Let's Have Another Argument about Islam

[odeon]

People like Odeon have made it clear on numerous occasions they aren't a fan of evidence that proves them wrong.

One of the problems I have with you is that your world really does come in black and white. Thus, to you, a single video is proof that I'm wrong.

It's never that easy, though. I tend to find your posts to go a couple of steps too far, meaning that you frequently start with a comment or a view that is entirely sensible to me--several of your posts take a reasoned approach to Muslims and Islam--only to then grab your tinfoils and take your argument far beyond any reason.

It's not a single video, it's numerous videos or links you refuse to acknowledge, because they prove you wrong, so you just say "tinfoil" and that's enough for you.  "Too far" because it goes out of your knowledge zone.  Just because you don't understand the argument or were unaware of the information or see it as "tinfoil hat" stuff because you didn't know about it or it would mean you were wrong doesn't mean what I've said is crazy or wrong.  You can't actually go into any detail about what you think is "tinfoil" stuff, it's just too much for you.  So it's hardly me who's black and white.

I never said you only ever posted a single video, I used it as an argument to make a point--please reread my comment.

That said, please note that I don't watch most videos here. Not yours, not anyone else's. I would probably read an argument made by you in a post but I don't come here to watch videos as a general rule. I sometimes follow links and look up things people mention, but normally, I don't watch the videos because that is not why I come here.

It's hardly the same as me not knowing what you're on about.

[odeon]

People like Odeon have made it clear on numerous occasions they aren't a fan of evidence that proves them wrong.

One of the problems I have with you is that your world really does come in black and white. Thus, to you, a single video is proof that I'm wrong.

It's never that easy, though. I tend to find your posts to go a couple of steps too far, meaning that you frequently start with a comment or a view that is entirely sensible to me--several of your posts take a reasoned approach to Muslims and Islam--only to then grab your tinfoils and take your argument far beyond any reason.

It's not a single video, it's numerous videos or links you refuse to acknowledge, because they prove you wrong, so you just say "tinfoil" and that's enough for you.  "Too far" because it goes out of your knowledge zone.  Just because you don't understand the argument or were unaware of the information or see it as "tinfoil hat" stuff because you didn't know about it or it would mean you were wrong doesn't mean what I've said is crazy or wrong.  You can't actually go into any detail about what you think is "tinfoil" stuff, it's just too much for you.  So it's hardly me who's black and white.

Yes he goes in with a self-vaulted faux moral superiority, so when it gets too hard for him to out muscel it intellectually his mind allows his the failsafe fallback off ignoring it and saying "This is just tinfoil" or "It is bigoted" and he will do this with smug faux intellectual indignation or faux moral righteousness

[odeon]

Nothing he said had ANY bearing on Mexicans who were in US legally.

Sir Les does have a point here; Trump was talking about illegals.

Actually, he wasn't:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/full-text-donald-trump-announces-a-presidential-bid/

His famed comments on Mexicans come early on.

[odeon]

^agreed

Also,  I might say there's  no need to misrepresent Trump, to make him look bad. That makes the guy  look misunderstood instead, which I'd guess isn't the point.

Odeon's observation  that this little side-issue   is off-topic  holds more water, IMO; but c'mon  Odeon,  you  followed that up by debating the off-topic pioint, thus taking the thread even further off-topic , according to your own estimation.  So I'd guess  that's not a problem , in your book,  just so long as it's clear who started it? 

 

Fair point.

[odeon]

I think Odeon lying, misrepresenting, ignoring and calling bigotry and pandering to a false appreciation of his presumed moral superiority and assumed superior intellect is far more interesting.

Al. You are not going to get a sincere, frank , honest  response out of Odeon by throwing bitter accusations at him. You know why? Because people, quite naturally become defensive in the face of that sort of thing. It takes a special kind of strength to be totally sincere all the time, even when under attack. You can't realistically demand that kind of strength of Odeon or anyone .

You know  most  people respond to personal attacks by being ever-less-sincere in their responses?   They might "make fun" of their attacker; they might make facetious , smart-ass remarks.  That's not the same as being  "dishonest" ; that's more like throwing up a shield. However, , time and again,  I'm seeing  you take that sort of thinng as further evidence of  Odeon's "dishonesty" ; and then you attack him all the more bitterly on that basis. It's a vicious cycle, you see? It's not a fight that either party can win. And whatever the underlying grievance is, that's not  being addressed , just buried under deepening piles of shit.

Now I'm not saying that you're  doing all the attacking . Looks like six-of-one, half-a-dozen-of-the-other to me. I'm just saying : here's two people with two very different , completely incompatible defensive styles, can't help but get up each others noses and make matters  worse.  Is that really what you want?  I don't think so. So, can you figure out some other way of dealing with this?

Or shall I just give in and change the thread  title to Al v Odeon #1001? 

That is one reading Walkie. A charitable one to Odeon but not a dishonest one.

Here is my reading. Odeon screwed the pooch. Odeon adopted a number of unfortunate positions. Stupid ones. Many of them ideological. He then was then highly stupid and dishonest in doubling down on these positions which proved to be difficult to defend. Being unable to defend them or to retreat from them without being contested he was forced to a situation where he had either to admit he had been dishonest with all the claims (and later on- claims to misrepresent the situation or deflect or obfuscate or cover for) OR continue debasing himself with lie after lie after misrepresentation after misrepresentation after deflection after derision. 

In the reply above, he clearly in two instances indicated, that I had not backed a position, and he had not seen me back the positions. I then proved doing so months before, and as the text in both instances points out, the quoted posts from months previously were in complete opposition to what he was claiming as fact. Lies. Verifiable Lies.

I will give him no quarter. No let off. No compromise. No handshake. No agreeing to disagree. He chose to call me intellectually dishonest. He did not have to. He refused to back himself (the attempts were weak and a display of cringeworthy dishonesty unto themselves, he ought to do far better than that and he has in the past). He called me a bigot and refused to back that. (Again, his attempts were disingenuous and pitiful and he can do better) and he also used the mod on me to censor me.

So to all of that I say "Fuck Odeon." I am not upset nor angry. But Odeon deserves what Odeon gets. I see no reason after his actions towards me to do anything less. He probably should not lie and probably should not have done so in the first place. He did and that is on him. I did give him ample time to either make a decent case or to retract and he decided on this path instead. I even out of a sense of fairplay, gave him two more opportunities to make this right. He could not bring himself to do that an dhe does not get a third opportunity , at all.

As if I care, Al. Fuck you too, you dishonest, bigoted bully. You deserve what you get. And no, I'm not upset either.

[Al Swearegen]

<snippety>

Al, repeating failed arguments won't magically unfail them. Once again, you haven't shown that a ban on Muslims at the border would help; nobody has, not you, not Trump, not anyone else. You all imply it by selectively citing factoids, but that's about it. Trump frequently lies and misrepresents, too.

I'm also stunned by your defending his comments on Mexicans. Have you heard (or read) the entire speech?

But this is not going anywhere and I have better things to do than reading your posts.

Ignoring facts will not make them lies. Ignoring replies is not a counter. Saying something failed is not a self-evident truth nor does your pronouncement make it so.

Odeon, you are an idiot.

If a bigot said "Blacks are not brave and wouldn't ever swim with piranhas" and people were up in arms saying how bigoted the statement was and how blacks are just as brave as any other race, and how black people "SHOULD swim with piranhas", then a non-bigoted person CAN say "No, black people should NOT swim with piranhas because it is dangerous as fuck."

Both are asking for the same thing and one would be from a place of bigotry. The end result is NOT reflective of being bigoted nor of bigoted intent. You cannot follow this because you are ideologically blinded, but guaranteed most people can.

You keep saying Trump is bigoted. He may or may not be. But you do not have to be a bigot to agree with any of his ideas EVEN IF the whole reason he said them was either to be a bigot or appeal to bigots.

As to whether a ban at the border would help, HOW would one PROVE it. No, let's flip this around Odeon. What exactly are you asking? I can say that IF we KNOW within groups of desperate Muslim refugee families are radical Muslim extremists. If we KNOW that THOSE Muslims ABSOLUTELY mean harm to the host country and seek to individually and collectively subjugate and terrorise the host nation. We KNOW that vetting is substandard and effectively leaving the door open for people from those countries to walk through unchecked. 

So that is what we have. Would a ban art the borders help? Logic dictates that IF those people motivated and wanting to harm a country are prevented from doing so them ABSOLUTELY. That is the intent. Can we PROVE they will not find some other way to hurt US citizens? Maybe they will find US citizens abroad and kill them? Maybe they will find another avenue to sneak into US? Maybe they have another political or financial way to hurt America? So can I absolutely prove that no harm would be done or that an equal harm could not be achieved?

Is THAT what you are asking me to prove? You would not be THAT disingenuous would you? You are not for one dishonest moment saying that the inability to prove it is reason enough to let people in unchecked and unvetted because there is a chance they may find ways to hurt America overseas so you may as well risk them in America?

That would be beyond stupid and it is both illogical and dishonest. Back on you. I have made my points well enough and you have been doing a lot of deflecting. Make your point and make it well.

[Al Swearegen]

Nothing he said had ANY bearing on Mexicans who were in US legally.

Sir Les does have a point here; Trump was talking about illegals.

Actually, he wasn't:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/full-text-donald-trump-announces-a-presidential-bid/

His famed comments on Mexicans come early on.

Yup he WAS referring to illegal immigrants and only idiots still hold onto the narrative that he was speaking about all Mexicans. Why do you?

[Al Swearegen]

I think Odeon lying, misrepresenting, ignoring and calling bigotry and pandering to a false appreciation of his presumed moral superiority and assumed superior intellect is far more interesting.

Al. You are not going to get a sincere, frank , honest  response out of Odeon by throwing bitter accusations at him. You know why? Because people, quite naturally become defensive in the face of that sort of thing. It takes a special kind of strength to be totally sincere all the time, even when under attack. You can't realistically demand that kind of strength of Odeon or anyone .

You know  most  people respond to personal attacks by being ever-less-sincere in their responses?   They might "make fun" of their attacker; they might make facetious , smart-ass remarks.  That's not the same as being  "dishonest" ; that's more like throwing up a shield. However, , time and again,  I'm seeing  you take that sort of thinng as further evidence of  Odeon's "dishonesty" ; and then you attack him all the more bitterly on that basis. It's a vicious cycle, you see? It's not a fight that either party can win. And whatever the underlying grievance is, that's not  being addressed , just buried under deepening piles of shit.

Now I'm not saying that you're  doing all the attacking . Looks like six-of-one, half-a-dozen-of-the-other to me. I'm just saying : here's two people with two very different , completely incompatible defensive styles, can't help but get up each others noses and make matters  worse.  Is that really what you want?  I don't think so. So, can you figure out some other way of dealing with this?

Or shall I just give in and change the thread  title to Al v Odeon #1001? 

That is one reading Walkie. A charitable one to Odeon but not a dishonest one.

Here is my reading. Odeon screwed the pooch. Odeon adopted a number of unfortunate positions. Stupid ones. Many of them ideological. He then was then highly stupid and dishonest in doubling down on these positions which proved to be difficult to defend. Being unable to defend them or to retreat from them without being contested he was forced to a situation where he had either to admit he had been dishonest with all the claims (and later on- claims to misrepresent the situation or deflect or obfuscate or cover for) OR continue debasing himself with lie after lie after misrepresentation after misrepresentation after deflection after derision. 

In the reply above, he clearly in two instances indicated, that I had not backed a position, and he had not seen me back the positions. I then proved doing so months before, and as the text in both instances points out, the quoted posts from months previously were in complete opposition to what he was claiming as fact. Lies. Verifiable Lies.

I will give him no quarter. No let off. No compromise. No handshake. No agreeing to disagree. He chose to call me intellectually dishonest. He did not have to. He refused to back himself (the attempts were weak and a display of cringeworthy dishonesty unto themselves, he ought to do far better than that and he has in the past). He called me a bigot and refused to back that. (Again, his attempts were disingenuous and pitiful and he can do better) and he also used the mod on me to censor me.

So to all of that I say "Fuck Odeon." I am not upset nor angry. But Odeon deserves what Odeon gets. I see no reason after his actions towards me to do anything less. He probably should not lie and probably should not have done so in the first place. He did and that is on him. I did give him ample time to either make a decent case or to retract and he decided on this path instead. I even out of a sense of fairplay, gave him two more opportunities to make this right. He could not bring himself to do that an dhe does not get a third opportunity , at all.

As if I care, Al. Fuck you too, you dishonest, bigoted bully. You deserve what you get. And no, I'm not upset either.

Fuck you too rapist?

You deserve everything you get.

As a Swedish man, why do Swedish men rape Swedish women and girls so much? Why are the numbers second only to South Africa? Why do Swedish men not protect women and girls and let them be raped so much? Its a crisis. One that is internationally recognised. What is the major character flaw in Swedish men?

[benjimanbreeg]

As I also said though, FGM isn't a Muslim problem or just a Muslim problem.  It mainly is an African problem, but we aren't allowed to protest against Africans coming here. 

.

I know that. I just gave it as an example. There are issues like forced marriage that go way beyond Africa, though also way beyond Muslim communities. We've been looking at that  one for decades, haven't we? It was brought here by people from the Indian sub-continent.  My impression is that the Muslim communities have stubbornly clung to such practices , wheras the Sikhs and Hindus have...integrated more , shall we say?

One thing  people outside Britain don't ever seem to realise is that our Sikhs , Hindus and other minorities are as worried by Islam as the white people are. Especially the Sikhs and Hindus indeed (just look at India's history!)

No one has really integrated that well as a whole.  The focus is just on Muslims since 9/11.  That's because Indians hate each other where religion is concerned. 

Do you have any knowledge or opinions of Israel/Palestine?

[benjimanbreeg]

People like Odeon have made it clear on numerous occasions they aren't a fan of evidence that proves them wrong.

One of the problems I have with you is that your world really does come in black and white. Thus, to you, a single video is proof that I'm wrong.

It's never that easy, though. I tend to find your posts to go a couple of steps too far, meaning that you frequently start with a comment or a view that is entirely sensible to me--several of your posts take a reasoned approach to Muslims and Islam--only to then grab your tinfoils and take your argument far beyond any reason.

It's not a single video, it's numerous videos or links you refuse to acknowledge, because they prove you wrong, so you just say "tinfoil" and that's enough for you.  "Too far" because it goes out of your knowledge zone.  Just because you don't understand the argument or were unaware of the information or see it as "tinfoil hat" stuff because you didn't know about it or it would mean you were wrong doesn't mean what I've said is crazy or wrong.  You can't actually go into any detail about what you think is "tinfoil" stuff, it's just too much for you.  So it's hardly me who's black and white.

I never said you only ever posted a single video, I used it as an argument to make a point--please reread my comment.

That said, please note that I don't watch most videos here. Not yours, not anyone else's. I would probably read an argument made by you in a post but I don't come here to watch videos as a general rule. I sometimes follow links and look up things people mention, but normally, I don't watch the videos because that is not why I come here.

It's hardly the same as me not knowing what you're on about.

With regards to the video in question, it backs up one of the points I made, for which you called me tinfoil for making the point.  Michael T Flynn, look him up.  Trump has offered him a job. 

[Jack]

Nothing he said had ANY bearing on Mexicans who were in US legally.

Sir Les does have a point here; Trump was talking about illegals.

Actually, he wasn't:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/full-text-donald-trump-announces-a-presidential-bid/

His famed comments on Mexicans come early on.

Fair enough. Though in follow-up questioning, he's clarified on numerous occasions he was referencing illegal immigrants. Too in follow-up, he has also clarified he has sources the government of Mexico has been sending criminals to the US. Think that's actually much more interesting than what either your or I assume he meant.

[Al Swearegen]

Nothing he said had ANY bearing on Mexicans who were in US legally.

Sir Les does have a point here; Trump was talking about illegals.

Actually, he wasn't:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/full-text-donald-trump-announces-a-presidential-bid/

His famed comments on Mexicans come early on.

Fair enough. Though in follow-up questioning, he's clarified on numerous occasions he was referencing illegal immigrants. Too in follow-up, he has also clarified he has sources the government of Mexico has been sending criminals to the US. Think that's actually much more interesting than what either your or I assume he meant.

Its the filter. Whho cares what he meant? Who cares what point he was trying to drive? Who cares if he clarifies what he said? Who cares even if he admits he misspoke? Nope if you are a dishonest ideologue like Odeon ABSOLUTELY is, then all you need to do is to say "But he initially said..." and that is argument enough to disclaim everything.

Odeon is a loser.

[Jack]

Jack likes the Mexican government conspiracy theory.

[Al Swearegen]

Jack likes the Mexican government conspiracy theory.

Meh. That rant was aimed squared at Odeon for being a loser, because he is a loser.

[Jack]

This conversation has me wondering if it's common for Mexican people to gripe about the US stealing their honest hard-working citizens and sending back the criminals. Probably. Might have to ask someone.