drummindiver Posted December 14, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 (edited) 36 minutes ago, eyeball said: Most people try to link to credible information to make their case not dogma they don't believe in. It's just bizarre. Emberass eh...if you say so. Are you just going to play the shill game or at or you going to give us your opinoon as to why Islam is not at odds with the west. Edited December 14, 2016 by drummindiver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 14, 2016 Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 Oh ffs. Who said they weren't at odds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted December 14, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 1 hour ago, eyeball said: Not at all. I'm simply denying that what this means is simply an opinion and not a fact. I do not share the opinion that Islam and the West were born mutually exclusive enemies that are forever fated to die as enemies...notwithstanding the West's apparent efforts to see that fate realized. What he wrote is ironclad historical fact. You are once again changing the rules. He did not say they would forever die as enemies. It was not stated they were exclusive. Your incredible tunnel vision on making sure nothing PC about iislam gets past you leaves you a little blind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted December 14, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 1 hour ago, eyeball said: That The West is Islam's historical enemy. I agree. Are you suggesting the Islamist world and the Western world have not historically been at odds? Not at all. I'm simply denying that what this means is simply an opinion and not a fact. I do not share the opinion that Islam and the West were born mutually exclusive enemies that are forever fated to die as enemies...notwithstanding the West's apparent efforts to see that fate realized. 1 hour ago, eyeball said: Oh ffs. Who said they weren't at odds? You, Shall I repost that all over again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 14, 2016 Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 10 minutes ago, drummindiver said: What he wrote is ironclad historical fact. That they've been at odds? Yes I agree. It's what you two think this means, that its strictly Islam's fault and always will be that's pure opinion, pure hogwash too, in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 14, 2016 Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 15 minutes ago, drummindiver said: You, Shall I repost that all over again? No. You should post where I said, word for word that they're not at odds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted December 14, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 8 minutes ago, eyeball said: That they've been at odds? Yes I agree. It's what you two think this means, that its strictly Islam's fault and always will be that's pure opinion, pure hogwash too, in my opinion. Where do you get this stuff? Prove that and I'll send you five hundred bucks. From something I said, not something obscure found in buried in a link.Or I'll donate it to an animal rescue in your name to show your charitable side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted December 14, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 (edited) 11 minutes ago, eyeball said: No. You should post where I said, word for word that they're not at odds. Oooooh. You didn't specifically use the words at odds every statement So now you've got me. More of the can't argue facts we'll argue what word to detract from you being wrong. Edited December 14, 2016 by drummindiver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 14, 2016 Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 2 minutes ago, drummindiver said: Oooooh. You didn't specifically use the words at odds every statement So now you've got me. That's right, I didn't say what you heard. You got yourself, again. Quote More of the can't argue facts we'll argue what word to detract from you being wrong. Just address what I write not the words you're hearing in your head. They'll trip you up every time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted December 14, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 (edited) u 33 minutes ago, eyeball said: That's right, I didn't say what you heard. You got yourself, again. Just address what I write not the words you're hearing in your head. They'll trip you up every time. You are just not man enough to admit when you are wrong. That's been brought up by other ppl before, so cool beans. I will however ask you one more time. Is Islam the wests' historical enemy? Edited December 14, 2016 by drummindiver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 14, 2016 Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 11 minutes ago, drummindiver said: u You are just not man enough to admit when you are wrong. That's been brought up by other ppl before, so cool beans. Sure I am. Quote I will however ask you one more time. Is Islam the wests' historical enemy? I think it was as much the other way around in the deep past. I think recent history clearly shows however the West has definitely been the more inimical enemy and by a very very long shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 14, 2016 Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 This side debate is interesting enough, maybe more as a meta-discussion of "historical opinion vs historical fact", but it could be about Western Civilization's enemies too. But it's not really about This Week in PC anymore - as such, we're at a break point so why not start a NEW thread on the side topic and return this thread to the original purpose ? Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 14, 2016 Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 The original purpose of the thread, as is usual in PC threads, was to cast PC as a left-wing only phenomenon. Some people are of the notion their opinions are facts and that they have a right to all three. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted December 16, 2016 Report Share Posted December 16, 2016 On 12/7/2016 at 6:38 PM, drummindiver said: Clearly political correctness is getting out of hand. How does the pendulum get back to the middle? http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-comment/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-b-c-teacher-fired-for-having-the-wrong-opinion Political correctness will disappear when the Canadian sheeple decide to start to think for themselves, and not allow the media and politicians to do it for them anymore. They must learn to speak up and ask questions and challenge the intolerant liberal status quo and their taboos and sacred cow topics that must never be discussed or debated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted December 16, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, taxme said: Political correctness will disappear when the Canadian sheeple decide to start to think for themselves, and not allow the media and politicians to do it for them anymore. They must learn to speak up and ask questions and challenge the intolerant liberal status quo and their taboos and sacred cow topics that must never be discussed or debated. The media is a huge part of it I agree. How ever many people are heavily invested in this ideology. I had a long debate on this forum because people actually deny history of tensions between the West and Islam. Having people admit what is going on now is hopeless imo. Edited December 16, 2016 by drummindiver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted December 16, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2016 5 hours ago, taxme said: Political correctness will disappear when the Canadian sheeple decide to start to think for themselves, and not allow the media and politicians to do it for them anymore. They must learn to speak up and ask questions and challenge the intolerant liberal status quo and their taboos and sacred cow topics that must never be discussed or debated. The media is a huge part of it I agree. How ever many people are heavily invested in this ideology. I had a long debate on this forum because people actually deny history of tensions between the West and Islam. Having people admit was is going on now us hopwless imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted December 16, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2016 I find it ironic you say this when it was you who claimed history was an opinion. The reason you are sensitive to the optics of thus thread is it usually is the left who toss off common sense in their pursuit of PC. On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 5:51 PM, eyeball said: The original purpose of the thread, as is usual in PC threads, was to cast PC as a left-wing only phenomenon. Some people are of the notion their opinions are facts and that they have a right to all three. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 16, 2016 Report Share Posted December 16, 2016 4 hours ago, drummindiver said: I find it ironic you say this when it was you who claimed history was an opinion. And there you go again, declaring I said something that I didn't and then addressing that instead. If you could show me the post where I said, "history is an opinion" word for word you'd have a point, but you can't so you don't. See how that works? What I'm saying is that your interpretation of what history means is an opinion, just like mine. So...that's why I asked you to provide a credible source to back up your opinion, with one from an international body of scholars who are trained, experienced and schooled with the capacity to deliberate impartially on the facts and what, if anything, they mean. Quote The reason you are sensitive to the optics of thus thread is it usually is the left who toss off common sense in their pursuit of PC. No, I'm just fed up with right-wing BS and enjoy mocking the methods by which it's delivered, which in your case is all too common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted December 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2016 (edited) 20 hours ago, eyeball said: And there you go again, declaring I said something that I didn't and then addressing that instead. If you could show me the post where I said, "history is an opinion" word for word you'd have a point, but you can't so you don't. See how that works? What I'm saying is that your interpretation of what history means is an opinion, just like mine. So...that's why I asked you to provide a credible source to back up your opinion, with one from an international body of scholars who are trained, experienced and schooled with the capacity to deliberate impartially on the facts and what, if anything, they mean. No, I'm just fed up with right-wing BS and enjoy mocking the methods by which it's delivered, which in your case is all too common. Sorry. You erroneously stated the fact that Islam has lnot been the West's historical enemy as history clwarly shiws it gas. As we were talking about the history of West vs Islam..... Generalaties are used when communicating. I hope you maintain this strict adherence to verbatim, to the letter etc. On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 1:17 PM, DogOnPorch said: Islam is Western Civilization's historical enemy. Anything other than that is spin. On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 6:56 PM, eyeball said: Stating that an opinion is a fact is a mistake. On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 7:10 PM, drummindiver said: I agree. Are you suggesting the Islamist world and the Western world have not historically been at odds? On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 7:51 PM, eyeball said: I'm simply arguing that it's not a fact because it's merely an opinion, one I disagree with. Edited December 17, 2016 by drummindiver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted December 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2016 A step in the right direction? At least some of the students know how ridiculous this is. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/12/16/laurier-graduate-students-group-shuts-down-caf-over-slave-joke-in-job-ad.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted December 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2016 20 hours ago, eyeball said: What I'm saying is that your interpretation of what history means is an opinion, just like mine. Oh, so now when we discuss things like history and facts its what they mean to the individual. I didn't know history was open to interpretation. That post so fits in this thread. Feeling those feelings man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 17, 2016 Report Share Posted December 17, 2016 1 hour ago, drummindiver said: I didn't know history was open to interpretation. Historians themselves do fight over interpretation of facts, pretty regularly but ... even SCIENTISTS can't agree on interpretation and they use numbers. If it were easy, we wouldn't have such trouble working it all out, I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted December 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2016 3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Historians themselves do fight over interpretation of facts, pretty regularly but ... even SCIENTISTS can't agree on interpretation and they use numbers. If it were easy, we wouldn't have such trouble working it all out, I suppose. If you want to get picky about history you may choose to say 5 million Jews were killed. You may say 6 million jews were killed. Can you interpret history to say no Jews were killed because that doesn't fit your agenda? Science can't agree because unlike religion it isn't based on faith. When something is proved wrong it us amended. That is why there are very few scientific laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 14, 2017 Report Share Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) . Edited January 31, 2017 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 14, 2017 Report Share Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) . Edited January 31, 2017 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.