• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AP PHOTOS: Mob in Pakistan torches Christian homes

vs





does not compute

again deflections get you no where :shrug:
my point and rabids still stands

condemning muslims/islam based on the actions of some is illogical, this isnt going to change :D
 
Last edited:
Lets follow the discussion we just had:

rabidalpaca writes

you bold the last part and respond with

I write

your reply is

notice the shift of focus from "one million" violent muslims to know a question of "billions".

Alright, you win. We'll come out and agree with you:

- All muslims are violent because some are.
- Christianity is superior because it is a religion of peace, and no christian would ever hurt anybody. If they did, all christians would be held accountable for them. (Or does that rule only apply to muslims?)
- Pay no attention to the 1,000 year period where christians killed far, far more people in the name of their god than muslims ever have, that simply doesn't count.

There, we agree. Is that all you wanted?
 
Alright, you win. We'll come out and agree with you:

- All muslims are violent because some are.
- Christianity is superior because it is a religion of peace, and no christian would ever hurt anybody. If they did, all christians would be held accountable for them. (Or does that rule only apply to muslims?)
- Pay no attention to the 1,000 year period where christians killed far, far more people in the name of their god than muslims ever have, that simply doesn't count.

There, we agree. Is that all you wanted?

Attributing a bunch of straw men to me doesn't actually add merit to anything you wrote here.
 
again deflections get you no where :shrug:
my point and rabids still stands

condemning muslims/islam based on the actions of some is illogical, this isnt going to change :D

I just provided you with this quote from post 84

But with that said, it's idiotic to vilify all Muslims, even if a majority engaged in such behavior

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...torches-christian-homes-9.html#post1061550536

and as can be seen here

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...orches-christian-homes-29.html#post1061554115

your original position was about 1 million muslims ...
 
I just provided you with this quote from post 84



http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...torches-christian-homes-9.html#post1061550536

and as can be seen here

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...orches-christian-homes-29.html#post1061554115

your original position was about 1 million muslims ...

then you agree with me and rabid about the OP :shrug:

no, my OP wass agreeing with rabid thats its illogical to condem a group on some, please try to keep up and not continue to make stuff up, your assumptions are WRONG, you simply dont get to decide what i meant LMAO, but if it makes you feel better please continue to make up what ever you like :D
 
The surest way to elicit some anti-Christian hate around here is to start a thread about Islam.

How sad that in a thread about a small minority of Christians being persecuted for their faith, how some fall all over themselves by way of joining them.

I wonder, though, if Christians in this country were to go on a rampage in Dearborn and torch the houses of innocent Muslims, would the reverse hold true?
 
then you agree with me and rabid about the OP :shrug:

Nope, I addressed that here

The op states

it makes a joke about islam being the religion of peace, it does not say all muslims engage in such violence. Also, even if Islam was a violent religion, that would not necessitate muslims to be violent. Since religion is heavily interpreted

and here

1) Billion, what do you mean billion? As clearly shown in the second link, you were remarking on "At the absolute most you could estimate 1 million violent, radical muslims in the world."

So in the effect that you have now abandoned your original position and are now arguing against a position I nor the OP never endorsed, we are in agreement.

no, my OP wass agreeing with rabid thats its illogical to condem a group on some, please try to keep up and not continue to make stuff up, your assumptions are WRONG, you simply dont get to decide what i meant LMAO, but if it makes you feel better please continue to make up what ever you like :D

here is where you quote in bold and endorse the one million number

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...orches-christian-homes-14.html#post1061550680
 
The surest way to elicit some anti-Christian hate around here is to start a thread about Islam.

How sad that in a thread about a small minority of Christians being persecuted for their faith, how some fall all over themselves by way of joining them.

I wonder, though, if Christians in this country were to go on a rampage in Dearborn and torch the houses of innocent Muslims, would the reverse hold true?

did you know our drone program is part of the christian jihad?
 
Attributing a bunch of straw men to me doesn't actually add merit to anything you wrote here.

That's been the entire argument of all the christians in this thread. You guys try to hard to demonize all muslims for the actions of a few. You're trying to push an agenda, and you're just not doing it very well.

So I'll tone the statements down and see if you agree. This has been the synopsis so far:

- Islam is an inherently violent religion.
- Christianity is an inherently peaceful religion.

The argument for the first being that radical extremists represent all 1 billion muslims, and the argument for the second being "that 1,000 year period where christians killed everybody doesn't count."

Fact is, if you want to call Islam an inherently violent religion, which you've done, you have to call christianity one as well by the very same criteria.

The surest way to elicit some anti-Christian hate around here is to start a thread about Islam.

How sad that in a thread about a small minority of Christians being persecuted for their faith, how some fall all over themselves by way of joining them.

It's not the thread on Islam itself that elicits the attacks, it's the inevitable christian comments like:

Ah.....Islam.......ever the religion of peace!

More people have been killed in the name of christianity than islam throughout our history. For 1,000 years they had no restraints. I simply find it wildly hypocritical when christians, whose religious texts are near identical to the koran, try to make the point that islam is violent, and thus wrong, and that's why we should all jump on the jesus band wagon.


I wonder, though, if Christians in this country were to go on a rampage in Dearborn and torch the houses of innocent Muslims, would the reverse hold true?

If after that attack, muslims started proclaiming that this is divine evidence that christianity is an inherently violent religion, while islam is in fact the religion of peace, ignoring everything that's happened, ever. Then yes, I would jump on board to point out their hypocrisy as well.
 
Last edited:
That's been the entire argument of all the christians in this thread. You guys try to hard to demonize all muslims for the actions of a few. You're trying to push an agenda, and you're just not doing it very well.

I have told you many times before I am not a christian. I am also lost on how other people arguments can be attributed to me, unless I take steps to explicitly endorse them

In fact, I have taken clear steps to highlight the fact I was not talking about "all muslims"

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...torches-christian-homes-9.html#post1061550536

So I'll tone the statements down and see if you agree. This has been the synopsis so far:

- Islam is an inherently violent religion.
- Christianity is an inherently peaceful religion.

Islam is a pretty violent religion. Because it was deeply concerned with the formation and function of the state and has it's origins within a cultural and temporal context that was extremely violent. However, as I have already mentioned that doesn't translate to all Muslims being violent though, because it is still "interpreted"

Not sure about Christianity. Being that it eventually became associated with various empires and govts, but there is seemingly nothing inherently endorsing such a relationship within it. And as can be seen from the below post, I never claimed it was immune to religious violence

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...orches-christian-homes-11.html#post1061550621

The argument for the first being that radical extremists represent all 1 billion muslims, and the argument for the second being "that 1,000 year period where christians killed everybody doesn't count."

Maybe the problem is that you are trying to compare the modern practice of islam, and discussions about that, with the ancient history of the other? This rather underlines an inherent weakness in the argument. Not to mention, the fact that you originally made a claim about "one million violent muslims" that is worlds different than the position you are now adopting and trying to defend. See below

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...torches-christian-homes-9.html#post1061550548



Fact is, if you want to call Islam an inherently violent religion, which you've done, you have to call christianity one as well by the very same criteria.

1) Well, before now, I don't think I have claimed it as inherently violent. So can you source such a remark from anywhere besides this very post?


2) They are drastically different religions: there is religious doctrine dealing with navel warfare within islam and codified conduct on religious status, citizenship, and rights.

I'm not familiar with anything similar within Christianity, likely because Christianity wasn't concerned with forming a functioning state among a violent group of desert nomads, from it's earliest days
 
Last edited:
Nope, I addressed that here



and here



So in the effect that you have now abandoned your original position and are now arguing against a position I nor the OP never endorsed, we are in agreement.



here is where you quote in bold and endorse the one million number

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...orches-christian-homes-14.html#post1061550680

you keep repeating this like facts will change, being dishonest is never going to change any facts LMAO

our posts still stand, its illogical to condemn muslims based on the acts of some, as ive told you, anything else you want to try and make up feel free, you will continue to fail because our point and what we ACTUALLY SAID lmao, still stands

but please feel free to continue to make stuff up, maybe youll get someone honest to believe your story and ignore the facts in the thread :D
 
you keep repeating this like facts will change, being dishonest is never going to change any facts LMAO

actually I'm repeating myself because you keep denying facts. Hence, why your response to me quoting you, citing academic sources, and offering logical arguments is to go "nu-uh".

Notice you are incapable of actually addressing anything I wrote directly and can do nothing more than claim dishonesty (without actually substantiating it), claim something as illogical (without actually substantiating it), make accusations (without actually substantiating them), and make straw man arguments (without actually substantiating anything). Basically, going "nu-uh".
 
actually I'm repeating myself because you keep denying facts. Hence, why your response to me quoting you, citing academic sources, and offering logical arguments is to go "nu-uh".

Notice you are incapable of actually addressing anything I wrote directly and can do nothing more than claim dishonesty (without actually substantiating it), claim something as illogical (without actually substantiating it), make accusations (without actually substantiating them), and make straw man arguments (without actually substantiating anything). Basically, going "nu-uh".

what facts have i denies LMAO why do you lie?
theres nothing you stated that needs addressed because of one simple fact, you are having an argument in your head that nobody is having LMAO

never denied any facts
never made a straw man

our statement what we ACTUALLY said and what they ACTUALLY mean still stand no matter how much you cry about it and how much you try to make up, nobody honest buys it LMAO

let me know when you have something that actually relates to our statmenst and the points we made, or again, please continue to make stuff up that is meaningless and we will continue to laugh :shrug:
 
our statement what we ACTUALLY said and what they ACTUALLY mean still stand no matter how much you cry about it and how much you try to make up, nobody honest buys it LMAO

indeed ...

Rabid actually wrote :

At the absolute most you could estimate 1 million violent, radical muslims in the world. There are currently 1 billion muslims. That represents .1% of the muslim population.

And you actually agreed and endorsed it:

shhhhhh

dont let common sense and logc get in the way of being uneducated and grouping people together in a biased and bigoted way

you're silly RA ;)

Now after being shown that you were wrong, you switched to an argument concerning "billions", as documented here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...orches-christian-homes-29.html#post1061554115


Now what will your response be to this well documented post? You will go "nu-uh" and claim I am being dishonest, without actually substantiating the fact or addressing the direct quotes from you making the statements I claimed; make straw man arguments about me claiming something about all muslims, without actually substantiating it and despite earlier posts from me claiming the exact opposite; claim something as illogical, without actually substantiating it

But hey, if such strikes you as a winning argument, I'm ok with that.
 
indeed ...

Rabid actually wrote :



And you actually agreed and endorsed it:



Now after being shown that you were wrong, you switched to an argument concerning "billions", as documented here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...orches-christian-homes-29.html#post1061554115


Now what will your response be to this well documented post? You will go "nu-uh" and claim I am being dishonest, without actually substantiating the fact or addressing the direct quotes from you making the statements I claimed; make straw man arguments about me claiming something about all muslims, without actually substantiating it and despite earlier posts from me claiming the exact opposite; claim something as illogical, without actually substantiating it

But hey, if such strikes you as a winning argument, I'm ok with that.
LMAO

you havent showed ANYTHING, or that i was wrong ANYWHERE, its all in your head, its the argument you made up inside your head :shrug:

you are continuing to lyi, nothing was ever "changed" LMAO

are points have changed one bit since i stated them pages ago, you are wrong now and you were wrong then lol

this point still stands and its the only one made

judging a group by the actions of some is illogical, which the OP did, sorry this isnt going to change no matter how many posts you try to make it happen.

I posted this point pages ago and it hasnt altered at all LMAO, let me know when you have anything factual to take away form that point because all your doing is posting spin, after spin, after spin.

ill keep waiting, this thread isnt going anywhere. wonder what you will try to make up net :D
 
The surest way to elicit some anti-Christian hate around here is to start a thread about Islam.

How sad that in a thread about a small minority of Christians being persecuted for their faith, how some fall all over themselves by way of joining them.

I wonder, though, if Christians in this country were to go on a rampage in Dearborn and torch the houses of innocent Muslims, would the reverse hold true?

They will condemn Christians for attacking or not attacking Muslims. And they will call anyone who protests the murder of Christians and the burning of their homes, 'bigots'.

And of course the 'not all Muslims are terrorists' is trotted out regularly, but just as not all Germans were Nazis and not all Italians Fascist, we must still remain concerned about those Muslims who are fanatics..
 
LMAO

you havent showed ANYTHING, or that i was wrong ANYWHERE, its all in your head, its the argument you made up inside your head :shrug:

Notice you don't address anything I just wrote, quoted, or cited. You simply go "nu-uh"

you are continuing to lyi, nothing was ever "changed" LMAO

right, I just explained how you will claim I lied without addressing the fact that I am directly quoting you. And guess what you did, you claimed that I lied without addressing the fact that I am directly quoting you

are points have changed one bit since i stated them pages ago, you are wrong now and you were wrong then lol

You didn't even address them then. You did exactly what you are still currently doing: going "nu-uh"

this point still stands and its the only one made

I just quoted you above making a different one

judging a group by the actions of some is illogical, which the OP did, sorry this isnt going to change no matter how many posts you try to make it happen.

addressed here

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...orches-christian-homes-31.html#post1061554382

your reply to this was to go "nu-uh" without actally addressing anything

Here

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...orches-christian-homes-32.html#post1061555884

I posted this point pages ago and it hasnt altered at all LMAO, let me know when you have anything factual to take away form that point because all your doing is posting spin, after spin, after spin.

unless you account was hacked, it was not your original argument and you clearly altered it

See here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...orches-christian-homes-29.html#post1061554115

ill keep waiting, this thread isnt going anywhere. wonder what you will try to make up net :D

the only thing I need to do to address your false claims is quote you. Not really difficult.
 
Notice you don't address anything I just wrote, quoted, or cited. You simply go "nu-uh"



right, I just explained how you will claim I lied without addressing the fact that I am directly quoting you. And guess what you did, you claimed that I lied without addressing the fact that I am directly quoting you



You didn't even address them then. You did exactly what you are still currently doing: going "nu-uh"



I just quoted you above making a different one



addressed here

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...orches-christian-homes-31.html#post1061554382

your reply to this was to go "nu-uh" without actally addressing anything

Here

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...orches-christian-homes-32.html#post1061555884



unless you account was hacked, it was not your original argument and you clearly altered it

See here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...orches-christian-homes-29.html#post1061554115



the only thing I need to do to address your false claims is quote you. Not really difficult.

another long post and again nothign as changed, ill just keep repeating the actually facts until you are honest enough to address them

I posted this point pages ago and it hasnt altered at all LMAO, let me know when you have anything factual to take away form that point because all your doing is posting spin, after spin, after spin.
ill keep waiting, this thread isnt going anywhere. wonder what you will try to make up next because my quotes support me as they are written, not what you make up they mean LMAO
 
another long post and again nothign as changed, ill just keep repeating the actually facts until you are honest enough to address them

I posted this point pages ago and it hasnt altered at all LMAO, let me know when you have anything factual to take away form that point because all your doing is posting spin, after spin, after spin.
ill keep waiting, this thread isnt going anywhere. wonder what you will try to make up next because my quotes support me as they are written, not what you make up they mean LMAO

You're right that whatever point you had was posted pages ago but since then your posts have just taken up space. Why not return to the topic of the thread if you are still interested?
 
You're right that whatever point you had was posted pages ago but since then your posts have just taken up space. Why not return to the topic of the thread if you are still interested?

i have been just about every couple posts :shrug:

the thread OP fails because it illogically uses the actions of some to judge the group.

thats the point
 
another long post and again nothign as changed

and you going "nu-uh" in response

ill just keep repeating the actually facts until you are honest enough to address them

Uhm, I'm the one directly quoting you, citing academic sources, and actually addressing opposing argument. Your counter argument has been "nu-uh" as is continually evidence by your inability to actually address anything I have written here.

I posted this point pages ago and it hasnt altered at all LMAO, let me know when you have anything factual to take away form that point because all your doing is posting spin, after spin, after spin.

I actually addressed it when you first raised it, by pointing out a) it wasn't your original argument and b) it wasn't the argument of the OP

See here

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...orches-christian-homes-31.html#post1061554328

Naturally your response to this was to go "nu-uh" ...


ill keep waiting, this thread isnt going anywhere. wonder what you will try to make up next because my quotes support me as they are written, not what you make up they mean LMAO

I'm well aware this thread isn't going anywhere.
 
and you going "nu-uh" in response



Uhm, I'm the one directly quoting you, citing academic sources, and actually addressing opposing argument. Your counter argument has been "nu-uh" as is continually evidence by your inability to actually address anything I have written here.



I actually addressed it when you first raised it, by pointing out a) it wasn't your original argument and b) it wasn't the argument of the OP

See here

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...orches-christian-homes-31.html#post1061554328

Naturally your response to this was to go "nu-uh" ...




I'm well aware this thread isn't going anywhere.

yes you are qouting me and then making up what YOU THINK is being talked about in your head, but you are factually WRONG LMAO

just like you have been for pages

please keep qouting me though because it doesnt support you in reality :D

my argument as factually never changed LOL
I posted this point pages ago and it hasnt altered at all LMAO, let me know when you have anything factual to take away form that point because all your doing is posting spin, after spin, after spin.
ill keep waiting, this thread isnt going anywhere. wonder what you will try to make up next because my quotes support me as they are written, not what you make up they mean LMAO
 
i have been just about every couple posts :shrug:

the thread OP fails because it illogically uses the actions of some to judge the group.

thats the point

addressed back on page 30

it makes a joke about islam being the religion of peace, it does not say all muslims engage in such violence. Also, even if Islam was a violent religion, that would not necessitate muslims to be violent. Since religion is heavily interpreted

naturally your response was to go "nu-uh"
 
addressed back on page 30



naturally your response was to go "nu-uh"

my argument as factually never changed LOL
I posted this point pages ago and it hasnt altered at all LMAO, let me know when you have anything factual to take away form that point because all your doing is posting spin, after spin, after spin.
ill keep waiting, this thread isnt going anywhere. wonder what you will try to make up next because my quotes support me as they are written, not what you make up they mean LMAO
 
yes you are qouting me and then making up what YOU THINK is being talked about in your head, but you are factually WRONG LMAO

Please explain how I am wrong then. I will even post the quote you referenced and your comments on it, again

At the absolute most you could estimate 1 million violent, radical muslims in the world. There are currently 1 billion muslims. That represents .1% of the muslim population.

shhhhhh

dont let common sense and logc get in the way of being uneducated and grouping people together in a biased and bigoted way

you're silly RA ;)

If you disagreed with the "one million" number, then why did you clearly endorse it as you do above?


please keep qouting me though because it doesnt support you in reality

Yet, we are presented with the glaring fact that you can't explain how it doesn't support me, beyond going "nu-uh" ...


my argument as factually never changed LOL

besides when it did change, as is documented here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...orches-christian-homes-29.html#post1061554115
 
Back
Top Bottom