Thus Week in Political Correctness

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, cybercoma said:

You keep replying and ignoring that people are talking about the meaning of history.

I'd say projecting past history onto present politics is even worse than the other way around.

[drummindiver]

17 hours ago, cybercoma said:

The meaning of historical events, change over time, etc. is open to interpretation, absolutely. That's not even a controversial opinion. A single history course would teach you this.

Interpretation will happen,  agreed.  My comment was in reference to a poster claiming a large part of documented history did not in fact happen.

[drummindiver]

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'd say projecting past history onto present politics is even worse than the other way around.

According to you past history didn't happen,  but if it did,  damn conservatives.

[cybercoma]

.

Edited January 31, 2017 by cybercoma

[eyeball]

I'd like to know where that happened too.

A link to where that claim was made as opposed to repeating the things dummindiver heard in his head would be nice...a historical fact as opposed to an interpretation of a hallucination.

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I'd like to know where that happened too.

A link to where that claim was made as opposed to repeating the things dummindiver heard in his head would be nice...a historical fact as opposed to an interpretation of a hallucination.

It's been linked ad nauseum.

Mr Butt Head? Are you 12?

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, drummindiver said:

It's been linked ad nauseum.

Mr Butt Head?

Bullshit it has.

Are you 12?

No. Are you a bullshitter?

[drummindiver]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Bullshit it has.

 

 

No. Are you a bullshitter?

Ad nauseum. 

Resorting to malediction?

[eyeball]

No just persistence.

If it's really as ad nauseam as you claim ad nauseam you should be able to provide evidence of it.

Instead you've produced squat and apparently always will. You'll remain completely useless at backing up your claims until such time as you actually back them up. That's my interpretation of your history on this forum.

As you can see I'm not the only poster who's calling you out on this bullshit claim of yours.

[drummindiver]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

No just persistence.

Though I'm not your errand boy,  I had a minute. Here you go.

On 13/12/2016 at 7:23 PM, drummindiver said:

My question asked if Islam were not our historical enemy. Are you also arguing that fact?

 

On 13/12/2016 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.

Oh. Eyeball lies. Surprise.

On 13/12/2016 at 9:42 PM, eyeball said:

What history? I'm not aware of any notable international bodies of historical scholars that have declared that Islam is Western Civilization's historical enemy.

The claim seems to imply there's an international authority of some sort that's taken this opinion and processed it into a fact. Take the process that determined Pluto's designation for example.  Have you got anything like that to back up this ridiculous assertion you're supporting?

You're as entitled to that opinion as you are your other one.

 

Then you stated it again, changing goal posts as you go.

On 13/12/2016 at 11:43 PM, 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.

 

sigh

On 14/12/2016 at 1:26 AM, drummindiver said:

 

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.

 

Oh,  nowyou agree.

On 14/12/2016 at 1:49 AM, 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.

Pretty sure CC will take your side in this as you are on the same page politically,   but you spout such ridiculousness in your hatred of the west it's hard to take any thing you say seriously.

Now you're going to say you didn't say the states deserved 9/11 aren't you?

 

Edited January 16, 2017 by drummindiver

[eyeball]

13 hours ago, drummindiver said:

Though I'm not your errand boy,  I had a minute. Here you go.

You could spend a whole year tossing your history salads together, they'll still come out tasting like the same old crap.

Quote

Now you're going to say you didn't say the states deserved 9/11 aren't you?

Of course not - it's a historical fact they had it coming.

Every bully gets their comeuppance...there isn't a single one in the history of mankind who hasn't. Ever. 

Edited January 17, 2017 by eyeball

[drummindiver]

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You could spend a whole year tossing your history salads together, they'll still come out tasting like the same old crap.

Of course not - it's a historical fact they had it coming.

Every bully gets their comeuppance...there isn't a single one in the history of mankind who hasn't. Ever. 

Still a liar and can't admit when you're wrong.

You do admit to applauding the deaths of 3000 of our allies.

You are clearly not even wortj thinking about.

[eyeball]

49 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Still a liar and can't admit when you're wrong.

No I'm not and sure I can.

Quote

You do admit to applauding the deaths of 3000 of our allies.

Is that what I really said?  You make this same mistake over and over and over in this forum - ad nauseam to use your words.  You read something and then your mind squirms like a toad before barfing up a reply that avoids and successfully misses just about every single point that's presented to you. It's the one thing you seem to excel at.   Over and over and over again you do this and it's why you never really have a clue about what anyone is saying.

Stop listening to the toad and simply reply to the words that are written.

Quote

You are clearly not even wortj thinking about.

Then by all means stop responding to me but if you do be prepared to have your nose rubbed long and hard in any nonsense you spew. 

I understand the utter intransigence of people who will not have anything to do with any suggestion whatsoever that the west is the least tiny bit culpable for anything that's gone sideways in the Muslim Middle East region. That understanding however will never translate into pity or polity or alliance because I view this intransigence as the defining feature of 21st century conservatism and it fills me with a disgust that will never ever stop me from calling out anyone and everyone who subscribes to it.

I'd probably applaud their deaths till the cows come home.

Edited January 17, 2017 by eyeball

[Moonlight Graham]

52 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

You do admit to applauding the deaths of 3000 of our allies.

It's not that hard to understand the difference between the US deserving 9/11 vs asking for 9/11 or that they "had it coming"  Here's an analogy:

The local police go on strike, so a man named Dave takes out his assault rifle and murders the wife and children of his neighbour. Dave gets away with the murders, because the police are on strike and his gun is much bigger & faster than all the other neighbour's guns, so then every day after he comes home from work Dave murders the wife and children and another neighbour.  Dave does keeps doing this for about a month.  But then one day Dave comes home from work and discovers that his own wife and children have been murdered by one of the neighbours whose wife/children he had murdered.  Dave is angry, and goes on a shooting rampage up and down his neighbourhood looking for the killer.

Now, did Dave's wife and children deserve to be murdered?  No, of course not.  But based on Dave's behaviours, was Dave asking for his own family to me attacked/killed?  Did Dave "have it coming" to him?  Well yes he did.  Dave's actions make him at least somewhat responsible for the murder of his wife/kids.

To keep the analogy going, Dave keeps breaking in to the homes of his neighbours and killing the family members of his neighbours as he tries to find the one who killed his wife/kids. This keeps making the neighbours PO'd, so they keep trying to kill other relatives of Dave.  All the neighbours really want is for Dave to leave them alone and stop killing them.  But with the neighbours killing Dave's relatives, well it keeps making Dave angry so Dave doesn't stop, he keeps trying to kill the neighbours in revenge.  And again the neighbours respond by attacking more of Dave's relatives....and this cycle keeps going on forever until either Dave stops killing the neighbours and their family, or the neighbours just accept the fact that Dave is going to kill them.  Which is the more reasonable option to reach a peaceful solution to this situation?

[eyeball]

37 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

It's not that hard to understand the difference between the US deserving 9/11 vs asking for 9/11 or that they "had it coming"  Here's an analogy:

 

The difficulty is the unwillingness to understand.

Your analogy is okay but isn't Dave also one of the cops?

In any case I think Dave is also an abusive chronic drunk with friends that have no objection to him driving when falling down drunk and heavily armed.

We're just as at fault which is why Canada has it coming too.

 

Edited January 17, 2017 by eyeball

[OftenWrong]

11 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

To keep the analogy going, Dave keeps breaking in to the homes of his neighbours and killing the family members of his neighbours as he tries to find the one who killed his wife/kids. This keeps making the neighbours PO'd, so they keep trying to kill other relatives of Dave.  All the neighbours really want is for Dave to leave them alone and stop killing them.  But with the neighbours killing Dave's relatives, well it keeps making Dave angry so Dave doesn't stop, he keeps trying to kill the neighbours in revenge.  And again the neighbours respond by attacking more of Dave's relatives....and this cycle keeps going on forever until either Dave stops killing the neighbours and their family, or the neighbours just accept the fact that Dave is going to kill them.  Which is the more reasonable option to reach a peaceful solution to this situation?

This is why such analogies don't work- THEY ARE A GROSS OVERSIMPLIFICATION. The US and other superpowers are in a complicated dance that involves maintaining geopolitical control over all regions of the world. When one power makes a move, the other makes a counter-move. Everything else that happens is simply incidental.

[eyeball]

What's so complicated about it?

Is like nobody ever heard of doing unto others as they'd have done to them.

A child usually has this figured out before they graduate from kindergarten.

[OftenWrong]

A chlld is small and has a simple life, without enemies. Old folks are bigger and have a history, and usually some enemies. When you grow up thing get complicated. You hurt me, I will hurt you. And my son shall fight your son.

That's how things go in the real world. Don't listen to the leftist university teachers, they're telling you lies. Crack a history book some time if you want to learn.
Start with Napolean.

[eyeball]

How would you feel about turning our schools into institutions that more resemble Spartan or Klingon military prep schools and beat the progressiveness out of the little snots before it even takes hold?

 

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

How would you feel about turning our schools into institutions that more resemble Spartan or Klingon military prep schools and beat the progressiveness out of the little snots before it even takes hold?

 

Back in my day, bullying was accepted, even (and perhaps especially...) right in the school yard. Everyone was bullied in some way. We were made stronger because of it. My parents beat the hell out of me. I remember my old man beat me with a belt once or twice... my mom threw a clay pot at him to make him stop. That's just how it was, in the good old days  As a man I should be able to proceed in confidence, and lay similar beatings on my son.

[Moonlight Graham]

12 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

This is why such analogies don't work- THEY ARE A GROSS OVERSIMPLIFICATION. The US and other superpowers are in a complicated dance that involves maintaining geopolitical control over all regions of the world. When one power makes a move, the other makes a counter-move. Everything else that happens is simply incidental.

 

12 hours ago, eyeball said:

What's so complicated about it?

Is like nobody ever heard of doing unto others as they'd have done to them.

A child usually has this figured out before they graduate from kindergarten.

No OftenWrong is actually right.  Analogies usually don't work.  Mine didn't capture everything.  Here's the thing with the middle-east:  if the US were to be Mr. Niceguy and cease dominating the region militarily and bring all their troops home, then that would create a power vacuum, and it would be filled likely by other competing states like Russia or China, because the region is strategically important mainly because of its vast oil reserves.  The only way for the US to leave the middle east is a) a cheaper alternative to oil is found or B. the middle-east is treated by the international community as a "no-go" zone where all non-ME countries agree that they can't involve themselves militarily or provide economic/military aid etc. to any ME country (but that would be almost impossible to do).

[drummindiver]

On 15/01/2017 at 2:58 PM, eyeball said:

"Mr Butt Head is more like it."

" Are you a bullshitter"

"You'll remain completely useless at backing up your claims until such time as you actually back them up. "

All EB quotes,  but I fet banned for saying liar.

On 17/01/2017 at 2:03 AM, Moonlight Graham said:

It's not that hard to understand the difference between the US deserving 9/11 vs asking for 9/11 or that they "had it coming"  Here's an analogy:

There is zero difference saying 3000 men and women getting bombed to death going to sork Monday morning had it coming or deserved it. It's the same, laying blame at bombees,   not bombers.

Edited January 18, 2017 by drummindiver

[Moonlight Graham]

3 hours ago, drummindiver said:

There is zero difference saying 3000 men and women getting bombed to death going to sork Monday morning had it coming or deserved it. It's the same, laying blame at bombees,   not bombers.

I'll put it to you another way then:  the innocent civilians who died that day didn't deserve to be attacked/killed.  The terrorists are murderers and are,overwhelmingly responsible for those deaths, and were completely immoral for targeting civilians, but the US government, based on decades of murdering and exploiting Muslims in the ME, bears some complicity for instigating the attack.  9/11 didn't exist in a bubble, al-qaeda didn't attack the US for random sh!ts and giggles.  To kill and exploit a peoples for decades and not expect those people to eventually attack you in retaliation is pretty naive and ridiculous.  To be outraged extremists attacked innocent civilians is 100% justifiable, but to be outraged they attacked the US in general is not.

[drummindiver]

1 minute ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I'll put it to you another way then:  the innocent civilians who died that day didn't deserve to be attacked/killed.  The terrorists are murderers and are,overwhelmingly responsible for those deaths, and were completely immoral for targeting civilians, but the US government, based on decades of murdering and exploiting Muslims in the ME, bears some complicity for instigating the attack.  9/11 didn't exist in a bubble, al-qaeda didn't attack the US for random sh!ts and giggles.  To kill and exploit a peoples for decades and not expect those people to eventually attack you in retaliation is pretty naive and ridiculous.  To be outraged extremists attacked innocent civilians is 100% justifiable, but to be outraged they attacked the US in general is not.

Maybe. Their ideology calls for it though.

Read Milestones if the Qu'ran isn't explicit enough.  

[Moonlight Graham]

12 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Maybe. Their ideology calls for it though.

Read Milestones if the Qu'ran isn't explicit enough.  

I'm well verses in the ideas of Qutb and Qutbism. Yes you're right, the ideology justifies killing innocent civilians who are not fundamentalist Muslims because they're all apostates or unbelievers, which is disgusting.