bleeding heart

It's not a "PC mindset" that underlines my lack of fear of an Islamic takeover of Western civilization.

I accuse you of holding AC to a higher standard--on matters of demonstrated erroneous posts and admission of error (which you have yet to do.) That's not a personal attack, no more than your (mistaken) assertion that I'd taken DoP's remarks out of "context." But I appreciate your suggestion anyway.

Please. That's a ridiculous request. Where's your evidence that you don't do this? And that's your opinion. Stated as fact. you see? This is how you're behaving.

My entire last post didn't mention Canada at all...and the one previous to that mentioned it not in response to your remark in any way, but to DoP.. So my "nitpicking dwellingly" is comprised of a single remark, not in my last two posts. who are you trying to fool here? Me or yourself? What I've been talking about here is your inability to admit (without qualification) that you were mistaken about me and what I posted and to what I was responding. Little wonder you're "done with it now"...you hold AC and others to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

No question. I'm not judging them for ignorance, as I assume that after centuries have passed, some of our most cherished bits of "knowledge" will seem preposterous to people of that era. I don't know that I ever had real faith, as such, and I'm not directing my life in the opposite direction of religion in any case. There is much to admire in the faith which I know best (Christianity), and I'm not living my life in reaction to it. I'm simply not a Believer. That's it.

you either did not read it...or your response to me: was outrageously dishonest. The choice is yours. Your attempt at backtracking here is pretty weak. You plainly implied that I had taken remarks in a "context" that was questionable. (Remarks you hadn't even read, incredibly, but that's another issue.) So I proved that you were mistaken. Interestingly, in another thread, you take no truck with erroneous claims that have been absolutely proven to be false. Even what you deem a too-qualified admission is insufficient for your standards. Let's see how that plays out now.

I know. you think there is only one opinion which overrides everyone else's. On the contrary, you've been illogical about it. And ultimately, that's all you've got.

double

Maybe you should read threads to see what is being responded to. You might learn something. DoP has made the claim several times, in fact...but the one to which I was here responding is this: "It will dominate." That's Canada...but he has said it generally of the West, echoing Mark Steyn (consciously or not). So that's the Muslims taking over Western civilization. DoP has repeatedly stated that it believes it will happen. And that's to what I was responding. Also, he was asked by carepov "when will Islam dominate?"...to which he responded OK...so that's his opinion. Not my invention of his opinion. Or this: These are all in this thread.

It's preposterous, and I'm surprised that g_bambino has resurrected this hypothesis, which I thought had been a rare moment of intellectual carelessness for him, nothing more.

No, it doesn't undermine it. You haven't demonstrated the logic of this claim. That AC thinks the false story could potentially be something that happens--whether he's right or not--does not undermine his plain, clear, unambiguous admission that he was mistaken. He is under no obligation to say "it could never happen"...and his admission of error does not for a second depend on such a declaration.

Right! That clinches it. I've decided I'm going to live to be a hundred and sixty years old. So, it's a done deal.

As opposed to the sober "reasoning" that the scary Muslims are going to take over Western civilization. And why you single out Canada, in the usual reflex, is anyone's guess.

No...people in increasingly greater numbers will simply interpret the genocidal tome in a more metaphorical manner. It worked for the Christians and the Jews. Hell, John Smith Himself informed his followers, at the precisely convenient political moment, that he'd changed his mind about polygamy! lol Islam will liberalize. The fundamentalists will be squeezed out.

I wasn't talking about you...if you choose to be the subject of scorn otherwise directed, that's on you. As for "personal attacks"... You've informed me I'm an anti-Semite, a terrorist beard-stroker, and that I'm sexist. That's your business, of course...but maybe you therefore shouldn't get too sanctimonious about such matters.

That's my view of it too.

My opinion of Islam--which is low--is on record on MLW. So your caricature doesn't even reach the standard of a shotgun blast in the dark. I'm simply not screeching in fright as a point of political convenience, as are the "Muslims are coming" doomsayers.

So? He clearly admitted that he was mistaken. That was the single point about which people were complaining....now rectified. His subsequent opinion on potential doesn't for a second undermine his perfectly explicit admission that he made a mistake. (Incidentally, the number of times posters admit they were demonstrably mistaken is vanishingly rare, so I consider it a definite plus for AC that he "manned up" as the saying goes.)

That's my view as well. Oh...also, I'm not shivering ion abject terror about the looming shadow of the Islamist Caliphate. So that helps.

He did admit he was wrong. Explicitly. What more do you want?

And in the end, they're going to win. I'm not talking about the eradication of Islam, just to be clear, but simply it's liberalization and modernization. Everybody wins!

And, again, complaining about liberal media bias (or conservative media bias, for that matter) is a promiscuously irrelevant point, at least if we're talking about the big institutional issues of the major media.

I'd wager that the poster with whom you're discussing this is more than aware of this fact. And it's part of the point of the critiques. A few very liberal churches aside, it is usually a given that most of the stories are in fact literal. I agree with you, but again, he IS taking it into context....the people who generally don't tend to take it in context are the faithful. I was raised in a religiously tepid, religion-is-for-Sundays environment; a mainstream Anglican Church, not very conservative. And yet to my knowledge, never--not once--not by a minister, or by another minister, or by the Sunday school teachers-- was anything you've said ever offered. The stories were presented as truth--without any of the context you mentioned. This, to impressionable children. So...when you tell a bunch of the faithful, including small children, that this and this is what happened...then you are implying (at least implying) that it is in fact "literal truth." Aside from a few angry critics--Hitchens, Harris, et al--it is not the unbelievers who are dishonestly avoiding "context"...it's the faithful who are doing it. Hell, if I had remained a Christian, I would have considered it my parental duty to inform my children of exactly the context you bring up. And no doubt some of the Faithful do just that. But I'd wager the majority simply do not, leaving open the question of literal Biblical Truth. That's their bad.

Islam is the most regressive and oppressive of a mostly bad lot, I agree. That's one of the very reasons it's going to fail...at least in terms of world domination. It will adapt or die. Hell, even the most hardcore fundamentalist Christians--those who despise their liberal Christian brethren--are ironically only around because the liberalization of Christianity allowed the religion to survive at all.

I would assume that it was an error of carelessness, not one of intentional misleading.