|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 12, 2019 5:43:37 GMT
I'm sorry, I thought that was a rhetorical question. Of course not. Then you understand it's just as obvious that what I did by citing her agenda, is clearly NOT "Fallacy 101" or an ad hominem logical fallacy as you called it. You said "it's important to consider who they are if reliable information matters" just before saying that what matters is "getting the full story with verifiable facts and evidence." The story in this case is the history of Islam as presented by the lady in the OP's video. You also said that someone's reputation doesn't debunk their argument, and I agreed. But I don't agree that someone's reputation dismisses their argument. Nobody is asking anyone to take anyone's word for anything here. Trust need not apply.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 12, 2019 6:06:45 GMT
I'll rephrase: If he wasn't trying to deflect the topic if it wasn't an ad hom against the speaker in the video, then he was just insulting for the sake of insulting. I didn't deflect it. I acknowledged it and even assumed it for the sake of conversation. I also believe you're right. 'Right', about what? Right about Eddy being a dick just for the sake of being a dick.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 12, 2019 6:35:16 GMT
Right about Eddy being a dick just for the sake of being a dick. Hot damn! I thought you were going to say 'EVERYTHING'!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 12, 2019 6:37:52 GMT
Right about Eddy being a dick just for the sake of being a dick. Hot damn! I thought you were going to say 'EVERYTHING'! Well, you thought I wouldn't ignore your reports, so that would be a lie. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 12, 2019 6:39:03 GMT
I’ll add this, no one can do the “history of Islam” in 5 minutes. That said, I have not looked at the film nor care to because it’s been labeled as the definitive of something and that’s idiotic in and of itself. If it read “Islam in a nutshell,” then that tells me it’s just a subjective opinion used to make a point. I probably still wouldn’t look at it because I have at least studied a bit the religion and its history and don’t need a 5 minute primer.
If you want to really “know” what something is, then crack the books and start studying...and by study I don’t mean looking at political or religious propaganda websites.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 12, 2019 8:00:02 GMT
Hot damn! I thought you were going to say 'EVERYTHING'! Well, you thought I wouldn't ignore your reports, so that would be a lie. OK. I am happy with 'nearly everything'!
|
|
|
|
Post by llanwydd on Nov 12, 2019 9:12:11 GMT
That makes no sense. Muhammad was a warlord alright but in ten years he did what? - Married and molested a child. - Lusted after and then married his adopted son’s wife. - Owned and traded black slaves. - Was a racist. - Said Satan looks like a black man. - Said women are stupid. - Said anyone who leaves his religion should be executed. - Genocided an entire Jewish clan. - Married a woman on the same day he wiped out her entire family. - cheated on his wives. - Ordered or supported the killing of numerous people including women and children for as little as criticising him in poetry or apostasy. - Undertook over 90 military expeditions resulting in rape, and pillaging and costing the lives of scores of people. - Raided and looted pagan caravans. - Millions have died because of the religion he founded and is the main reason the Islamic world is a complete mess today. Who said anything about conquest? "If any person has a good word for the previous government, that is good enough for me to have him shot." "A revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate." "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." on the Cuban missile crisis: "What we affirm is that we must proceed along the path of liberation even if this costs millions of atomic victims." -Che Guevarra Are you ever going to tell us the story about your avatar?
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Nov 12, 2019 9:30:38 GMT
I'd just like to reiterate my thoughts on this. What you are saying is wrong, in my opinion. If someone that is talking on any given subject is known to be a hater of that subject, whatever it is, then of course that is relevant. She is known for her anti-Muslim stance, so yes that is important and is directly relevant to the subject she is talking about. The motivation for her lecture is certainly worthy of discussion, but what about what she said? Do we just ignore that because of the reason she might be saying it? Do we presume she's lying or otherwise incorrect so we can easily dismiss it as such? I feel like I'm playing Hot Potato by myself here. She tried to condense 1,400 years into 5 minutes. I'm going to try to condense her 5 minutes into two paragraphs: So, that's her account of the history of Islam, paraphrased by me. Some scenes were edited out for brevity. Bear in mind, I don't care if it's accurate or not. The point is that her entire 5-minute summary consists of verifiable information. Her agenda, whatever that may or may not be, has no bearing on the ability to disprove her lecture and therefore preventing some fool like me from believing it and therefore accommodating her plan to rule the world or whatever. The focus should be on what was said, not who said it. Unless, of course, you'd rather ad hom than participate in the discussion being offered by the OP.  Well I don't know that much about the early history of Islam to say that the first paragraph is accurate but I know the second one is a bit simplistic in its description of the crusades. But then again a lot of people like to portray the Crusades as this idea where the Muslims were just living at peace and minding their own business until the the big bad Christians descended upon them which is even more simplistic. Plus the British controlled Jerusalem before the Israelis so Islamic control lasted until 1918. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 12, 2019 11:00:59 GMT
I’ll add this, no one can do the “history of Islam” in 5 minutes. That said, I have not looked at the film nor care to because it’s been labeled as the definitive of something and that’s idiotic in and of itself. If it read “Islam in a nutshell,” then that tells me it’s just a subjective opinion used to make a point. I probably still wouldn’t look at it because I have at least studied a bit the religion and its history and don’t need a 5 minute primer. If you want to really “know” what something is, then crack the books and start studying...and by study I don’t mean looking at political or religious propaganda websites. LOL |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 12, 2019 11:11:55 GMT
Stop diverting, coward. Muhammad taught that apostates from Islam should be executed. This has now become a sharia ruling in Islam. How do you feel about this? |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 12, 2019 11:20:41 GMT
I'd just like to reiterate my thoughts on this. What you are saying is wrong, in my opinion. If someone that is talking on any given subject is known to be a hater of that subject, whatever it is, then of course that is relevant. She is known for her anti-Muslim stance, so yes that is important and is directly relevant to the subject she is talking about. The motivation for her lecture is certainly worthy of discussion, but what about what she said? Do we just ignore that because of the reason she might be saying it? Do we presume she's lying or otherwise incorrect so we can easily dismiss it as such? I feel like I'm playing Hot Potato by myself here. She tried to condense 1,400 years into 5 minutes. I'm going to try to condense her 5 minutes into two paragraphs: So, that's her account of the history of Islam, paraphrased by me. Some scenes were edited out for brevity. Bear in mind, I don't care if it's accurate or not. The point is that her entire 5-minute summary consists of verifiable information. Her agenda, whatever that may or may not be, has no bearing on the ability to disprove her lecture and therefore preventing some fool like me from believing it and therefore accommodating her plan to rule the world or whatever. The focus should be on what was said, not who said it. Unless, of course, you'd rather ad hom than participate in the discussion being offered by the OP. Also why shouldn't she hate Islam? There is very little about that religion not to hate. These deranged liberals cheer on the likes of Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens when they’re tearing into Christianity and Judaism. But the moment somebody like Brigitte Gabriel scrutinises and exposes the garbage that is Islam it’s “HOW DARE SHE!!!” |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 12, 2019 11:37:18 GMT
These deranged liberals cheer on the likes of Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens when they’re tearing into Christianity and Judaism. These guys rarely ever cite specific religions, you ridiculous moron. This is especially the case with Dawkins and Dennett, who you've obviously never read (you probably haven't read an entire book since a teacher forced you to do so in grade school). When they attack "Christianity and Judaism" they are almost always attacking the metaphysical and superstitious claims made on behalf of religion, meaning their critiques work against any and all religions making those claims. Hitchens was the only one who made a habit of going against specific religions, because he was attacking their specific social effects and political influences. And guess what--he was your buddy on Islam!
What an ignorant fuckwit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Nov 12, 2019 11:59:05 GMT
I'd just like to reiterate my thoughts on this. What you are saying is wrong, in my opinion. If someone that is talking on any given subject is known to be a hater of that subject, whatever it is, then of course that is relevant. She is known for her anti-Muslim stance, so yes that is important and is directly relevant to the subject she is talking about. The motivation for her lecture is certainly worthy of discussion, but what about what she said? Do we just ignore that because of the reason she might be saying it? Do we presume she's lying or otherwise incorrect so we can easily dismiss it as such? I feel like I'm playing Hot Potato by myself here. She tried to condense 1,400 years into 5 minutes. I'm going to try to condense her 5 minutes into two paragraphs: So, that's her account of the history of Islam, paraphrased by me. Some scenes were edited out for brevity. Bear in mind, I don't care if it's accurate or not. The point is that her entire 5-minute summary consists of verifiable information. Her agenda, whatever that may or may not be, has no bearing on the ability to disprove her lecture and therefore preventing some fool like me from believing it and therefore accommodating her plan to rule the world or whatever. The focus should be on what was said, not who said it. Unless, of course, you'd rather ad hom than participate in the discussion being offered by the OP. I understand what you are saying now, and to a point I agree. Most of what she has said has a kernel of truth to it but she spins it to fit her agenda, that's my point: she has an agenda. I like what PaulsLaugh said on this thread: By the way, the OP rarely posts any discussion. She usually does just what she has done here - puts up a video and lets everyone argue about it, while she throws her hands up in the air and declares it's not her fault.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 12, 2019 13:37:42 GMT
Stop diverting, coward. Muhammad taught that apostates from Islam should be executed. This has now become a sharia ruling in Islam. How do you feel about this? The same way I feel about everything else that emerges from that sandy waste you refer to as a brain.......>yawn<. Watching you flail in that spastic ad-hom mode you work yourself into is funny, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 12, 2019 13:40:12 GMT
She seems to do her active trolling under the one where she calls herself "heeeeeeeeeey" .. the others that I saw were her "hidden" ones where she tried (and failed) to be a different kinder, gentler person.  I'm sure keeping the verbal diarrhea under control was more than she could have been expected to manage.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 12, 2019 13:42:41 GMT
I don't troll, and my socks were not used for trolling. The admin posted them, so it's no secret which ones they are. I had my FlipperSmile acct since the forum was created and used it to post on the Soapbox and other boards. The admin outed it for no other reason than to be a dick. You probably encounter that quite a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 12, 2019 13:46:35 GMT
- Married and molested a child. - Lusted after and then married his adopted son’s wife. - Owned and traded black slaves. - Was a racist. - Said Satan looks like a black man. - Said women are stupid. - Said anyone who leaves his religion should be executed. - Genocided an entire Jewish clan. - Married a woman on the same day he wiped out her entire family. - cheated on his wives. - Ordered or supported the killing of numerous people including women and children for as little as criticising him in poetry or apostasy. - Undertook over 90 military expeditions resulting in rape, and pillaging and costing the lives of scores of people. - Raided and looted pagan caravans. - Millions have died because of the religion he founded and is the main reason the Islamic world is a complete mess today. Who said anything about conquest? "If any person has a good word for the previous government, that is good enough for me to have him shot." "A revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate." "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." on the Cuban missile crisis: "What we affirm is that we must proceed along the path of liberation even if this costs millions of atomic victims." -Che Guevarra Are you ever going to tell us the story about your avatar? It can be easily explained by the fact that stupid people have a shaky grasp on the concept of irony.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 12, 2019 14:00:20 GMT
Stop diverting, coward. Muhammad taught that apostates from Islam should be executed. This has now become a sharia ruling in Islam. How do you feel about this? The same way I feel about everything else that emerges from that sandy waste you refer to as a brain.......>yawn<. Watching you flail in that spastic ad-hom mode you work yourself into is funny, though. So you’re too cowardly to answer the question. Typical liberal. 😂 Go on do one you muppet. You’ve wasted enough of my time. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 12, 2019 14:04:31 GMT
"If any person has a good word for the previous government, that is good enough for me to have him shot." "A revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate." "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." on the Cuban missile crisis: "What we affirm is that we must proceed along the path of liberation even if this costs millions of atomic victims." -Che Guevarra Are you ever going to tell us the story about your avatar? It can be easily explained by the fact that stupid people have a shaky grasp on the concept of irony. Irony? Coming from the militant “liberal” who can’t even bring herself to publicly condemn an ideology that orders the death penalty for anybody who dares to leave it. Is it any wonder you leftists today are considered a monumental joke? |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 12, 2019 14:08:18 GMT
The same way I feel about everything else that emerges from that sandy waste you refer to as a brain.......>yawn<. Watching you flail in that spastic ad-hom mode you work yourself into is funny, though. Go on do one you muppet. You’ve wasted enough of my time. Your stock answer everytime you've fallen on your ass in an argument. "Muppet"?  . That's out of the lame left field even for you.
|
|
. That's out of the lame left field even for you.