fact you protested it in this way clearly demonstrates you're fully aware of the difference I'm talking about, and just refuse to acknowledge it. How very 'skeptical' of you
No, they're both similarly bad (or similarly benign), not that one is bad and the other is benign. I wouldn't want to be a non-Muslim living in ISIS territory, but neither would I want to be a non-Buddhist living in Burma/Myanmar, and for the exact same reason.
It's good to see that my quoting isn't in vain and that there are rational and intelligent people reading the thread who have both the capacity and willingness to examine the evidence and decide based on what the evidence says 
