The Third Jihad
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-11-2014, 02:17 PM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2014 08:18 AM by cjlr.)
RE: The Third Jihad
(02-11-2014 01:14 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  
(24-10-2014 11:46 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Most aren't like that.

The vast majority aren't like that.

Every ideology has its share of fanatical hardliners, and it's possible to oppose those without embracing fascist nativism.




His "math" (to be overly generous in so describing it) is as facetious as it is self-serving - just the type of thing you'd endorse, really. No surprises there...

Do note also that ol' smarmypants hosting the video calls it "disingenuous" to differentiate between what beliefs people hold and what beliefs people act on, which is about the lamest, most half-assed pre-emptive evasion I've seen in quite some time...
(protip: what someone believes but does not act is so obviously less relevant that it boggles the mind he could try to conflate them with a straight face)

Nor even are the stated "beliefs" indicative. What did those surveyed think of the question(s)? No explanation given. What does "sharia law" mean to them? No explanation given. Do you have any idea? Did the video's creators? A legal system informed by their religious beliefs? Most Christians want that. Most atheists want a legal system informed by their "religious" beliefs. But most stated religious beliefs are slogans, inflated by self-reporting - why should that be different anywhere else in the world?
(protip: a single datum regarding a single apparent belief with no context does not a "radical" make, even by the most dishonest and equivocal definition of "radical" imaginable)

9/11 conspiracy beliefs? Even more pathetic. That's a strain of idiocy which follows no religious boundaries; for someone who pissily dismissed trivial objections as disingenuous, our Mr. Shapiro has got quite the talent for a little disingenuousness himself! There are plenty of fools espousing such idiotic conspiracist notions even here. In Canada. You'd see the same number saying so in Christian Brazil or Russia as in Indonesia. Ignorant? Yes. Radical? Hardly. Islamic? By no sane or rational means.

Even among those who hold radical beliefs (and continuing to gloss over how one extracts "radical" from such shitty data) the number who act on them is tiny. This has nothing to do with Islam; it's how all humans work.

There are billions of Muslims in the world. How many have actually taken violent acts? Hundreds of thousands, if I'm being incredibly generous; that's barely 10%.

There are over a million Muslims in Canada, the country I am unfortunate enough to share with you; how many have taken violent acts? Double digits. Not double digit percentages, literally only dozens of people. That's not even enough to count as a rounding error.

Oh, wait, sorry; I clearly meant to say TEH MUZLIMS R COMIN FOR MUH FREEDUMS WE GOTTA CLOSE BRDURS TROLOLOLOL

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
03-11-2014, 01:48 AM
RE: The Third Jihad
(02-11-2014 02:17 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(02-11-2014 01:14 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  


His "math" (to be overly generous in so describing it) is as facetious as it is self-serving - just the type of thing you'd endorse, really. No surprises there...

Do note also that ol' smarmypants hosting the video calls it "disingenuous" to differentiate between what beliefs people hold and what beliefs people act on, which is about the lamest, most half-assed pre-emptive evasion I've seen in quite some time...
(protip: what someone believes but does not act is so obviously less relevant that it boggles the mind he could try to conflate them with a straight face)

Nor even are the stated "beliefs" indicative. What did those surveyed think of the question(s)? No explanation given. What does "sharia law" mean to them? No explanation given. Do you have any idea? Did the video's creators? A legal system informed by their religious beliefs? Most Christians want that. Most atheists want a legal system informed by
(protip: a single datum regarding a single apparent belief with no context does not a "radical" make, even by the most dishonest and equivocal definition of "radical" imaginable)

9/11 conspiracy beliefs? Even more pathetic. That's a strain of idiocy which follows no religious boundaries; for someone who pissily dismissed trivial objections as disingenuous, our Mr. Shapiro has got quite the talent for a little disingenuousness himself! There are plenty of fools espousing such idiotic conspiracist notions even here. In Canada. You'd see the same number saying so in Christian Brazil or Russia as in Indonesia. Ignorant? Yes. Radical? Hardly. Islamic? By no sane or rational means.

Even among those who hold radical beliefs (and continuing to gloss over how one extracts "radical" from such shitty data) the number who act on them is tiny. This has nothing to do with Islam; it's how all humans work.

There are billions of Muslims in the world. How many have actually taken violent acts? Hundreds of thousands, if I'm being incredibly generous; that's barely 10%.

There are over a million Muslims in Canada, the country I am unfortunate enough to share with you; how many have taken violent acts? Double digits. Not double digit percentages, literally only dozens of people. That's not even enough to count as a rounding error.

Oh, wait, sorry; I clearly meant to say TEH MUZLIMS R COMIN FOR MUH FREEDUMS WE GOTTA CLOSE BRDURS TROLOLOLOL

Or in other words, 'LOL, I CAN HAZ STATISTIC?'

[Image: 317.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 01:56 PM
RE: The Third Jihad
(02-11-2014 02:17 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(02-11-2014 01:14 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  


His "math" (to be overly generous in so describing it) is as facetious as it is self-serving - just the type of thing you'd endorse, really. No surprises there...

Do note also that ol' smarmypants hosting the video calls it "disingenuous" to differentiate between what beliefs people hold and what beliefs people act on, which is about the lamest, most half-assed pre-emptive evasion I've seen in quite some time...
(protip: what someone believes but does not act is so obviously less relevant that it boggles the mind he could try to conflate them with a straight face)

Nor even are the stated "beliefs" indicative. What did those surveyed think of the question(s)? No explanation given. What does "sharia law" mean to them? No explanation given. Do you have any idea? Did the video's creators? A legal system informed by their religious beliefs? Most Christians want that. Most atheists want a legal system informed by their "religious" beliefs. But most stated religious beliefs are slogans, inflated by self-reporting - why should that be different anywhere else in the world?
(protip: a single datum regarding a single apparent belief with no context does not a "radical" make, even by the most dishonest and equivocal definition of "radical" imaginable)

9/11 conspiracy beliefs? Even more pathetic. That's a strain of idiocy which follows no religious boundaries; for someone who pissily dismissed trivial objections as disingenuous, our Mr. Shapiro has got quite the talent for a little disingenuousness himself! There are plenty of fools espousing such idiotic conspiracist notions even here. In Canada. You'd see the same number saying so in Christian Brazil or Russia as in Indonesia. Ignorant? Yes. Radical? Hardly. Islamic? By no sane or rational means.

Even among those who hold radical beliefs (and continuing to gloss over how one extracts "radical" from such shitty data) the number who act on them is tiny. This has nothing to do with Islam; it's how all humans work.

There are billions of Muslims in the world. How many have actually taken violent acts? Hundreds of thousands, if I'm being incredibly generous; that's barely 10%.

There are over a million Muslims in Canada, the country I am unfortunate enough to share with you; how many have taken violent acts? Double digits. Not double digit percentages, literally only dozens of people. That's not even enough to count as a rounding error.

Oh, wait, sorry; I clearly meant to say TEH MUZLIMS R COMIN FOR MUH FREEDUMS WE GOTTA CLOSE BRDURS TROLOLOLOL

Wanting to install a system under which those who leave your religion are punished by death isn't radical? So you have to act on views to be considered radical? WTF?

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2014, 02:51 AM
RE: The Third Jihad
(05-11-2014 01:56 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  
(02-11-2014 02:17 PM)cjlr Wrote:  His "math" (to be overly generous in so describing it) is as facetious as it is self-serving - just the type of thing you'd endorse, really. No surprises there...

Do note also that ol' smarmypants hosting the video calls it "disingenuous" to differentiate between what beliefs people hold and what beliefs people act on, which is about the lamest, most half-assed pre-emptive evasion I've seen in quite some time...
(protip: what someone believes but does not act is so obviously less relevant that it boggles the mind he could try to conflate them with a straight face)

Nor even are the stated "beliefs" indicative. What did those surveyed think of the question(s)? No explanation given. What does "sharia law" mean to them? No explanation given. Do you have any idea? Did the video's creators? A legal system informed by their religious beliefs? Most Christians want that. Most atheists want a legal system informed by their "religious" beliefs. But most stated religious beliefs are slogans, inflated by self-reporting - why should that be different anywhere else in the world?
(protip: a single datum regarding a single apparent belief with no context does not a "radical" make, even by the most dishonest and equivocal definition of "radical" imaginable)

9/11 conspiracy beliefs? Even more pathetic. That's a strain of idiocy which follows no religious boundaries; for someone who pissily dismissed trivial objections as disingenuous, our Mr. Shapiro has got quite the talent for a little disingenuousness himself! There are plenty of fools espousing such idiotic conspiracist notions even here. In Canada. You'd see the same number saying so in Christian Brazil or Russia as in Indonesia. Ignorant? Yes. Radical? Hardly. Islamic? By no sane or rational means.

Even among those who hold radical beliefs (and continuing to gloss over how one extracts "radical" from such shitty data) the number who act on them is tiny. This has nothing to do with Islam; it's how all humans work.

There are billions of Muslims in the world. How many have actually taken violent acts? Hundreds of thousands, if I'm being incredibly generous; that's barely 10%.

There are over a million Muslims in Canada, the country I am unfortunate enough to share with you; how many have taken violent acts? Double digits. Not double digit percentages, literally only dozens of people. That's not even enough to count as a rounding error.

Oh, wait, sorry; I clearly meant to say TEH MUZLIMS R COMIN FOR MUH FREEDUMS WE GOTTA CLOSE BRDURS TROLOLOLOL

Wanting to install a system under which those who leave your religion are punished by death isn't radical? So you have to act on views to be considered radical? WTF?

Here you are, once again, unable to grasp the concept that 'sharia law' can mean different things to other people who are not yourself. Boy, you are fucking thick... Facepalm

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
08-11-2014, 09:07 AM
RE: The Third Jihad
(08-11-2014 02:51 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 01:56 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  Wanting to install a system under which those who leave your religion are punished by death isn't radical? So you have to act on views to be considered radical? WTF?

Here you are, once again, unable to grasp the concept that 'sharia law' can mean different things to other people who are not yourself. Boy, you are fucking thick... Facepalm

So different people see the punishment clearly proscribed for apostasy in Sahih al-Bukhari 4:52:260 and 9:89:271 different ways (BTW Sahih al-Bukhari is the most important part of the Hadith)? The Sharia is quite clear, it is a written legal code so interpretation is limited. You are being highly disingenuous by pretending the the Sharia is some sort of philosophy that can mean whatever the believer wants it to.

You hypocrisy is being aired for all to see here, as I am sure you would not be so accepting if Christians wanted to implement Biblical law.

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2014, 11:19 AM
RE: The Third Jihad
(08-11-2014 09:07 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  
(08-11-2014 02:51 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Here you are, once again, unable to grasp the concept that 'sharia law' can mean different things to other people who are not yourself. Boy, you are fucking thick... Facepalm

So different people see the punishment clearly proscribed for apostasy in Sahih al-Bukhari 4:52:260 and 9:89:271 different ways (BTW Sahih al-Bukhari is the most important part of the Hadith)? The Sharia is quite clear, it is a written legal code so interpretation is limited. You are being highly disingenuous by pretending the the Sharia is some sort of philosophy that can mean whatever the believer wants it to.

You hypocrisy is being aired for all to see here, as I am sure you would not be so accepting if Christians wanted to implement Biblical law.

No... you would think so if you never used a source like history to examine the fact. That interpretation of what seems clear is never so. The idea that it's rigid pales in face of the way people have tried to implement all types of religious belief over their history, including this exactly.

There are Christians who profess they want to implement biblical law all the time in the US. Some claim they already are doing so and yet stoning children is ignored? How can it be if INTERPRETATION IS LIMITED... because it's not limited. This is also a trait that's frequently held in the party your cheer for in victory. If you don't want Christian Law or Sharia law, any praise of the Republican party is a little step down hypocrisy yourself. I suppose you can just ignore the policies you dislike in favor of the few you idealize though.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
08-11-2014, 12:38 PM
RE: The Third Jihad
(08-11-2014 09:07 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  
(08-11-2014 02:51 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Here you are, once again, unable to grasp the concept that 'sharia law' can mean different things to other people who are not yourself. Boy, you are fucking thick... Facepalm

So different people see the punishment clearly proscribed for apostasy in Sahih al-Bukhari 4:52:260 and 9:89:271 different ways (BTW Sahih al-Bukhari is the most important part of the Hadith)? The Sharia is quite clear, it is a written legal code so interpretation is limited. You are being highly disingenuous by pretending the the Sharia is some sort of philosophy that can mean whatever the believer wants it to.

You hypocrisy is being aired for all to see here, as I am sure you would not be so accepting if Christians wanted to implement Biblical law.

Hey fucknuts! Does every 'Christian' think you'll spend eternity in Hell for taking God's name in vain? Do they all even believe in Hell? Do they all even believe in the same Jesus?

Does every 'Jew' follow a strictly kosher diet? Do they all believe Moses literally existed? Even the ones who claim to follow rabbinical law, how many of them disagree on exactly what that is or make their own exception?

You are using your one paranoid, literal interpretation and a not-at-all helpful or objective and purposely vague 'survey' to go about fear-mongering against an entire 2 billion strong religion. So let me spell out out for you.

You are stupid as fuck.

You can fight and oppose the fundamentalists without tar and feathering the entire religion. You're inability to deal in nuance and degrees speaks only to your profound naivety.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
08-11-2014, 12:42 PM
RE: The Third Jihad
I see the OP was a post and run.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2014, 03:54 PM
RE: The Third Jihad
(05-11-2014 01:56 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  Wanting to install a system under which those who leave your religion are punished by death isn't radical? So you have to act on views to be considered radical? WTF?

That's not a counter-argument.

That's continuing to blindly assert your own particular feels on the subject of the religious beliefs of billions.

Now; you may - I can only hope - find it within yourself to forgive me for wondering how your own special feels could possibly encompass those billions in such a shallow, simplistic manner. I clearly shouldn't have wondered - how could I have been so foolish as to question your feels?

PS: would you care to comment on how stunningly disingenuous it is to equate "9/11 conspiracy beliefs" with any possible degree of "radical" Islamic beliefs? Since, you know, that is a thing your very special video attempted to do.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: