free hit counter
Why the West is doomed in it's fight against Terrorism - Redneck Clubhouse - Of, By and For Rednecks!

Global Terrorism Discuss the global terrorism threat.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 17th, 2016, 12:07 AM
walruskkkch's Avatar
walruskkkch walruskkkch is offline
They call me MR. Kitty
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Katmandhu
Posts: 6,723
Likes Given: 153
Liked 2,311 in 1,938 Posts
walruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant future
Default Why the West is doomed in it's fight against Terrorism

Well, maybe we can succeed against those damn Teabaggers but this article is one of the best I've seen at explaining why we won't against Islam.

Quote:
The Problem with Islam Is Aggressive Scripture, Not Aggressive ‘Traditionalism’
By Andrew C. McCarthy — January 16, 2016
On the Corner this week, the eminent Jim Talent touted (with some reservations) an essay about “moderate Islam” by Cheryl Bernard. A Rand Institute researcher, she is also a novelist, a defender of war-ravaged cultures, and the wife of Zalmay Khalilzad, the former U.S. ambassador to post-Taliban (or is it pre-Taliban?) Afghanistan. With due respect to Dr. Bernard, who does much heroic work, I believe the essay highlights what is wrong with Western academic analysis of Islam.

The problem comes into focus in the very title of Senator Talent’s post, “Aggressive Traditionalism.” That is the attribute of Islamic societies that Dr. Bernard blames for the frustration of her high hopes for “moderate Islam.” In truth, however, the challenge Islam poses for moderation is not its tradition; it is Islamic doctrine — the scriptural support for traditional sharia and Islamic supremacist ideology.

I give Bernard credit. She is the unusual strategist who is willing to admit failure — in this instance, of the strategy of promoting “moderate Islam” as the antidote to “radical Islam.” But even this concession goes off the rails: She maintains that the strategy was somehow “basically sensible” despite being “off track in two critical ways.” The real problem, though, is not the two errors she identifies but the fatal flaw she fails to address: The happenstance that there are many moderate Muslims in the world does not imply the existence of a coherent “moderate Islam.” Try as she might, Bernard cannot surmount this doctrinal hurdle by blithely ignoring the centrality of doctrine to a belief system — without it, there is nothing to believe.

But let’s start with the two critical problems she does cite. The first is the matter of defining what a “moderate” is. Bernard concedes that she and other thinkers adopted a definition that was “too simplistic” — meaning, too broad. It made “violence and terrorism” the litmus test for “moderation.” This enabled what she labels “aggressive traditionalists” to masquerade as moderates.

Who are the “aggressive traditionalists”? Muslims who, though nonviolent themselves, “harbor attitudes of hostility and alienation” against non-Muslims. The failure to account for the challenge that “aggressive traditionalism” poses for moderation led to the second flaw Bernard admits: the undermining of “integration” — a reference to Muslim assimilation (or the lack thereof) in the West.

This is fine as far as it goes. In fact, Bernard is quite correct about the main challenge posed by hostile, alienated, integration-resistant Muslims: Even if they are personally nonviolent, the communities they create become “the breeding ground for extremism and the safe harbor for extremists.”

But “extremism” about what? This is the salient question, and it is one Bernard studiously ducks. The error is implicit from the very start of her essay (my italics):

Over the past decade, the prevailing thinking has been that radical Islam is most effectively countered by moderate Islam. The goal was to find religious leaders and scholars and community ‘influencers’ — to use the lingo of the counter-radicalization specialists — who could explain to their followers and to any misguided young people that Islam is a religion of peace, that the term jihad refers mainly to the individual’s personal struggle against temptation and for moral betterment, and that tolerance and interfaith cooperation should prevail.

Plainly, the “prevailing thinking” casually assumes “facts” not only unproven but highly dubious. Bernard takes it as a given not only that there is an easily identifiable “moderate Islam,” but also that this . . . what? . . . doctrine? . . . attitude? . . . is the most effective counter to “radical Islam.”

But what is moderate Islam? She doesn’t say. She maintains that there are countless moderate Muslims who, by her telling, embrace “Western values, modern life and integration.” In fact, she assumes there are so many such Muslims that they constitute the “mainstream” of Islam. Yet, that proposition is not necessarily true even in the West, where Muslims are a minority who might be expected to assimilate into the dominant, non-Muslim culture; and it most certainly is not true in the Muslim-majority countries of the Middle East.

Even worse is Bernard’s assertion — uncritical, and without a hint that there may be a counter-case — “that Islam is a religion of peace, [and] that the term jihad refers mainly to the individual’s personal struggle against temptation and for moral betterment.”

As is the wont of Islam’s Western apologists, Bernard is attempting to shield from examination what most needs examining. Her reliance on the potential of “moderate Islam” to quell “radical Islam” is entirely premised on the conceit that Islam is, in fact, moderate and peaceful. Her assumption that the vast majority of Muslims can be won over (indeed, have already been won over, she seems to say) to Western values is premised on the conceit that those values are universal and, hence, locatable in the core of Islam — such that “tolerance and interfaith cooperation should prevail” because Islam is all for them.

Islam, however, is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of conquest that was spread by the sword. Moreover, it is not only untrue that jihad refers “mainly” to the individual’s internal struggle to live morally; it is also untrue that the Islamic ideal of the moral life is indistinguishable from the Western conception.

To be clear, this is not to say that Islam could not conceivably become peaceful. Nor is it to say that jihad could not be reinterpreted such that a decisive majority of Muslims would accept that its actual primary meaning — namely, holy war to establish Islam’s dominance — has been superseded by the quest for personal betterment. To pull that off, though, will require a huge fight. It cannot be done by inhabiting an alternative universe where it has already been done.

That fight would be over doctrine, the stark omission in Bernard’s analysis. I do not think the omission is an oversight. Note her labeling of faux moderates as “aggressive traditionalists.” Citing “tradition” implies that the backwardness and anti-Western hostility she detects, to her great dismay, is a function of cultural inhibitions. But what she never tells you, and hopes you’ll never ask, is where Islamic culture and traditions come from.

Alas, they are direct consequences of Islamic scripture and sharia, the law derived from scripture. She can’t go there. She wants Islam to be moderate, but its scriptures won’t cooperate. She must rely on tradition and culture because traditions and cultures can and do evolve. Scripture, by contrast, does not — not in Islam as taught by over a millennium’s worth of scholars and accepted by untold millions of Muslims. Mainstream Islam holds that scripture is immutable. The Koran, the center of Islamic life, is deemed the “uncreated word of Allah,” eternal. (See, e.g., Sura 6:115: “The Word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and justice: None can change His Words: For He is the one Who heareth and knoweth all.”)

Bernard must blame aggressive traditionalism because if the problem is aggressive doctrine rooted in aggressive scripture, then it’s not changing any time soon — or maybe ever. Moreover, she is not in a position to challenge doctrine and scripture without deeply offending the believers to whom she is appealing. They are taught that any departure from centuries-old scholarly consensus is blasphemy.

The story Dr. Bernard tells of Islamic intransigence in her own Northern Virginia neighborhood is instructive. A Muslim-American friend of hers is a social worker who finds jobs for Muslim immigrants. He lands openings for a group of Somali women in a hospital laundry service; but the women first tell him they must check with their imam, then they turn down the jobs because they will not be allowed to wear their hijabs. The social worker and Bernard are exasperated: Why don’t the women and their adviser grasp that because hijabs could get caught in the machinery and cause injury, there is a “pragmatic reason” for departing from the traditional Islamic norm?

Notice: Bernard never considers, or at least never acknowledges, that there is doctrinal support for every decision the Somalis make: The scriptures instruct Muslims to consult authorities knowledgeable in sharia before embarking on a questionable course of conduct; they instruct Muslim women to wear the veil (particularly in any setting where they will be exposed to men who are not their husbands or close relatives). And while pragmatism suggests to the rational Dr. Bernard and her moderate, Westernized social-worker friend an obvious exception to Islam’s usual clothing rule, mainstream Islam in the Middle East and Somalia admonishes that Western reliance on reason and pragmatism is a form of corruption, a pretext for ignoring religious duty.

Doctrine is the answer to virtually every immoderate instance of aggressive “traditionalism” Bernard complains about: the separation of men from women in the mosque, and the decidedly poorer accommodations (“often unacceptable and even insulting,” as Bernard describes them) to which women are consigned; the separation of the sexes in work and social settings; the instructions not to trust or befriend “unbelievers”; the admonitions to resist adopting Western habits and developing loyalty to Western institutions. There is scriptural support for every one of these injunctions.

From the fact that she has moderate, “modernized” Muslim friends, who do not comport themselves in such “traditional” fashion, Bernard extravagantly deduces that tradition is the problem. She never comes close to grappling with doctrine — i.e., the thing that most devout Muslims believe is what makes them Muslims. The closest she comes is the fleeting observation that her moderate social-worker friend “is a scholar [presumably of Islam] and a professor who emigrated from a conservative Muslim country.” The obvious suggestion is that if he is not troubled by the flouting of traditional Islamic mores, surely there must not be any credible scriptural objection. But if it is relevant that her friend is a scholar, is it not also relevant that there are thousands of other scholars — scholars who actually do Islamic jurisprudence rather than social work for a living — who would opine that sharia requires these traditional behaviors and that it is the social worker who is out of touch?

When Dr. Bernard’s husband, Ambassador Khalilzad, served in Kabul, he midwifed the new Afghan constitution that purported to safeguard Western notions of liberty while simultaneously installing Islam as the state religion and sharia as fundamental law. In short order, Afghanistan put former Muslims who had publicly renounced Islam on capital trial for apostasy. Dr. Khalilzad, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and other Western officials and intellectuals pronounced themselves duly shocked and appalled — notwithstanding that anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Islamic scripture knows that it calls for public apostates to be killed.

To great American embarrassment, the apostates had to be whisked out of the country lest the incompatibility of civil rights and sharia become even more painfully apparent. It is worth acknowledging, however, that what chased them out of Afghanistan was not aggressive traditionalism. It was Islamic doctrine, which simply is not moderate. Looked at doctrinally, the challenge for “moderate Islam” is . . . Islam.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is as senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.
__________________


Quote:
“I think it’s unfair. We voted for Hillary Clinton, but it is Trump who won. It is unfair,” Heloïse said.
Gentlemen, he said I don't need your organization, I've shined your shoes
I've moved your mountains and marked your cards
But Eden is burning either brace yourself for elimination
Or else your hearts must have the courage for the changing of the guards.
  #2  
Old January 17th, 2016, 03:06 PM
Midnight Marauder's Avatar
Midnight Marauder Midnight Marauder is offline
Registered Beer User
Asteroids Champion 007 Everything or Nothing Champion 9-Ball Champion Bombing By Night Champion Flash Pacman Champion Carmageddon Champion Gotham Punch Champion
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Where the Buffalo Roam
Posts: 8,212
Likes Given: 7,693
Liked 2,907 in 2,357 Posts
Midnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant future
Default

I've summed this up in the past in not nearly so many words.

A Muslim is someone who reads Mohammad. A Jihadist is someone who understands Mohammad.
__________________
Could it be that I could be the cowboy in that mystery who died so long ago in that El Paso sand?
  #3  
Old January 17th, 2016, 11:06 PM
trlrtrash13's Avatar
trlrtrash13 trlrtrash13 is offline
Trailer Park Hero
9 Ball Connect Champion 3D Frogger Champion Baseball Champion FogHorn Thanks Champion Ace Driver Champion 2D Knock-Out Champion UNO 3 Champion
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Trailer Park
Posts: 4,295
Likes Given: 397
Liked 972 in 790 Posts
trlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to behold
Default

Yeah, on tapatalk the op just disappears about halfway through. I will read it when I get to a computer.
__________________

You know what date is on this coin? 1958. It's been traveling 22 years to get here. And now it's here. And it's either heads or tails, and you have to say. Call it.
  #4  
Old January 18th, 2016, 03:57 PM
moomin's Avatar
moomin moomin is offline
€COM#1
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: The Freezer
Posts: 6,881
Likes Given: 766
Liked 1,825 in 1,619 Posts
moomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant future
Default

I think this is a classic piece of over-analyzing. The people who insist that MMMM (Carl Sagan voice: Millions and Millions of Moderate Muslims) are out there know nothing about Islam and frankly can't imagine that anybody takes it seriously anyway, because they don't. If we could just eliminate the root causes (whites, not enough welfare, not enough foreign aid, not enough slaughtered Jews a.s.o.) everything would be Kumbaya faster than you can say Kwanzaa.

Furthermore, spending time reviewing this book is entirely superfluous as well. Everything you need to know is right there in the first opening: "On the Corner this week, the eminent Jim Talent touted (with some reservations) an essay about “moderate Islam” by Cheryl Bernard. A Rand Institute researcher, she is also a novelist, a defender of war-ravaged cultures, and the wife of Zalmay Khalilzad, the former U.S. ambassador to post-Taliban (or is it pre-Taliban?) Afghanistan." So right of the bat we know we are dealing with a woman not the slightest interested in advancing anything interesting. She squandered her exceedingly limited female reproductive potential on mohammedan brats and is now in the business of pulling enough wool over westerners' eyes that they won't be deported, despite the damage she does to what is formally her country. All you need to know right there.
__________________
Dance like no one is watching. Sing like no one is listening. Love like you've never been hurt and live like it's heaven on Earth.
  #5  
Old January 18th, 2016, 04:32 PM
walruskkkch's Avatar
walruskkkch walruskkkch is offline
They call me MR. Kitty
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Katmandhu
Posts: 6,723
Likes Given: 153
Liked 2,311 in 1,938 Posts
walruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant future
Default

True enough, but the article does explain WHY her time was wasted and it is the fundamental divide between liberals who think everyone is a little liberal waiting for the opportunity to shine and the reality that sometimes people really are who they say they are for the reason they say they are and no amount of liberal happy think is going to change that. To base any policy with such people based on anything other than accepting them for their true selves, as many have always pointed out, is doomed from the start and wishing it otherwise is just so much jerking off.
__________________


Quote:
“I think it’s unfair. We voted for Hillary Clinton, but it is Trump who won. It is unfair,” Heloïse said.
Gentlemen, he said I don't need your organization, I've shined your shoes
I've moved your mountains and marked your cards
But Eden is burning either brace yourself for elimination
Or else your hearts must have the courage for the changing of the guards.
  #6  
Old January 18th, 2016, 06:12 PM
moomin's Avatar
moomin moomin is offline
€COM#1
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: The Freezer
Posts: 6,881
Likes Given: 766
Liked 1,825 in 1,619 Posts
moomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant future
Default

We've been here before. This ties in with our general debate on multiculturalism - I recall you thought most people were simply deluded, whereas I think most people as simply hypocrites. That is to say, I suspect nobody really believes in the moderate moslem bullshit, but everyone who's anyone pretends to, since that is what all the right people are supposed to do. The same mechanism that would infallibly lead to Hillary Clinton proudly proclaiming she wouldn't at all mind having black neighbours if asked about it, despite that we all know that she and Bubba would rather die.
__________________
Dance like no one is watching. Sing like no one is listening. Love like you've never been hurt and live like it's heaven on Earth.
  #7  
Old January 18th, 2016, 08:07 PM
walruskkkch's Avatar
walruskkkch walruskkkch is offline
They call me MR. Kitty
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Katmandhu
Posts: 6,723
Likes Given: 153
Liked 2,311 in 1,938 Posts
walruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant future
Default

I still feel it is delusional, I can't think Liberals are capable of keeping up the facade of hypocrisy for such an extended period of time. Gotta be something they truly believe.
__________________


Quote:
“I think it’s unfair. We voted for Hillary Clinton, but it is Trump who won. It is unfair,” Heloïse said.
Gentlemen, he said I don't need your organization, I've shined your shoes
I've moved your mountains and marked your cards
But Eden is burning either brace yourself for elimination
Or else your hearts must have the courage for the changing of the guards.
  #8  
Old January 19th, 2016, 12:01 AM
trlrtrash13's Avatar
trlrtrash13 trlrtrash13 is offline
Trailer Park Hero
9 Ball Connect Champion 3D Frogger Champion Baseball Champion FogHorn Thanks Champion Ace Driver Champion 2D Knock-Out Champion UNO 3 Champion
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Trailer Park
Posts: 4,295
Likes Given: 397
Liked 972 in 790 Posts
trlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moomin View Post
So right of the bat we know we are dealing with a woman not the slightest interested in advancing anything interesting. She squandered her exceedingly limited female reproductive potential on mohammedan brats and is now in the business of pulling enough wool over westerners' eyes that they won't be deported, despite the damage she does to what is formally her country.
See? Who says racist jokes can't be funny? That's good stuff right there.

The problem with Islam in relation to the Koran is similar to the problem with Westboro Baptist Church in relation to the Bible. Imagine for a second a world where there were billions of Baptists and millions of Westboro Baptists. Not very pretty, huh?

I was having a discussion about this topic with a friend a couple of days ago. You can find equally violent references in the Bible. From the instructions of God to stone your rebellious children to death, scriptural endorsement and specific instructions for enslaving people, to random references in the Psalms about how therapeutic it is to bash infants against stones. The difference is that Christians don't view these references as a working, viable part of their current religious structure. More simply put, Christians are civilized. While you can find the occasional zealot who goes out and blows up an abortion clinic, you don't have a vast movement of Westboro types who want to go around tossing fags from skyscrapers. If you did, of course, the very people who separate good Muslims from extremists who toss fags from skyscrapers and lecture you if you point out that those people are Muslims too would be shouting it from the very skyscrapers these "Baptists" tossed the sinners from. Many on our side are quick to point out this hypocrisy without ever flipping the coin to see what is on the other side. The fact is, out good Baptists would be quick to point out in that world that the Westboro types are extremists who are perverting the Christian religion.

The bottom line is there is truth on both sides. There are civilized Muslims who realize that there are antiquated ideals in their faith that they need to move on from. There are also far, far, far too many extremists that are fighting to hold on to those ideals. One can point out the references from the Koran and say that the religion teaches violence in the same way that one could point to Biblical references to indict Christians. Christians are proof that well meaning people of faith can move on from the bad and/or outdated while growing and benefiting from the good. Assuming that Muslims can do the same, it probably won't be in our lifetime. However, ignoring the fact that they are currently in that struggle is to completely misunderstand the problem.
__________________

You know what date is on this coin? 1958. It's been traveling 22 years to get here. And now it's here. And it's either heads or tails, and you have to say. Call it.
  #9  
Old January 19th, 2016, 02:55 PM
moomin's Avatar
moomin moomin is offline
€COM#1
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: The Freezer
Posts: 6,881
Likes Given: 766
Liked 1,825 in 1,619 Posts
moomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trlrtrash13 View Post
See? Who says racist jokes can't be funny? That's good stuff right there.
SJW talking point 1: Mohammedans are a race! Thus heaping opprobrium on it must be raciss!
(Particularly funny in this context, of course, since I have no problem with doing real racism whenever it's required.)
Quote:
The problem with Islam in relation to the Koran is similar to the problem with Westboro Baptist Church in relation to the Bible. Imagine for a second a world where there were billions of Baptists and millions of Westboro Baptists. Not very pretty, huh?
SJW talking point 2: It's not Islam, it's religion!
The lack of sense of proportions is staggering - if every single American was a rabid member of the WBC, you'd still be far better off than having mohammedans in your midst.
Quote:
I was having a discussion about this topic with a friend a couple of days ago. You can find equally violent references in the Bible. From the instructions of God to stone your rebellious children to death, scriptural endorsement and specific instructions for enslaving people, to random references in the Psalms about how therapeutic it is to bash infants against stones. The difference is that Christians don't view these references as a working, viable part of their current religious structure. More simply put, Christians are civilized. While you can find the occasional zealot who goes out and blows up an abortion clinic, you don't have a vast movement of Westboro types who want to go around tossing fags from skyscrapers. If you did, of course, the very people who separate good Muslims from extremists who toss fags from skyscrapers and lecture you if you point out that those people are Muslims too would be shouting it from the very skyscrapers these "Baptists" tossed the sinners from. Many on our side are quick to point out this hypocrisy without ever flipping the coin to see what is on the other side. The fact is, out good Baptists would be quick to point out in that world that the Westboro types are extremists who are perverting the Christian religion.

The bottom line is there is truth on both sides. There are civilized Muslims who realize that there are antiquated ideals in their faith that they need to move on from. There are also far, far, far too many extremists that are fighting to hold on to those ideals. One can point out the references from the Koran and say that the religion teaches violence in the same way that one could point to Biblical references to indict Christians. Christians are proof that well meaning people of faith can move on from the bad and/or outdated while growing and benefiting from the good. Assuming that Muslims can do the same, it probably won't be in our lifetime. However, ignoring the fact that they are currently in that struggle is to completely misunderstand the problem.
SJW talking point 3: Cultural relativism. It's all the same, really. All the same. It's just, you know, different interpretations, and stuff.

Curiously, I see no particular eagerness among the peddlers of this theory to put it to test by settling in, say, Saudi Arabia. Or even move to Dearborn.
__________________
Dance like no one is watching. Sing like no one is listening. Love like you've never been hurt and live like it's heaven on Earth.
  #10  
Old January 19th, 2016, 03:36 PM
trlrtrash13's Avatar
trlrtrash13 trlrtrash13 is offline
Trailer Park Hero
9 Ball Connect Champion 3D Frogger Champion Baseball Champion FogHorn Thanks Champion Ace Driver Champion 2D Knock-Out Champion UNO 3 Champion
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Trailer Park
Posts: 4,295
Likes Given: 397
Liked 972 in 790 Posts
trlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moomin View Post


Curiously, I see no particular eagerness among the peddlers of this theory to put it to test by settling in, say, Saudi Arabia. Or even move to Dearborn.


Well, maybe that's because you don't believe in honest debate. First off "Mohammedan" isn't a race because it isn't a word. You could define it as you choose, but I would point out that you don't know her kids or factually know that they are Muslim. You simply know the race and religion of their father. Since you don't know the religion, and since you are admittedly racist, I concluded that must be what you were discussing.



Now, as for you moronic urge to continue to push this SJW mantra, if you read what I said and have even a 5th grade compression level, you would see there is no relativism there. There are clear cut lines of demarcation. Both books have violent language, so why is one group violent and the other civilized? That's not relativism.



Your problem is you care more about being perceived as right instead of actually being right. If I'm wrong, point out where I'm wrong. Quit building straw men that you can paint as SJW. Intelligent people understand that even if I were an SJW it wouldn't automatically make me wrong. You still have to make your case.
__________________

You know what date is on this coin? 1958. It's been traveling 22 years to get here. And now it's here. And it's either heads or tails, and you have to say. Call it.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content copyright ©2000 - 2018 usmessageboards.com all rights reserved