I Have Legitimate Concerns About Islam And That's Not Bigotry
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1l4gGkPziA]
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
room101 · 51-55, M
802 words, that’s how many you’ve expended on the above load of drivel and not once have you addressed the salient points raised in the video clip. Despite the fact that I’ve simplified those points for you twice. Or is that three times, I’ve lost count.
According to Andrea Harrn, who is a psychotherapist, passive/aggressive behaviour is defined as:
Passive aggressive behaviour takes many forms but can generally be described as a non-verbal aggression that manifests in negative behaviour. It is where you are angry with someone but do not or cannot tell them. Instead of communicating honestly when you feel upset, annoyed, irritated or disappointed you may instead bottle the feelings up, shut off verbally, give angry looks, make obvious changes in behaviour, be obstructive, sulky or put up a stone wall. It may also involve indirectly resisting requests from others by evading or creating confusion around the issue. Not going along with things. It can either be covert (concealed and hidden) or overt (blatant and obvious).
http://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/counsellor-articles/what-is-passive-aggressive-behaviour
You can mess around with definitions all you like but definitions are what they are, not what you want them to be.
According to Webster’s dictionary, sophomoric is defined as:
1: conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature <asophomoric argument>
2: of, relating to, or characteristic of a sophomore <sophomoric humor>
Not only is your assertion a case of “the pot calling the kettle black”, it has no contextual relationship to your stated reason for accusing me of being sophomoric. I addressed Berangere because that’s who I wanted to talk to first. I wanted to talk to her first because I didn’t agree with her assessment of you being a Muslim Apologist. You’re simply not smart enough to one of those.
A couple of other definitions/distinctions that you need to clear up in your little brain.
To judge is not synonymous with hate. And yes, you have judged everybody that I have mentioned but I have never said that you expressed any hatred towards them. I’ve just said that you skirt around the issue without actually addressing it and you do this in a hypocritical manner. And yes, you have spared Muslims from your judgmental nonsense.
Bridget Gabriel does not quote PEW, she says “intelligence agencies”. I mentioned them when I was challenging your assertions re the accuracy of her comments. I did not directly quote them, I said that, for off the cuff statistics, hers were pretty damned accurate. As to Germany and Japan during and before WW2, “huh?” indeed. It still baffles me that you can sit there and write off entire nations without even considering what was going on in those nations and how the general population got to the position that they were in. But you insist that I do that in the case of Iran. Yet more hypocrisy methinks.
The population of the Wiemar Republic in 1925 was approx. 62 million. In 1920, the membership of the Nazi party was less than 60. By 1945, it had risen to 8.5 million. There were a total of eleven rallies held at Nuremberg, by the Nazi party, from 1923 to 1939. It is estimated that 700,000 people attended the 6th Rally in 1934. Assuming that they were all Germans and that there were similar numbers at all of the other rallies and that none of the attendees went to more than one rally then, yeah, I suppose that we could end up with the millions that you assert.
“Although the Nazis won the greatest share of the popular vote in the two Reichstag general elections of 1932, they did not have a majority, so Hitler led a short-lived coalition government formed by the NSDAP and the German National People's Party. Under pressure from politicians, industrialists, and the business community, President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany on 30 January 1933. This event is known as the Machtergreifung (seizure of power). In the following months, the NSDAP used a process termed Gleichschaltung (co-ordination) to rapidly bring all aspects of life under control of the party. All civilian organisations, including agricultural groups, volunteer organisations, and sports clubs, had their leadership replaced with Nazi sympathisers or party members. By June 1933, virtually the only organisations not in the control of the NSDAP were the army and the churches.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Rally
I’ve got no idea how many Germans were involved in Kristallnacht, I’m sure you’ve got some handy statistics somewhere but, does any of that prove that the majority of Germans were not peaceful moderates? I don’t think so. Also, if we are going to use Kristallnacht as the smoking gun, then surely we should also investigate the thousands and thousands of Muslims who demonstrated in the streets and attacked embassies and did god knows what else all because a Danish newspaper dared to publish some cartoons about their prophet. Either way, we have yet more straw man arguments. Here’s another definition for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then refuting that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.
This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.
The argument that I put forward was that Islamic terrorism (of the form that we are dealing with today) can be traced back to Khomeini. Have you addressed that assertion? No, you have not. You have put forward a straw man argument about how he came into power. I said that your knowledge was inaccurate. You turned the clock back a further 25 years. All of this is irrelevant, all of this is the very definition of a straw man argument because, Khomeini was a fundamentalist Muslim cleric. His supporters were and are fundamentalist Muslims. Bottom line, secular politician or corrupt Shah, both would have been targets and both would have been deposed by Khomeini and his mob. Unless, of course, you have a crystal ball that says otherwise because, there is nothing in recent history that supports your implied stance that, had Mussadegh remained in power, all in the Iranian garden would have been rosy. In fact, the opposite is true.
British colonialism. Where is the evidence that supports the notion that there is a direct correlation between the British Empire as it was and Islamic terrorism as it is? There is no such evidence. The evidence is that Islamic nutjobs come into power and people die. All over the world!
I am interested in Lebanon and the why’s and wherefores of the various wars that have taken place in that country. What I’m not interested in is your presentation and interpretation of events. However, none of that is neither here nor there because none of it is relevant to the discussion at hand. You don’t like Brigette Gabriel, so what. As I said from the outset, I’m not holding her up as a paragon of virtue. You argue about her biography, so what. Because you think that she’s not credible? Is she a witness in some court case where her credibility would be relevant? Is she running for some election that I’ve not heard about? Does anything about her past impact on the salient points that she raises in the video clip? No, no, no, no, no. As I have said before, if you can’t make such discernments then there really is no point in listening to anything that you have to say about her. Or anything else for that matter.
And on and on and on it goes, ending with your little anecdote on hate speech. Who in this entire debate has said anything that inspires, incites or otherwise generates hate. I’m talking about reality now Northwest, not what’s going on in your furtive little imagination.
I have to be honest, I feel like a bit of a fool because I’ve fallen for your insipid straw man arguments yet again. But here’s a little fun fact for you to ponder. I mentioned slavery because you were banging on about the British. I decided to hit back about America. Silly of me I know. Anyway, the dialogue then went like this:
Northwest – “Though, I really wonder, who started the slave trade in the New World. I wonder who?”
Me – “Oh and by the way, your implication that it was the British who introduced slavery to the Americas is as daft as pretty much everything else that you’ve come out with. It was the Portuguese.”
Northwest – “To further add to your history lesson, the Portuguese shipped slaves to their colonies in South America. The British were responsible for most slave shipments to our shores.
I would suggest re-reading my first post.”
The term “New World” was coined by the Florentine explorer, Amerigo Vespucci, in the very early 1500’s and it referred to the South American continent and the islands of the Caribbean. During the 1400’s, the Portuguese were establishing trade routes between Europe and the New World (aka The Americas) upon arriving on the west coast of Africa, they found that slavery was a thriving industry. Some suggest that it was predominantly practiced by Muslims and/or Muslim Arabs but we can skip that bit. I don’t want you to accuse me of hate speech again. The Portuguese took advantage of this very cheap labour source and exported it to the Americas. Later, the British and the French and the Spanish and the Dutch all jumped on the slavery gravy train. Until that is, a British politician by the name of William Wilberforce had it abolished……..by democratic means. Eighty years later, the Americans also tried to abolish slavery only this time, it resulted in a civil war.
As I’ve already admitted, I’ve fallen into your straw man trap yet again. It won’t happen next time. In future, if you do not address the central points raised then this is all you will get from me:
TOTALLY IRRELAVANT. TRY AGAIN!
According to Andrea Harrn, who is a psychotherapist, passive/aggressive behaviour is defined as:
Passive aggressive behaviour takes many forms but can generally be described as a non-verbal aggression that manifests in negative behaviour. It is where you are angry with someone but do not or cannot tell them. Instead of communicating honestly when you feel upset, annoyed, irritated or disappointed you may instead bottle the feelings up, shut off verbally, give angry looks, make obvious changes in behaviour, be obstructive, sulky or put up a stone wall. It may also involve indirectly resisting requests from others by evading or creating confusion around the issue. Not going along with things. It can either be covert (concealed and hidden) or overt (blatant and obvious).
http://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/counsellor-articles/what-is-passive-aggressive-behaviour
You can mess around with definitions all you like but definitions are what they are, not what you want them to be.
According to Webster’s dictionary, sophomoric is defined as:
1: conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature <asophomoric argument>
2: of, relating to, or characteristic of a sophomore <sophomoric humor>
Not only is your assertion a case of “the pot calling the kettle black”, it has no contextual relationship to your stated reason for accusing me of being sophomoric. I addressed Berangere because that’s who I wanted to talk to first. I wanted to talk to her first because I didn’t agree with her assessment of you being a Muslim Apologist. You’re simply not smart enough to one of those.
A couple of other definitions/distinctions that you need to clear up in your little brain.
To judge is not synonymous with hate. And yes, you have judged everybody that I have mentioned but I have never said that you expressed any hatred towards them. I’ve just said that you skirt around the issue without actually addressing it and you do this in a hypocritical manner. And yes, you have spared Muslims from your judgmental nonsense.
Bridget Gabriel does not quote PEW, she says “intelligence agencies”. I mentioned them when I was challenging your assertions re the accuracy of her comments. I did not directly quote them, I said that, for off the cuff statistics, hers were pretty damned accurate. As to Germany and Japan during and before WW2, “huh?” indeed. It still baffles me that you can sit there and write off entire nations without even considering what was going on in those nations and how the general population got to the position that they were in. But you insist that I do that in the case of Iran. Yet more hypocrisy methinks.
The population of the Wiemar Republic in 1925 was approx. 62 million. In 1920, the membership of the Nazi party was less than 60. By 1945, it had risen to 8.5 million. There were a total of eleven rallies held at Nuremberg, by the Nazi party, from 1923 to 1939. It is estimated that 700,000 people attended the 6th Rally in 1934. Assuming that they were all Germans and that there were similar numbers at all of the other rallies and that none of the attendees went to more than one rally then, yeah, I suppose that we could end up with the millions that you assert.
“Although the Nazis won the greatest share of the popular vote in the two Reichstag general elections of 1932, they did not have a majority, so Hitler led a short-lived coalition government formed by the NSDAP and the German National People's Party. Under pressure from politicians, industrialists, and the business community, President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany on 30 January 1933. This event is known as the Machtergreifung (seizure of power). In the following months, the NSDAP used a process termed Gleichschaltung (co-ordination) to rapidly bring all aspects of life under control of the party. All civilian organisations, including agricultural groups, volunteer organisations, and sports clubs, had their leadership replaced with Nazi sympathisers or party members. By June 1933, virtually the only organisations not in the control of the NSDAP were the army and the churches.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Rally
I’ve got no idea how many Germans were involved in Kristallnacht, I’m sure you’ve got some handy statistics somewhere but, does any of that prove that the majority of Germans were not peaceful moderates? I don’t think so. Also, if we are going to use Kristallnacht as the smoking gun, then surely we should also investigate the thousands and thousands of Muslims who demonstrated in the streets and attacked embassies and did god knows what else all because a Danish newspaper dared to publish some cartoons about their prophet. Either way, we have yet more straw man arguments. Here’s another definition for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then refuting that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.
This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.
The argument that I put forward was that Islamic terrorism (of the form that we are dealing with today) can be traced back to Khomeini. Have you addressed that assertion? No, you have not. You have put forward a straw man argument about how he came into power. I said that your knowledge was inaccurate. You turned the clock back a further 25 years. All of this is irrelevant, all of this is the very definition of a straw man argument because, Khomeini was a fundamentalist Muslim cleric. His supporters were and are fundamentalist Muslims. Bottom line, secular politician or corrupt Shah, both would have been targets and both would have been deposed by Khomeini and his mob. Unless, of course, you have a crystal ball that says otherwise because, there is nothing in recent history that supports your implied stance that, had Mussadegh remained in power, all in the Iranian garden would have been rosy. In fact, the opposite is true.
British colonialism. Where is the evidence that supports the notion that there is a direct correlation between the British Empire as it was and Islamic terrorism as it is? There is no such evidence. The evidence is that Islamic nutjobs come into power and people die. All over the world!
I am interested in Lebanon and the why’s and wherefores of the various wars that have taken place in that country. What I’m not interested in is your presentation and interpretation of events. However, none of that is neither here nor there because none of it is relevant to the discussion at hand. You don’t like Brigette Gabriel, so what. As I said from the outset, I’m not holding her up as a paragon of virtue. You argue about her biography, so what. Because you think that she’s not credible? Is she a witness in some court case where her credibility would be relevant? Is she running for some election that I’ve not heard about? Does anything about her past impact on the salient points that she raises in the video clip? No, no, no, no, no. As I have said before, if you can’t make such discernments then there really is no point in listening to anything that you have to say about her. Or anything else for that matter.
And on and on and on it goes, ending with your little anecdote on hate speech. Who in this entire debate has said anything that inspires, incites or otherwise generates hate. I’m talking about reality now Northwest, not what’s going on in your furtive little imagination.
I have to be honest, I feel like a bit of a fool because I’ve fallen for your insipid straw man arguments yet again. But here’s a little fun fact for you to ponder. I mentioned slavery because you were banging on about the British. I decided to hit back about America. Silly of me I know. Anyway, the dialogue then went like this:
Northwest – “Though, I really wonder, who started the slave trade in the New World. I wonder who?”
Me – “Oh and by the way, your implication that it was the British who introduced slavery to the Americas is as daft as pretty much everything else that you’ve come out with. It was the Portuguese.”
Northwest – “To further add to your history lesson, the Portuguese shipped slaves to their colonies in South America. The British were responsible for most slave shipments to our shores.
I would suggest re-reading my first post.”
The term “New World” was coined by the Florentine explorer, Amerigo Vespucci, in the very early 1500’s and it referred to the South American continent and the islands of the Caribbean. During the 1400’s, the Portuguese were establishing trade routes between Europe and the New World (aka The Americas) upon arriving on the west coast of Africa, they found that slavery was a thriving industry. Some suggest that it was predominantly practiced by Muslims and/or Muslim Arabs but we can skip that bit. I don’t want you to accuse me of hate speech again. The Portuguese took advantage of this very cheap labour source and exported it to the Americas. Later, the British and the French and the Spanish and the Dutch all jumped on the slavery gravy train. Until that is, a British politician by the name of William Wilberforce had it abolished……..by democratic means. Eighty years later, the Americans also tried to abolish slavery only this time, it resulted in a civil war.
As I’ve already admitted, I’ve fallen into your straw man trap yet again. It won’t happen next time. In future, if you do not address the central points raised then this is all you will get from me:
TOTALLY IRRELAVANT. TRY AGAIN!