as a corrective exercise... hahaha.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
It's not debating...eleven bravo wrote:
I guess you think lowing is worth debatingUzique wrote:
not accepting something can be the basis of a refutation, not a blind-dismissal...
come on, you do fucking law. you don't know your rhetoric? not familiar with how to structure an argument?
doesn't matter who you aim it at... backing it up is hopefully the next logical step...
But it is interesting.
"of course the do dear" <------dismissal.Bertster7 wrote:
Dismissal of what?lowing wrote:
thank you, now all you have to do is show where Glen Reinsford is a Nazi.Bertster7 wrote:
What neo-nazi crap? All I did was to state that lots of neo-nazis have been arrested for breach of this law. They have. Here is an article from a mainstream broadsheet newspaper which illustrates that point for me:lowing wrote:
there you go with the neo- nazi crap
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr … 09533.html
And one from the sort of shitrag you may be more comfortable with:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … bsite.htmlRead the articles.lowing wrote:
to be clear, do you actually have proof that these people belong to a Nazi party, ya know kinda like proof that these Islamic clerica are in fact Islamic clerics?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/06/ … 68x314.jpg
I'd say they're neo-nazis.
Of course they do dear.
good dismissal.
You are the one who is suddenly backtracking here.
You asked how many Islamic clerics had been arrested for breaking this law, I answered that there had been some and that there had also been lots of neo-nazis arrested for breaking it too. I then went on to demonstrate that to be the case.
Why should I show Glen Reinsford is a Nazi? I haven't ever claimed that he is. Just that he ran a racist website that was shut down for being racist.
Got proof he was shut down for racism? Been asking for quite some time now, and am still waiting for it.
Ido not give a fuck about your opinion of his site, I want proof of your claims it was shut down for being racist.Uzique wrote:
err have you been reading mine (and bertster's) posts for these last 3 pages?
the domain is down and you have to view it on web-archives. it's the most glaringly-bias, extreme-right website ive seen since... the BNP.
and the godwin's law shit was used because you resorted to that lame, old insult - "you're being a nazi!" meaning im being repressive or authoritarian, or rather- our laws are that way. you didn't mean "you're a nationalist socialist!" or "you're a fascist!" - whereas where i have used the term (neo)-nazi, it has been to describe exactly those ideologies.
When you condone censorship of shit you disagree with, you are being authoritarian. It was not an insult it was an observation that your POV sucks ass regarding that issue.
and yet you have not proven he is a neo-nazi or affiliated with any such groups.
Last edited by lowing (2010-07-03 14:48:23)
Ahhhh Islamic/ liberal Apologist playbook:eleven bravo wrote:
I guess you think lowing is worth debatingUzique wrote:
not accepting something can be the basis of a refutation, not a blind-dismissal...
come on, you do fucking law. you don't know your rhetoric? not familiar with how to structure an argument?
doesn't matter who you aim it at... backing it up is hopefully the next logical step...
Dismiss
Deny
Ignore
Emulate Superiority...check
Im about as liberal as you are racist lowing
Tu Stultus Es
lol, and you think I am a racist, sooooooooooo whats yer point again? Never mind you rarely make points, you just use hit and run tactics for one liner jabs without contributing anything.eleven bravo wrote:
Im about as liberal as you are racist lowing
uhhhhhhh no it can't, not accepting something without refuting is exactly what a dismissal isUzique wrote:
not accepting something can be the basis of a refutation, not a blind-dismissal...
come on, you do fucking law. you don't know your rhetoric? not familiar with how to structure an argument?
doesn't matter who you aim it at... backing it up is hopefully the next logical step...
and in 25 pages now, you have not addressed the points made in his sites, or the accusations by your champion JIM SUTTER ( you just accepted him as credible, you and your flock. Still cracks me up, all of those karmas lol), all you have done is what I have pointed out in your playbook
Dismiss
Deny
Ignore
Emulate Superiority
This is why it has gone 25 pages. when you finally address the information, with information, instead of deploy one of your defensive tactics, we can move on. I mean I know you have tried, you have had to, the fact that you can not find anything, does that not tell you something?
Last edited by lowing (2010-07-03 15:09:01)
hey, if you consider yourself a racist, I guess that makes me a liberallowing wrote:
lol, and you think I am a racist, sooooooooooo whats yer point again? Never mind you rarely make points, you just use hit and run tactics for one liner jabs without contributing anything.eleven bravo wrote:
Im about as liberal as you are racist lowing
Tu Stultus Es
nope I don't. I just don't recall you posting anthing remotely conservative before. Then again I donot recall you posting anything constructive either so.........eleven bravo wrote:
hey, if you consider yourself a racist, I guess that makes me a liberallowing wrote:
lol, and you think I am a racist, sooooooooooo whats yer point again? Never mind you rarely make points, you just use hit and run tactics for one liner jabs without contributing anything.eleven bravo wrote:
Im about as liberal as you are racist lowing
you must have alzhiemers
Tu Stultus Es
yup I mighteleven bravo wrote:
you must have alzhiemers
sucks to have alzheimers
Tu Stultus Es
well, at least I don't have alzheimers.eleven bravo wrote:
sucks to have alzheimers
you forgot already
Tu Stultus Es
Fair enough.lowing wrote:
"of course the do dear" <------dismissal.
Based on what? That's far too vague a point to answer directly.lowing wrote:
ISLAM is doing more than its fair share to instil that hatred and negativity.
What evidence do you have for this? I see no evidence that this is the case outside certain 3rd world countries. Lets take the largest Muslim country and the country with the largest Muslim population as examples - both of them seem perfectly ok. Care to be a bit more specific?
Yes extremists. Not the most extreme extremists, but extremists nonetheless. A minority. Get some numbers of how many Muslims were dancing in the streets regarding 9/11, not some pictures with some Muslims holding up Death to America placards, numbers.lowing wrote:
Islam does little to promote the opposite. In fact the dancing in the streets by Muslims ( and no not extremists) regarding 911 and most other bombings does little to help their cause.
Typically from those who have been exposed to extremist Islam, former extremists are more likely to have prejudiced positions. Care to specify some examples?lowing wrote:
you are forgetting damn near all of the sources used against Islam COMES FROM FUCKIN ISLAM!!!
Try reading mate, it does wonders for how you approach a discussion.lowing wrote:
proven? Proven with what? You have not addressed any of the FACTS posted. All you have done isJaekus wrote:
No, because your argument has already been proven to be full of what makes the vegetables grow so well that your continued posts in this thread just make you look more ridiculous.lowing wrote:
So how about it? do I get into that "BRILLIANT POST" thread all of your sheep nominated you for?
But please, keep going. I'm enjoying the comedy and should invite some people to read this
DISMISS
DENY
IGNORE
Emulate superiority.
SO why do I not get nominated for your brilliant post? You gave it to Uzi for posting a fraud as a credible source and decided that was the final nail in the coffin in this argument, praising, all of that fantastic "research"
Hate to break it to you but, You looked just as stupid as he did with all of that celebration.
You cited a source as a reinforcement to your argument. Uzi showed that not only is that source biased against Islam in about every way possible, the guy who made the source you have relied upon for your argument is a con artist, a burglar and generally a criminal who can't be trusted at all.
All you are doing is denying, dismissing and ignoring these facts, and then pinning these attitudes onto other people. Poor form, you're slipping badly and if I were you I'd be really embarrassed about my behaviour around here, but you are you and refuse to see it. Your choice, lawl.
If anyone needs to read it is you. lets recapJaekus wrote:
Try reading mate, it does wonders for how you approach a discussion.lowing wrote:
proven? Proven with what? You have not addressed any of the FACTS posted. All you have done isJaekus wrote:
No, because your argument has already been proven to be full of what makes the vegetables grow so well that your continued posts in this thread just make you look more ridiculous.
But please, keep going. I'm enjoying the comedy and should invite some people to read this
DISMISS
DENY
IGNORE
Emulate superiority.
SO why do I not get nominated for your brilliant post? You gave it to Uzi for posting a fraud as a credible source and decided that was the final nail in the coffin in this argument, praising, all of that fantastic "research"
Hate to break it to you but, You looked just as stupid as he did with all of that celebration.
You cited a source as a reinforcement to your argument. Uzi showed that not only is that source biased against Islam in about every way possible, the guy who made the source you have relied upon for your argument is a con artist, a burglar and generally a criminal who can't be trusted at all.
All you are doing is denying, dismissing and ignoring these facts, and then pinning these attitudes onto other people. Poor form, you're slipping badly and if I were you I'd be really embarrassed about my behaviour around here, but you are you and refuse to see it. Your choice, lawl.
Fact. The link I provided addresses Islam and exposes it. this is true. It also sources every bit of its information.
None of this information has been challenged by you or anyone like you WITH INFORMATION refuting it. It has been dismissed denied or ignored for 25 pages
Uzi posted a supposed slam dunk that you all bought into, from a PROVEN and substansiated felon and fraud named Jim Sutter
NONE of the information provided by Jim Sutter, that trashed Glen Reinsford has been substansiated. NOT ONE BIT OF IT.
Nowhere else on the internet is there any other source confirming the accusations offered up by Jim Sutter. The real con artist you all have championed.
YOU are taking Jim Sutter for his word that what he says is true. You have not verified any of it.
THere are countless sites exposing Jim Sutter, and providing source material to back up their claims.Where is yours?
You claim, based on the word of Jim Sutter, that Glen Reinsford is a criminal, a con artist, a burglar etc who can not be trusted at all. Do you not see the irony and stupidity of buying into such claims by a PROVEN felon? Why are you ignoring the proven facts of Jim Sutter, and using this same man as a source to spread UNPROVEN information about another person?
How about this Lowing, YOU tell us how a billion PEACEFUL muslims does not destroy your arguement of islam being a violent religion. You say it is all in your "source", how about YOU explain how these people are so easily dismissed in this arguement?lowing wrote:
If anyone needs to read it is you. lets recapJaekus wrote:
Try reading mate, it does wonders for how you approach a discussion.lowing wrote:
proven? Proven with what? You have not addressed any of the FACTS posted. All you have done is
DISMISS
DENY
IGNORE
Emulate superiority.
SO why do I not get nominated for your brilliant post? You gave it to Uzi for posting a fraud as a credible source and decided that was the final nail in the coffin in this argument, praising, all of that fantastic "research"
Hate to break it to you but, You looked just as stupid as he did with all of that celebration.
You cited a source as a reinforcement to your argument. Uzi showed that not only is that source biased against Islam in about every way possible, the guy who made the source you have relied upon for your argument is a con artist, a burglar and generally a criminal who can't be trusted at all.
All you are doing is denying, dismissing and ignoring these facts, and then pinning these attitudes onto other people. Poor form, you're slipping badly and if I were you I'd be really embarrassed about my behaviour around here, but you are you and refuse to see it. Your choice, lawl.
Fact. The link I provided addresses Islam and exposes it. this is true. It also sources every bit of its information.
None of this information has been challenged by you or anyone like you WITH INFORMATION refuting it. It has been dismissed denied or ignored for 25 pages
Uzi posted a supposed slam dunk that you all bought into, from a PROVEN and substansiated felon and fraud named Jim Sutter
NONE of the information provided by Jim Sutter, that trashed Glen Reinsford has been substansiated. NOT ONE BIT OF IT.
Nowhere else on the internet is there any other source confirming the accusations offered up by Jim Sutter. The real con artist you all have championed.
YOU are taking Jim Sutter for his word that what he says is true. You have not verified any of it.
THere are countless sites exposing Jim Sutter, and providing source material to back up their claims.Where is yours?
You claim, based on the word of Jim Sutter, that Glen Reinsford is a criminal, a con artist, a burglar etc who can not be trusted at all. Do you not see the irony and stupidity of buying into such claims by a PROVEN felon? Why are you ignoring the proven facts of Jim Sutter, and using this same man as a source to spread UNPROVEN information about another person?
the billions of peaceful muslims out there - including the ones that lowing has met - do not matter
what is crucial is disproving the inane statements of a batshit crazy neo-con racist.
what is crucial is disproving the inane statements of a batshit crazy neo-con racist.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Well, I could argue that the US is a violent nation, because it has the highest instance of gun deaths per year in the world. I could argue all Americans are gun-toting lunatics, and could cite a hundred sources to back up my claims and rationale. But I don't. Why? Because despite this I can still use my brain and understand that these instances are exceptions rather than the norm. Something lowing can't seem to do when he talks/thinks/perceives Islam.
There are undoubtedly more peaceful muslims in the world than not BY FAR. Yet lowing takes the minority as some weird leverage to say this is the norm - just basing it purely on numbers indicates otherwise.
You can pull anything that fits your argument out of the Quran as evidence, just like anyone could pull anything out of the Bible that fits any argument they choose to make. In both cases you simply wind up appearing to be a narrow minded bigot, whether this is your intention or not.
Not that saying any of this will make any impact, any objective reasoning such as this is wasted on some deaf ears and a narrow mind.
There are undoubtedly more peaceful muslims in the world than not BY FAR. Yet lowing takes the minority as some weird leverage to say this is the norm - just basing it purely on numbers indicates otherwise.
You can pull anything that fits your argument out of the Quran as evidence, just like anyone could pull anything out of the Bible that fits any argument they choose to make. In both cases you simply wind up appearing to be a narrow minded bigot, whether this is your intention or not.
Not that saying any of this will make any impact, any objective reasoning such as this is wasted on some deaf ears and a narrow mind.
Excellent analogy there.Jaekus wrote:
Well, I could argue that the US is a violent nation, because it has the highest instance of gun deaths per year in the world. I could argue all Americans are gun-toting lunatics, and could cite a hundred sources to back up my claims and rationale. But I don't. Why? Because despite this I can still use my brain and understand that these instances are exceptions rather than the norm. Something lowing can't seem to do when he talks/thinks/perceives Islam.
Exactly why I tend to ask him for numbers and specific details rather than his typical sweeping statements. I have yet to see him ever come back with figures on any of these things.Jaekus wrote:
There are undoubtedly more peaceful muslims in the world than not BY FAR. Yet lowing takes the minority as some weird leverage to say this is the norm - just basing it purely on numbers indicates otherwise.
You can pull anything that fits your argument out of the Quran as evidence, just like anyone could pull anything out of the Bible that fits any argument they choose to make. In both cases you simply wind up appearing to be a narrow minded bigot, whether this is your intention or not.
Not that saying any of this will make any impact, any objective reasoning such as this is wasted on some deaf ears and a narrow mind.
He asks for explicit proof for every point of his that is questioned, but does not provide anything that could remotely be considered proof.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages … notviolent <-------explained better than I can but in a nutshell, because no one is speaking about Muslims, the argument is against Islam the religion, its teachings, and the actions committed in its name.nlsme1 wrote:
How about this Lowing, YOU tell us how a billion PEACEFUL muslims does not destroy your argument of islam being a violent religion. You say it is all in your "source", how about YOU explain how these people are so easily dismissed in this argument?lowing wrote:
If anyone needs to read it is you. lets recapJaekus wrote:
Try reading mate, it does wonders for how you approach a discussion.
You cited a source as a reinforcement to your argument. Uzi showed that not only is that source biased against Islam in about every way possible, the guy who made the source you have relied upon for your argument is a con artist, a burglar and generally a criminal who can't be trusted at all.
All you are doing is denying, dismissing and ignoring these facts, and then pinning these attitudes onto other people. Poor form, you're slipping badly and if I were you I'd be really embarrassed about my behaviour around here, but you are you and refuse to see it. Your choice, lawl.
Fact. The link I provided addresses Islam and exposes it. this is true. It also sources every bit of its information.
None of this information has been challenged by you or anyone like you WITH INFORMATION refuting it. It has been dismissed denied or ignored for 25 pages
Uzi posted a supposed slam dunk that you all bought into, from a PROVEN and substantiated felon and fraud named Jim Sutter
NONE of the information provided by Jim Sutter, that trashed Glen Reinsford has been substantiated. NOT ONE BIT OF IT.
Nowhere else on the internet is there any other source confirming the accusations offered up by Jim Sutter. The real con artist you all have championed.
YOU are taking Jim Sutter for his word that what he says is true. You have not verified any of it.
There are countless sites exposing Jim Sutter, and providing source material to back up their claims.Where is yours?
You claim, based on the word of Jim Sutter, that Glen Reinsford is a criminal, a con artist, a burglar etc who can not be trusted at all. Do you not see the irony and stupidity of buying into such claims by a PROVEN felon? Why are you ignoring the proven facts of Jim Sutter, and using this same man as a source to spread UNPROVEN information about another person?
"Consider that many Muslims would not even think of amputating a thief's hand. Does this mean that it is against Islam to do so? Of course not! In fact, this mandate is clearly found in one of the last verses in the Qur'an (5:38) and in the example of Muhammad according to the Hadith (Bukhari 81:792).
Muslims may believe whatever they want to about what Islam says or doesn't say, but it doesn't change what Islam says about itself. As an ideology, it exists independently of anyone's opinion. As such, it may be studied objectively and apart from how anyone else practices or chooses to interprets it."
Last edited by lowing (2010-07-04 08:54:14)
Islamic Apologist playbook.Jaekus wrote:
Well, I could argue that the US is a violent nation, because it has the highest instance of gun deaths per year in the world. I could argue all Americans are gun-toting lunatics, and could cite a hundred sources to back up my claims and rationale. But I don't. Why? Because despite this I can still use my brain and understand that these instances are exceptions rather than the norm. Something lowing can't seem to do when he talks/thinks/perceives Islam.
There are undoubtedly more peaceful muslims in the world than not BY FAR. Yet lowing takes the minority as some weird leverage to say this is the norm - just basing it purely on numbers indicates otherwise.
You can pull anything that fits your argument out of the Quran as evidence, just like anyone could pull anything out of the Bible that fits any argument they choose to make. In both cases you simply wind up appearing to be a narrow minded bigot, whether this is your intention or not.
Not that saying any of this will make any impact, any objective reasoning such as this is wasted on some deaf ears and a narrow mind.
Dismiss. check
Deny
Ignore
Emulate superiority..check
actually all the evidence you ask for is found at thereligionofpeace.com. Ask yourself any question regarding Islam and this argument and an answer can be found.Bertster7 wrote:
Excellent analogy there.Jaekus wrote:
Well, I could argue that the US is a violent nation, because it has the highest instance of gun deaths per year in the world. I could argue all Americans are gun-toting lunatics, and could cite a hundred sources to back up my claims and rationale. But I don't. Why? Because despite this I can still use my brain and understand that these instances are exceptions rather than the norm. Something lowing can't seem to do when he talks/thinks/perceives Islam.Exactly why I tend to ask him for numbers and specific details rather than his typical sweeping statements. I have yet to see him ever come back with figures on any of these things.Jaekus wrote:
There are undoubtedly more peaceful muslims in the world than not BY FAR. Yet lowing takes the minority as some weird leverage to say this is the norm - just basing it purely on numbers indicates otherwise.
You can pull anything that fits your argument out of the Quran as evidence, just like anyone could pull anything out of the Bible that fits any argument they choose to make. In both cases you simply wind up appearing to be a narrow minded bigot, whether this is your intention or not.
Not that saying any of this will make any impact, any objective reasoning such as this is wasted on some deaf ears and a narrow mind.
He asks for explicit proof for every point of his that is questioned, but does not provide anything that could remotely be considered proof.
There is no reason not to trust the site because there is no evidence that anything your beloved Jim Sutter has said is true. Especially given that everything said about Jim Sutter has been substantiated and proven to be true. Even if the sites motives are questionable, this does not automatically null its accuracy.
You were taking Jim Sutters words and accusations as evidence without proof and apparently still are willing to do so, why not the same standard for those you disagree with? Your separate standard regarding that point is so obviously pathetic all you can is shake your head in disbelief.
Last edited by lowing (2010-07-04 09:07:12)