Free Speech: Netherlands might become de jure muslim state

[Project 430]

Kaworu 17

Project 429

Are you reading your own messages? You are the most intellectually dishonest poster I've discussed something with since Noora. Cut it out, you know what you're doing wrong. It is a contradiction, and I dare you to find a quote up to this point where I've said or even implied that it wasn't. By your own concession this paradox is functional, which is the key word. You know I'm right but instead of continuing the discussion you try to move the goalposts. You don't want to prove me wrong, you just want to prove you right. What the hell is your problem? Why do so many Christian posters pull this s**t?

Moving back to the actual non-bullshit discussion, you need to stop looking at 'tolerance and intolerance' and mirrored qualities. The only similarity they have is in language. In this context, they are not opposites. One is an ethical imperative and a political policy, the other is a state of mind. They are not at odds. Please don't take such a binary view of the world - and don't let the admittedly clumsy language choke the issue at heart. What you're doing right now is a textbook example of Orwellian supression.

Okay.

Project 429

http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&hl=en&q=paradox

Checkmate.

You tried to implied it wasn't but got burned by your own link. Cut it out, you know what you're doing wrong.

What is this? What do I look like to you, the maternity ward? Take your crying and moaning somewhere else.

You give me two concepts: tolerance and intolerance. If you don't want me to have a "binary view of the world" then give me something else to work with.

...I got burned with my own link? ...I'm crying and moaning?

I don't have the strength to put up with this kind of s**t. We're done here.

[Dark Lord Drake]

Project 429

Dark Lord Drake

And you're saying Islam cannot be the same way? And don't go and just point out extremists unless you're ready to show they're a majority.

I'm not saying it can't be, I'm saying it isn't.

Exotic Duncan

The problem is, that puts the responsibility for the actions of a few on the group as a whole, which is hardly fair.

Fallacy of Fairness. You can't avoid an unfair outcome in life, no matter what you do.

And as we can clearly see Project is a liar. He said he made no claim about Islam, yet what do we find? A claim about Islam. Come back when you're willing to stop being so dishonest wink

Edit: Oh he said important. But then he's faced the issue of showing how unimportant this is, which of course he never did in the first place.

[Dark Lord Drake]

Project 429

Dark Lord Drake

Project 429

Dark Lord Drake

Project 429

Read the material before you post in a topic, please. It's not my job to educate you on a subject you've already jumped headfirst into.

Good so you concede that you are wrong to stereotype Islam that way since you only have your opinion to base it on instead of providable facts. Should someone dare to interpret facts the same as you they are, of course, uniformed and uneducated. Proof of your claims is only for threads where the facts are not obvious, like with creationism and not for claims about billions of people in the world and their oh so easy to study culture and it's interactions with other cultures. Yes, the social sciences are so clear we needn't provide proof of our claims that are associated with them, just the hard sciences.

Quote:

What?

Well not everything can be fair so screw trying to be fair. That was more or less the message I got from your response to the other person.

...You're an idiot.

Does anyone else want to discuss this topic? I would like to go into it, but I'm not going to engage with people who 'debate' like that. I don't have the heroic level of patience it takes to correct the constant strawmen this guy is throwing at me. I think there's 3 separate kinds of logical fallacies in that quoted post alone, some used multiple times.

You're the idiot. You refuse to provide proof for your extremely broad claim about Islam.

Sarcasm is not a fallacy by the way. Bemoaning the fact that you somehow think you don't need to provide evidence for this claim about Muslims when people see fit to provide evidence for all sorts of sturdier claims isn't any sort of fallacy.

I've made no important claims about Islam itself. Learn to read. I'm not going to defend against accusations towards things that I haven't even said. When you want to talk like a responsible intellectual, I'll be more then happy to continue the discussion. Until then you'll get no more responses from me, so ******** off.

Lol, yeah sure go ahead and show how irrelevant that claim is.

[Project 429]

Dark Lord Drake

Project 429

Dark Lord Drake

And you're saying Islam cannot be the same way? And don't go and just point out extremists unless you're ready to show they're a majority.

I'm not saying it can't be, I'm saying it isn't.

Exotic Duncan

The problem is, that puts the responsibility for the actions of a few on the group as a whole, which is hardly fair.

Fallacy of Fairness. You can't avoid an unfair outcome in life, no matter what you do.

And as we can clearly see Project is a liar. He said he made no claim about Islam, yet what do we find? A claim about Islam. Come back when you're willing to stop being so dishonest wink

Edit: Oh he said important. But then he's faced the issue of showing how unimportant this is, which of course he never did in the first place.

Does this mean you want to talk about the issue or would you rather spend the rest of the thread trying to defeat arguments by virtue of semantics? I don't even know what your complaint is anymore, and I've got a good feeling you don't know what it is either. You know that religious-related violence is on the rise, and that's virtually the full extent of my argument at this point. If you want to have a discussion, I'm still here and I don't plan to leave. If you want to start another pissing match like Kaworu 17 does every time I talk with him, I still have room on my ignore list.

[Yoshpet]

Kaworu 17

Yoshpet

If all of this is so subjective, there is little reason for you to speak to others on the matter. Tolerance is defined by the average person. Imagine a bell curve.

Fortunately, consistency is not subject to whims.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Of course "consistency" isn't whimsical. The two are antonyms.

The average person isn't necessarily a whimsical definition either. Although it will shift over time, it is a slow process. You shouldn't underestimate the power of a collective social conscience.

[Kaworu 17]

Yoshpet

Kaworu 17

Yoshpet

If all of this is so subjective, there is little reason for you to speak to others on the matter. Tolerance is defined by the average person. Imagine a bell curve.

Fortunately, consistency is not subject to whims.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Of course "consistency" isn't whimsical. The two are antonyms.

The average person isn't necessarily a whimsical definition either. Although it will shift over time, it is a slow process. You shouldn't underestimate the power of a collective social conscience.

That it's easy to point out inconsistencies in how any average person defines tolerance. Because the nature of consistency is not as relative as the nature of "principles" like tolerance.

What are you talking about? We are all capricious.

[Dark Lord Drake]

Project 429

Dark Lord Drake

Project 429

Dark Lord Drake

And you're saying Islam cannot be the same way? And don't go and just point out extremists unless you're ready to show they're a majority.

I'm not saying it can't be, I'm saying it isn't.

Exotic Duncan

The problem is, that puts the responsibility for the actions of a few on the group as a whole, which is hardly fair.

Fallacy of Fairness. You can't avoid an unfair outcome in life, no matter what you do.

And as we can clearly see Project is a liar. He said he made no claim about Islam, yet what do we find? A claim about Islam. Come back when you're willing to stop being so dishonest wink

Edit: Oh he said important. But then he's faced the issue of showing how unimportant this is, which of course he never did in the first place.

Does this mean you want to talk about the issue or would you rather spend the rest of the thread trying to defeat arguments by virtue of semantics? I don't even know what your complaint is anymore, and I've got a good feeling you don't know what it is either. You know that religious-related violence is on the rise, and that's virtually the full extent of my argument at this point. If you want to have a discussion, I'm still here and I don't plan to leave. If you want to start another pissing match like Kaworu 17 does every time I talk with him, I still have room on my ignore list.

In other words you were disavowing a claim without even checking if you'd made it neutral

And I remember quite well what the complaint is. If you don't you should have just ******** looked it up instead of pretending it didn't exist.

To refresh the lazy bum:

You talked about how Judaism was malleable to the culture.
I asked if you were saying Islam cannot be the same way.
You said it wasn't.
I asked for proof.
You bitched instead of giving proof.

And here we are.

I'm still waiting for you to prove that Islam as a whole is not malleable to the culture.

[Yoshpet]

Kaworu 17

Yoshpet

Kaworu 17

Yoshpet

If all of this is so subjective, there is little reason for you to speak to others on the matter. Tolerance is defined by the average person. Imagine a bell curve.

Fortunately, consistency is not subject to whims.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Of course "consistency" isn't whimsical. The two are antonyms.

The average person isn't necessarily a whimsical definition either. Although it will shift over time, it is a slow process. You shouldn't underestimate the power of a collective social conscience.

That it's easy to point out inconsistencies in how any average person defines tolerance. Because the nature of consistency is not as relative as the nature of "principles" like tolerance.

What are you talking about? We are all capricious.

We all have the capacity to be capricious, but that doesn't mean some people don't work like clockwork. That isn't the issue though. You are not recognizing the difference between the attitude of an individual and the attitude of the society they belong to.

Tolerance is defined by the majority of the population. People are considered "more" or "less" tolerant if their opinions fall outside what is expected within a certain group.

This idea is used in many other definitions as well. What makes a person rich? A specific standard monetary amount? No. It's defined by the difference between the majority of the population. You're rich if you have more money than the control group, ie, the majority.

[Project 429]

Dark Lord Drake

Project 429

Dark Lord Drake

Project 429

Dark Lord Drake

And you're saying Islam cannot be the same way? And don't go and just point out extremists unless you're ready to show they're a majority.

I'm not saying it can't be, I'm saying it isn't.

Exotic Duncan

The problem is, that puts the responsibility for the actions of a few on the group as a whole, which is hardly fair.

Fallacy of Fairness. You can't avoid an unfair outcome in life, no matter what you do.

And as we can clearly see Project is a liar. He said he made no claim about Islam, yet what do we find? A claim about Islam. Come back when you're willing to stop being so dishonest wink

Edit: Oh he said important. But then he's faced the issue of showing how unimportant this is, which of course he never did in the first place.

Does this mean you want to talk about the issue or would you rather spend the rest of the thread trying to defeat arguments by virtue of semantics? I don't even know what your complaint is anymore, and I've got a good feeling you don't know what it is either. You know that religious-related violence is on the rise, and that's virtually the full extent of my argument at this point. If you want to have a discussion, I'm still here and I don't plan to leave. If you want to start another pissing match like Kaworu 17 does every time I talk with him, I still have room on my ignore list.

In other words you were disavowing a claim without even checking if you'd made it neutral

And I remember quite well what the complaint is. If you don't you should have just ******** looked it up instead of pretending it didn't exist.

To refresh the lazy bum:

You talked about how Judaism was malleable to the culture.
I asked if you were saying Islam cannot be the same way.
You said it wasn't.
I asked for proof.
You bitched instead of giving proof.

And here we are.

I'm still waiting for you to prove that Islam as a whole is not malleable to the culture.

What are you talking about? Islam is malleable to then culture, all religions are. I've said that more then once in this thread, and I've never said, implied or suggested that Islam is some magical exception. That argument doesn't relate to anything anyway. When I said "it isn't" I didn't mean the religion wasn't malleable, I meant it wasn't peaceful. Why would an ideology ever be rigid? Why would it be some magical exception?

Be let's get this squared off.
I say there is a violent part of the population that needs to be dealt with.
You then say then say Islam is mallable to the culture.

So what would that mean? So what?! It's a complete non sequitur. You're arguing for the sake of arguing with me.

[Kaworu 17]

Yoshpet

We all have the capacity to be capricious, but that doesn't mean some people don't work like clockwork. That isn't the issue though. You are not recognizing the difference between the attitude of an individual and the attitude of the society they belong to.

Tolerance is defined by the majority of the population. People are considered "more" or "less" tolerant if their opinions fall outside what is expected within a certain group.

This idea is used in many other definitions as well. What makes a person rich? A specific standard monetary amount? No. It's defined by the difference between the majority of the population. You're rich if you have more money than the control group, ie, the majority.

I don't need to 'cause they are both equally subjective and thus useless.

A certain group decides that tolerating X is good and not tolerating Z is also good. Why? Because, ultimately, they feel like it. An individual disagrees and thinks we should tolerate both X and Z because he thinks both X and Z are good. Why? Because he feels like it.

It's subjective and based on caprices. So to not "tolerate intolerance" is ridiculous because, besides being a contradiction, what constitutes intolerance is also subjective.

[Dark Lord Drake]

Dark Lord Drake

Project 429

Exotic Duncan

Project 429

Exotic Duncan

Project 429

Why? Please tell me you've at least read his statements before you formed such a strong opinion. I'm going to be very disappointed if you're another toy soldier jumping onto the populist racial indignation dogpile. It's that kind of behavior that hurts the progressive cause the most. It cheapens what it means to be a liberal.

Holy s**t, I didn't know I was progressive or liberal. In fact, I didn't know I belonged to any political spectrum, group, or party. I thought I just didn't like the guy very much.

Once again, you get indignant without a reason. I never called you a liberal.
I'll take that as no.

I'm indignant because he gives it to Islam without giving Christianity, which is still rooed in Dutch culture, it's fair share of the shitstorm. If Muhammad is a fundamentalist, Moses is twice as bad.

Jews aren't murdering Dutch citizens and beating up homosexuals. Jewish leaders aren't putting emphasis on those verses. The religion is malleable to the culture, as people have pointed out before. Inactive verses are 'dead verses.'
I have classes. I'll be back later.

And you're saying Islam cannot be the same way? And don't go and just point out extremists unless you're ready to show they're a majority.

Let's look back. Hmm. I refer to Islam. The part you refer to violence you speak of Jews, not Judaism. Let's see... does it make sense to compare Islam versus Jews or Islam versus, say 'the religion'?

Yeah, whatever. Obvious troll is obvious, no point in talking to racists. You already tried to distract the issue when I asked for proof of your claims with baseless personal accusations.