That was done. If you are going to participate, my suggestion is a role other than a cheerleader and instigator. If you have nothing better to do or offer, you might consider getting out the tweezers and plucking splinters.
The above was a response to the below. But technically it is missing it's initial statement. This is the whole sentence. Jordan's a general example of this. Since they have no oil, their chose is to 1)Be friendly to the west and try modernize 2)Be isolated from us and extremely poor. They've essentially chosen the first. That's what I meant by 'make the middle east modernize or isolate'. Without the power of oil, the middle east is 'our bitch'...since we are economic giants. I personally don't think terrorism will die out for quite a period of time, but that definitely would help.
No, thats like saying that ALL people that live in Africa have white skin. Some people in Africa have white skin, most have dark skin. Some Muslims are extremists, most are not. Some Christians are extremists, most are not.
Here you seem to say that your summary was inaccurate because KLB's words were, in your opinion, to twisted to summarize well. If I misunderstood what you said here. I apologize. Here I say that if you are going to summarize KLB's views, you should attempt to summarize his views accurately, as a summary of how he puts them forth, rather than a summary of what you think of his views, and that if you cannot summarize because, in your view, KLB's words are to twisted for you to be able to summarize well, you should refrain from the summary. Here, we see that I may have made a mistake in my understanding that you were claiming your summary was flawed, but that it was due to KLB's words being, in your opinion, to twisted and full of lies to do so. If that was not your view, then I once again apologize. Here we see a mixed metaphor where you first say that I am a cheerleader, on the side lines, then someone who is at the cause of what is going on (in the middle of things, and the cause), then allude to the earlier discussion of fence sitting where one is on the boundary of two different yards or 'camps of discussion' but has yet to make up their mind which to join. Thus clearly, if one uses the traditional meanings of these metaphors, you accuse me of being on one person's or team's side, but cheering him on rather than participating; of being the cause of disagreements; and of being someone who can not decide to support either side. These three metaphors clearly contradict one another if used in the traditional sense. As these three metaphors are often used in a negative connotation, it is also likely that they were meant as personal attacks. I am here in an attempt to understand the arguments of others, and see how these views interact, and gather the links, data, and evidence presented by both sides, in order to better educate and inform myself. This is difficult to do when people rely on logical fallacies and fraudulent debate tactics. As such, I try to point them out when they occur. So far, in my estimation, you have presented a large amount of good evidence, but have used a large number of logical errors. I think that KLB has perhaps had other logical errors, but ones that are harder for me, personally to pin down and point out. So far, in this discussion, it seems that you and KLB are actually having two seperate debates, and attempting to pull the other to debate on your topic. You are winning the debate over if Islam has a very violent past, if many have died by it's sword, if there are preachings of violence in the Quran and other holy books of Islam, if many branches of the religion preach and violence, with larger numbers of Muslims listening to and following these violent teaching than any other current world religion... except perhaps Atheism, which I haven't seen addressed in detail. This debate supports the conclusion that Islam is a violent religion. KLB on the other hand seems to be winning the debate over if there are teachings of peace in addition to teachings of violence, and which set of teachings most Muslims follow, especially in countries like the US, Canada, and the UK. However you have pointed out that there is an alarming ACCEPTANCE of this violence by many Muslims, even if they are not among those who would practice it themselves. Another person has pointed out that there exists the principle of Abrogation, where the later parts of the Quran replace the earlier parts when the two disagree. I am still not sure how much of the Islamic world follows this principle however. So far the sides in this debate seem to be somewhat matched. However KLB seems to be ahead somewhat, if for no other reason than the lower number of personal attacks coming from his side. Also, I may be leaning towards this side due to a tendency to give people (and relgions) the benefit of any doubt. So yeah, I'll cop to being a Fence-sitter as I did before. Most people who have yet to make up their minds but are trying to educate themselves are. And I don't see a problem with asking questions in a large multi-person discussion/debate or pointing out fallacies when one doesn't have a firm position. The more someone questions, and listens, the more they wind up knowing in the end. And learning it's self, I believe, is a laudable goal.
Incorrect. I accept your apology, again. Once again, incorrect and pointed out. Apology accepted again. Starting to see the pattern? I'm not interested in a referee and personally I could care less who or what you subscribe to. My posts are not made seeking your approval. I do my best to write in a style that even a 6th grader can understand. It doesn't require someone sitting on the sidelines to mis-analyse after every post.
Thank you. I did say -if-. I stand by my statement that IF in some set of circumstances, you did not feel you could correctly summarize a person's view the correct the correct thing to do would be not to summarize, but simply give your response without the summary. And my attached statement that avoiding the summary of other people's opinions is generally a good idea even IF one feels they are summarizing correctly. Thank you. I do not assume that you are seeking approval. I do however, still try to point out what, in my understanding, may be logical errors. If at some point you do make a logical error, and my post points it out and helps you to realize it, thus improving the discussion then in my estimation all of my other posts will have been worth it. I will continue to seek edification, and will continue to point out what I believe to be logical errors and debate falicies, even if you don't want a referee. I'm not a mod, I'm not an administrator. I'm just a person participating in a discussion. Even if I was mistaken about your believing your summary was in error, I still personally think the summary it's self was in error. Actually, I still hold to a lot of my analysis of your posts, and still see a large number of debate fallacies in them. I just no longer am under the impression that you have recognized and copped to any of them. You're welcome to your impression that you did not commit any of these fallacies. However, even if you expect me to keep silent about my opinion on what I see as logical fallacies (you are of course free to expect anything you want), I will still point them out. And as a fair number of people have been confused by your posts in the past apparently sometimes you DO need a translator. Especially during those times when you seem to get rather upset with the person you address, due to the verbal abuse you sling in their direction. Anger does tend to reduce one's ability to debate well. And KLB, you seem to get riled up in some of your posts, and in those posts where I infer your being upset, you come a lot closer to straw man fallacies than in most of your posts where you simply post evidence and try to explain it.
For me learning and researching is very important. As is critical thinking and taking a serious look at the agenda of the source of the information. This is why (from our other discussion) Wikipedia is an unacceptable reference source. One can not discern what the agenda is of the writer(s) on Wikipedia. A good healthy debate can force one to research and dig for information that they might not otherwise investigate. An debate is not about winning or losing. It is about learning. If one goes into a debate without the willingness to challenge their own beliefs or do research and learn they lose because they don't learn anything new. Those that go into a debate to learn and challenge their beliefs and then adapt and grow from the debate and their research they come out a better person and thus win. I have learned a lot of good and bad about Islam, but I have also learned a lot of bad about Christianity in the process (I knew the good). I've learned more about the conflict within the Qur'an and Hadiths that result in a broad range of beliefs within Islam. I do not know all there is to know about Islam, but I know more than when I started. I have learned a great deal more about Christianity and the way some extreme groups interpret the Bible (which I find extremely disturbing). I have learned a lot about our founding fathers and Constitution. I have learned for instance that indeed this was not founded country as a Christian nation (unlike people had try to convince me) and that the founding fathers were very clear about this. Before when someone told me that this country was founded as a Christian nation I had no answers or rebuttals, but now I do. I now know more about the nature of the oath of office something I didn't know much about previously. Finally what I learned is that the hatred against Islam and Muslims runs much deeper than I could have ever imagined. We are on the verge of going through another shameful period in our country's history where another minority population will suffer persecution unless "men of good conscience" stand up to protect the rights of their fellow man and speak out against the hate. There is no hope for peace unless moderately minded people (of all faiths) stand up to be heard and work to reign in the extreme elements of their own faiths and work to build bridged of understanding. We can not let the violent minority of any religion define their religion and taint the majority of peaceful believers within said religions.
Josh you are most correct on this. Passion can get the better of good judgment. Sometimes it is better to step back and post later than to take the "bait" and post in the heat of the moment. Flippant remarks and remarks made without taking measure of one's senses invariably lead to poorly written remarks that do more harm to one's cause than good.
I have learned a lot from both you and GTech during this debate. I am sorry that I have not contributed more of the work that has gone to the edification of myself and others, however this is an account that I post to for work at work, and as such, am not allowed to spend time on research to add to the discussion.
the breaking of the statement was intentional to express how I felt about the two parts of the statement not to infer something you did not say. I saw the word "made" to mean outside force exerted upon them to modernize. I would agree that on the whole Jordan is a good example of a moderate nation that is progressing in a positive direction for world peace and their internal population. I don't think we should ever exert our economic might in the way your choice of using "our bitch" infers, but I do agree that removing our dependence on middle eastern oil can only improve the situation. I'd prefer to see us use carrots to encourage the Middle East forward rather than a "stick" to force it in the direction we want. Done properly the carrot will help them move forward without building more resentment. The stick on the other hand will only lead to greater resentment and hostilities. It will take decades, but the sooner we start moving in the right direction the sooner the violence will begin to subside.
Two Buddhist teachers shot dead, burned in Thai south http://today.reuters.com/news/artic..._BKK139386_RTRUKOC_0_US-THAILAND-SECURITY.xml Reuters has taken on a kinder/gentler approach to dealing with terrorists by not referring to them as terrorists. This appeases them and western apologists who seek to sweep their actions under the rug. They are probably "just misunderstood." And/or "just taking scriptures from the quran out of context." Certainly understandable for their friends and family What, no abortion bombings today?
Aye, anger and logic don't tend to mix well. However we need both emotion and logic. Unfortunately, it is sometimes the case that we use one, where the other holds best sway.
They are both terrorists and separatists. The Muslims in Thailand are seeking a separate Muslim state. This seems familiar to the conflict in Israel and Palestine. Many want a separate state. Some are willing to kill in an attempt to get it. Those that are willing to kill in an attempt to get it should be arrested and tried for their crimes, if they can be found. If possible, those not responsible for it should not be forced to bear further restrictions or hardships for the actions of those that are responsible, as oppression tends to breed more violent separatists. I refer to my understanding of the IRA on this, which I admit may be flawed.
Never forget that our founding fathers were in their day terrorists. We may be greatful for the end results, but those end results came about by violence committed against the Crown and her property. I am not saying that the founding fathers ever killed innocent women and children, but the Crown did consider them to be what we would call today terrorists. You are making what is a political struggle into a religious struggle. This is not to justify or excuse their act. No struggle justifies the use of violence against civilians and non-combatants. To pin this on Islam rather than a political act of succession from a disagreeable government, however, is erroneous and inflammatory. Our own country has been through two episodes of armed rebellion against the government (the Revolution and Civil War) and armed resistance against the government in charge is a common occurrence throughout the world (e.g. Latin America over the last 30 years). Who defines what is a noble armed revolution or act of succession and what is simply violent terrorists? The victor maybe? Today you rail against Muslims, but thirty years ago the enemy was Communism. Different faces, but the same old tired dogma. It seems people just always need an enemy that they can demonize. Why should a peaceful Muslim in Detroit be persecuted or held to account for the acts of some militants in Malaysia?
What Reuters and other news agencies should do is show pictures of these "suspected... separatists" whenever a story like this comes up. They could just use that muhammad with the bomb on his head as the "artists" sketch/rendition of the "suspected...... separatists".
I was sort of joking. But seriously, big economies influence a great deal on how others modernize. So while we might not use government economic forces, there's quite a bit of comprimising a third-world must take with the business sector in order for there to be moderate economic success. The end of financed extremist teachings will do quite a bit...the other part of the equation is to influence the leaders in places (e.g Pakistan) to move their economy into this century. Get people working and get people away from the old tribal days. And yes, I think the violence will definitely decrease. Also, less examples of violence is always good on the future minds of islam. I believe you also said this, but they should focus more on moderate islamic leadership. People whom look at the sitution with an even-hand. I've heard some muslim believers speak in a manner that I found profoundly engaging...actually see them criticize the faults within. Trying to make amends with the modern era, and finding it critical to talk these issue out among others of different faith (in constructive manner).
I don't accept that they were. Nor will I abuse them in an attempt to assert that they would approve of today's terrorists. You are willing to call any/everyone a terrorist, including our founding forefathers, except those who are actually terrorists and use their religion to justify what they do. Right, it's not the terrorists fault that there wasn't an abundance of muslim teachers just sitting around waiting to be killed. So they just randomly selected a few Buddhists instead To what length will you not go to defend terrorists? Pretend they were Christians or Jews. You'd have no problem with definitions. Or for that matter, pretend they were our (used loosely) forefathers, since you think they were terrorists to. Everyone is a terrorist except the one committing acts of terrorism in the name of islam. Poor terrorists, they work so hard to kill in the cause of allah for their virgins and you want to take their credit away from them with sympathy. Who is discussing Detroit? You probably were not thinking of these guys, eh? http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005493.php http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2222470.stm http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061120/UPDATE/611200438 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...undreds+of+handguns"&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8