Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

So the atheist "movement"...

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 7 of 16
 [ 304 posts ] 
So the atheist "movement"...
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

You can see how Tree is really just singing from the same page as the administration.

Trump retweets several far right extremist videos, then Huckabee Sanders repeatedly tells reporters that his agenda in doing so is strong national borders and immigration control. When pushed to substantiate any form of logical connection between the two, she says 'well, look we're talking now about strong national borders and immigration control, so it's worked!'.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:07 am
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:nor do we want people who produce public content that white-supremacist neo-Nazis are desperate to endorse'.


LOL

There goes TV.

When will you figure it out that being endorsed by bad guys doesn't really mean shit? Cause it doesn't mean you endorse them back.


Well, here's the problem. I've already 'figured out' what's actually occurring here, and that is easily verifiable by looking at the many posts I've written addressing this evasion each time you've tried it.

Being endorsed by white-supremacist neo-Nazis due to the content you produce means that the content you produce is in accordance with white-supremacist neo-Nazis.

So as much as you may wish to deflect away from this, your sorry notion that I need to 'figure it out' really is exposed as you demanding I genuflect to your piteous handwaving.



Tree wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:To put this in a paradigm Tree can comprehend.

Consider it market forces. For every bigoted whackjob's ticket sale you add, you lose a dozen ticket sales from sane, modern, decent people.


I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but ever since Atheism+ and these other attempts to impose ideological purity under the false pretense of combating racism and sexism, this "movement" has gone downhill. They're not winning more people over at all. Even Reason Rally #2 had lower attendance than the first.


Which, as Hack already pointed out, shows that you're just a concern troll.

In reality, non-belief is growing at a rate of knots, and atheism plus provided not so much as a blip on the vast majority of the world's radar screens. You really have a flair for the dramatic, but you should perhaps stick to writing what you're best at: fiction.



Tree wrote:
Atheism would thereby be better represented worldwide by rejecting this dreck because then the organization wouldn't just be about a group of deranged, permanently pubescent, white bigots from English speaking countries.


Which never was, this is just divisive Atheism+ propaganda.


You cretin. There is no atheism plus propaganda, you vacuous little numpty.

As usual, you can't address what's said, so you make up some fantabulous bullshit to pretend you've responded.



Tree wrote:In truth, nobody was excluded for being non-white or being from non-English speaking countries.


In truth, if you bring in racist, sexist cunts and give them a platform, then you are excluding everyone that is the target of their vitriolic angst. I've already told you this.

If you disagree, then you have, hilariously, completely destroyed your own contentions in the OP, you lazy hypocrite.



Tree wrote:
When you respond to 'X is bad' with 'but so is Y' then you are engaging in whataboutism.


Which is not my argument.


Of course it's not your argument - it's my argument mimicing the style of your arguments.



Tree wrote:My argument is that your analysis of antifa's motivation is wrong.


No, that's bullshit you liar. It's just another in the long line of red herrings you've manufactured to pretend to yourself you're doing well.



Tree wrote: They're not motivated by opposition to vicious ideologies that kill millions. What they're motivated by is anti-capitalism.


No, they (as in the ones in the USA) are motivated by the rejection of white-supremacy neo-Nazis as we've a) sourced and b) clearly stated a number of times, so your miraculously reworking of reality is rejected as a figment of your febrile imagination.



Tree wrote:
It is, of course, precisely whataboutism. Antifa's reaction is to white-supremacist neo-Nazis who are nasty. Nothing there is contingent or produces a need for them to be about any other ideology, political position, world belief, or anything at all.


Actually it does if your underlying principle is opposition to vicious ideologies that kill millions.


I just spent an entire post showing that your argument is wrong, and you simply repeat it.



Tree wrote:Since antifa oppose one vicious ideology but embrace another, your explanation of their motives is wrong.


My arguments are not susceptible to your poorly contrived red herrings. They are opposed to white-supremacist neo-Nazis, as I've already explained to you.



Tree wrote:Another thing, if you're so opposed to "white-supremacist neo-Nazis" (in reality they don't have this odd fixation that you do, they just claim to oppose "fascists") that you dedicate so much time to it, I expect you to be able to accurately identify fascists.


1) Your sentence is just garbled bollocks
2) I don't give a fuck what red herring you want to manufacture.



Tree wrote:Trump is not.
Milo is not.
Ben Shapiro is not.
G-20 members are not for the most part.
The innocent bystanders who get their property and cars smashed are not.


Are not what? I can't keep up with which red herring you're appealing to this time.



Tree wrote:It's pretty clear their real motivation is just anti-capitalism.


Amusing. Last time you tried this deflection, you were absolutely insistent that they were pro-Communism. Haven't you grasped the fact that I don't lend the Gospel according to Tree one iota of credence?



Tree wrote:That's the only thing antifa is consistent on 100%.


The one thing is their opposition to white supremacist neo-Nazis.



Tree wrote: They are not consistent on opposing vicious ideologies...


They don't need to be as it's not their stated agenda. I just explained all this to you. Do you need a picture drawn in crayon?



Tree wrote:and they are not consistently able to accurately identify fascists.


Says you in another iteration of your logically garbled red herring.



Tree wrote: They constantly mislabel non-fascists as fascists or ignore actual fascists, for example the Islamic fascists.


Whatever failings they may have, they consistently oppose white supremacist neo-Nazis, which as it's their stated agenda, means they are fulfilling their organisational agenda.




Tree wrote:
Antifa aren't obligated to be against any group of people who committed, or allegedly committed violence for them to still validly be a reaction (in the USA) to the violence of white-supremacist neo-Nazis, and they can remain wholly restricted solely to that.


There's actually no reason to believe that US antifa is any different from European antifa.


Yes there is. I already cited a source providing clear reason to believe it.

What you mean is that you disbelieve it due to your religious ideology, and because you disagree with it, then according to the Gospel of Tree, it must be so. Fuck facts, evidence, reality - the litmus test of skepticism is whether Tree agrees or not.

Sorry pal, your inability to process arguments, your repeated logical fallacies, your blind ideological binary bollocks makes you unsuited to be the Final Arbiter of All Things.



Tree wrote: All of the groups I could look up online are consistently anti-capitalist and embrace communism, left-wing anarchism (which is almost indistinguishable from communism in practice) or other far left ideas.


Oh well, all the groups I could look up online are consistently opposed to white supremacist neo-Nazis.

None of them 'embrace' communism, and left-wing anarchism =/= communism as I just wrote in the post you are laughably supposed to be replying to.



Tree wrote:And also maybe you'd have a point...


I do have a point regardless of whether you wish to acknowledge it or desperately obfuscate it.



Tree wrote: if antifa was neutral on communism.


They don't have to be, Tree. It's a contrivance you've manufactured in your ever deepening hole filled with red herring.



Tree wrote: I don't expect a group of people to know all the vicious ideologies. I don't expect activists to not specialize on a problem. If you want to focus on fascism and ignore communism, fine. I don't however think it's okay to focus on fascism while embracing communism. The stance is completely inconsistent.


Um, no of course it's not. Again, you are just indicating how devoid of reasoning your thought processes are. As I just explained to you in the previous post, you can be against fascism while not being against communism all you want. Just as you can be against communism while not being against fascism. These are not 'inconsistent' in the slightest.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:52 am
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

AGA (anti-golf association) - we seek to ban the pervasive influence of golf on our nation! We will contest it in the courts, in the media, and on the streets! Golf must be stopped!

Tree - if you are against golf, then you also have to be against croquet, boules, billiards and snooker! If not, then you are inconsistent.

AGA - no, we're just against golf. Some of us feel strongly against billiards, but they can do that on their own time - we're an organisation specifically limited to being against golf: you can see it in our name! And we're under no obligation to spend our time and resources contesting other ball-stick sports.

Tree - but you can't be! You have to be against other sports involving hitting a ball with a stick because I just wrote a sentence saying you have to be. It's utterly inconsistent of you to say you're against golf while refusing to reject boules! You can't embrace snooker while being against golf... that's inconsistent, and consistency has suddenly become the only issue relevant to your rejection of golf! Inconsistent! INCONSISTENT! Must hate everyone! MUST REJECT EVERYTHING! INC%#CON(*&SIS&^(%^TENT!!!
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:59 am
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

AGA (anti-golf association) - we seek to ban the pervasive influence of golf on our nation! We will contest it in the courts, in the media, and on the streets! Golf must be stopped!


More like

AGA - We want to ban golf, we hates sports that cause people to waste a lot of their time watching.

PS: We're all football fans. Shhhh...

This is kinda how antifa operates. They say they hate fascism because it killed millions, but embrace communism, somehow the millions killed by communism don't matter. Antifa is a fucking joke run by liars and morons.

Um, no of course it's not. Again, you are just indicating how devoid of reasoning your thought processes are. As I just explained to you in the previous post, you can be against fascism while not being against communism all you want. Just as you can be against communism while not being against fascism. These are not 'inconsistent' in the slightest.


Yes, genius, you can be pro-communist+anti-fascism or anti-communism+pro-fascism.

You CANNOT however be pro either if you also have a principle of opposing vicious ideologies that kill millions. Got it? It doesn't work, just as if you claim you hate sports because you think people spend too much time watching them, you can't go around saying "ah but football/whatever is okay". Makes you look like a hypocrite to hold such a position.

Whatever failings they may have, they consistently oppose white supremacist neo-Nazis, which as it's their stated agenda, means they are fulfilling their organisational agenda.


That again is your idiosyncratic fixation talking.

Antifa is just short for anti-fascism. If they are unable to correctly identify fascists, then their movement is a failure to the core.


Yes there is. I already cited a source providing clear reason to believe it.

What you mean is that you disbelieve it due to your religious ideology, and because you disagree with it, then according to the Gospel of Tree, it must be so. Fuck facts, evidence, reality - the litmus test of skepticism is whether Tree agrees or not.


Sadly for your, the only piece of "evidence" you cited links back to a BBC article that's actually called:

"Antifa: Left-wing militants on the rise"

It's also an opinion piece, one I need not fully agree with. Brenna Cammeron is not infallible. When she's wrong on some information, she will be called out.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40930831

So when she says:

"However, as their name indicates, Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy. "

That's a major error right there. The name of a movement itself doesn't mean anything if it's not backed up by actions. It can also be deliberately misleading to get more useful idiots on board, cause who doesn't oppose fascism?

(Also, genius, just cause you don't "FOCUS" on X doesn't mean you don't follow X. No matter how you try to spin it, both Euro and American antifa are far left)

Speaking of communism vs. left-wing anarchism. Basically indistinguishable.

I mean they both hate capitalism and both want a stateless classless society and workers controlling the means of production. Same shit that's going to lead to mass murder every time it's tried.

My arguments are not susceptible to your poorly contrived red herrings. They are opposed to white-supremacist neo-Nazis, as I've already explained to you.


Please articulate for the record why you think white-supremacist neo-Nazism should be opposed.

It's not a trick nor am I defending them. I'm genuinely curious.
Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:53 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:
AGA (anti-golf association) - we seek to ban the pervasive influence of golf on our nation! We will contest it in the courts, in the media, and on the streets! Golf must be stopped!


More like

AGA - We want to ban golf, we hates sports that cause people to waste a lot of their time watching.

PS: We're all football fans. Shhhh...


Actually, no. Mine was clearly more analogous.

But I will accept one minor criticism - I should have made it clearer that Tree repeatedly asserts that they're secretly all football fans, even when it's factually untrue.


Tree wrote:This is kinda how antifa operates.


No, it's kind of how Tree's imagination works.


Tree wrote: They say they hate fascism because it killed millions,...


No, Tree says that they say they hate fascism because it killed millions, but if Tree was asked to cite this, he'd present the fluff from his belly button confidently asserted as if it were compelling evidence.


Tree wrote: but embrace communism,


No, only Tree and other right wing extremists say they embrace communism in the never ending whataboutism game where they don't need to focus on the resurrection of Nazism in 21st century USA.


Tree wrote:somehow the millions killed by communism don't matter.


No, rather 'are not relevant' in the same way that the millions killed by Roman conquests, the millions killed by Christian Crusades, the millions killed by <insert any other event> are not relevant because only Tree claims that this is the way the world works, even after having his spiel shown wrong half a dozen times.


Tree wrote: Antifa is a fucking joke run by liars and morons.


Says a fucking lying moronic clown... /shrug

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, except to those who confusedly mistake their opinions for the fulcrum of reality.


Tree wrote:
Um, no of course it's not. Again, you are just indicating how devoid of reasoning your thought processes are. As I just explained to you in the previous post, you can be against fascism while not being against communism all you want. Just as you can be against communism while not being against fascism. These are not 'inconsistent' in the slightest.


Yes, genius, you can be pro-communist+anti-fascism or anti-communism+pro-fascism.


Clearly, I must be a genius as half of your arguments have been based on the faulty assumption that 1 entity can be X, but can't simultaneously be not Y.

This is, of course, bollocks.


Tree wrote:You CANNOT however be pro either if you also have a principle of opposing vicious ideologies that kill millions. Got it?


'Get it' in terms of understanding what your'e prattling about- yes, sure, but 'get it' in terms of it making logical sense? No, of course not.

It's your strawman, I've identified it as a strawman, I've shown how it's nonsense, and yet you want to keep repeating it as if it's a fact.

It's not. It's your over-active imagination which is unfortunately not corralled by reality, but rather resides wholly on blind tribalistic ideology.


Tree wrote: It doesn't work, just as if you claim you hate sports because you think people spend too much time watching them, you can't go around saying "ah but football/whatever is okay". Makes you look like a hypocrite to hold such a position.


See? Everyone else can see you doing these red herrings, Tree. But you still seem to be upset when they don't get accepted.

It's funny how you even need to red herring the analogous model about sport.

The AGA didn't say they hate sports, nor did they say they think people spend too much time watching them. Instead, they said they want to ban golf. Tree, however, decides on their behalf that the reason they want to do X is secretly because of some other thing he's made up, or uncritically bought into from a vacuous propaganda outlet, and then declares it so without bothering to validate it.

Consequently, serious thinkers reject such bollocks as being far below the bar of reasoned discourse.


Tree wrote:
Whatever failings they may have, they consistently oppose white supremacist neo-Nazis, which as it's their stated agenda, means they are fulfilling their organisational agenda.


That again is your idiosyncratic fixation talking.


Projection wants a word with you.


Tree wrote:Antifa is just short for anti-fascism. If they are unable to correctly identify fascists, then their movement is a failure to the core.


Even if your make-believe if clause were true, your argument still wouldn't follow - the result clause would remain a non-sequitur.



Tree wrote:
Yes there is. I already cited a source providing clear reason to believe it.

What you mean is that you disbelieve it due to your religious ideology, and because you disagree with it, then according to the Gospel of Tree, it must be so. Fuck facts, evidence, reality - the litmus test of skepticism is whether Tree agrees or not.


Sadly for your, the only piece of "evidence" you cited links back to a BBC article that's actually called:

"Antifa: Left-wing militants on the rise"


Yes, and....?

And it doesn't hold any support for your claim whatsoever.


Tree wrote:It's also an opinion piece,...


Oh no! An opinion not espoused as fact by Tree! That can't be allowed, can it?


Tree wrote: one I need not fully agree with.


How droll. You realize that you're not obligated to agree with someone else's opinion, but seem terminally incapable of processing that as being the case when you state your opinions.

We went on this merry-go-round in your first set of posts on this forum. You mistake your opinions for facts. You emote reality based on your predilection and prejudices. So, naturally, if someone doesn't share your predilections or prejudices, they're not going to accept your opinion as fact, or even as a very coherent opinion.

That's bad enough, but you also fall further into the idiot trap by employing the good old 'if you're not with me, then you're my enemy' and your enemies are communists, which then means that everyone who disagrees with the delusion raving internet chap called Tree must also be a secret communist.

Given how you never pulled back from that absurd behavior, and in fact doubled-down declaring you were absolutly right to call me a terrorist sympathiser who is aiding and abetting the enemy and polluting the minds of our youth just because I refused to kow-tow to your opinion, it's delicious that we've gone full circle and its come round to kick you in the butt now you've suddenly arrived at the deeply sophisticated understanding, usually found in those past the age of 5, that one's opinions are not how we dictate reality. Rather, it should be the other way round, and one's opinions should be informed by reality, not stated with absolute confidence in contradiction to it.


Tree wrote: Brenna Cammeron is not infallible. When she's wrong on some information, she will be called out.


Well, that's going to be funny considering how frequently you've been wrong, called out, and simply handwaved all criticism away. You might want to get that sequoia tree out of your eye before you worry about the shaving in other peoples'.


Tree wrote:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40930831

So when she says:

"However, as their name indicates, Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy. "

That's a major error right there.


Because you dictate that it is so?

You misunderstand your role, Tree.

To justify your much repeated contention that US antifa are really an organisation whose agenda is to encourage pro-communist policies, you need to show examples of them actually doing that. Not just repeat yourself ad nauseum that your declaration is true.

You've offered nothing but assertion atop assertion.


Tree wrote:The name of a movement itself doesn't mean anything if it's not backed up by actions. It can also be deliberately misleading to get more useful idiots on board, cause who doesn't oppose fascism?


Well, fascists, white-supremacists, nationalists, neo-Nazis... you know, Trump supporters.


Tree wrote:(Also, genius, just cause you don't "FOCUS" on X doesn't mean you don't follow X.


Nor does it mean you do! :lol:

You aren't going to convince anyone here of your vacuous extremist Breitbart talking points, Tree, because the more absolute confidence you employ in your unevidenced assertions, the less legitimacy you have, and the more suspect your future declarations become.

All you are doing is highlighting what motivates your possession of so many of your poorly-thought out positions - a paucity of reason on your part.


Tree wrote:No matter how you try to spin it, both Euro and American antifa are far left)


We already went through this red herring before.

1) Far left =/= communist.

2) In comparison to your politics, most of the world is 'far-left'.

3) Far left isn't a pejorative term, regardless of whether that's how you mean to use it.


Tree wrote:Speaking of communism vs. left-wing anarchism. Basically indistinguishable.


If you're blind as a bat, perhaps. And by blind, of course, I mean mentally blind due to your cognitive biases obscuring your comprehension.


Tree wrote:I mean they both hate capitalism and both want a stateless classless society and workers controlling the means of production. Same shit that's going to lead to mass murder every time it's tried.


Ooh! Your crystal ball's back in operation! Did you take it to the chakra shop to have its energy levels spiritually refilled?

Again, your navel fluff is not very compelling to anyone employing functioning brains. I betcha you're a god damn star in Breitbart discussions though, aintcha? Oh how they must fall over themselves to uncritically parrot the same lines you're uncritically parroting.


Tree wrote:
My arguments are not susceptible to your poorly contrived red herrings. They are opposed to white-supremacist neo-Nazis, as I've already explained to you.


Please articulate for the record why you think white-supremacist neo-Nazism should be opposed.


No. I've got better things to do than perform tricks on command.


Tree wrote:It's not a trick nor am I defending them. I'm genuinely curious.


Couldn't give two hoots how you feel. You ain't worth a wet wank when it comes to engaging in reason. After acting such a fucking numpty for so long, do you think I'm going to sit and discuss a serious topic with you? I'd be as much of a fucking moron as you appear to be if I expected serious, reasoned discourse out of you. I'll pass thanks. I'd rather save legitimate discussions and explanations of my position for someone capable of discourse.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:51 am
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Let's be careful to conspicuously overlook the fact that Trump just retweeted a series of messages from a white supremacist neo-Nazi propaganda source and then got childishly shitty when called out for it by the leader of one of the USA's longest and most consistent allies.

Just keep reassuring yourself that Trump isn't dragging the USA into the gutter.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:59 am
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Actually, no. Mine was clearly more analogous.

But I will accept one minor criticism - I should have made it clearer that Tree repeatedly asserts that they're secretly all football fans, even when it's factually untrue.


Stop fucking lying. I'm getting sick of your gaslighting and I'm getting sick of your pseudo-intellectual snobbery.

You're still pretending that I can't just scroll back to read your older quotes. Boy, you are nowhere near as smart as you think you are and you need to get over yourself cause you barely even understand the logical fallacies you keep throwing accusations about. Take your own advice, think more, emote less.

Unfortunately, there's a bit more to it than that. Antifa is a nasty reaction to an even nastier problem. When white-supremacist neo-Nazis can wander round with torches chanting about niggers and Jews, then people are going to fight back. That's not justifying violence - I wish it would be peaceful, but given that just a couple of generations ago, we spent the lives of millions of our own defending against this vicious ideology, and given the content of their beliefs puts many of us all in danger, it's easy to see why it provokes violence. It's a reaction, an undesirable one, but it's reacting to something even less desirable.


So once again, you're trying to argue that antifa is concerned about:

1. vicious ideologies that result in millions killed
2. beliefs that "put many of us in danger"

In fact they're SOOO concerned about 1 and 2 they turn to violence.

And again I have to point out that their support of communism totally discredits them. Yes this is like someone being against watching sports because they consider it a "waste of time", but somehow giving football a pass for no good reason, no pun intended. One could conclude that probably the person question isn't so much anti-sports, he just wants to promote his favorite sport at the expense of others.

Even if they are not all communists it doesn't change the fact that that the few non-commies either have similar ideas or openly associate with them.


Now let's lay this shit about Sargon to rest cause it's getting annoying as fuck to constantly have to explain it to you.

Getting endorsed by white supremacists, even if it's specifically because they agree with some of your political views, isn't a bad thing. It depends on what those views are. Not everything that white supremacist say is wrong. Even a broken clock can be right twice a day.

For example, white supremacists would probably agree with me on there being a border and immigration tightly controlled. So in a world of open border propaganda, I might come across as an ally . That doesn't mean I'm actually an ally, it doesn't mean I endorse them back and if they endorse me or Sargon or whoever else they're doing it in vain and for superficial reasons. They have nothing to gain from it. We don't even share views for the same reasons. I mean white supremacists want any immigration control they can get because they want as few non-whites as possible in the country (none if possible and they want to get rid of non-whites even if they're a citizen), I just want immigration control cause I want quality people in the country, I don't give a shit what their race is and I don't want to deport anyone who's already a citizen.

The idea that in order to not be a white supremacist I have to take the 180 degree opposite view of everything they say is retarded. The only thing that's required to not be a white supremacist is to not believe that whites are superior or deserve special treatment.

No, Tree says that they say they hate fascism because it killed millions, but if Tree was asked to cite this, he'd present the fluff from his belly button confidently asserted as if it were compelling evidence.


Read your own quotes, moron, this is something you brought up in the first place. You can't challenge me on this one without challenging yourself as well. If you can't even remember what you said one post earlier, maybe you should seek professional help, might want to be sure you don't have brain damage.

That said:

Simply, antifa aims to deny fascists the opportunity to promote their oppressive politics, and to protect tolerant communities from acts of violence promulgated by fascists. Critics say shutting down political adversaries is anti-democratic; antifa adherents argue that the horrors of fascism must never be allowed the slightest chance to triumph again.

https://www.mhpbooks.com/books/antifa/

Read it and weep.

It's your strawman, I've identified it as a strawman, I've shown how it's nonsense, and yet you want to keep repeating it as if it's a fact.


At this point I think it's safe to say that you're just a very unintelligent person. There's no reasoning with you at all.

I make a prediction. Your next post will be more arguing in bad faith, more accusations of strawman that aren't true because you're not in fact being misrepresented and more lies about what you said.

We already went through this red herring before.

1) Far left =/= communist.


Close enough.

2) In comparison to your politics, most of the world is 'far-left'.


Most of the world also sucks ass in case you didn't realize. They could use a bit more capitalist values.

3) Far left isn't a pejorative term, regardless of whether that's how you mean to use it.


Need I remind you that if you shit on property rights you shit on human rights?

Just because you don't see the far left as bad the way far right is generally considered bad is not my problem. That says more about your double standards and foolishness.
Last edited by Tree on Fri Dec 01, 2017 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fri Dec 01, 2017 6:05 pm
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Sparhafoc wrote:Let's be careful to conspicuously overlook the fact that Trump just retweeted a series of messages from a white supremacist neo-Nazi propaganda source and then got childishly shitty when called out for it by the leader of one of the USA's longest and most consistent allies.

Just keep reassuring yourself that Trump isn't dragging the USA into the gutter.


The tweets contained 3 short 1-2minute videos.

Are you going to discuss the content of the videos or are you just going to bitch about the person hosting those videos and the other person retweeting them?

Look up "genetic fallacy", Mr. I'm-So-Logical-And-Rational-Not-Really. It wouldn't matter if the person tweeting was zombie Hitler. If there's a fire, doesn't matter who reports. It ain't going to put itself out just because you don't like the person reporting it.
Fri Dec 01, 2017 6:23 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:Stop fucking lying. I'm getting sick of your gaslighting and I'm getting sick of your pseudo-intellectual snobbery.


Oh no! How awful for you. The level of distress you're feeling even resulted in you just tossing out terms willy-nilly with no respect to their actual meaning.

Did you not grasp the fact that I don't give two hoots what you think? You've acted a total fucking asshat throughout, and if you haven't learned that acting an asshat provokes disdain from other people yet, I don't know what to say.


Tree wrote:You're still pretending that I can't just scroll back to read your older quotes.


I am 'still' doing it? As in, you've made note of this before, have you?

Only, it seems to me that if one were to scroll back through, one would find that you've just repeated an accusation I've made of you half a dozen times. Tu quoque much?


Tree wrote:Boy, you are nowhere near as smart as you think you are...


Says you - a person whose ability to judge anything rationally is in extreme doubt.


Tree wrote: and you need to get over yourself


I'll do that the very moment you start engaging in honest discourse.


Tree wrote: cause you barely even understand the logical fallacies you keep throwing accusations about.


Not only do I manifestly understand them, they're also an accurate depiction of the paucity of your reasoning capacity.


Tree wrote:Take your own advice, think more, emote less.


Oh, I do, which is why I've not emoted at reality even once in this thread, or any other. But do engage in this transparent display of projection, it really does emphasize what I've already said about your dysfunctional discourse.


Tree wrote:
Unfortunately, there's a bit more to it than that. Antifa is a nasty reaction to an even nastier problem. When white-supremacist neo-Nazis can wander round with torches chanting about niggers and Jews, then people are going to fight back. That's not justifying violence - I wish it would be peaceful, but given that just a couple of generations ago, we spent the lives of millions of our own defending against this vicious ideology, and given the content of their beliefs puts many of us all in danger, it's easy to see why it provokes violence. It's a reaction, an undesirable one, but it's reacting to something even less desirable.


So once again, you're trying to argue that antifa is concerned about:

1. vicious ideologies that result in millions killed
2. beliefs that "put many of us in danger"


No, I am not.

For someone calling me a liar, you must be off your fucking rocker, chap.

How many times have I repeated my point that the US antifa is a rejection of white-supremacist neo-Nazis? You don't seem able to make up your mind whether you want to tell me I am wrong because you assert so, or claim that I said something else entirely.

Either way, it being my point and all, I think most people would trust me to accurately render my position, not someone who's been a hostile little gimp throughout. Just saying.


Tree wrote:In fact they're SOOO concerned about 1 and 2 they turn to violence.


Masterful how you knocked down your own strawman yet again! You're really very impressive! Have a pat on the head!

No one has contended that they are against violence - that's the strawman you keep conjuring up. Rather, and it's right there in the quote from me you're supposedly replying to, they are a reaction to white-supremacist neo-Nazis, and they sadly have elected to employ violence to that end. You can see that I've written it right there - you know, that bit where I said 'a nasty reaction to an even nastier problem'?

How transparent your trolling is; you really need to work harder to achieve your goals here.


Tree wrote:And again I have to point out that their support of communism totally discredits them.


They don't support communism, and it would discredit them by default if they did.


Tree wrote:Yes this is like someone being against watching sports because they consider it a "waste of time", but somehow giving football a pass for no good reason, no pun intended.


No, you're just repeating your red herring because you have, once again, failed to actually address the point at hand, which is why you always have to convert it into a nonsensical rendition asserted from the Gospel of Tree.

It's frankly inane of you to keep repeating such stupid dreck. Each time you fail to acknowledge a reasonable point and need to conjure up these non-sequitur fantasies, you re-cement your tenure here as being one startlingly devoid of reason.


Tree wrote: One could conclude that probably the person question isn't so much anti-sports, he just wants to promote his favorite sport at the expense of others.


Only if one ignored what he expressly said, the entire point of his organisation, pretended to be able to discern his secret agenda, and then fail spectacularly to provide so much as a jot of evidence for that supposed fact.

In reality Tree, your ability to conjure up bullshit doesn't lend that bullshit validity.

I told you this in the very first post, and you still haven't learned from it. The mere act of collating words into syntactically correct sentences does not lend the resulting sentence any validity in terms of accurately representing reality.

As I've told you many times; you're emoting reality, not using reason, logic, or even the most elementary sense.


Tree wrote:Even if they are not all communists it doesn't change the fact that that the few non-commies either have similar ideas or openly associate with them.


So? Who cares? They're not all communists, some of them either are, or are sympathetic to communism. And? This is exactly why I called it a boogeyman, because you have an uncritical prejudice where the term 'communist' is used wholly as a pejorative, as if calling someone a communist tells us all we need to know about that person.

Of course, in reality, it tells us about as much as the word 'capitalist', it confers no sense of the morality, the beliefs, or the values of that person, only how they'd like to see the economic output of their society governed.

Your type of yank always flails around at this stuff, but you never seem to realize that all your bestest buddies in the world, the ones you can always count are, are socialist to the core. It's not an evil to not be a fruitcake libertarian chuffnut, and it's past time you grasped this.


Tree wrote:Now let's lay this shit about Sargon to rest cause it's getting annoying as fuck to constantly have to explain it to you.


How about you go fuck yourself, and I'll do what I want to which is to keep exposing your dire reasoning and discourse competencies?


Tree wrote:Getting endorsed by white supremacists, even if it's specifically because they agree with some of your political views, isn't a bad thing.


I disagree. I would say it's fucking awful.


Tree wrote: It depends on what those views are. Not everything that white supremacist say is wrong. Even a broken clock can be right twice a day.


Everything a white-supremacist neo-Nazi says is wrong. Of course, we're not talking about what colour they think the sky is, or whether it's better to eat beans or soup after a sickness... we're talking about a political movement which seeks to racially purify society, to create a system where ones station in society is first and foremost a factor of the colour of one's skin.

So when they endorse SoA, or any other person, and they expressly say the things you've tried to obfuscate in this thread about how SoA is their guy, and how he brings in new recruits to the cause, then it assuredly is a fucking problem.

Of course, maybe Tree doesn't feel that way, and in which case he would usually be expected to express an opinion, but Tree only understands the concept of opinion when it's what someone else is saying that he disagrees with.


Tree wrote:For example, white supremacists would probably agree with me on there being a border and immigration tightly controlled. So in a world of open border propaganda, I might come across as an ally . That doesn't mean I'm actually an ally,...


Even if this obfuscation were not just intended to continually attempt to explain away the endorsement of white-supremacist neo-Nazis, it would still amount to being a natural political ally if you shared the same socio-political agenda. But of course, it is an obfuscation because the white-supremacist neo-Nazis who endorsed SoA were explicit as to why they endorsed him, and it was due to the content of his publicized opinion, not just that they happen to share a single policy preference.


Tree wrote: it doesn't mean I endorse them back and if they endorse me or Sargon or whoever else they're doing it in vain and for superficial reasons.


Yes, we dealt with the red herring about not endorsing back, but the arguments already made still stand, and repeating your contentions doesn't make them go away.

The reason they endorse SoA is because they want their own guys to follow and support him because he makes their case sufficiently clearly that they consider him basically as a recruiter for their cause. Do keep ignoring all the details - it makes my job easier.


Tree wrote: They have nothing to gain from it.


More assertions clearly contrary to reality. Of course they have plenty to gain from it - they want to make their xenophobic wet-dreams come true, and they think SoA will net them more supporters.


Tree wrote:We don't even share views for the same reasons.


Now it's clear why you changed it to talking about you, rather than talking about SoA! :D

You are single-handedly responsible for the extinction of red herrings in their natural habitat.


Tree wrote: I mean white supremacists want any immigration control they can get because they want as few non-whites as possible in the country (none if possible and they want to get rid of non-whites even if they're a citizen),...


And whites who are 'traitors to their race' don't forget.


quote="Tree"] I just want immigration control cause I want quality people in the country...[/quote]

With the unstated insinuation that certain people aren't 'quality' and they just happen to be those Middle Easterners and Mexicans. I'd say it's entirely possible that they know your mind better than you do.


Tree wrote: I don't give a shit what their race is and I don't want to deport anyone who's already a citizen.


Mmm, I find this very doubtful given your dismissal of DACA kids as being genuine Americans.


Tree wrote:The idea that in order to not be a white supremacist I have to take the 180 degree opposite view of everything they say is retarded.


An idea that has never been espoused, but once again is raised by Tree to masterfully knock down.

Quite obviously, there's a gigantic swathe of reality between the extreme positions that you have to agree 100% with white-supremacist neo-Nazi organisations to be considered a white-supremacist neo-Nazi, and on the other side that you have to be wholly against every policy of white-supremacist neo-Nazi organisations to not be considered a white-supremacist neo-Nazi.

Of course, no one here has or would suggest either of those as being necessary to perceive whether someone actually is sympathetic to white-supremacist neo-Nazism, but it means you go to obfuscate some more, polish the turd, and pretend SoA doesn't have any responsibility for his own stated beliefs.


Tree wrote:The only thing that's required to not be a white supremacist is to not believe that whites are superior or deserve special treatment.


I'll bet it's not even that simple.


Tree wrote:
No, Tree says that they say they hate fascism because it killed millions, but if Tree was asked to cite this, he'd present the fluff from his belly button confidently asserted as if it were compelling evidence.


Read your own quotes, moron, this is something you brought up in the first place.


Your responses are becoming ever more silly. My quotes don't support your deluded ravings.


Tree wrote:You can't challenge me on this one without challenging yourself as well. If you can't even remember what you said one post earlier, maybe you should seek professional help, might want to be sure you don't have brain damage.


It was certainly suspicious when you used the term 'gaslighting' in the first sentence of your reply, but now we can all see why it was on your mind.

Still, if I am mentally insane and have brain damage, it does beg the question how I am spanking your bullshit out of the park.


Tree wrote:
Simply, antifa aims to deny fascists the opportunity to promote their oppressive politics, and to protect tolerant communities from acts of violence promulgated by fascists. Critics say shutting down political adversaries is anti-democratic; antifa adherents argue that the horrors of fascism must never be allowed the slightest chance to triumph again.

https://www.mhpbooks.com/books/antifa/


Which includes no mention whatsoever of the rendition Tree keeps foisting off.


Tree wrote:Read it and weep.


Weep for the education system in your part of the USA?

Would that be Texas, by any chance?


Tree wrote:
It's your strawman, I've identified it as a strawman, I've shown how it's nonsense, and yet you want to keep repeating it as if it's a fact.


At this point I think it's safe to say that you're just a very unintelligent person. There's no reasoning with you at all.


Your confidence will always ensure you feel comfortable in emoting reality, regardless of the manifest facts. My intelligence isn't at question here at all, Tree.

But the explanation as to why you find it impossible to reason with me is that you don't employ reason. You slap down your uncritically swallowed Breitbart soundbites and are then mortified when I don't slurp on the same teat of misinformation and ideological fanaticism that's nurtured your perverse hatred all these years.


Tree wrote:I make a prediction. Your next post will be more arguing in bad faith, more accusations of strawman that aren't true because you're not in fact being misrepresented and more lies about what you said.


If you managed to write a post where you didn't employ a strawman, then there'd be no reason for me to accurately identify them as such.

If you were competent at reasoning, you wouldn't have tried so hard to use absurd discoursive tactics to make your point. But the reality is that your point doesn't stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny, which is why you've engaged in this ever-shifting conversation where you refuse to accept even the most mundane point.

Of course, feel free to keep stroking your penis and pleasuring yourself all you like, but I'd say any non-narcissist reading this thread must be wondering how it is that the only times other people have joined in was to similarly point out your discursive failings.

Funny that, must be everyone else who's mentally insane and who argues in bad faith, so spake the Gospel according to Tree.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:06 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:The tweets contained 3 short 1-2minute videos.


And....?

What does the length of the videos have to do with the price of fish?


Tree wrote:Are you going to discuss the content of the videos or are you just going to bitch about the person hosting those videos and the other person retweeting them?


I am both more than competent and more than happy enough to do both.


Tree wrote:Look up "genetic fallacy",


I don't need to look up genetic fallacy to know that you should probably learn what it means before pretending that I've committed it.


Tree wrote: Mr. I'm-So-Logical-And-Rational-Not-Really.


I never claimed to be anything of the sort - rather, I claimed that you desperately lack even the most elementary level of logic and rationality. I don't need to run the fastest to still be running rings round you.


Tree wrote:It wouldn't matter if the person tweeting was zombie Hitler. If there's a fire, doesn't matter who reports. It ain't going to put itself out just because you don't like the person reporting it.


So you are trying to claim that I made an argument which was intended to discredit the videos because of who cited them?

Well, good luck with that strawman.

As anyone engaging honestly would quickly be able to tell, you pulled it from your arse as my post was about how Trump re-tweeted white-supremacist neo-Nazi bullshit propaganda edited by the lying fuckwits of Britain First to make it appear to be something other than it is, and the supposedly most powerful man in the world can't even do a basic fucking fact check so desperate is he to confirm his biases, and worse, he then gets into an international spat with the USA's closest, long-term allies for having the temerity to point out how silly it is for him to have done that.

But it's par for the course with Trump. He claimed that there are places in the UK which police fear to go to because of all the Muslim Jihadists there. He was told that his source was absolute bullshit and had no relationship to reality, and he got shitty. He mendaciously claimed that Sadiq Khan, in the aftermath of a terrorist attack on London, had downplayed the situation when the mayor was, understandably, trying to restore the confidence of his city's people after a violent episode. And now he's harping at Theresa May for daring to say this his tweets were 'unhelpful'.

You support this clown, Tree. So if you feel the need to deflect away from this, I can only call it sensible on your part - just because your commander in chief and president is rolling round in the mud, it doesn't mean you're obliged to as well. But it does raise questions about your support for such a man, and it also provokes speculation as to why you're so energetically intent on defending people endorsed by white-supremacist neo-Nazis.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:18 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

hackenslash wrote:This thread has been fascinating. I've watched it from the beginning, occasionally twitching to respond, but controlling the symptoms of ny well established SIWOTI syndrome. It's a classic iteration of concern-trolling, nimbyist agent provocateur.

I'm glad I didn't get involved, because I might not have picked up on it had I been engaged in the content of the thread, and it's been an absolutely awesome case study in the behaviour of internet trolls. Might do a blog post on it when I've cleared the decks a bit.



It is the gift that keeps on giving.

My favourite part is the bit where I suddenly became mentally insane, yet simultaneously it was somehow me who was gaslighting Tree! :lol:

I think it's clear to see that Trump's tweets are going to induce another Foxtrot, free-form, all out spin-a-thon from Tree. I'm glad - there are so many bits of the Gospel according to Tree I've not yet heard!
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:22 pm
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Sparhafoc wrote:I am both more than competent and more than happy enough to do both.


Except you didn't do both.

Sparhafoc wrote:I don't need to look up genetic fallacy to know that you should probably learn what it means before pretending that I've committed it.


You did commit it and so did the mainstream media reporting on it.

So you are trying to claim that I made an argument which was intended to discredit the videos because of who cited them?

Well, good luck with that strawman.


More gaslighting, great.

Your quote again:

Let's be careful to conspicuously overlook the fact that Trump just retweeted a series of messages from a white supremacist neo-Nazi propaganda source and then got childishly shitty when called out for it by the leader of one of the USA's longest and most consistent allies.

Just keep reassuring yourself that Trump isn't dragging the USA into the gutter.


100% genetic fallacy
0% actual content analysis of the videos

Trump re-tweeted white-supremacist neo-Nazi bullshit propaganda edited by the lying fuckwits of Britain First to make it appear to be something other than it is


Oh yeah? And what is it really?

One video looks like someone's being thrown off the roof in some Middle Eastern country. A typical punishment done against homosexuals by Islamic supremacists.
Another video is two Muslims smashing up a Virgin Mary statue in an Islamic supremacist gesture.
The final video looks like a Dutch kid being beaten, although I have to admit, I can't tell from the video alone why that happened. I can't say it was "edited" either.

And how is it "edited"? You'll have to explain that one to me as I didn't see any signs of editing.

But it's par for the course with Trump. He claimed that there are places in the UK which police fear to go to because of all the Muslim Jihadists there. He was told that his source was absolute bullshit and had no relationship to reality, and he got shitty. He mendaciously claimed that Sadiq Khan, in the aftermath of a terrorist attack on London, had downplayed the situation when the mayor was, understandably, trying to restore the confidence of his city's people after a violent episode.


Let's stop you there.

Kahn said "Part and parcel of living in a great global city is you’ve got to be prepared for these things, you’ve got to be vigilant."

Kind of a dumb thing to say considering there are cities around the world including "global cities" with no Islamic terrorism. Want to know the secret? Don't fucking invite mass migration from countries that hate your own. The implication that this is a new reality people have get used to is one I reject. People shouldn't have to be constantly looking over their shoulders just because politicians are too dumb to close the border with certain countries.

And now he's harping at Theresa May for daring to say this his tweets were 'unhelpful'.


You know what is demonstrably unhelpful? European elites pretending that Islam is a religion of peace. It's been tried since 9/11 never worked.

How is that working out for you?

You support this clown, Tree. So if you feel the need to deflect away from this, I can only call it sensible on your part - just because your commander in chief and president is rolling round in the mud, it doesn't mean you're obliged to as well. But it does raise questions about your support for such a man, and it also provokes speculation as to why you're so energetically intent on defending people endorsed by white-supremacist neo-Nazis.


Probably cause your reasoning is wrong and I'm tired of it.

Btw, your assertion that Britain First is a "white supremacist neo-Nazi" organization needs to be supported with evidence too. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, I haven't seen any compelling evidence from you and I'm not going to take your word for it.

Well, one thing I can say about them is that they have at least one legitimate concern: Islam. So, if you don't want the "neo-Nazis" of Britain First ever gaining any traction with the public, then the way forward is for mainstream British parties to start taking the matter seriously. Don't let things get so bad that people turn into single-issue voters. There will come a time when things will get so bad, none of your cliches and platitudes about "Islamophobia" are going to work with the general public anymore.

Ultimately, you do what you will, just don't come crying decades later if things don't work out and they just get worse.
Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:11 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:I am both more than competent and more than happy enough to do both.


Except you didn't do both.


What an utterly stupid way to start your reply, Tree. You keep whining about being called out for your ridiculously transparent discoursive mendacity, and yet keep doing it as if something different is going to result from it.

For the grammatically challenged among us, the sentence 'I am more than happy to do both' does not mean 'I did both'. Rather, it captures the same conditional mood as the word 'would'.

Next nonsense...


Tree wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:I don't need to look up genetic fallacy to know that you should probably learn what it means before pretending that I've committed it.


You did commit it and so did the mainstream media reporting on it.


Again, Tree - you are emoting at me with absolutely zero content to your assertion.

No, I did no such thing - you are wholly mistaken.

So once again, I have to explain what a term means to you, which you will then ignore, and will continue pretending that Tree is right because Tree is right because Tree is right. This is where you show how utterly devoid of reason your spiel is.

A genetic fallacy is where the veracity of a conclusion is challenged based solely on the source or history of that person making the claim, rather than on the merit of their claim.

Again, as anyone with so much as a shred of honesty would agree, I didn't make any claims at all about the veracity or falsity of any claim. Instead, as everyone with a reading comprehension of an 8 year old or over can see, I was making the startling point that the President of the United States of America cited a white-supremacist fascist organisation! That is big news, and while Tree might want to do everything to deflect away from this, I am not going to let him.

On top of that, I also pointed out that he was rebuked by the leader of one the USA's longest and best allies, and rather than understand the weight of his actions and the international diplomatic blunder he'd just made, he then got shitty with Theresa May and tweeted a load of bullshit doubling down on the same error he's made many times before.


Tree wrote:
So you are trying to claim that I made an argument which was intended to discredit the videos because of who cited them?

Well, good luck with that strawman.


More gaslighting, great.


Calling your silly responses a 'strawman' isn't gaslighting. You really are obliged to use words the same way as everyone else, Tree.

This is what you were trying to claim I was saying, but clearly I didn't say it, ergo it's a strawman.

Ironically, the solipsist Tree doesn't realize that it's him telling me that I don't know what I mean when I write something, which is validly a part of gaslighting. However, for me gaslighting requires one other element to be effective, and that is a power differential where one is in dominion over the other, and as you Tree are clearly not superior to me in this format in any imaginable way, I have no need to complain about you trying to pull this shit - I can just deconstruct it each and every time and expose your mendacious behavior for anyone who can still be bothered to read it.


Tree wrote:Your quote again:

Let's be careful to conspicuously overlook the fact that Trump just retweeted a series of messages from a white supremacist neo-Nazi propaganda source and then got childishly shitty when called out for it by the leader of one of the USA's longest and most consistent allies.

Just keep reassuring yourself that Trump isn't dragging the USA into the gutter.


100% genetic fallacy
0% actual content analysis of the videos


No genetic fallacy, do feel free to inform yourself prior to confidently getting shit wrong on the internet.

And of course there was no content analysis of the videos, because I didn't intend to do so, nor is analysis of the videos relevant to the point I am making.

Again, this is your strawman. My point does not hang on the validity, veracity, or falsity of the content of the videos, but do keep waving your hands around, perhaps you'll take flight and fuck off somewhere else! :)


Tree wrote:
Trump re-tweeted white-supremacist neo-Nazi bullshit propaganda edited by the lying fuckwits of Britain First to make it appear to be something other than it is


Oh yeah? And what is it really?


What is it?

IT is nothing, you know how you can tell that? Because there's THREE of them. So the contention that there is an IT there in the first place is begging the question.


Tree wrote:One video looks like someone's being thrown off the roof in some Middle Eastern country. A typical punishment done against homosexuals by Islamic supremacists.
Another video is two Muslims smashing up a Virgin Mary statue in an Islamic supremacist gesture.
The final video looks like a Dutch kid being beaten, although I have to admit, I can't tell from the video alone why that happened. I can't say it was "edited" either.


1) Not by 'Islamic supremacists', but rather by IS, a group which has for the last few years had the power in several regions to commit such atrocities. It is horrific. But then I disagree wholly with capital punishment and think that 'humane' ways are just as horrific. Regardless, it's IS and this is why we're fighting them.

2) /shrug been happening ever since there were Christians and Muslims - it's what religious fanatic numpties do. The same thing happens even in the USA, for example the vandalism incident at the Colorado mosque in March this year, where some guy smashed up the mosque and left a Bible in the centre of the room.

3) A Dutch kid being beaten by.... ? That's really quite essential, isn't it? The narrative is that he's a Muslim migrant because they're dangerous people, whereas the reality is that the assailant is also a Dutch kid, born and raised there, and for his behavior he was sent to prison. But you know, his skin colour is enough to dogwhistle to the desired audience.


Tree wrote:And how is it "edited"? You'll have to explain that one to me as I didn't see any signs of editing.


For clarity, editing may not mean what you think it means, but that's fine. Editing is the process of carefully selecting and curating shots towards a desired narrative. Many people mistakenly believe the director is the guy who defines the visual story, but in reality, it's the editor.

We live in a society that is ever more immersed in video footage, spending more of our time year by year watching video, but sadly very few people are aware of how misleading video can be, believing naively that seeing something happen means it happened as per their audience perspective, and more importantly, that it happened because of the reasons the editor said it did.

Ironically, there is a very good example of this with the fuckwits at Britain First who have performed such duplicitous editing on a number of occasions. For example, in 2014 Britain First took a gang of their goons to a mosque in Luton. They took professional camera equipment and crew. Their video shows their desired narrative of how violent and aggressive those funny foreigner Muslims are, with the crowds surging towards the BF line, abuse being shouted, and eventually police officers having to protect the BF peaceful protesters by escorting them away.

Compelling stuff, huh?

Of course, what they don't tell you is that all of their recorded footage is from later in the day. What they didn't show you, having edited it out, is that BF blocked the entrance to the mosque, physically pushing people away - one old guy fell over and got a gash on his head. It doesn't show the litany of racist abuse the BF thugs directed at the Muslims trying to go to pray. It doesn't show the hours of provocation directed at those Muslims.... it only shows the desired outcome, the footage they were there to get to support their narrative and rile their fan base.




Tree wrote:
But it's par for the course with Trump. He claimed that there are places in the UK which police fear to go to because of all the Muslim Jihadists there. He was told that his source was absolute bullshit and had no relationship to reality, and he got shitty. He mendaciously claimed that Sadiq Khan, in the aftermath of a terrorist attack on London, had downplayed the situation when the mayor was, understandably, trying to restore the confidence of his city's people after a violent episode.


Let's stop you there.


Go on, please do. are you going to address all of it?



Tree wrote:Kahn said "Part and parcel of living in a great global city is you’ve got to be prepared for these things, you’ve got to be vigilant."

Kind of a dumb thing to say considering there are cities around the world including "global cities" with no Islamic terrorism. Want to know the secret? Don't fucking invite mass migration from countries that hate your own. The implication that this is a new reality people have get used to is one I reject. People shouldn't have to be constantly looking over their shoulders just because politicians are too dumb to close the border with certain countries.


Ahh no, of course you're not.

This isn't relevant to the point being discussed. What actually occurred is that Sadiq Khan wrote:

Khan wrote:Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days. No reason to be alarmed — one of the things the police and all of us need to do is make sure we’re as safe as we possibly can be.


And Trump trolled back:

Trump wrote:At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is "no reason to be alarmed!"


Clearly, Khan was telling the population of London not to be alarmed at the increased police presence which was specifically being employed to keep people safe.

https://www.snopes.com/2017/06/04/londo ... med-trump/

Now let's look at your one:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... abc-admits

But, as many viewers remarked on the program’s Facebook page, Khan actually said being prepared for the threat of terror attacks was part and parcel of living in a big city and he said it six months earlier about another incident, not the London attack

What Khan actually said in September was: “Part and parcel of living in a great global city is you’ve got to be prepared for these things, you’ve got to be vigilant, you’ve got to support the police doing an incredibly hard job. We must never accept terrorists being successful, we must never accept that terrorists can destroy our life or destroy the way we lead our lives.”


As for your inane patter, you clearly don't know your arse from your elbow. Growing up in London, there was a constant threat of terror, of bombs on buses and in waste bins.

Only, these weren't those funny foreigner Mooslims, coming over 'ere', bringing their terrorism... inane patter... they were home-grown terrorists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... at_Britain

1970s

1971, 12 January: Two bombs exploded at the house of government minister Robert Carr. This attack was one of 25 carried out by the Angry Brigade between August 1970 and August 1971. The Bomb Squad was established at Scotland Yard in January 1971 to target the group, and they were apprehended in August of that year.[14][15]
1971, 31 October: A bomb exploded in the Post Office Tower in London causing extensive damage but no injuries. The "Kilburn Battalion" of the IRA claimed responsibility for the explosion.[16]
1972, 22 February: Aldershot bombing: The Official Irish Republican Army ('Official' IRA) detonated a car bomb at Aldershot British Army base, Hampshire. The blast killed seven civilian staff.
1972, 19 September: The group Black September posted a letter bomb to the Israeli embassy in London killing an Israeli diplomat.[17]
1973, 8 March: The Provisional Irish Republican Army ('Provisional' IRA) planted four car bombs in London. Two of the bombs exploded outside the Old Bailey and the Ministry of Agriculture, injuring dozens. The bombs outside New Scotland Yard and an army recruitment office near Whitehall were defused.
1973, 10 September: The Provisional IRA set off bombs at London's King's Cross and Euston stations, injuring 21 people.[18]
1974, 4 February: M62 coach bombing: An IRA bomb exploded aboard a bus carrying British soldiers and several of their family members in Yorkshire, killing nine soldiers and three civilians.
1974, 17 June: An IRA bomb exploded at the Houses of Parliament, causing extensive damage and injuring 11 people.[19]
1974, 5 October: Guildford pub bombings: IRA bombs exploded in two pubs frequented by British military personnel in Guildford, Surrey. Four soldiers and a civilian were killed and 44 injured.
1974, 22 October: An IRA bomb exploded in Brooks's gentleman's club in London, injuring three people.[20]
1974, 7 November: An IRA bomb exploded in a pub frequented by British military personnel in Woolwich, London, killing a soldier and a civilian.
1974, 14 November: James Patrick McDade, Lieutenant in the Birmingham Battalion, of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) was killed in a premature explosion whilst planting a bomb at the Coventry telephone exchange in 1974.
1974, 21 November: Birmingham pub bombings: IRA bombs exploded in two pubs in Birmingham, killing 21 people and injuring 182.
1974, 18 December: Bomb planted by IRA in the run up to Christmas in one of Bristol's most popular shopping districts explodes injuring 17 people.[21]
1975, 27 August: An IRA bomb explodes in a pub frequented by British military personnel in Caterham, Surrey, injuring 33.[22]
1975, 5 September: An IRA bomb exploded in the lobby of the Hilton Hotel, London, killing two people and injuring 63.
1975, 18 November: IRA members threw a bomb into Walton's restaurant in London, killing two people and injuring 23.
1975, 27 November: IRA gunmen assassinated political activist and television personality Ross McWhirter in Enfield Town, London.[23]
1975, 6–12 December: Balcombe Street siege: Four IRA members, who were fleeing from the police, barricaded themselves inside a flat in London and held the two occupants hostage. The siege lasted for six days and ended when the IRA members surrendered and released the hostages.
1975, 20 December: The Ulster Defence Association (UDA) bombed Biddy Mulligan's pub in the Kilburn area of London. Five people were injured. It said it bombed the pub because it was frequented by Irish republican sympathizers.[24]
1978, 17 December: IRA bombs explode in Manchester, Liverpool, Coventry, Bristol and Southampton, injuring seven in Bristol.[25]
1979, 17 January: A bomb exploded at a Texaco oil terminal on Canvey Island, Essex, tearing a hole in a tank that was initially thought to contain aviation fuel.[26][27]
1979, 17 February: The Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) bombed two pubs frequented by Catholics in Glasgow, Scotland. Both pubs were wrecked and a number of people were wounded. It said it bombed the pubs because they were used for Irish republican fundraising.[28]
1979, 30 March: Airey Neave killed when a bomb exploded under his car as he drove out of the Palace of Westminster car park. The Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) claimed responsibility.

1980s

1980, 30 April: Iranian Embassy siege: Six Iranian Arab gunmen stormed the Iranian Embassy in London and took hostages. The siege lasted for six days, until the hostages were rescued in a raid by the SAS which was broadcast live on TV. Two of the hostages were killed, while the hostage-takers were all either killed or captured.
1981, 10 October: The IRA detonated a bomb outside Chelsea Barracks, London, killing two and injuring 39.
1981, 26 October: The IRA bombed a Wimpy Bar on Oxford Street, killing Kenneth Howorth, the Metropolitan Police explosives officer attempting to defuse it.
1982, 14 March: The bombing of the London offices of the African National Congress (ANC), which opposed the apartheid government of South Africa, wounding one person who was living upstairs. General Johann Coetzee, former head of the South African Security Police, and seven other policemen accepted responsibility for the attack after the end of the apartheid government.[29]
1982, June: Abu Nidal killed the Israeli ambassador in London.[30]
1982, 20 July: Hyde Park and Regent's Park bombings: IRA bombs exploded during British military ceremonies in Hyde Park and Regent's Park, London, killing eleven soldiers of the Household Cavalry and the Royal Green Jackets.
1983, 17 December: Harrods bombing: An IRA car bomb exploded outside Harrods department store in London, following a telephoned warning. Five people were killed, including three police officers, and the sixth victim - another police officer - died in hospital from his injuries a week later. 90 other people were injured but survived.
1984, 12 October: Brighton hotel bombing: In an attempt to assassinate Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the IRA detonated a bomb in the Grand Brighton Hotel during the Conservative Party conference. It killed five Conservative Party members, including MP Anthony Berry.
1988, 21 December: Pan Am Flight 103 blown up by a bomb in a suitcase while in flight over Lockerbie, Scotland after taking off from Heathrow. All 259 of the plane's passengers and crew were killed, along with 11 Lockerbie residents, claiming a total of 270 lives.
1989, 3 August: A man using the alias Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh accidentally blew himself up along with two floors of a central London hotel while preparing a bomb intended to kill author Salman Rushdie.[31]
1989, 22 September: Deal barracks bombing: Eleven Royal Marines bandsmen were killed and 22 injured when an IRA bomb exploded at the Royal Marines base in Deal, Kent.

1990s

1990, 16 May: The IRA detonated a bomb underneath a minibus, killing Sgt Charles Chapman (The Queen's Regiment) and injuring another soldier.
1990, 1 June: A British soldier was killed and two wounded in an IRA gun attack at Lichfield City railway station, Staffordshire.
1990, 20 July: The IRA detonated a bomb at the London Stock Exchange causing damage to the building. Nobody was injured in the blast.[32]
1990, 30 July: Ian Gow, ConservativeMP, was assassinated by the IRA when a booby trap bomb exploded under his car outside his home in East Sussex.[33]
1991, 7 February: The IRA carried out a mortar attack of 10 Downing Street, in an attempt to assassinate Prime Minister John Major and his cabinet. One of the shells exploded in the back garden of 10 Downing Street but there were no deaths.
1991, 18 February: An IRA bomb exploded at Victoria Station. One man killed and 38 people injured.
1991, 15 November: An IRA bomb exploded in St Albans city centre. Two fatalities, both members of the provisional IRA (Patricia Black and Frankie Ryan), were the only casualties.
1992, 28 February: An IRA bomb exploded at London Bridge station, injuring 29 people.
1992, 10 April: Baltic Exchange bombing: A large IRA truck bomb exploded outside the Baltic Exchange building in the City of London, following a telephoned warning. It killed three people and caused £800 million worth of damage – more than the total damaged caused by the 10,000 explosions that had occurred during the Troubles in Northern Ireland up to that point.[34]
1992, 7 June: Wanted IRA member Paul Magee opened fire on unarmed police officers Constable Sandy Kelly and Special Constable Glenn Goodman during a routine traffic stop in North Yorkshire. Kelly escaped injury when a single bullet ricocheted off his radio, but Goodman was hit four times, and later died in hospital.[35]
1992, 25 August: The IRA planted three firebombs in Shrewsbury, Shropshire. Bombs were placed in Shoplatch, The Charles Darwin Centre and Shrewsbury Castle, the latter causing the most damage as the castle housed the Shropshire Regimental Museum and many priceless historical artifacts were lost and damaged by fire and smoke. No fatalities or injuries were recorded.
1992, 12 October: A bomb exploded in the gents' toilet of a pub in Covent Garden, killing one person and injuring four others.
1992, 16 November: IRA planted a bomb at the Canary Wharf, but was spotted by security guards. The bomb failed to detonate.
1992, 3 December: The IRA detonated two car bombs in central Manchester, injuring 65 people.[36]
1993, 20 March: Warrington bomb attacks: Two small bombs exploded in litter bins outside shops in Warrington, Cheshire, killing a three-year-old boy injuring more than 50 people. A 12-year-old boy became the second fatality when he died in hospital from his injuries several days later. IRA members had sent a telephoned warning but it was inaccurate.
1993, 24 April: Bishopsgate bombing: The IRA detonated a huge truck bomb in the City of London at Bishopsgate. Police had received a telephoned warning but were still evacuating the area at the time of the explosion. A journalist was killed, over 40 people were injured, and £350 million worth of damage was caused.[34]
1994, March: Heathrow mortar attacks: The IRA launched a series of mortar attacks on Heathrow Airport near London. The attacks caused severe disruption but little damage.
1994, 26–27 July: A group of Palestinians detonated two car bombs in London, one outside the Israeli embassy[30] and one outside Balfour House, home to a Jewish charity. The attacks injured twenty people.[30]
1994, 13 August: 2.5 lbs of Semtex packed into a bicycle left outside Woolworths in Bognor Regis, exploded damaging 15 shops. A similar bomb found in nearby Brighton.[37]
1995, 24 January: The editor of the Des Pardes, Tarsem Singh Purewal, was shot and killed near to the newspaper's Southall office.[38]
1996, 9 February: London Docklands bombing: The IRA detonated a powerful truck bomb in the Canary Wharf financial district of London, following telephoned warnings. The blast caused severe damage and killed two people.
1996, 18 February: An improvised high explosive device detonated prematurely on a bus travelling along Aldwych in central London, killing Edward O'Brien, the IRA member transporting the device and injuring eight others.
1996, 15 June: Manchester bombing: The IRA detonated a powerful truck bomb in central Manchester, following a telephoned warning. It was the biggest bomb detonated in Britain since the Second World War. It caused widespread damage and injured over 200 people, but there were no deaths.
1999, 17 April, 24 April, 30 April: David Copeland set off three nail bombs in London targeting the black, Bangladeshi and gay communities respectively, killing three people (including a pregnant woman) and injuring 129. Copeland, a far-right extremist, was convicted of murder on 30 June 2000.

Refer also to the list of IRA terrorist incidents presented to Parliament between 1980 and 1994, listed halfway down the page here



So let's see if we can divine the logic behind Khan's point. Let's pretend we're terrorists, so what do we want to do? Well, spread terror. How do we do that? By putting people in fear of their lives. The more people, the better. So we have a choice between going to some poxy little place in the country with 200 inhabitants where everyone knows each other, or we can go to a major city comprised of millions of people who are used to walking past thousands of strangers every day.

So which of these two would be the preferable location for our terrorist attacks? :roll:

Now, it's a simple truth that we should all always be aware of danger, and the threat of danger increases dramatically in a bigger city, whether that's terrorism related or traffic related. But if a terrorist is going to attack, how can we hope to stop it if the police didn't catch them prior to the attack taking place?

Well, what a surprise... if our populace is vigilant, keeps their eyes open for suspicious activity, and reports such activity to the police.

According to your spiel, airports, train stations, and buses must be hotbeds of terrorist activity in a 'new world' given how they repeatedly warn people to be vigilant of the potential for threats.

Of course, along the way, you slipped in this little sliver of turd:

Tree wrote:Don't fucking invite mass migration from countries that hate your own.


Learn what mass migration means, and once you've done so, explain how countries hate countries. It's beyond fucking retarded, so take your vapid prejudice back to Breitbart where such assertions net you glory.


Tree wrote:
And now he's harping at Theresa May for daring to say this his tweets were 'unhelpful'.


You know what is demonstrably unhelpful? European elites pretending that Islam is a religion of peace. It's been tried since 9/11 never worked.


Red herring land is back.

Please do transparently deflect away from the fact that the leader of one of the USA's most consistent allies is being shat on by Trump just because she criticized his actions.

Of course, you are trotting out all the inanities today. There is no such thing as a religion of peace, but there is also no religion of war. European elites don't profess either position, only Breitbart indoctrinated loons regurgitate soundbites they were force-fed.


Tree wrote:How is that working out for you?


How is your raving delusion working out for me? Great actually. It's so easy to defeat.


Tree wrote:
You support this clown, Tree. So if you feel the need to deflect away from this, I can only call it sensible on your part - just because your commander in chief and president is rolling round in the mud, it doesn't mean you're obliged to as well. But it does raise questions about your support for such a man, and it also provokes speculation as to why you're so energetically intent on defending people endorsed by white-supremacist neo-Nazis.


Probably cause your reasoning is wrong and I'm tired of it.


The closest you ever come to showing that my reasoning is wrong is when you assert that it is so. Note how much substance there is here to the assertion that my reasoning is wrong? That's right, zero as usual.


Tree wrote:Btw, your assertion that Britain First is a "white supremacist neo-Nazi" organization needs to be supported with evidence too. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, I haven't seen any compelling evidence from you and I'm not going to take your word for it.


I couldn't give a flying fuck what you want to believe or don't want to believe. Deny it if you like, be my guest. It will just give me more opportunities to expose the reasons why you fail at the most elementary degree of discoursive competence.


Tree wrote:Well, one thing I can say about them is that they have at least one legitimate concern: Islam.


Yes, you make as much sense as they do. That's the reality here again, Tree actually agrees with them, so he's going to muddy the waters to deflect criticism of them even when he doesn't know the first thing about Britain First.


Tree wrote: So, if you don't want the "neo-Nazis" of Britain First ever gaining any traction with the public, then the way forward is for mainstream British parties to start taking the matter seriously.


HA!

No, what we want to do is crush these fuckwits utterly, publicly demean them, mock them mercilessly, give them not one ounce of legitimacy, and chase them back down the cracks they oozed out of.

The last thing we do is go for fascist appeasement. Their concerns are delusional, and you don't help people get better by pretending their hallucinations are real.


Tree wrote:Don't let things get so bad that people turn into single-issue voters.


Stupid people will always be stupid. There's not much that can be done in that regard, but we can expose organisations such as Britain First for what they really are. A person can mitigate their stupidity through their native compassion.


Tree wrote: There will come a time when things will get so bad, none of your cliches and platitudes about "Islamophobia" are going to work with the general public anymore.


Tree's Crystal Ball (tm) - from North Korea nuking the world, to those Mooslems coming over here and raping and pillaging.... Tree's always ready to assert the future, and isn't it funny how it's always something we need to be afraid of unless we do what Tree says.


Tree wrote:Ultimately, you do what you will, just don't come crying decades later if things don't work out and they just get worse.


We'll do what we do, and we'll take responsibility for our own actions not least because those actions will be governed by humanity, compassion, and reason rather than by prejudice, xenophobia and hatred.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:01 am
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

I should have expected another lame ass bad faith response.

the sentence 'I am more than happy to do both' does not mean 'I did both'.


Still doesn't explain why you didn't then.

A genetic fallacy is where the veracity of a conclusion is challenged based solely on the source or history of that person making the claim, rather than on the merit of their claim.


Exactly what you did, dismissing the content of the videos because they were posted by people you don't like, rather than explaining what's wrong with the videos and the stuff presented in them. Maybe you are starting to do that now, but only after I called you on it.

I was making the startling point that the President of the United States of America cited a white-supremacist fascist organisation!


Okay, and? Does that mean what they're saying is automatically false? No it doesn't.

What is it?

IT is nothing, you know how you can tell that? Because there's THREE of them. So the contention that there is an IT there in the first place is begging the question.


Stop wasting my time and start explaining how exactly those videos distort reality.

What exactly do you think those "lying fucks of Britain First" are lying about? Is the footage staged or what? Explain.

1) Not by 'Islamic supremacists', but rather by IS, a group which has for the last few years had the power in several regions to commit such atrocities. It is horrific. But then I disagree wholly with capital punishment and think that 'humane' ways are just as horrific. Regardless, it's IS and this is why we're fighting them.


The Islamic State is based on orthodox Islamic teachings which include the death penalty for homosexuality. That's a thing in all the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence, IS didn't make it up. It would be really great if we could just blame everything bad coming out of Islam on groups like AQ or IS, sadly all of Islam is full of really bad ideas.

So even if you get rid of IS, the persecution won't stop until we either get Islam to undergo a fundamental reform or Muslims start leaving Islam. Of course, don't expect to see a lot of apostates when the mainstream media constantly deflects criticism of Islam. You would see far more apostates with an honest discussion of the issue, but you won't do that. You would also see far more apostates if we protected apostates from the backlash they face from Muslims. I honestly think we need to institute witness protection style programs for ex-Muslims for a time.

2) /shrug been happening ever since there were Christians and Muslims - it's what religious fanatic numpties do. The same thing happens even in the USA, for example the vandalism incident at the Colorado mosque in March this year, where some guy smashed up the mosque and left a Bible in the centre of the room.


No, it is not the same.

Christians in the Middle East are being systematically oppressed. What you saw in that video was not an isolated incident, it was part of a broader campaign to terrorize Christians into either conversion or submission under a second class system called the dhimma which is sadly mandated by the Qur'an as well as the hadiths and Islamic jurisprudence.

3) A Dutch kid being beaten by.... ? That's really quite essential, isn't it? The narrative is that he's a Muslim migrant because they're dangerous people, whereas the reality is that the assailant is also a Dutch kid, born and raised there, and for his behavior he was sent to prison. But you know, his skin colour is enough to dogwhistle to the desired audience.


Don't make this about skin color you lying ass. It's about the toxic ideology that teaches Muslims that non-Muslims are trash, hence why you get all this Muslim over-representation in crime. People who don't respect your way of life are less likely to follow your laws.

Ironically, there is a very good example of this with the fuckwits at Britain First who have performed such duplicitous editing on a number of occasions. For example, in 2014 Britain First took a gang of their goons to a mosque in Luton. They took professional camera equipment and crew. Their video shows their desired narrative of how violent and aggressive those funny foreigner Muslims are, with the crowds surging towards the BF line, abuse being shouted, and eventually police officers having to protect the BF peaceful protesters by escorting them away.

Compelling stuff, huh?

Of course, what they don't tell you is that all of their recorded footage is from later in the day. What they didn't show you, having edited it out, is that BF blocked the entrance to the mosque, physically pushing people away - one old guy fell over and got a gash on his head. It doesn't show the litany of racist abuse the BF thugs directed at the Muslims trying to go to pray. It doesn't show the hours of provocation directed at those Muslims.... it only shows the desired outcome, the footage they were there to get to support their narrative and rile their fan base.


Maybe, but the 3 videos tweeted by BF weren't filmed by BF.

That said, I'd go a different way about it. Islam is shit. Not because some Muslims overreacted to BF in a video, but because Islamic teachings are barbaric, backward and toxic for free society. I view Islam in the exact same way as you view fascism. They're both based on collectivist, totalitarian principles. The 3 videos merely show some examples of the problem.

Clearly, Khan was telling the population of London not to be alarmed at the increased police presence which was specifically being employed to keep people safe.


Which is still stupid because almost nobody but crooks are ever alarmed by increased police presence specifically. They're alarmed by the state of affairs that caused the police to be there in larger numbers.

Telling people to remain calm with incompetent leaders who can't solve the problem is kinda hard, don't you think?

As for your inane patter, you clearly don't know your arse from your elbow. Growing up in London, there was a constant threat of terror, of bombs on buses and in waste bins.


London doesn't represent all global cities. Your "Troubles", no pun intended, are not everyone's troubles and that has fizzled out anyway. So even that wave of terrorism shows that, no, you don't actually need to have this be a permanent state of affairs where everyone has to constantly be looking over their shoulder and an end to it is possible. Plenty of cities around the world have experienced either 0 or no significant terrorist activity in recent decades and they tend to be the ones without significant Muslim populations.

The idea that this is something people need to live with on an indefinite basis because that's just what "global cities" are like is wrong.

Tell me, where is this wave of terrorism in say Tokyo? How about Budapest? I'm not saying they never had any incidents, but it's much safer. Could it have something to do with there being less Muslim migrants? Apart from a subway attack 22 years ago by a cult in Tokyo there really hasn't been much happening lately.

Only, these weren't those funny foreigner Mooslims, coming over 'ere', bringing their terrorism... inane patter... they were home-grown terrorists:


Why should a country accept foreign terrorism on top of their own home-grown sources of terrorism?

That's like saying you have cancer so you might as well infect yourself with some MRSA while you're at it so fuck hospital hygiene. It's dumb as fuck. The fact that a country has its own terrorist problem is actually a good reason to do everything in your power to ensure you don't get yet another source of terrorism. You have 1 medical condition that's bad enough, but get 3 or 4 and it's going to make it exponentially harder to get treated.

Virtually all of the 100 deaths or so in Britain due to terrorism since 2001 have been Islamic related and the number could be much higher without security services doing their... thing.

IRA is not an issue anymore and hasn't been for a while. And even if it were still an issue, that would not be a good reason to pave the way for Islamic terrorism. It would actually be a good reason to avoid it as much as possible because your security forces don't have unlimited resources, nobody has. There is for example a maximum number of people they can have 24/7 surveillance on. But being a simpleton you've never thought of that, have you?

Before 2001 and in recent history (1971+) you had 125 IRA related deaths. You had 305 more deaths, 270 of which were part of the Lockerbie bombing which WASN'T caused by a home-grown terrorist but by a foreign terrorist from Libya.

So that leaves just 35 deaths at best that may be caused by home-grown terrorists other than IRA, a disproportionately low number that it's not really worth my time to investigate further.

Consider the fact that in the last 16 years, Muslims haven't even made up more than 5% of the population but almost all terrorist related deaths have been caused by Muslims acting in accordance with their jihad doctrine. For anyone to claim or imply that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism is just dishonest to the core.

We'll do what we do, and we'll take responsibility for our own actions not least because those actions will be governed by humanity, compassion, and reason rather than by prejudice, xenophobia and hatred.


Cliches and platitudes. Not impressed.

The real question is, why are you governed by fascismphobia you anti-fascist bigot? ;) See how easy it is to throw around buzzwords when you don't have an argument?
Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:26 am
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:I should have expected another lame ass bad faith response.


You can keep calling it 'bad faith' if you want, but it's just another iteration of you declaring you know me, my position, and my agenda better than I do, and that's clearly batshit.


Tree wrote:
the sentence 'I am more than happy to do both' does not mean 'I did both'.


Still doesn't explain why you didn't then.


No explanation is required as to why I didn't do something I didn't say I had done; your repeated red herrings will always remain irrelevant.


Tree wrote:
A genetic fallacy is where the veracity of a conclusion is challenged based solely on the source or history of that person making the claim, rather than on the merit of their claim.


Exactly what you did,...


No, stop lying. The words are right there. At no point did I suggest that the argument was wrong because of who said it.

Again, the fact that you will try and bullshit to my face shows why you are going to keep getting the same treatment, and that it's well deserved.


Tree wrote:... dismissing the content of the videos because they were posted by people you don't like,


Cite where I did that, or stop lying through your teeth. Either way is fine.



Tree wrote: rather than explaining what's wrong with the videos and the stuff presented in them.


As my point wasn't contingent on the content of the videos, as I have explained now to you in two following rejections of your strawman, your endless iteration of bullshit is dismissed as a perfect example of the failings in your discourse.


Tree wrote: Maybe you are starting to do that now, but only after I called you on it.


Of course, what really happened is that Tree emoted reality, manufactured a motive from thin air, then tried to claim the fact that he was shown wrong a victory for his incisive analysis.

You were called a troll by Hack for a reason.


Tree wrote:
I was making the startling point that the President of the United States of America cited a white-supremacist fascist organisation!


Okay, and? Does that mean what they're saying is automatically false? No it doesn't.


It's your strawman, so I don't need to answer it.

At no point did I call the videos 'false'. If you wish to claim I did, then stop groping yourself in public and cite where I did so.


Tree wrote:
What is it?

IT is nothing, you know how you can tell that? Because there's THREE of them. So the contention that there is an IT there in the first place is begging the question.


Stop wasting my time and start explaining how exactly those videos distort reality.


Try reading.


Tree wrote:What exactly do you think those "lying fucks of Britain First" are lying about? Is the footage staged or what? Explain.


Are you intentionally obtuse, or is it your natural state of affairs?

Either you know the topic at hand, or you don't. If you don't, do feel free to go educate yourself first prior to pretending you have some input that's valid.

If you read all the relevant tweets, you can see what is wrong, most specifically the notion that these are to do with immigrants, or that they are what's wrong with Muslims.


Tree wrote:
1) Not by 'Islamic supremacists', but rather by IS, a group which has for the last few years had the power in several regions to commit such atrocities. It is horrific. But then I disagree wholly with capital punishment and think that 'humane' ways are just as horrific. Regardless, it's IS and this is why we're fighting them.


The Islamic State is based on orthodox Islamic teachings which include the death penalty for homosexuality. That's a thing in all the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence, IS didn't make it up. It would be really great if we could just blame everything bad coming out of Islam on groups like AQ or IS, sadly all of Islam is full of really bad ideas.


Islam is indeed full of bad ideas, just as most human systems are full of bad ideas, but the key point is that most Muslim nations are not Islamic State, they actively reject Islamic State, and actually put treasure and material into defeating Islamic State. Kind of hard for you to spin that, but I am sure you'll try.

People like you forget that the vast preponderance of victims of Islamic State are actually Muslims too.

Ergo, IS is not a model applicable to represent all Muslims. Do you disagree?


Tree wrote:So even if you get rid of IS, the persecution won't stop until we either get Islam to undergo a fundamental reform or Muslims start leaving Islam.


Delusional claptrap. The vast majority of Muslims in this world are perfectly capable of being civilized, law-abiding, tolerant citizens, regardless of the fact that they possess stupid beliefs. Your right-wing bunker is no place to be making declarations about people you're afraid of because you never see them around. I live in a Muslim neighborhood, I work in a Muslim neighborhood, and there are no such events taking place here.

In reality, it's IS and other extremist organisations that need to be dealt with because they are actually engaging in heinous acts, and it is these heinous acts which distinguish them from the rest of the Muslim population of the world.

Further, you need to get your facts straight. Religious reforms never result in greater tolerance, rather, they always tend towards fundamentalism. The Christian Reformation, for example, was the birth of some of the most lunatic subsets of Christian fundamentalists the history of the world has seen.


Tree wrote: Of course, don't expect to see a lot of apostates when the mainstream media constantly deflects criticism of Islam.


Delusional bullshit. Plenty of criticism of Islam is available in all sources, it's just that media organisations have higher standards than xenophobic trolls on the internet, and consequently can't get away with blaming all Muslims for the actions of a specific subset of Muslims.


Tree wrote: You would see far more apostates with an honest discussion of the issue, but you won't do that. You would also see far more apostates if we protected apostates from the backlash they face from Muslims. I honestly think we need to institute witness protection style programs for ex-Muslims for a time.


Whereas, in reality, in our own nations ex-Muslims are already protected under the same laws that protect all citizens. It's only in that set of the most rabid Muslim nations that apostates have anything to fear from the state.


Tree wrote:
2) /shrug been happening ever since there were Christians and Muslims - it's what religious fanatic numpties do. The same thing happens even in the USA, for example the vandalism incident at the Colorado mosque in March this year, where some guy smashed up the mosque and left a Bible in the centre of the room.


No, it is not the same.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Tree wrote:Christians in the Middle East are being systematically oppressed.


The Middle East? Mighty big chunk of land you're generalizing about. Very suggestive you don't know what you're talking about. Rather, as everyone else is aware, Christians have been a part of the fabric of most nations in the Middle East for 1500 years, and have routinely lived under Muslim rule. The difference is Islamic State, but as I've already pointed out, Islamic State perform more repressive violence on Muslims than they do on any other group, and that's because they're barbaric loons. Meanwhile, the Christians living in those regions which become victims of IS were living there because their parents, grandparents, and ancestors dating back hundreds of years have lived there.

Funnily, though, your latest spiel is very much akin to what you hear from white-supremacist neo-Nazis who claim to be Christian.


Tree wrote:What you saw in that video was not an isolated incident,...


No, it wasn't, as I already explained to you in the post you're supposedly replying to.


Tree wrote: it was part of a broader campaign to terrorize Christians into either conversion or submission under a second class system called the dhimma which is sadly mandated by the Qur'an as well as the hadiths and Islamic jurisprudence.


And now it's full on tinfoil hat time.

Been slurping on the overflowing teat of Breitbart, have we?

A campaign by whom, deranged dingbat? This 'broad campaign' - who exactly is conducting this? Come on, spill your wet-dream fantasy out where all can see it.



Tree wrote:
3) A Dutch kid being beaten by.... ? That's really quite essential, isn't it? The narrative is that he's a Muslim migrant because they're dangerous people, whereas the reality is that the assailant is also a Dutch kid, born and raised there, and for his behavior he was sent to prison. But you know, his skin colour is enough to dogwhistle to the desired audience.


Don't make this about skin color you lying ass.


Fuck off you racist concern troll, you immediately go on to reiterate the same faulty assumption as in the original video.


Tree wrote: It's about the toxic ideology that teaches Muslims that non-Muslims are trash, hence why you get all this Muslim over-representation in crime. People who don't respect your way of life are less likely to follow your laws.


And you're clearly a contemptible moron. The aggressor in that video, according to Dutch people, is neither an immigrant, nor a Muslim.

Shows how much you care about facts when some good old fashioned prejudiced bigotry is in the offing.

Anyway, you're going to need to be citing sources for your claims, because Tree's confident assertions are not acceptable as evidence.



Tree wrote:
Ironically, there is a very good example of this with the fuckwits at Britain First who have performed such duplicitous editing on a number of occasions. For example, in 2014 Britain First took a gang of their goons to a mosque in Luton. They took professional camera equipment and crew. Their video shows their desired narrative of how violent and aggressive those funny foreigner Muslims are, with the crowds surging towards the BF line, abuse being shouted, and eventually police officers having to protect the BF peaceful protesters by escorting them away.

Compelling stuff, huh?

Of course, what they don't tell you is that all of their recorded footage is from later in the day. What they didn't show you, having edited it out, is that BF blocked the entrance to the mosque, physically pushing people away - one old guy fell over and got a gash on his head. It doesn't show the litany of racist abuse the BF thugs directed at the Muslims trying to go to pray. It doesn't show the hours of provocation directed at those Muslims.... it only shows the desired outcome, the footage they were there to get to support their narrative and rile their fan base.


Maybe, but the 3 videos tweeted by BF weren't filmed by BF.


Did anyone say that they were?

Of course not.


Tree wrote:That said, I'd go a different way about it.


Great! Go share your ideas with your far-right numpty friends, because no one here in interested in how you'd develop a campaign of hatred against Islam.


Tree wrote: Islam is shit.


Om padmee, sri santi... and lo, the prophet hath spoken!



Tree wrote:Not because some Muslims overreacted to BF in a video, but because Islamic teachings are barbaric, backward and toxic for free society.


Except when they're not.


Tree wrote: I view Islam in the exact same way as you view fascism.


You wouldn't know how I view fascism, because I've never told you how I view fascism. What you've done repeatedly, as you always do, is assume you know my position better than me.


Tree wrote: They're both based on collectivist, totalitarian principles. The 3 videos merely show some examples of the problem.


When you see everything in the world in light of your ideology, you're no different than the dicks seeing everything in the world in light of their ideology in Islam.


Tree wrote:
Clearly, Khan was telling the population of London not to be alarmed at the increased police presence which was specifically being employed to keep people safe.


Which is still stupid because almost nobody but crooks are ever alarmed by increased police presence specifically.


:roll:

Eh? Are you smoking something potent? Because you keep making such stupid declarations apparently without any thought at all.

If you live in London, you would indeed be surprised if you suddenly saw groups of police hanging around everywhere, because it's totally abnormal. People would, rightly, be concerned in such a scenario, because it usually presages some terrible event.


Tree wrote:They're alarmed by the state of affairs that caused the police to be there in larger numbers.


Shut up emoting at me you moron, and listen. I'm a Londoner, all my family live in London, and a vast majority of my friends are from London, so I think I might just happen to know a little better than you about the reaction of Londoners compared to your emoting from the comfort of your overused armchair.

There is no 'state of affairs' you gibbering loon. The populace is not quivering in fear of the next Muslim terrorist, not least because British mettle is a tad stronger than that, but also because it still remains vastly more likely you'll die from being hit by a car than from a terrorist attack. We are not remotely defined by it, never have been, and never will be.

Now, you appear to get all your opinions about the world from crackpot sites like Breitbart, who tell the news 'mainstream media' don't tell because mainstream media don't make up endless bullshit based on hate and fear. There is no Muslim problem in the UK, nor more than there is a Muslim problem anywhere in Europe, or in fact, in the USA. Muslims represent a tiny percentage in all of our nations, and the notion that we, the majority, have something to fear from them is the same old fascist screed used by all the morons in history to justify their abominable behavior and beliefs.

Your credulous fantasies are rejected, and your incitement to fear is laughed at scornfully.


Tree wrote:Telling people to remain calm with incompetent leaders who can't solve the problem is kinda hard, don't you think?


Solve what problem? The problem you've uncritically bought into from propaganda outlets?


Tree wrote:
As for your inane patter, you clearly don't know your arse from your elbow. Growing up in London, there was a constant threat of terror, of bombs on buses and in waste bins.


London doesn't represent all global cities.


Red herring - no one said it did.


Tree wrote: Your "Troubles", no pun intended, are not everyone's troubles and that has fizzled out anyway. So even that wave of terrorism shows that, no, you don't actually need to have this be a permanent state of affairs where everyone has to constantly be looking over their shoulder and an end to it is possible. Plenty of cities around the world have experienced either 0 or no significant terrorist activity in recent decades and they tend to be the ones without significant Muslim populations.


Yes, this all stands to reason if we accept your strawman, but as I don't accept your strawman, and as I cited the full text of Sadiq Khan's message, we don't need to engage in this contrived drivel.

Instead, we acknowledge the perfectly reasonable point that the public cannot rely wholly on the police / state to defeat problems like terrorism, but instead the populace must remain vigilant in order to help the police respond to situations.

Again, your strawman was very clearly rejected, so appealing to the supposed results of your strawman is going to be about as convincing as pulling down your pants and taking a dump on the table of discourse. You know, the think you're figuratively doing.



Tree wrote:The idea that this is something people need to live with on an indefinite basis because that's just what "global cities" are like is wrong.


Says you. In reality, it is just the nature of the beast, because police cannot be everywhere, and they need the public to call in to make them aware of any suspicious activity. Ensuring that the populace is aware of that is perfectly reasonably to anyone with a functioning brain, which naturally means it's totally opaque to numpties like Trump and you.


Tree wrote:Tell me, where is this wave of terrorism in say Tokyo? How about Budapest? I'm not saying they never had any incidents, but it's much safer.


You're not saying they haven't had incidents? Then what's your point?

What do you mean 'much safer'? Are you appealing to the number of people hurt or killed by terrorist activity in each of those cities as a comparison?

If so, please cite your source.

If not, then how about you unpack your contention so it can be inspected?


Tree wrote: Could it have something to do with there being less Muslim migrants?


Could what have something to do with it? The 'safer' claim?

How about you source your claim, and then be specific about what it is you're claiming?

Are you under the impression that London is awash with terrorist activity? Did you get this notion from Trump or from Breitbart? Note that many people here are from the UK, so it's probably best if you, for once in your life, admit that your knowledge may be wholly hearsay, rather than trying to dictate reality to people who know better.

I mean, this is an aside from the asinine fact that if there are more of X group, then more relative crimes will be committed by that group.


Tree wrote: Apart from a subway attack 22 years ago by a cult in Tokyo there really hasn't been much happening lately.


Hasn't been much of what happening lately? What are we measuring here?



Tree wrote:
Only, these weren't those funny foreigner Mooslims, coming over 'ere', bringing their terrorism... inane patter... they were home-grown terrorists:


Why should a country accept foreign terrorism on top of their own home-grown sources of terrorism?


Well, the most obvious is that it's not 'foreign'.

Given how many times you've been pulled up on that, it's amazing you still make that mistake.


Tree wrote:That's like saying you have cancer so you might as well infect yourself with some MRSA while you're at it so fuck hospital hygiene. It's dumb as fuck. The fact that a country has its own terrorist problem is actually a good reason to do everything in your power to ensure you don't get yet another source of terrorism. You have 1 medical condition that's bad enough, but get 3 or 4 and it's going to make it exponentially harder to get treated.


It is indeed dumb as fuck, but you still keep doing these inane red herrings for some totally irrational reason - you don't seem capable of stopping yourself!


Tree wrote:Virtually all of the 100 deaths or so in Britain due to terrorism since 2001 have been Islamic related and the number could be much higher without security services doing their... thing.


Terrorism related deaths and events have dropped precipitously since the 1970's, down to the point where you're counting a hundred over the course of 16 years, where before, we were counting hundreds per year.

So let's assume your number is true, and rather than 'virtually all', we'll just assume all 100 are due to Islamic terrorism. That would mean 6.25 people die a year from Muslim terrorism. 6.5 people. This is the number on which you're peddling your fear about the invasion of the Muslim horde of barbarians? :D

Fortunately, the British government keeps statistics on mortality events, which can rather help put such fear-mongering in perspective:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... sesofdeath

Or we can look at some specific details, such as...

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... fatalities

Since 2001, approximately 26,000 people have died from road accidents, or two hundred and sixty times as many people who have died from Muslim terrorism. Maybe they were foreign cars, eh Tree?

Or we can really drill the point home...

https://www.theguardian.com/news/databl ... #accidents

In one year alone, 25 people died of being bitten, scratched, or struck by mammals - that's 18.5 more people dying as a result of animals than of Muslim terrorists - maybe they were Muslim mammals, Tree?

In one year alone, 60 people died of drowning, plus a further 30 from drowning in their own baths, 180 of accidental strangulation, as many people died from being stung by bees, wasps and hornets as from Islamic terrorism.

So where exactly is this impending threat you're here to warn us about? If Muslim terrorists are such a threat, they're not very fucking good at it, are they?

No, the truth is much more prosaic. Of the approximately 3 million Muslims living in the UK, only a tiny percentage of them are extremist fucknuts who want to hurt other people. They do not present anywhere near as much of a threat as right-wing hate groups would have us believe.



Tree wrote:IRA is not an issue anymore and hasn't been for a while.


Irrelevant, the point was to contest your silly claim that London only needed to fear Islamic terrorism, when this is clearly barking (pun enjoyed).



Tree wrote: And even if it were still an issue, that would not be a good reason to pave the way for Islamic terrorism.


No one's 'paving the way' for Islamic terrorism, Tree. It's only your febrile delusion ingested from right-wing propaganda outlets that makes you think that all Muslims want to kill us, and that our governments are in cahoots with them to allow it to happen.



Tree wrote: It would actually be a good reason to avoid it as much as possible because your security forces don't have unlimited resources, nobody has.


You mean you understand Sadiq Khan's point after all, well I never! Bet you won't admit it though! :)



Tree wrote: There is for example a maximum number of people they can have 24/7 surveillance on. But being a simpleton you've never thought of that, have you?


Amusingly, your nonsensical response critically contradicts your previous wibbling about Khan's point which asks the populace to help the police if they spot anything suspicious.

Further, it's actually a contradiction to your fear-mongering. There aren't sufficient numbers of people in the UK that present such a threat as to warrant permanent surveillance, which rather puts a fact based flop on the right wing wet fantasy of the hordes of British jihadists baying for blood.



Tree wrote:Before 2001 and in recent history (1971+) you had 125 IRA related deaths. You had 305 more deaths, 270 of which were part of the Lockerbie bombing which WASN'T caused by a home-grown terrorist but by a foreign terrorist from Libya.


The exception to the rule. The majority of terrorist incidents are home-grown.



Tree wrote:So that leaves just 35 deaths at best that may be caused by home-grown terrorists other than IRA, a disproportionately low number that it's not really worth my time to investigate further.


Because 35 is so much lower than 100 that it's 'not worth' it? :)



Tree wrote:Consider the fact that in the last 16 years, Muslims haven't even made up more than 5% of the population but almost all terrorist related deaths have been caused by Muslims acting in accordance with their jihad doctrine. For anyone to claim or imply that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism is just dishonest to the core.


Of course, no one has claimed that Islam has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism, but rather that terrorism isn't restricted to Muslims, or that all Muslims are indicted by terrorism done in the name of their religion.

In reality, what's occurred is that you've tried to play up the threat of Islamic terrorism in the UK, then found that you could only get to a maximum number of 6.5 deaths a year. This number obviously wasn't compelling enough, so you tried other ways to phrase it with equally poor results, then just dropped in a red herring to distract from your failings.



Tree wrote:
We'll do what we do, and we'll take responsibility for our own actions not least because those actions will be governed by humanity, compassion, and reason rather than by prejudice, xenophobia and hatred.


Cliches and platitudes. Not impressed.


And fucks not given. Given your supposed concern for the British people, you clearly know nothing of us at all.



Tree wrote:The real question is, why are you governed by fascismphobia you anti-fascist bigot? ;)


Well, I am not so I can't answer your silly question.

Why are you a pedophile, Tree? Why do you get sexually aroused by the thought of abusing children?



Tree wrote: See how easy it is to throw around buzzwords when you don't have an argument?


You mean the buzzwords only you have used?

Cue more red herrings, and we know from many experiences with right-wing propaganda slurpers what word you are trying to provoke, but given the fact that the word hasn't been used at all in this thread, it's going to be rather hard for you to claim that I am throwing round buzzwords that you needed to introduce to the conversation yourself! :lol:

So yeah, I do see why you've been throwing round buzzwords, but your inability to furnish a coherent argument runs a little deeper than your lazy usage of buzzwords.




Edit: fixed an ornery quote
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Last edited by Sparhafoc on Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sat Dec 02, 2017 1:24 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Sparhafoc wrote:Let's be careful to conspicuously overlook the fact that Trump just retweeted a series of messages from a white supremacist neo-Nazi propaganda source and then got childishly shitty when called out for it by the leader of one of the USA's longest and most consistent allies.


Quick reality reminder for anyone who might have got confused by Tree's make-believe.

Here is what I actually wrote.

Note the complete absence of any notion that I said the content of the videos is false, or in fact, any impression of the content of the videos at all? Funny, I didn't even mention videos at all! :)

But it's a genetic fallacy because Tree asserts so.


Tree wrote:Are you going to discuss the content of the videos or are you just going to bitch about the person hosting those videos and the other person retweeting them?

Look up "genetic fallacy", Mr. I'm-So-Logical-And-Rational-Not-Really. It wouldn't matter if the person tweeting was zombie Hitler. If there's a fire, doesn't matter who reports. It ain't going to put itself out just because you don't like the person reporting it.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue[1]) is a fallacy of irrelevance involving a conclusion that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context.


https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

A genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a claim is accepted or rejected based on the source of the evidence, rather than on the quality or applicability of the evidence. It is also a line of reasoning in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. The fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.


So, can someone help Tree point out where in my post I talked about conclusions, or claims, or ideas and expressed acceptance or rejection of them based on the source of those conclusions, claims or ideas?

Tree needs your help because he's only got irrational assertions.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Dec 02, 2017 1:31 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

I will add that anybody who thinks the IRA is no longer a problem hasn't been paying attention. The peace that's been achieved in this area is guarded, and currently under serious threat from the numpties behind Brexit and from the de facto coalition of the tories and the DUP.

This is not over yet, not by a long shot.
Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:44 pm
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Sparhafoc wrote:No, stop lying. The words are right there. At no point did I suggest that the argument was wrong because of who said it.


Your quote again:

Let's be careful to conspicuously overlook the fact that Trump just retweeted a series of messages from a white supremacist neo-Nazi propaganda source and then got childishly shitty when called out for it by the leader of one of the USA's longest and most consistent allies.

Just keep reassuring yourself that Trump isn't dragging the USA into the gutter.


It is heavily implied by your post that what Trump is retweeting is factually wrong because it comes from people that you think are white supremacist neo-Nazis.

As my point wasn't contingent on the content of the videos, as I have explained now to you in two following rejections of your strawman, your endless iteration of bullshit is dismissed as a perfect example of the failings in your discourse.


You don't have a point then. Who Trump retweets shouldn't matter, what matters is are those people telling the truth or not.

Now, to your credit you did explain (much later) why you think those videos are misleading. Too bad that wasn't your first course of action. Your first course of action was to attack the character of the people sending those tweets.

Either you know the topic at hand, or you don't. If you don't, do feel free to go educate yourself first prior to pretending you have some input that's valid.


I don't particularly care about those tweets because my opinion of Islam couldn't possibly get any lower. You brought them up, I responded. That's about it.

If you read all the relevant tweets, you can see what is wrong, most specifically the notion that these are to do with immigrants, or that they are what's wrong with Muslims.


It's what's wrong with the Islamic ideology. Everything the videos imply about Islam is true. Violently opposed to homosexuals. Check. Intolerance towards non-Muslims. Check. An aspiration of the supremacy of Islam over other religions. Check. I don't expect the videos to convince you, feel free to look up the Qur'an and hadiths on matters related to homosexuals or non-Muslims. Everything these alleged neo-Nazis say about Islam is sadly true and can be independently verified. Muslim majority countries also have a poor record when it comes to homosexuals and non-Muslims with homosexuals being constantly at risk of both legal and extrajudicial punishment (honor killings, vigilantism and such) and non-Muslims facing widespread discrimination.


Islam is indeed full of bad ideas, just as most human systems are full of bad ideas,


Replace Islam with "fascism" to see just how ridiculously misleading your statement is.

"Fascism is indeed full of bad ideas, just as most human systems are full of bad ideas,"

Not all human systems are equally full of bad ideas. Some systems are especially bad.


but the key point is that most Muslim nations are not Islamic State, they actively reject Islamic State, and actually put treasure and material into defeating Islamic State. Kind of hard for you to spin that, but I am sure you'll try.


Opposing the Islamic State doesn't automatically make them moderates.

The Saudis for example also oppose them. They also uphold similarly fucked up ideals and in fact it's Saudi propaganda worldwide that helps to radicalize Muslims that may otherwise be normal members of society. So it's more of a power dispute than a fundamental ideological dispute. They'll just as happy to murder gays, treat women like cattle and institute highly discriminatory systems for Christians and other non-Muslims.

Most Muslim nations are indeed not the Islamic State, but they don't have a good track record either. Even our supposedly moderate NATO ally Turkey is going to shit and Muslim nations consistently rank low on any freedom index you can find, with lots of human rights abuses and corruption. Even those that don't have Sharia law provisions tend to have problems due to the authoritarian culture that Islam fosters.

People like you forget that the vast preponderance of victims of Islamic State are actually Muslims too.


I have no idea why you think that helps your argument because it doesn't. That just proves how dangerous it is as an ideology because it's intolerant of internal dissent as well. You want to know why Sunnis and Shi'ites constantly kill each other in Iraq for example? Each side views the other side as a traitor to Islam. Like apostates. Do you know what the punishment for apostasy is?

Ergo, IS is not a model applicable to represent all Muslims. Do you disagree?


That's only cause a lot of Muslims don't follow Islam. The idea of an Islamic caliphate run by a caliph who calls the shots based on Sharia law is not some outlandish invention made up by people like Bin Laden somewhere in the depths of a cave. It's standard jurisprudence and it's been the norm for most of Islam's history until the break up of the Ottoman Empire, the last caliphate, which fractured the Islamic world further.

Do not however assume that just because they're not united they're not dangerous. In many ways that makes them more dangerous, especially if you have the misfortune of ever finding yourself caught in the middle of a Sunni vs. Shi'ite dispute.

Delusional claptrap. The vast majority of Muslims in this world are perfectly capable of being civilized, law-abiding, tolerant citizens, regardless of the fact that they possess stupid beliefs.


Which stupid beliefs are we talking about? The part about magic shit being real or the political aspects that say gays should be killed, women can be subjugated and non-Muslims should be dhimmis or killed if they refuse? If we're talking about the latter, no, you cannot hold those beliefs and still be a civilized, tolerant person.

The truth is that's exactly what is delusional. I have no idea what you base this on other than wishful thinking. The reality of most Muslim nations don't reflect a tolerant group of people, nor do I care how many of them are civilized or tolerant as long as even a handful of individuals who are not can do irreparable damage. You think the "tolerance" of "moderate Muslims" is somehow going to grow the legs back of people butchered in these attacks or somehow bring their loved ones back. Don't be a retard please.

If tolerance was such a priority moderate Muslims would either denounce and leave Islam (best choice, the one I recommend) or demand a reformation. Maybe to the point of forming an entirely new denomination that completely rejects the supremacism inherent in both Sunni and Shi'ite schools of jurisprudence and is clearly distinguishable from them. I'm not holding my breath.

The Pew Research Center polls done on Muslims attitudes disproves the notion of a vast majority of tolerant Muslims.
Image

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... the-world/

Your right-wing bunker is no place to be making declarations about people you're afraid of because you never see them around.


I don't need to see them around. If they follow a book that instigates murder and oppression of non-Muslims, that reflects badly on them. Ignorance is no excuse, not anymore. We can no longer afford that, far too much damage has been done.

I live in a Muslim neighborhood, I work in a Muslim neighborhood, and there are no such events taking place here.


Only cause they're not following Islamic teachings. Don't count on that in the long-term. The only advantage you still have is that Muslims are still a minority around 5% or so in your country which means they generally have no choice but to play ball if they don't want to become total outcasts. We don't really know how many of them genuinely have positive views about the west or about democracy. Everywhere else they're a majority, they call the shots and they tend to not create countries worth living in. Very hard to when your core values are totalitarian in nature.

In reality, it's IS and other extremist organisations that need to be dealt with because they are actually engaging in heinous acts, and it is these heinous acts which distinguish them from the rest of the Muslim population of the world.


How about tyrants? How about regressive attitudes that I know you wouldn't tolerate if they were done by very socially conservative right-wingers?

Terrorism is not the only issue that Islam has. It's a big part of it, but another one is authoritarianism which is why Muslim countries don't generally have freedom.

Opposing IS doesn't make one a moderate and even moderates have a moral responsibility to either reform or leave Islam. Until then, I am under no obligation to give them my unconditional trust for the same reason I need not trust someone who browses gore sites regularly.

Further, you need to get your facts straight. Religious reforms never result in greater tolerance, rather, they always tend towards fundamentalism. The Christian Reformation, for example, was the birth of some of the most lunatic subsets of Christian fundamentalists the history of the world has seen.


That is a possibility, although I don't think your example is a good one.

I'm more than willing to accept that a reformation might not be possible, but then again it was never my preferred option. Rather, I would prefer to instigate a mass apostasy. The less Muslims there are in a society the easier it is to tackle Islamic ideology and its supremacist views. Islam should be slowly phased out of polite society and then treated the same way fascism or communism are treated.

Delusional bullshit. Plenty of criticism of Islam is available in all sources, it's just that media organisations have higher standards than xenophobic trolls on the internet, and consequently can't get away with blaming all Muslims for the actions of a specific subset of Muslims.


What's delusional (and wrong) is the idea that regular Muslims bear absolutely no responsibility for Islamic terrorism or other forms of Islamic oppression.

They do. Why? They're perpetuating the ideology along with all the crimes this ideology instigates people to commit. And instigating a crime is still a violation of a non-aggression principle. Maybe they don't realize what they're giving support to, but at some point ignorance stops being an excuse. You would not accept the claim that someone is a "moderate fascist" or that "fascism is a peaceful ideology" just because they claim it is despite all the evidence to the contrary found in fascist writings. Even if the fascist was telling the truth, you would at the very least regard that person as a very deluded person, a useful idiot who doesn't know what he's supporting.

I don't think they share a great deal of responsibility, but it's not zero either. They need to be informed that their ideology is toxic and maybe then they'll either reform or leave, preferably leave the ideology.
Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:51 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:It is heavily implied by your post that what Trump is retweeting is factually wrong because it comes from people that you think are white supremacist neo-Nazis.


You are completely delusional, and it's genuinely twisted that you think you can keep telling me what my position is, keep making up bullshit that doesn't exist in my posts, and still think you will be taken seriously?

It's just transparent trolling, Tree. My sentence bears no such implication - it's purely a product of your febrile imagination.

If you cannot allow people to make their own positions, if you insist on telling people what they mean, what their position is, then you're a total fuckwit who can never expect to hold an honest discussion.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:02 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Muslim Migrant beats up Dutch boy on crutches.


That's the title of one of the videos posted by Britain First, and retweeted by Trump, the President of the United States of America.

What was the basis for this contention?

How would one be able to make an assumption about the religious beliefs of a person from a video showing only their appearance?

Do Muslims glow green on film?

What could it possibly be that would have made the deputy leader of Britain First, a far-right white-supremacist movement, leap to the assumption that the assailant in the video is Muslim?

Maybe it's his hair colour?

No?

Hmmm, clearly it's impossible ever to know why a far-right white-supremacist would mistakenly assume that a brown guy is a Muslim.

And why did she mistakenly believe that he was a migrant?

Do migrants have specific hair-do's?

What could it possibly be that would have made the deputy leader of Britain First, a far-right white-supremacist movement, leap to the assumption that the assailant in the video is migrant?

Maybe it's his eye colour?

No?

Hmmm, clearly it's impossible ever to know why a far-right white-supremacist would mistakenly assume that a brown guy is a migrant.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:15 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 7 of 16
 [ 304 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
cron