Locke

Who would actually say, "I'm close minded?" It has such a universally bad connotation to it. Open-mindedness doesn't exist. It's just a neat phrase people can use to make themselves feel like better people. No one is open minded. It's all just varying degrees of close-mindedness.

My point was that in last American elections you had to chose either Bush or Kerry. The ones which are more or less chosen by their parties. We at least had 7 in our last elections and all from different parties. That is absolutely incorrect. Not only was there more than just Bush or Kerry on the ballot but you also have the freedom to write in any candidate you want. I would ask you to please not claim to have knowledge about political systems you very clearly do not.

Sorry, but this just struck me as odd. Do you not have write-in ballots where you live?

I'll quote myself from this thread: Sorry if I used wrong words, but at least I corrected it once. Now I'm doing it 2nd and hopefully last time. Even after my last correction he kept crying about the word decade, how different actions shouldn't count for the word "bombing" and so on. I know that you said that, but it seems pretty clear to me that he is rejecting that definition of "birthplace," as it is not such.

In Finnish we got a saying [bleep] the dot. You're doing it at the moment. I gave you military interventions, I gave you a link for more and you still aren't happy. You just keep crying about that. OK, took me 30 secs to look at the link I posted: * Air strikes to Libya in 1986. * Bombing Iran in 1987 * 2 Libyan jet sets shot down 1989. Is that enough of bombing to you or will you do a bit of that dot thing? If you now somehow still get to argue that airstrike doesn't count for this, you can forget the whole argue about this. Notice the area I bolded. I believe that is the problem. He is specifically asking about bombings where Islam began (Saudi Arabia) and you continue to give him bombings and other countries. I think you would be less irritated at him if you read his post a little more accurately. Clearly he wants examples from Saudi Arabia, and you gave him 3 examples from countries that are not Saudi Arabia. Why would you think that would the criteria of his question?

No I don't. That would be silly. I want you to quit comparing verses in the Bible that are clearly cultural compared to verses in the Bible about homosexuality and attempting to show that they are the same, because the language and the context in those verses are completely different. I want you to quit misrepresenting the Bible because of your inadequate Biblical knowledge. If I wanted you to believe that homosexuality is universally wrong, I would have to first be confident in my own beliefs on that issue. Which I am not. But the verses in the Bible and the language and context surrounding them are clearly more than just a simple cultural instruction and I want you to quit pretending like you know enough about the language to say they aren't. For instance, if you have to ask me where the word "perversion" is mentioned, you don't know enough about the language of the verse. So even if that were true, your defense is that you can't retain information for more than 2 days? This is pointless, I said I before. EDIT: Bleh. And now you've made me late to class.

I don't even know what you're talking about. :? Who is GhostRanger? Apparently you would - since you have continued to argue back. The hard proof is the posts where you continually change your own words and refuse to answer simple questions.

I'll me to clear up why it is not a trivial reason. As just one example... I've already addressed that point twice. You keep ignoring the points I make and I'm tired of it. You ignore me, walk around in a circle, then come back to the same point thinking I forgot it. I'm tired of walking around in circles with you. You refuse to acknowledge the points that are made if you don't like them. I'm done with you.

I never said you said that, so I would ask you quit putting words in my mouth. So answer my questions: 1. Do you not agree with the news article that you yourself posted when you stereotyped all Muslims? 2. Do you not think the protesting shown in the news clip that you yourself posted is extreme?

Once again I reference you to my last post on the previous page. MyPurpleCrayon is accusing you of labeling them as extremists, not violent. Do you not think that the pictures and news clip you posted the further your point is extreme? If you don't agree with the news clip that you posted, why would you post it along with your point? That doesn't make sense.

This is where you stereotyped them Shadow, and this is what I was responding to. Nothing more. And from that, you claimed that I'm stereotyping that all Muslims are violent. I wasn't. I was talking about PROTESTING, not a word of violence at all in my posts. Wrong. Your post included a news clip to further your point. That news clip continually spoke about Muslims acting violently in their protests.

Do you not think that the violent news clip that you posted of Muslims protesting when you stereotyped all Muslims was extreme?

Interesting. Could you get me a link to some information about it, possibly? I missed it and can't find anything conclusive.

This is where you stereotyped them Shadow, and this is what I was responding to. Nothing more. And in order to further his point, he linked a news clip from BBC. That news clip shows Muslims violently protesting. Why would you, ShadowFax, post the news clip on the same post where you are stereotyping ALL Muslims, if you did not think it was applicable?

Did you not watch the news cast you posted in the same post where you stereotyped all Muslims?

I've already answered all of those questions that you have. It's your fault for ignoring me previously. Your problem contains multiple parts: 1. You ignore me when I post answers to your questions, and then later on re-bring them up like it's a new theory. 2. You are analyzing multiple scriptures in singularity, which defeats the entire purpose of trying to determine universality. 3. You make these assumptions: - You assume that just because it's up for debate, means that there is no right answer. - You assume that you know EXACTLY what a passage means when it's a passage that many people who have dedicated their entire life to Biblical studies can't agree on. For these reasons, I'm ending this argument. It's like running around in a circle with someone who refuses to listen. Good day.

So when you stereotyped Muslims and showed pictures and linked a news clip - you do not think that the violence portrayed in that news clip is "extreme?" It was posted right after you stereotyped ALL Muslims, not just extremists. So you don't think that the violence that YOU posted when YOU stereotyped ALL Muslims is extremism?

Who are you arguing with? I don't think anyone is arguing that we should only search arab muslims. We are arguing that the record shows they should be profiled and therefore searched much more often. So your line about cosmetic surgery was a joke, or not a joke? You never answered me. Cosmetic surgery hasn't been used in the past 30 years. Here is your rationale: 1. Over the past 30 years, an overwhelming majority of attacks against the United States have been done by arab muslims. After initiating some very intense racial profiling, we have prevented attacks against us on U.S. soil for almost six years. 2. Over the past 30 years, no arab muslim has ever gotten cosmetic surgery and attacked us. Your conclusion after seeing those two points: It is more logical to prepare for the evidence that has not yet happened, than the evidence that has happened several times, continues to happen, and after preparing for it we have stopped attacks. That does not make any logical sense. I'm sorry, what point was that? I addressed all of your points.

I'm outdated. Did you actually read my post, and look up Wikipedia so you could prove me wrong about something entirely insignificant? That's very entertaining. But very depressing for you.

Because yes, my comments WERE directed against a selected people - the extremists! Nowhere did I claim that all of Muslims are extremists - which he tried to claim - meaning straw man argument. Gosh. The pictures that MyPurpleCrayon posted were from an extremist group of Christians that there is a discussion about on the first page of the Off-Topic forum. Those Christians, whom MyPurpleCrayon labeled as extremists, do not act violently. They only protest. Since you acknowledge that you did stereotype Muslims as protesting like you posted them doing, and MyPurpleCrayon views that behavior as extremism, there is absolutely no straw man here at all. The behavior you posted can very easily be viewed as extremism, and you self-admittedly did stereotype them. Therefore, there is no straw man fallacy. Actually, there IS a straw man fallacy. Only you committed it: You said this: But if you reread what MyPurpleCrayon wrote in that paragraph you quoted, he never said anything about violence. And as shown before, it is clearly his belief that you do not have to be violent to be an extremist. The pictures of Christian extremists he posted are a non-violent group. You just committed a straw man fallacy by claiming he he tried to say something he never did. THAT is what a straw man fallacy looks like. Should I ask again why you are referring to MyPurpleCrayon as my brother or are you going to ignore me and say it again anyway? I think that's quite a strange thing to make up, so maybe there is an explanation behind it?

Not that it makes much difference, but it's more like 5 million. Not according to Forbes this past September. Unless he gained 2 billion dollars of personal income in less than 6th months. That would be pretty impressive of him.

Who is my brother? MyPurpleCrayon? Why would you think he's my brother? Did I say that on accident at one point? I hope there isn't any confusion here. I know what you were telling him, I can read it very clearly. It's still a stereotype, therefore, there is no straw man fallacy. That's a stereotype, therefore, there is no straw man argument. It doesn't matter if they are violent or peaceful. Stereotyping Muslims as "having a way with protesting" is still a stereotype, therefore, no straw man fallacy. You are confusing "stereotype" with "extremist." You stereotyped Muslims.

well i dont see windows xp in movies and i've never seen a person in my city listining to a zune so.... im more of an individual then a follower plus i said i might get one, i own a creative zen now Bill Gates is worth around 50 billion dollars. Steve Jobs is worth about 3.3 billion dollars. The reason you see Macs in movies is because Mac-only video software, Final Cut Pro, is used very often to produce movies. They get free software if they place Macs in the movies. It doesn't change the fact that Microsoft is a much more successful company than Apple, Inc.

Because the post you made before clearly stereotyped Muslims. So you intended this passage to be sarcastic?: If that's sarcastic, then you actually believe that the two Christians are in fact equal to the thousands of Muslims. That seems to be a silly point to be making. Why would you be making a point that is so incredibly false? You said "Muslims" in a general way, you didn't say "These specific Muslims." There is a difference. Surely someone who is attempting to sound logical can tell the difference between a definite, and indefinite description. Here's the difference: A) "I know Muslims have experience of getting their point across." <- Stereotype. B) "I know THESE Muslims have experience of getting their point across." <- Not a stereotype. What you said was the first example. That is a stereotype. Therefore, there is no straw man argument.

I thought you were thinking about buying a Zune? Did you know that Microsoft is a much wealthier company than Apple, Inc?