How to become an ignorant 101

[DogOnPorch]

As Topaz pointed out there's information in that link which actually counters your point - that using current birth rates even by 2100 Muslims will only account for 25% of Europe's population...

Only 25%? That's a lot of minarets. The Muslim take-over of Europe will be pretty much defacto by then.

[JB Globe]

Only 25%? That's a lot of minarets. The Muslim take-over of Europe will be pretty much defacto by then.

How do you figure?

[wulf42]

Yes. Check the newspapers from the last, oh, couple hundred years.

HAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You're kidding me, right? I guess you don`t read the newspapers. How many Westerners have killed Muslims vs Muslims killed Westerners? Who is militarily occupying their countries, who is bombing their people AS WE SPEAK.

You are a flat-out racist xenophobe.

ah........well Muslim's aren t a race................but it is an evil ideology along the same lines as the Nazi's!

and every bit as dangerous!

[Argus]

How do you figure?

Well, you have one quarter of the population willing to kill anyone who draws a cartoon they don't like, and the other three quarters who can't even be bothered to breed.

Doesn't take a lot of imagination to discern who'll be in charge there.

[JB Globe]

Well, you have one quarter of the population willing to kill anyone who draws a cartoon they don't like

You're saying that you believe that all Muslims are violent radicals, end of story. You don't even make any allowances for "some" or even "most of"

This viewpoint is so extreme and without merit that it simply cannot be taken seriously.

It's opinions like this that make me claim that you don't know what you're talking about. Because there is simply no data to support any of it, and even academics who might take a hard line against Islam don't make these kinds of ridiculous statements.

Even from your perspective, I can't understand why you make such sweeping and all-encompassing statements - why would you essentially say "all Muslims are this" - ??? Any statement about a group of people that uses "all" is easily disproven - why not even say "most" - ???

It's almost as if you don't understand how to argue a point without burying your own argument.

[DogOnPorch]

You're saying that you believe that all Muslims are violent radicals, end of story. You don't even make any allowances for "some" or even "most of"

Even if only a tiny percentage of the World's 1.5 billion Muslims are radical, that still makes a good sized country's worth of foaming-mouthers heck bent on giving us a TNT enema.

[Bonam]

Even from your perspective, I can't understand why you make such sweeping and all-encompassing statements - why would you essentially say "all Muslims are this" - ??? Any statement about a group of people that uses "all" is easily disproven - why not even say "most" - ???

The "most" should be obvious, it should be assumed as the default rather than "all", when neither is specified. People make statements like that all the time and mean most, not "all" in the strict sense of every single one without exception.

[wulf42]

You're saying that you believe that all Muslims are violent radicals, end of story. You don't even make any allowances for "some" or even "most of"

This viewpoint is so extreme and without merit that it simply cannot be taken seriously.

It's opinions like this that make me claim that you don't know what you're talking about. Because there is simply no data to support any of it, and even academics who might take a hard line against Islam don't make these kinds of ridiculous statements.

Even from your perspective, I can't understand why you make such sweeping and all-encompassing statements - why would you essentially say "all Muslims are this" - ??? Any statement about a group of people that uses "all" is easily disproven - why not even say "most" - ???

It's almost as if you don't understand how to argue a point without burying your own argument.

The problem is though that it is true...............Muslims for the most part are violent! all you hear in the news

is Islamic terrorism here or there............it says volumes about these people!

[Rue]

You watch this video and say that Muslims want to conquer the world.

You say to yourself, 48 countries of Muslims, 1.5 B of Muslims. They all want to be kings of the world.

Pretty simple isn't it ?

Yes it appears making the generalization and assumption that 1.5 billion Muslims all want to be kings of the world,

is simple for you to engage in.

Your point?

If your point is that its easy to make sweeping negative generalizations about an entire group of people

simply because they have the same religion, then yes I would say you made your point.

If you are suggesting it is simple for you to in fact prove the above supposition is not an unsustantiated subjective assumption but based on actual quantitiative analysis using an objective methodology then I would suggest,

before anyone can come to that conclusion you need to provide the methodology you used so we can determine

if it is objective let alone accurate.

Or here let me put it in simple terms-not all Muslims have beards even though you may think they do.

p.s. I am a Jew and I do not have a big nose nor do I have a beard or buy and sell things nor am I a dentist, comedian, physician, money lender, banker, financier, t.v. or movie producer and no I have not had sex with Sarah Silverman but would like to....and no I don't want to have sex with Melissa Rivers but would with the Queen of Jordan. One needs to be open minded.

[JB Globe]

Even if only a tiny percentage of the World's 1.5 billion Muslims are radical, that still makes a good sized country's worth of foaming-mouthers heck bent on giving us a TNT enema.

It also means that there are over a billion people that you can work with to reform and/or isolate that tiny percentage.

But of course, that would mean no awesome war footage to masturbate to on CNN.

[JB Globe]

The problem is though that it is true...............Muslims for the most part are violent!

Why? Because the TV told you so?

all you hear in the news

is Islamic terrorism here or there............it says volumes about these people!

I guess the TV is right.

I haven't seen a news story on Fox News on Congo, that must mean it's safe, because if there was violence there, we'd have heard about it right? Violence only exists when news agencies cover it.

If someone gets shot and a journalist isn't there to report it, does he really die?

[GostHacked]

I haven't seen a news story on Fox News on Congo, that must mean it's safe, because if there was violence there, we'd have heard about it right? Violence only exists when news agencies cover it.

If someone gets shot and a journalist isn't there to report it, does he really die?

Correct, many seem to give a rats ass when it is in the media. Otherwise, they never say anything. For me I don't think there is a problem with Islam. Maybe cause I don't watch MSM. So since I never watch the news and never hear anything is wrong, so that tells me that the world has no problems.

But what you stated is a good deal of my beef with modern news media.

[Argus]

You're saying that you believe that all Muslims are violent radicals, end of story. You don't even make any allowances for "some" or even "most of"

I'm perfectly willing to allow that there are a few scattered sane Muslims out there, but don't feel the need to state it every time I generalize about the group which is Islam.

This viewpoint is so extreme and without merit that it simply cannot be taken seriously.

Well yes, YOU would think that. But I don't write for the approval of the far left fringes of political correctness you champion.

It's opinions like this that make me claim that you don't know what you're talking about.

In the following survey taken of western and muslim opinions, the number of Muslims in every country who thought that the eruption of violence and nonsense over the Danish cartoons showed "intollerance" from Muslims was recorded, among every Muslim group, in the single digits. In Turkey, for example, that great bastion of secular Islam, just 8% thought it indicated intollerance by Muslims. Then again, in Egypt it was only 3%.

The Great Divide

And Islamic countries recently pushed through a UN amendment calling on world countries to criminalize any criticism of religions.

The council is dominated by Muslim and African countries. Muslim nations have argued that religions, in particular Islam, must be shielded from criticism in the media and other areas of public life. They cited cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as an example of unacceptable free speech.

UN Human Rights Council Battles Against Free Speech

It's not much of a stretch, then, to say that the Muslim world is pretty much united in their belief that anyone who dares to draw cartoons they don't agree with is evil and should be punished. Not many people would find my words to be so shocking as you. But then again, most people aren't as fanatic as you are in your determination to "protect" brown people, who you clearly regard as totally inferior in every way, shape and form, from those who might criticise them.

Maybe once you work through the bigotry which causes your ludicrous paternalistic attitudes, you'll be able to see things in a clearer light.

[JB Globe]

Correct, many seem to give a rats ass when it is in the media. Otherwise, they never say anything. For me I don't think there is a problem with Islam. Maybe cause I don't watch MSM. So since I never watch the news and never hear anything is wrong, so that tells me that the world has no problems.

But what you stated is a good deal of my beef with modern news media.

Replying to my sarcastic reply with more sarcasm?

To clarify, I wasn't denying that there are problems within Islam and Muslims do bad things, what I was countering was wulf's statement that ALL Muslims are basically violent - I wanted to point out that Muslims don't have the monopoly on violence, and that many of the world's worst crimes against humanity and deadliest conflicts did not involve Muslims.

I also wanted to demonstrate the fallacy of wulf's faith in the 24-hour news media to give him an objective view of the world. I mentioned Congo specifically because it's the deadliest conflict since WWII but most people know absolutely nothing about it - if the media covered what was important instead of what was important to a self-involved Western audience, we'd be hearing about it on a regular basis.

Edited September 11, 2009 by JB Globe

[JB Globe]

I'm perfectly willing to allow that there are a few scattered sane Muslims out there, but don't feel the need to state it every time I generalize about the group which is Islam.

The mere fact that you think you can generalize a billion and a half people so absolutely is demonstrative about your knowledge level of Islam.

Well yes, YOU would think that. But I don't write for the approval of the far left fringes of political correctness you champion.

I despise political correctness, but am a firm believer in mutual respect - something you routinely refuse to extend to the culture and history of folks who aren't white, under the guise of "not wanting to be politically correct"

Also, what you call "far left" the rest of us call "centre-left" - Generally people on the far-left don't think that captialism is the best economic system to date like I do.

In the following survey taken of western and muslim opinions, the number of Muslims in every country who thought that the eruption of violence and nonsense over the Danish cartoons showed "intollerance" from Muslims was recorded, among every Muslim group, in the single digits. In Turkey, for example, that great bastion of secular Islam, just 8% thought it indicated intollerance by Muslims. Then again, in Egypt it was only 3%.

You're beginning here with the premise that it is an actual fact that the controversy over the cartoons is a result of Muslim intolerance. That's a subjective reading of the event on your part, so don't pretend like you can completely invalidate the position of Muslims in Muslim-majority countries.

My position on the issue is that there's enough blame to go around for everyone, so the only directions fingers should be pointing as at oneself.

This lack of mutual respect is a mutual problem.

And Islamic countries recently pushed through a UN amendment calling on world countries to criminalize any criticism of religions.

Which was wrong.

It's not much of a stretch, then, to say that the Muslim world is pretty much united in their belief that anyone who dares to draw cartoons they don't agree with is evil and should be punished.

Actually it is a stretch - the poll was only referencing the specific Danish cartoons, not cartoons in general or criticism in general. And although I'm sure a lot of people would be against such criticism, I'm sure a lot of people would not care or notice so long as such material wasn't extremely inflammatory or highly distributed.

Remember, the cartoons were even out for a while before the blow-up happened: it was only after they had been reprinted across Europe and a group of fundamentalist Imams intent on exploiting the controversy to their benefit organized the protests-come-riots than things went south. Of course, none of this excuses the riots, it just explains them and demonstrates that there wasn't some sudden rush of anger the minute these things hit the press - there's more going on here than what you make it out to be.

Not many people would find my words to be so shocking as you.

I don't find them shocking at all, they're a dime a dozen, I just find them inaccurate and sad.

But then again, most people aren't as fanatic as you are in your determination to "protect" brown people, who you clearly regard as totally inferior in every way, shape and form, from those who might criticise them.

That was so cute, you're adorable.

I've made the following statement numerous times, and you've read it numerous times, but for everyone else's sake here's my stance on this:

I believe that the problems within the Muslim world are significant but not overwhelming. I believe may of the problems which people like Argus believe are a direct result of religion and/or social backwardness actually have more to do with the levels of poverty and injustice commonly found among ALL post-colonial nations which do not have stable, capable governments and/or dictatorships.

As such, I believe these problems are SOLVABLE by using soft power and mutual cooperation most of the time, and only resorting to hard power when absolutely necessary (imminent threat scenarios). I believe that the "Clash of Civilizations" worldview is false and actually functions as a self-fulfilling prophecy, since it prevents mutual understanding and cooperation and promotes a aggressive and militant stance towards Muslim nations, which respond in kind. I disagree out of hand that some sort of world military crusade against Muslims and discriminatory policies at home are the right way to handle things.

As far as "defending brown people goes" considering I acknowledge all of the problems in the Muslim world that Argus does, but disagree on their scale and/or permanence, and I acknowledge the role "brown people" have played in many disasters that have affected them, I don't think this is accurate.

What Argus calls "defending brown people" is simply my refusal to agree with his own personal opinion that "brown people" in general are inherently socially backwards when compared to "white people" Such a claim coming from someone who has not, for at least several months, been able to discuss an issue involving "brown people" without portraying them in almost a completely negative light is actually quite funny.

[GostHacked]

Replying to my sarcastic reply with more sarcasm?

To clarify, I wasn't denying that there are problems within Islam and Muslims do bad things, what I was countering was wulf's statement that ALL Muslims are basically violent - I wanted to point out that Muslims don't have the monopoly on violence, and that many of the world's worst crimes against humanity and deadliest conflicts did not involve Muslims.

Actually there was no sarcasm in my reply. Its the stark reality of it all and our MSM in the west. I did not see your post as sarcasm either, for me it's more or less the truth.

I also wanted to demonstrate the fallacy of wulf's faith in the 24-hour news media to give him an objective view of the world. I mentioned Congo specifically because it's the deadliest conflict since WWII but most people know absolutely nothing about it - if the media covered what was important instead of what was important to a self-involved Western audience, we'd be hearing about it on a regular basis.

And this is why I agree with you.

[Argus]

The mere fact that you think you can generalize a billion and a half people so absolutely is demonstrative about your knowledge level of Islam.

No, it demonstrates my firm grounding in common sense.

Let us now generalize about the billion and a half people in the Muslim world.

They don't like fags.

How's that? Is it inaccurate?

I despise political correctness

Virtually all the most zealous PC types deny they are PC. It's really quite funny.

Also, what you call "far left" the rest of us call "centre-left" - Generally people on the far-left don't think that captialism is the best economic system to date like I do.

It's also a truism that the fringe lefties seem to think they're more mainstream - all while calling centre right people "far right".

You're beginning here with the premise that it is an actual fact that the controversy over the cartoons is a result of Muslim intolerance.

It is an actual fact, and the only people who would argue against it are the politically correct.

Thanks for self-identifying - again.

My position on the issue is that there's enough blame to go around for everyone, so the only directions fingers should be pointing as at oneself.

Calls himself a writer but doesn't have any particular interest in defending freedom of expression or the press. Riiight. There's your typical PC type.

Actually it is a stretch - the poll was only referencing the specific Danish cartoons, not cartoons in general or criticism in general.

That's whistling in the wind. Are you really going to try and suggest that opinion and reaction would be different now to some other cartoons which criticized Islam and Mohamed?

Remember, the cartoons were even out for a while before the blow-up happened: it was only after they had been reprinted across Europe and a group of fundamentalist Imams intent on exploiting the controversy to their benefit organized the protests-come-riots than things went south.

You, perhaps in another effort at defending those poor little brown people who rely so much on noble men like yourself to protect them, are somewhat twisting the chain of events. In fact, the Imams went to the Muslim world to spread the word and stir up anger and outrage. Which worked quite well. The Muslim world became inflamed with hatred for Danes - even while none of them had actually seen any of the cartoons. Guess it doesn't take much to stir up the Muslim world. After that, the controversy got some of the braver newspapers to reprint the cartoons in defiance of this religious mob mentality. Oh, and then Iran decided to hold a cartoon festival based on mocking the Holocaust, and the Muslims from all over the world took joyous part. Jews did not, oddly enough, feel the need to burn down anyone's embassy or attack anyone.

I believe that the problems within the Muslim world are significant but not overwhelming. I believe may of the problems which people like Argus believe are a direct result of religion and/or social backwardness actually have more to do with the levels of poverty and injustice commonly found among ALL post-colonial nations which do not have stable, capable governments and/or dictatorships.

And yet, some of the richest nations on Earth are Muslim, and they are filled with people who are Islamists and have violent beliefs about Jihad. Saudi Arabia being a case in point. Iran being another. Meanwhile, the poorest nations in the world, in Africa, have no terrorist organizations trying to blow up airplanes or fly them into buildings. Well, except in the Muslim parts of Africa.

What Argus calls "defending brown people" is simply my refusal to agree with his own personal opinion that "brown people" in general are inherently socially backwards when compared to "white people" Such a claim coming from

Your enormous rectal cavity - would be nonsense, of course. I'd certainly never make such a claim, but once again, having no logical argument you resort to inventing a straw man you can claim moral superiority to.

But then, honesty doesn't matter when it comes to the importance of you standing up for those poor, wretched little brown people. It's your calling in life. I mean, SOMEONE has to. It's not like they can do it themselves.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Argus