Locke

But in your next post, where you said this: So if you clearly denote the difference between extremists and non-extremist Muslims, and you just refer to the generic Muslim in that passage, then you have stereotyped them. Hence, there is no straw man argument.

I am accusing you of stereotyping muslims. Take the violence out. Your argument continues to fall apart. The Christian images were his first post, and never mentioned violence. You then responded, as I showed, with a post that showed you were PROUD of your stereotype, by saying this: You are bragging about how much better your stereotype is than his - and at this point, violence has not been mentioned at all. His first post shows you stereotyping muslims. You said this, and he quoted it immediately. That is a stereotype. Therefore, there is no straw argument. Please, if you are going to try and reference logical fallacies, and if you are going to try and entertain an intellectual argument, please make sure to do so with logic at the forefront of your mind the entire time. It also helps if you constantly refer back to what was and was not posted, because you seem to have forgotten yours and MyPurpleCrayon's words.

That looks like the pot calling the kettle black from where I am sitting.

Same thing in terms of what it means. Pointless. The whole Bible was written by man and you clearly don't believe in it. But if want to know WHY the Bible says to do something, you have to understand the context that it's written in, and that it is the word of God. No difference. In order to ask, "Why would God tell them to do this?" you must first assume God. You can't ask "Why would God tell them to do this?" and then later on bring up the point that you don't believe in God.

Violence is irrelevant. There are ways of stereotyping people without talking about violence. For instance, here in the United States, Asian people are stereotyped as being tech savvy. That has nothing to do with violence but is still a stereotype. Your assertion that you didn't stereotype is incorrect. Let me put this in chronological order for you. You first said: You then said: You are clearly stereotyping Muslims as something. If you want further proof that you stereotyped, this was posted next: I love how you compared a picture of two Christians (are they even?) and seem to think that that equals the thousands of Muslims I posted. No really, I love it. After MyPurpleCrayon pointed out the "generalization," you seemed confident enough in your stereotype to brag that was much more obvious than his stereotype. In that post, you aren't even backing away from your stereotype, you are proudly supporting it. You stereotyping Muslims is plainly evident, and therefore, no straw man argument exists.

Have you never heard the Bible being referred to as "the Word of God?" Did you honestly not know that Christians believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word from God? Of course I knew that. I just wasn't aware that the verse about stoning kids was from the tounge of god, if you like. If I'm not mistaken some of it is an account from the human perspective, which iswhat I mistakenly assumed for the stoning kids verse. I know it's not so I learnt something. :P Right. But the belief is that it is divinely inspired.

I actually disagree with you there. You wrote: And then proceeded to post pictures and a news link about the violence of Muslims. If that post is not stereotyping Muslims, I don't know what is. I'm not saying you're wrong for doing so, but to claim that you weren't simply ignores the reality of your posts.

Have you never heard the Bible being referred to as "the Word of God?" Did you honestly not know that Christians believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word from God?

I'm curious. I read through the discussion between you and MyPurpleCrayon and cannot figure out where his straw man argument is. Could you point it out to me more directly because I feel pretty silly not being able to find it myself.

Your argument and lack of logic did that. I only pointed it out. Who do you think gave the instruction to stone the kids? God. That's why your point is irrelevant. God has everything to do with your initial question - you just didn't make the connection.

Your argument assumes that security can be tightened to be 100% failsafe, which I do not believe it can. No matter how much you tighten security, a white man could still blow himself up in the name of his religion. The reason that's important is because you also assume that security isn't being tightened up along with racial profiling. No one is disputing that security needs to be tightened all around, but since it will never be 100% safe - we might as well look at the facts. And the facts say that arab muslims have attacked us the most in the past - and arab muslims still plan on attacking us in the future. Therefore, arab muslims should be given the most attention.

Yes you did imply that. Let me break this down to you logically: 1. The kids were told to be stoned. 2. Kids brains do not mature until later. 3. You should not stone people who have not had time to mature. 4. Therefore, you should not stone kids. That is the argument you gave when you said: However, you have since acknowledged that God knows everything (if He exists, including how a kids brain will eventually mature). If God knows everything, then he knows how a kid's brain will mature, therefore making your statement irrelevant. It no longer matters if a kid is or is not mature because God knows what the final result will be anyway. Note: This is a logical point, not a theological point. Therefore, your point about the maturity of kids is irrelevant because it implies that God does not know how their brains will mature. IF God does know how their brains will mature (which you acknowledge he would) then the point about their brains not being mature, the point you made, is irrelevant. You see, I'm not sure which claims are right and which aren't. I found the claim that the bible promotes the stoning of children to be odd, so among giving my 2 cents, I basically asked for clarification. People here generally know more about the bible than me. I didn't respond to that question. If you look at my post, I only responded to your line about the maturity of the brain to point out the logical flaw of your thinking. I hope this clears up the point that I am merely pointing out the logical flaw in your thinking, because I believe it is important that those do not exist.

Your original point: Your implying that God doesn't know how their brains will mature. If you agree that the God who created them would know how their brains would mature, then the maturity of their brains is irrelevant to the decision to kill them. So if you agree that God knows how their brains will mature, your "original" point is irrelevant.

Except I think God knows a little more about the development of a brain than we ever will. Thanks for proving my point for me. I Corinthians 6:9; 10 - Yes there are people that disagree with the translation but the majority of scholars, those understanding the context and language that was written, agree that the verse references homosexuals through timed vernacular. Leviticus 18:22 - References the act as being a perversity - which is how all sexual immoralities are labeled through out the Bible. Leviticus 20:13 - Same as above. Deuteronomy 23:17 - In Biblical times, "sodomy" and "homosexual" were synonyms. So referencing a "sodomite" is the same as saying a "homosexual." Genesis 19:4-8 - The word "know" in verse 5 is a Hebrew sexual term. After the men ask to "know" the man who came to visit, Lot offers them his two daughters instead of the man. This verse is under much debate. Many scholars are now tending to believe that this verse is not specifically talking about homosexuality but instead just sexual immorality in general - but most will agree that there is an obvious hint of anti-homosexuality in it. Romans 1:26-27 - Another passage in dispute. When writing this, did Paul mean "unnatural" as in all homosexual relations are unnatural, or is it only wrong if you are heterosexual and pursue homosexual relations that are not natural to you? The verses span a length of 3-4000 years depending on who is doing your genealogy.

Which is why I would then present to you the question about why the command would appear 6 different times over a span of thousands of years if it was only meant for one specific person/culture.

Walking around in circles again. This debate is not about homosexuality like you want to pretend it is, this debate is about you saying this: If I misinterpreted your point, then clarify it for me. I take it to mean that you think Christians pick and choose what is universal, and what is cultural. Is that incorrect?

Let's not. The point of the challenge is that you labeled me as someone who would "pick and choose" what is universal and what isn't. Therefore, I want you to find an example of a clearly universal, and clearly cultural rule (clear as in everyone agrees) and show me how they would make more sense reversed. That way, you could prove that I am just "picking and choosing." The reason it matters if it's up for debate is because I want a clearly universal, and clearly cultural example. If it's up for debate, that means it is not clear. The word abomination, in Hebrew, translates to an act that is perverse. Sexual perversity is something labeled all through out the Bible as sinful. The word abomination in the passage about eating pork translates to mean "disgusting" - not a reference to a sin. When I brought that point up, you didn't respond. That would be "failing to respond." And to answer your last question: I am waiting for you to give me a clearly universal, and clearly cultural rule and show me how it logically makes more sense for it to be the opposite. That way you can justify claiming that I "pick and choose." Quit avoiding the challenge by talking around the point. It is clear that you had little/no foundation for your first example (AND it doesn't qualify) if you read the previous page, which is why you told me you would post back later with a "suitable" example. So I'm waiting for that "suitable" example that you promised me. Quit avoiding it - and give it to me. Remember to take into account the actual language, the context of the command, and whom it was given to.

1. The one that you gave that "makes no sense on a universal level" was not a good example because it's up for debate about it being universal anyway. 2. You did not even properly make the case because you did not take into account several things: - You only gave ONE verse and rule is stated MULTIPLE times in SEVERAL cultures. - You did not accurately represent the Hebrew language behind the verse, and when this was pointed out, you failed to respond. I'm waiting.

Exactly. That's the same US soil that has airport security performing racial profiling.

Right after you respond to the challenge that was posted several days ago in which you promised a response and have since ignored.

13:1 is not an adequate argument against the searching of arab muslims. It is an adequate argument against only searching arab muslims, but that is not the argument I am making. I didn't realize that my opinion was "it's never been done before." Maybe this argument would be simpler if you were actually addressing my point, instead of a made up point. Let me rephrase: I thought you were making a joke about cosmetic surgery because the last time I checked, muslim arabs were not getting cosmetic surgery and then blowing up/flying airplanes into buildings. I was responding to the joke you made about cosmetic surgery. If you were being serious about cosmetic surgery then allow me to post a serious rebuttle: Arab muslims are not getting cosmetic surgery to blow up/fly airplanes into buildings. For all you know, you just gave them that idea. You're being pedantic about that point and you know it. You don't win brownie points for picking apart my joke.

So you know more about the development of a kid's brain than the God who created him?

Wait. Your response to me listing 13 different attacks against the United States by arabs was to tell me that one Indonesian man was sad that he didn't kill more Americans in an attack? I don't see how that is even an argument. It was a joke. I'm sorry you didn't bring your sense of humor with you today.

They were arabs in 1979. They were arabs in 1982. They were arabs in 1983. They were arabs in 1985. They were arabs in 1986. They were arabs in 1988. They were arabs in 1993. They were arabs in 1995. They were arabs in 1996. They were arabs in 1998. They were arabs in 2000. They were arabs in 2001. They were arabs both times in 2005. It was a little more than just "last time," so quit fooling yourself. Apparently they've never heard of "cosmetic surgery" but thanks for giving them more ideas to make it more difficult for those trying to keep us safe to do their job.

It's a shame I can't find a single picture of the Dining Hall or any other part of a Royal Caribbean ship inside from my last visit. They look almost identical to the shots you posted of the QMII. I'm just miffed about your assertion that the QMII is "elegant" compared to a RC ship - because that's just insane. If you had said Carnival, I would have agreed. But Royal Caribbean? Do you forget what their dining hall's looked like? The Windjammer Cafe was the area you liked most? Then why are you bragging about elegance? There's nothing elegant about that area of the ship. Your opinion confuses me. I also don't understand why you felt it necessary to tell me you didn't book the cruise - like that is relevant to anything.