Posted on 09/01/2007 5:24:11 AM PDT by Clive
Hear, Hear!
If there were ever words to live by, you have stated them.
It appears so. Unless somebody has a better explanation it will do.
Well, I respect your opinion, but believe you are wrong.
If I had ten dogs in my house, all of them acting normally, but the vet calls and says three of the ten have rabies but he’s not sure which ones, then guess what?
In short order, there will be ten dead dogs on my front yard.
Doing anything else is lunacy. It is inviting disaster. It is putting my loved ones at risk. It is failing to do what I consider my manly duty.
And it it most certainly not politically correct.
...poor, lonely mouse...
Otherwise the word umma would have faded from history centuries ago!
Just saying.
Mansur: you should know better than that. Iranians are Persians not Arabs. Pakis and Afghanis are not Arabs either!
Saudi cult of Wahhabism -- considered until lately by most Muslims as bigotry and ignorance of desert nomads
Still is considred a nomadic cult.
Around here we call that a "troll."
Well I tried debating you on the other thread, but it was a total waste of my time.
Let’s put it another way. Pick the most conservative GOP presidential candidate right now. I’m not sure if it’s Tancredo or Hunter. But I know that either one of them would say that only a total nut job would claim and insinuate the things you did over on the other thread.
It’s not “trolling” to speak common sense on FR.
No, but that's not what you said. You said you were going to continue to post your views while avoiding debate, and that most definitely IS trolling.
I tried debating you on the other thread, but it was a total waste of my time.
Losing a debate is not a waste of your time. Losing a debate and continuing to post the same views is.
Because I believe in redemtion even for the smallest creatures, I will try to explain it to you one last time.
In addition to the fact that your views are rejected by every sane conservative, your argument is entirely circular.
You claim say one can’t be both a good American and a good Muslim.
When it’s pointed out to you that American Muslims have been loyal and productive citizens of the U.S. for over a hundred years, you claim that’s impossible because of what the Koran requires of Muslims.
When it’s pointed out to you that not all Muslims interpret the Koran in such a literal fundamentalist way, you claim they must not be good Muslims.
When it’s pointed out to you that you don’t have the right to interpret the Koran for them, you say “it’s not me! It’s Islam!”
But “Islam” consists of all those good moderate Muslims you’ve tried to smear - The American Muslim soldiers; other American Muslims; the moderates in places like Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia; the people who contrary to your twisted belief system only want to live in peace.
Lost the debate? By any reasoned standard, I’ve mopped the floor with you and your bigotted blabbing.
I’m done debating you. From this point on I’ll only insult you or ignore you. Have a nice day.
If my argument is the one that’s circular, why is the “deafening silence” of those bazzilions of loyal American muslims you keep prattling about so conspicuous in its absence?
As for insults, sorry...you’re not smart enough to insult me. I’d have to have some respect for your opinion for an insult to have any weight.
As it stands, I’m content to use you as a pinata too show the wages of doctrinaire ignorance.
Circular reasoning is circular reasoning regardless of whatever empirical evidence you want to cite. I think you don’t really understand what circular reasoning is. But as far as your emirical argument,
1. The silence you perceive may be due, at least partially, to your deafness, possibly your blindness. Several Freepers in the past have posted articles, photos, etc. of American Muslims waving American flags, protesting the events of 9/11, etc.
2. The reason I can’t insult you is the same reason why one can’t insult a pig.
3. It’s “doctrinaire” to ignore empirical evidence in favor of your own prejudices. It is your own doctrinaire ignorance that’s a matter of public record here.
I’ll just leave you with the one question you were afraid to answer honestly—Would not even the most conservative GOP presidential candidates think you were little more than a wormy bigot for insisting there is no such thing as a good Muslim American?
Oh I absolutely agree! I just maintain if my reasoning were circular, the empirical evidence would show loyal muslims rushing to the defense of this country. If your reasoning were circular, the empirical evidence wouldn't make national news when a reporter could find half a dozen muslims wearing "I heart USA" buttons.
So which result is closer to reality?
You liberals always ask bogus questions. Someone points out truth, but you hate truth, can't defend your lies, so you ask nonsense questions, as usual.
Nope, you’re still full of crap.
Circular reasoning is a deductive fallicy, not an inductive one.
You’re trying to shore up your faulty deductive thinking with a plea to empirical evidence, something that you attacked me for doing early on when I claimed that many Muslims are good American citizens.
Earlier you said this was impossible by definition. Now you claim it’s impossible because you don’t see any. So, if I can show you just one good American Muslim, I win the argument. In fact there are at least thousands.
Thanks for helping me school you.
“You liberals always ask bogus questions. Someone points out truth, but you hate truth, can’t defend your lies, so you ask nonsense questions, as usual.”
The “truth” is that you can’t answer the question without showing yourself to be either a loser or a bigot.
Why don’t you answer the damned question? What do you make of those American Muslim boys defending their country?
Please.
You use logic like a teenager faking an accent.
No amount of rhetorical Kubuki dancing is going to save your sophistry from the cold hard light of results.
My reasoning’s got’em, and yours doesn’t.
You can’t argue with performance. Well, I guess YOU could. You actually seem to think I’m supposed to take ownership of the straw men you keep setting up in my name.
Besides, wasn’t that “empirical evidence” of yours how you “schooled” me on inference? ;o)
What you call Kubuki dancing (a word you must have gotten from watching Dora the Explorer), most learned rational adults would call logical reasoning.
It’s very simple and I’ll run it by again:
1. I said, “there are good Muslim Americans.” That was an inductive argument based on my experience, i.e., empirical evidence.
2. You made a falacious circular deductive argument to try to refute me. Remember? It went like this—”Good Muslims must follow the Koran and if they don’t, they’re not good Muslims!”
3. When I pointed out your circular reasoning, rather than deny it, you shifted to an inductive argument, i.e., “why haven’t I seen any of these good Muslim Americans?”
4. So, finally, all you’re left with is your claim that you haven’t seen any. But since I’ve pointed out some examples of good American Muslims, all you’re left with is your ignorance.
I guess that would look like “Kabuki dancing” to a monkey of a moron whose only talent is a charming ability to ape a few fancy words and phrases.
History clearly shows that once there are enough Muslims in the country, they will force their law on everyone. Then those who you call 'good Muslims' will either join them or go silent. Study history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.