Religion Topics On These Forums

[Faux]

I saw Locke's post first so I ignroed yours. You're terrible at arguing anyway.

 

 

 

And I agree, a lot of them are. But when you decide to direct your comments about Muslims towards Darkmage, and try to turn it against him, that's a different story.

 

 

 

 

Read what I wrote on my previous post.

 

 

 

I don't know what you're talking about, but you really do enjoy making this obnoxious cuts at people don't you? If you want, we can discuss how big of a tool you are rather than the topic at hand. Or we can talk about how I think all Hispanic, Filipino, and Mexican people are trashy, then I'll just use that against you without thinking twice, because apparently that's really easy for you to do.

 

 

 

What are you talking about? I was making fun of you for disregarding the numbers and you practically say "oh, the numbers don't mean anything because you're offending these people." Didn't you even see Locke's post about how many times the attacks were made by Muslims?

 

 

 

I'll give you an example.

 

 

 

I rolled a die 99 times and they all turned up 6 for each roll. What number do you think will most likely turn up on the next roll?

 

 

 

See, the logical guess would be a 6. Maybe the game is rigged, maybe the die has more 6 dots than any number, etc.

 

 

 

But you, trying to prove to other people that you won't cheat because it's going to offend some people for some reason, bet on a 1.

 

 

 

See how stupid it kinda gets? You're letting political correctness blind your logic, which just shows why your brother got all the brains in your family.

 

 

 

If by all means my ethnicity has anything to do with this, go ahead and whine about it. But I'm not grasping for straws, you are.

[Locke]

I saw Locke's post first so I ignroed yours. You're terrible at arguing anyway.

 

 

 

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

[Faux]

 

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.

 

 

 

Umm? You two are accusing me of stating the Muslim violence in my post that MPC quoted, so violence is relevant.

 

 

 

Most of the posts that I made after he posted the Christian image was just sarcasm.

 

 

 

And yes, there is a strawman since nowhere in my post that MPC quoted include me stereotyping Muslims. If he quoted my other post, then yes, there would is no strawman.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

What are you talking about? I was making fun of you for disregarding the numbers and you practically say "oh, the numbers don't mean anything because you're offending these people."

 

They don't.

 

 

 

 

I'll give you an example.

 

 

 

I rolled a die 99 times and they all turned up 6 for each roll. What number do you think will most likely turn up on the next roll?

 

 

 

See, the logical guess would be a 6. Maybe the game is rigged, maybe the die has more 6 dots than any number, etc.

 

 

 

But you, trying to prove to other people that you won't cheat because it's going to offend some people for some reason, bet on a 1.

 

 

 

See how stupid it kinda gets? You're letting political correctness blind your logic, which just shows why your brother got all the brains in your family.

 

That's a terrible example, and it has nothing to do with my original point, quit making generalizations and addressing them towards everyone. I'm terrible at arguing? That's funny coming from you, someone who relies strictly on attacking someone personally to build up the foundation of your argument.

 

 

 

If by all means my ethnicity has anything to do with this, go ahead and whine about it. But I'm not grasping for straws, you are.

 

I didn't say it has ANYTHING to do with this. I was only making an example.

 

 

 

I saw Locke's post first so I ignroed yours. You're terrible at arguing anyway.

 

"You're terrible at arguing so I show my expertise on the subject by ignoring valid points."

 

 

 

And yes, there is a strawman since nowhere in my post that MPC quoted include me stereotyping Muslims. If he quoted my other post, then yes, there would is no strawman.

 

Just because I didn't quote it doesn't mean I didn't read it. I don't need to quote everything that I want to respond to.

[Faux]

 

That's a terrible example, and it has nothing to do with my original point, quit making generalizations and addressing them towards everyone. I'm terrible at arguing? That's funny coming from you, someone who relies strictly on attacking someone personally to build up the foundation of your argument.

 

 

 

The only reason you have of why people shouldn't offend Islam is this:

 

 

 

t doesn't change the fact that there are extremists in every group of people. You can't say things against the people, and the religion in it's entirety, when those comments should only be directed against a select few people.

 

 

 

There's a vast difference between the amount and level of a Christian and a Muslim terrorist. You act as if they are the same, which is why I think it's stupid.

 

 

 

They don't.

 

 

 

See? Your reasoning amazes me.

 

 

 

That's a terrible example, and it has nothing to do with my original point, quit making generalizations and addressing them towards everyone. I'm terrible at arguing? That's funny coming from you, someone who relies strictly on attacking someone personally to build up the foundation of your argument.

 

 

 

Dude, at least I'm actually laying down my arguments, unlike you for this instance where you totally ignored it by just playing it off as "terrible." Terrible HOW?

[Locke]

Umm? You two are accusing me of stating the Muslim violence in my post that MPC quoted, so violence is relevant.

 

 

 

I am accusing you of stereotyping muslims. Take the violence out.

 

 

 

Most of the posts that I made after he posted the Christian image was just sarcasm.

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

You are bragging about how much better your stereotype is than his - and at this point, violence has not been mentioned at all.

 

 

 

And yes, there is a strawman since nowhere in my post that MPC quoted include me stereotyping Muslims. If he quoted my other post, then yes, there would is no strawman.

 

 

 

His first post shows you stereotyping muslims. You said this, and he quoted it immediately.

 

 

 

You need to ask? I know Muslims have experience of getting their point across.

 

 

 

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.

[Faux]

Just because I didn't quote it doesn't mean I didn't read it. I don't need to quote everything that I want to respond to.

 

 

 

Did you read the quote?

 

 

 

Islam "extremists" outnumber any other nation/religion at a large degree. It's foolish to not expect the people to hate them.

 

 

 

When I said it's foolish to hate them, THEM means extremists (hence the quote -to emphasize- to begin with.)

 

 

 

Here's the next part.

 

 

 

Especially since most Muslims are too lazy to stand up against these extremists who are hijacking their religion.

 

 

 

See where I separated most Muslims from extremists? I don't consider them one and the same.

[Locke]

See where I separated most Muslims from extremists? I don't consider them one and the same.

 

 

 

But in your next post, where you said this:

 

 

 

You need to ask? I know Muslims have experience of getting their point across.

 

 

 

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.

[Faux]

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

 

 

 

How? I just said that most of the posts I made after he posted his image where sarcasm. It includes \\

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

You dare call anyone ignorant when you disregard anything that proves you wrong, way to go smartman! That way, you're always right!

 

 

 

Oh man, you're too humble. You totally owned me with your crazy "logic"

[Faux]

See where I separated most Muslims from extremists? I don't consider them one and the same.

 

 

 

But in your next post, where you said this:

 

 

 

You need to ask? I know Muslims have experience of getting their point across.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Are you saying most Muslims didn't protest? Protests where huge even in the universities here in Canada.

 

 

 

Are you saying they're extremists? I'm not. Just because they protested doesn't mean they're extremists at all.

[Locke]

How? I just said that most of the posts I made after he posted his image where sarcasm. It includes \\

 

 

 

Because the post you made before clearly stereotyped Muslims. So you intended this passage to be sarcastic?:

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

Are you saying most Muslims didn't protest? Protests where huge even in the universities here in Canada. Are you saying they're extremists? I'm not.

 

 

 

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.

[Faux]

If you lay down the semantics, that's actually what I was trying to get at before your brother set up the straw man. I was telling darkmage that Muslims SHOULD protest again to show their disagreement with the extremists.

 

 

 

I said "Muslims have a way" because it's true, most Muslims DID protest during that crisis. I am in no way stereotyping them because there were peaceful protests here in Toronto.

 

 

 

Again, Muslims != extremists. You're just grasping straws to prove otherwise. And even so, here I am telling you that I didn't mean it that way.

[Locke]

If you lay down the semantics, that's actually what I was trying to get at before your brother set up the straw man. I was telling darkmage that Muslims SHOULD protest again to show their disagreement with the extremists.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

I said "Muslims have a way" because it's true,

 

 

 

That's a stereotype, therefore, there is no straw man argument.

 

 

 

most Muslims DID protest during that crisis. I am in no way stereotyping them because there were peaceful protests here in Toronto.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Again, Muslims != extremists. You're just grasping straws to prove otherwise. And even so, here I am telling you that I didn't mean it that way.

 

 

 

You are confusing "stereotype" with "extremist." You stereotyped Muslims.

[Faux]

Alright here,

 

 

 

I did stereotype that Muslims do protest.

 

 

 

But I did NOT stereotype that most Muslims are violent unlike what your brother is trying to say here:

 

 

 

I don't really care how many there are, that's completely irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that there are extremists in every group of people. You can't say things against the people, and the religion in it's entirety, when those comments should only be directed against a select few people. I mean, you can, but then you only make yourself out to be just as ignorant as those very people you complain about.

 

 

 

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.

[Locke]

Alright here,

 

 

 

I did stereotype that Muslims do protest.

 

 

 

But I did NOT stereotype that most Muslims are violent unlike what your brother is trying to say here:

 

 

 

I don't really care how many there are, that's completely irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that there are extremists in every group of people. You can't say things against the people, and the religion in it's entirety, when those comments should only be directed against a select few people. I mean, you can, but then you only make yourself out to be just as ignorant as those very people you complain about.

 

 

 

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 I did NOT stereotype that most Muslims are violent unlike what your brother is trying to say here:

 

 

 

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?

[Faux]

Oh my gosh.

 

 

 

I never claimed that extremists and Muslims are the same thing. He claimed I did. THAT is why I called his straw man.

 

 

 

I'm not going to play your game of semantics anymore. Have fun, Ghostie.

[fakeitormakeit]

I for one am Christian but I have nothing agaisnt any religion (unless it says to go out and kill everyone else). I always have an open ear to people who will teach me about their religion and I take alot of interest in Judism and Islam because Christian, Judism and Islam are very close and I believe its the same god in all but the son of God differs(and of course various ceremonies and beliefs).

 

 

 

Edit: Sadly, I don't know any muslims except one(who I don't really know) and I only know a few Jewish people, other then that the only peopel of a religion I know are Christian.

 

 

 

P.S.- And I hate when people make ignorant or sterotypical comments about a religion that just gets me so angry even if I don't even believe in anything of teh religion, people still have their right to believe in their beliefs as long as they don't harm anyone else.

[BlueTear]

 

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.

 

 

 

Er... No, that would be the argument I'm making? Searching people of arabic descent is not an adequate security mesure, it just creates a false sense of security. Ring any bells?

 

 

 

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.

 

(First of all, what point?)

 

 

 

For someone not aware of your opinion, you're sure basing a nice argument on what people havn't done in the past, which I keep saying is not going to provide adequate security; Once a while, people like that, might just take to trying something that has never been done before.

 

 

 

But you know what, as I said two or three replies ago I don't really care. If I had more patience and time I'd keep repeating the same things over and over til I'm blue in the face, but really, we're not getting anywhere cause I keep having to rehash the same thing over and over.

 

 

 

You're being pedantic about that point and you know it. You don't win brownie points for picking apart my joke.

 

 

 

Yes, I'm funny that way. When I bring something up in a discussion, I tend to like having it addressed rather than ignored. Probably because I'm not really interested in having two separate monologue's going.

[Locke]

Er... No, that would be the argument I'm making? Searching people of arabic descent is not an adequate security mesure, it just creates a false sense of security. Ring any bells?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

(First of all, what point?)

 

 

 

For someone not aware of your opinion, you're sure basing a nice argument on what people havn't done in the past, which I keep saying is not going to provide adequate security; Once a while, people like that, might just take to trying something that has never been done before.

 

 

 

But you know what, as I said two or three replies ago I don't really care. If I had more patience and time I'd keep repeating the same things over and over til I'm blue in the face, but really, we're not getting anywhere cause I keep having to rehash the same thing over and over.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Yes, I'm funny that way. When I bring something up in a discussion, I tend to like having it addressed rather than ignored. Probably because I'm not really interested in having two separate monologue's going.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, what point was that? I addressed all of your points.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

Shadow, all I'm saying is that you shouldn't use your stereotypes of Muslims against Darkmage when you're arguing with him, you shouldn't do that ever with any argument. Sorry I went to bed, but when I came back it was already won for me. Just because Locke verbally destroyed you, defended me, and won, doesn't mean he is my brother, Ghost. Ghost RARELY browses this Message Board, but when he does he posts under the name Intarweb. Eh, you're wrong.

[Faux]

Destroyed what?

 

 

 

Let me guess this straight, you claimed that I stereotype all Muslims as extremists.

 

 

 

I denied that over and over, even explained my posts to you as proof. Which to mention, you never even responded to.

 

 

 

You were wrong about me stereotyping all Muslims as extremists.

 

 

 

And yet you win? Ugh.

[Locke]

I never claimed that extremists and Muslims are the same thing. He claimed I did. THAT is why I called his straw man.

 

 

 

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?

[Faux]

Protest != Violence

[Locke]

Protest != Violence

 

 

 

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

[MyPurpleCrayon]

You need to ask? I know Muslims have experience of getting their point across.

 

This is where you stereotyped them Shadow, and this is what I was responding to. Nothing more.