With Merkel's Foes in Disarray, Germany Defies the Trump Trend

[Dill]

(05-07-2017, 03:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: [url=http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Fakenews-from-HuffPo?pid=323553#pid323553][/url]The article is not vey deep. That doesn't make it fake news. It is concerning if a far right Austrian party, which is also forging connections with Russia, met with Trump's conspiracy pushing National Security Adviser. You can't call that fake news because the factual history of the party's founder is mentioned along with Trump's bigotry, and then claim you are concerned about standards.

Journalistic standards are not upheld by calling every act of judgment you don't like an "opinion." Why isn't everything you have said about the Huffpo article an "opinion"? Other than bare assertion, you don't seem to have any means of distinguishing between opinion and fact. We get your own intuition followed by appeal to consensus. And a repetition of that if I question it. You do no research to establish the FPO founder was not a Nazi. You don't define what a bigot is or is not.

If the press calls someone a bank robber, it matters whether the person has actually robbed banks. If he has robbed banks, then mentioning this is not "editorializing", and you are destroying standards, not upholding them, when you claim it is only a journalist's "opinion" that the bank robber is a bank robber. You are hardly exposing hypocrisy.

And this brings us back to my critique of right wing media and discourse. When evidence, logic, and the facts work against you, you call everything "opinion." When others carefully lay out standards for distinguishing fact from opinion, you don't contribute. You dismiss all that as just more "opinion". As long as everything is opinion, then no one's opinion is better than any one else's. There is no effort to define and build and apply principles or standards. You claim I "ignore" statements but you won't provide examples. Once again we are at the point where you can offer nothing but quips, deflections and reports of how you feel. It may be that you really see no difference between that and constructing an extended argument--defining terms, researching points, deriving logically consistent conclusions from vetted premises. Looks like this vein has been mined out.
.............................................................................................................................................................................
You've officially become boring.  Endless restatement does not make your utterly inane drivel any less inane.  #fakepost

While we are on the subject of standards--

I remembered the above gem from your "Fake News from Huffpost" thread--A gentle reminder that this is not the first time we have disagreed over standards--you taking the lazy low road and I the high.  Your bald-assertive style was in full flower on that thread: unsupported claims followed by personal invective, over and over again.

I was explaining how one sets up and operates definitions to produce judgments differing sides to a debate could agree on, something other than "just opinion," and you were busy calling everything you did not like "fake news" and "opinion" and denigrating my efforts to raise the discussion out of the mud.

And not much has changed.  

(05-07-2017, 03:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Please calm down with your histrionic about personal attacks.  You and GM make this accusation so often it has lost all meaning.  Disagreement with your assertions, as illustrated above, is none of the things you just claimed.  As for stifling debate, you're doing it again right here.  The funny thing is you don't seem to realize this.

We make this accusation often. Yes. So why do you call people names and belittle them, then accuse THEM of stifling debate?  The moderators ask us not to use personal attack. It brings down the level of discussion. Why do you ignore this standard? Can you tell invective from argument?

Accusing me of plagiarism (as if somewhere out there on the internet someone has already written answers to your specific posts and I am just copying them) and ignoring all requests for proof (beyond your intuition), is another form of personal attack.  It is also a way of avoiding substantive argument ("scroll up"), to keep the discussion spinning away from a close consideration of questions like whether Islam possess a threat (cultural suicide!) to Western Civilization and who can speak expertly on the subject.   

The plagiarism accusation brings me to another point fusing style and standards--the frequency of pointless quips instead of argument.  "If you say so." "I love it when you condescend to me, it turns me on."  Why don't you see that as just shooting blanks?  What have you accomplished?

So the difference in standards is one reason why we have such difficulty discussing matters.  That and the general lop-sidedness in effort--me taking care to make solid points supported with examples, you pointing to my quotes and making unsupported claims and quips accompanied by personal invective.  A discussion with Masterp on Islam goes straight as an arrow, no side issues generated by personal invective and unsupported claims.  With you, the discourse spins off in a dozen different directions as you "answer every point" (LOL).

This is my second post in 24 hours on the issue of standards, so I will leave the matter for now and go back to assessing the Islamic threat to Western Civilization.  

A suggestion: If you have some quips, invective, unsupported accusations and one-line "arguments," present them in response to this post.  If you have something substantive to say about the issue of Islam and Western Civilization, address it to the post which follows. See if you can develop a substantive argument with links, examples, clear definitions, and conclusions which follow from premises--but no quips.

[Dill]

(05-07-2017, 03:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A phobia is an unreasonable fear.  As islam has quite adequately demonstrated that they are an ideology whose teaching should quite logically be feared by anyone who cherishes Western democratic and secular values then such fear cannot be considered unreasonable.

No, but you did use a Nazi comparison, an analogy so intellectually lazy and lacking in nuance that one wonders why you couldn't conjure up an example not so obviously loaded.  Your blatant attempts to equate your opponents with racism, a common tactic by your ilk or Nazi style fascism is noted though.  Nothed and sadly predictable.

Excedpt when the "other side" nominates a spokesperson you immediately dismiss them as not a "serious scholar".  Are you beginning to see the problem here?

I'm not familiar with any of the people you've mentioned so, unlike you, I wil not make a judgment from a position of ignorance.

He's using "quotes" from islam's "holy" books.  He's using real world examples and he's using the stated opinions of millions of muslims.  Remember, you seem to trust polls when they say things you like.

I do to, just not in a way you like.

Looks like you have the start of an argument here.

1. Your first premise is that Fear of Islam is not Islamophobia because it is justified. "THEY are an ideology"--I guess meaning all Muslims. (That is talking point now circulating right wing circles: Islam is not really a religion.) Not a troublesome few. And they have ADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATED that they are to be feared. That has me wondering how they have adequately demonstrated this? Have they recently invaded and occupied Christian/Western lands? Have they massacred 6,000 Christians? Perhaps their refugees from our wars are flooding Western countries, threatening to become 1.02 percent of the population in some particular country? Perhaps they have responded to a poll? No sample-size problem here?

Here is your chance to show what you know. Or your own knowledge failing, bring in Sam Harris and Bill Maher. Lay out their arguments. Let's see if they can stand a little cross examination.  Or it is yet another chance to throw up a smokescreen of invective and quips and bald assertions.  Your choice.

2. Guess I need to remind you that Nazis did not "equate" opponents with racism. They condemned them for criticizing racism. Remember their goal was to slander an entire religion and Semitic race, calling them a threat to Western culture as well as German values.  So I understand your sensitivity to Nazi analogies, even where they are not directly made. You also want to denigrate an entire religion and define its (predominately Semitic) followers as a wholesale threat to "Western values." If denigrating an entire people is what you want to do, then where do you see lack of nuance? Your wholesale denigration is not racist? I have met people who avoid this rather obvious question by presenting themselves as unfairly accused by it. They want to condemn a whole religion without any blowback in world where that always turns out badly. But rather than putting the issue to rest with a clear answer, they choose not to dignify it with an answer. Which doesn't work.

3. You are not familiar with any of the people I offered as Middle East scholars, and were totally unaware of movements within Islam critical of misogyny. But you want to "nominate" a "spokesperson" for the Islamophobes who is a serious scholar on the subject of Islam. And you don't want to make judgments "from a position of ignorance" (never mind you just assumed I have read nothing of Hitchens work).  But you are happy to nominate someone who is not a serious scholar of Islam, someone who will support what you already want to believe.  Another manifestation of our difference in standards. It looks like you are perfectly fine with ignorance when it suits your purposes. I am not. Another difference in standards.

4. "Quotes from Islam's holy books." LOL We see people using quotes from Christianity's holy books in this forum all the time but we (most of us) don't assume they are "experts" on those books or Christianity. The question of Islam is not how Harris reads the Qu'ran but how Muslims do.  And I still like polls just fine; I just question the way some people use them. Get some of Harris' arguments out there and let's have a close look at them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-08-2017, 02:59 PM)Dill Wrote: While we are on the subject of standards--

I remembered the above gem from your "Fake News from Huffpost" thread--A gentle reminder that this is not the first time we have disagreed over standards--you taking the lazy low road and I the high.  Your bald-assertive style was in full flower on that thread: unsupported claims followed by personal invective, over and over again.

I hope you didn't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

Quote:I was explaining how one sets up and operates definitions to produce judgments differing sides to a debate could agree on, something other than "just opinion," and you were busy calling everything you did not like "fake news" and "opinion" and denigrating my efforts to raise the discussion out of the mud.

And not much has changed.  

Sure, you're convinced you're right and you label disagreement as low brow.  Certainly not an argument from a "serious scholar". 

Quote:We make this accusation often. Yes. So why do you call people names and belittle them, then accuse THEM of stifling debate?  The moderators ask us not to use personal attack. It brings down the level of discussion. Why do you ignore this standard? Can you tell invective from argument?

No, only to the three headed sock puppet hydra.  Oddly, no one else levels this accusation at others, literally no one else.

Quote:Accusing me of plagiarism (as if somewhere out there on the internet someone has already written answers to your specific posts and I am just copying them) and ignoring all requests for proof (beyond your intuition), is another form of personal attack.  It is also a way of avoiding substantive argument ("scroll up"), to keep the discussion spinning away from a close consideration of questions like whether Islam possess a threat (cultural suicide!) to Western Civilization and who can speak expertly on the subject.   

Oh dear god you are a boring, histrionic person.  I even owned the mistke, in that instance.  I suppose "going high" means constantly harping on it?

Quote:The plagiarism accusation brings me to another point fusing style and standards--the frequency of pointless quips instead of argument.  "If you say so." "I love it when you condescend to me, it turns me on."  Why don't you see that as just shooting blanks?  What have you accomplished?

Trust me, plenty of people reading this thread have gotten exactly what I wanted them to get from it.  I've said it to one of you triumvirate, I don't argue to change your mind, because none of you are ever capable of admitting you're wrong.  I argue for the other people who read these threads.

Quote:So the difference in standards is one reason why we have such difficulty discussing matters.  That and the general lop-sidedness in effort--me taking care to make solid points supported with examples, you pointing to my quotes and making unsupported claims and quips accompanied by personal invective.  A discussion with Masterp on Islam goes straight as an arrow, no side issues generated by personal invective and unsupported claims.  With you, the discourse spins off in a dozen different directions as you "answer every point" (LOL).

More condescension, more boring.  I've made plenty of points, I know when I make them because you tend to not respond to them.  I guess I'm just not enough of a "serious scholar" to debate anything with someone of your towering intellect.

Quote:This is my second post in 24 hours on the issue of standards, so I will leave the matter for now and go back to assessing the Islamic threat to Western Civilization.  

Please do.

Quote:A suggestion:

Quote:If you have some quips, invective, bald assertion and one-line "arguments," present them in response to this post.  If you have something substantive to say about the issue of Islam and Western Civilization, address it to the post which follows. See if you can develop a substantive argument with links, examples, clear definitions, and conclusions which follow from premises--but no quips.

I'll respond as I choose where I choose, thank you very much.

(05-08-2017, 04:22 PM)Dill Wrote: Looks like you have the start of an argument here.

1. Your first premise is that Fear of Islam is not Islamophobia because it is justified. "THEY are an ideology"--I guess meaning all Muslims. (That is talking point now circulating right wing circles: Islam is not really a religion.) Not a troublesome few. And they have ADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATED that they are to be feared. That has me wondering how they have adequately demonstrated this? Have they recently invaded and occupied Christian/Western lands? Have they massacred 6,000 Christians? Perhaps their refugees from our wars are flooding Western countries, threatening to become 1.02 percent of the population in some particular country? Perhaps they have responded to a poll? No sample-size problem here?

Yes, when discussing islam we are discussing people who practice it.  Don't ascribe points to me that i didn't make, e.g. islam is not really a religion.  This is intellectually dishonest and a tactic you frequently engage in.  I suppose I should be grateful you haven't called me a nazi yet.  Do you really need me to cite examples of islamic terrorism?  Could you be more dishonest?

Quote:Here is your chance to show what you know. Or your own knowledge failing, bring in Sam Harris and Bill Maher. Lay out their arguments. Let's see if they can stand a little cross examination.  Or it is yet another chance to throw up a smokescreen of invective and quips and bald assertions.  Your choice.

I'll be happy to, as soon as you explain to me how Christopher Hitchens is not a "serious scholar".  This is where your inane claims that you have seized some intellectual high ground completely fall apart.  I address your posts point by point, (not to your satisfaction, but I could care less about that) you do not do me the same courtesy.

Quote:2. Guess I need to remind you that Nazis did not "equate" opponents with racism. They condemned them for criticizing racism. Remember their goal was to slander an entire religion and Semitic race, calling them a threat to Western culture as well as German values.  So I understand your sensitivity to Nazi analogies, even where they are not directly made. You also want to denigrate an entire religion and define its (predominately Semitic) followers as a wholesale threat to "Western values." If denigrating an entire people is what you want to do, then where do you see lack of nuance? Your wholesale denigration is not racist? I have met people who avoid this rather obvious question by presenting themselves as unfairly accused by it. They want to condemn a whole religion without any blowback in world where that always turns out badly. But rather than putting the issue to rest with a clear answer, they choose not to dignify it with an answer. Which doesn't work.

Damn, I spoke too soon.  I underlined your previously bolded statement as ultimate proof of your disgusting tactics in this thread.  In no way shape or form did I make or imply what you just accused me of.  Seriously, you should be completely ashamed of yourself.  That would require you to have some sense of shame though, which you appear to lack.

Quote:3. You are not familiar with any of the people I offered as Middle East scholars, and were totally unaware of movements within Islam critical of misogyny. But you want to "nominate" a "spokesperson" for the Islamophobes who is a serious scholar on the subject of Islam. And you don't want to make judgments "from a position of ignorance" (never mind you just assumed I have read nothing of Hitchens work).  But you are happy to nominate someone who is not a serious scholar of Islam, someone who will support what you already want to believe.  Another manifestation of our difference in standards. It looks like you are perfectly fine with ignorance when it suits your purposes. I am not. Another difference in standards.

Hahaha, this coming from a man who claimed Christopher Hitchens couldn't be considered a "serious scholar".

(05-06-2017, 12:34 AM)Dill Wrote: I have not read everything Hitchens has published. 

 You admitted this!  I did not assume it.  This is yet another example of you flat out lying.

Quote:4. "Quotes from Islam's holy books." LOL We see people using quotes from Christianity's holy books in this forum all the time but we (most of us) don't assume they are "experts" on those books or Christianity. The question of Islam is not how Harris reads the Qu'ran but how Muslims do.  And I still like polls just fine; I just question the way some people use them. Get some of Harris' arguments out there and let's have a close look at them.

In this you are correct and we see the fruits of this every day.  I'll be happy to continue this "discussion" as soon as you stop lying and deliberately misquoting me.  Your blatant dishonesty doesn't speak well for your perception of the strength of your argument.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-08-2017, 04:22 PM)Dill Wrote: 2. Guess I need to remind you that Nazis did not "equate" opponents with racism. They condemned them for criticizing racism. Remember their goal was to slander an entire religion and Semitic race, calling them a threat to Western culture as well as German values.  So I understand your sensitivity to Nazi analogies, even where they are not directly made. You also want to denigrate an entire religion and define its (predominately Semitic) followers as a wholesale threat to "Western values." If denigrating an entire people is what you want to do, then where do you see lack of nuance? Your wholesale denigration is not racist? I have met people who avoid this rather obvious question by presenting themselves as unfairly accused by it. They want to condemn a whole religion without any blowback in world where that always turns out badly. But rather than putting the issue to rest with a clear answer, they choose not to dignify it with an answer. Which doesn't work.

I thought about this some more, and this little excerpt really deserves more attention.  it is a common tactic by people like you to label their opponents as racist.  Thankfully that doesn't really occur on this board, especially not since certain less reputable people departed or did not follow us over here.  But this quote is a really vile, and slanderous attack on a view point that differs from your own.  Quite simply, you owe me a major apology for your attempt to label me as a racist.  If you don't supply an apology then know that I consider you a reprehensible person, despite your lofty assertions of "going high" and your claiming of an imaginary intellectual high ground.  

[Dill]

(05-08-2017, 04:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You admitted this!  I did not assume it.  This is yet another example of you flat out lying.

In this you are correct and we see the fruits of this every day.  I'll be happy to continue this "discussion" as soon as you stop lying and deliberately misquoting me.  Your blatant dishonesty doesn't speak well for your perception of the strength of your argument.

Saying I have not read everything Hitchens has written is not the same as saying I have read nothing of what he has written. Therefore not "another example of flat out lying."   But another example of spin off.

You have not established any lying or blatant dishonesty. I am not the one throwing up character assassination every four lines.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-08-2017, 05:53 PM)Dill Wrote: Saying I have not read everything Hitchens has written is not the same as saying I have read nothing of what he has written. Therefore not "another example of flat out lying."   But another example of spin off.

You have not established any lying or blatant dishonesty. I am not the one throwing up character assassination every four lines.

See my post directly above yours.  Until you apologize for your outrageous assertion we have nothing more to discuss.

[Dill]

(05-08-2017, 05:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Guess I need to remind you that Nazis did not "equate" opponents with racism. They condemned them for criticizing racism. Remember their goal was to slander an entire religion and Semitic race, calling them a threat to Western culture as well as German values.  So I understand your sensitivity to Nazi analogies, even where they are not directly made. You also want to denigrate an entire religion and define its (predominately Semitic) followers as a wholesale threat to "Western values." If denigrating an entire people is what you want to do, then where do you see lack of nuance? Your wholesale denigration is not racist? I have met people who avoid this rather obvious question by presenting themselves as unfairly accused by it. They want to condemn a whole religion without any blowback in world where that always turns out badly. But rather than putting the issue to rest with a clear answer, they choose not to dignify it with an answer. Which doesn't work.

I thought about this some more, and this little excerpt really deserves more attention.  it is a common tactic by people like you to label their opponents as racist.  Thankfully that doesn't really occur on this board, especially not since certain less reputable people departed or did not follow us over here.  But this quote is a really vile, and slanderous attack on a view point that differs from your own.  Quite simply, you owe me a major apology for your attempt to label me as a racist.  If you don't supply an apology then know that I consider you a reprehensible person, despite your lofty assertions of "going high" and your claiming of an imaginary intellectual high ground.  

So you are going to present yourself as unfairly accused.

I actually haven't labeled you a "racist." I asked you what, in your view, separates your condemnation of a whole world religion from racism, given the odious genealogy of such views. That is a question. Where is that "nuance" you see lacking? Instead of regarding this as a piece of cake and setting to work on your clarifying explanation, you demand an apology.

And if I have misunderstood you, I am ready to apologize if we can get some clarity on your stance towards Islam. 

Did you or did you not say:  

A phobia is an unreasonable fear.  As islam has quite adequately demonstrated that they are an ideology whose teaching should quite logically be feared by anyone who cherishes Western democratic and secular values then such fear cannot be considered unreasonable.

You saying here that Islam, as a whole, as a world religion, is to be FEARED? That it is a THREAT to Western, democratic and secular values. You are not saying "some Islamists"; and you are not saying "merely different," but a "threat" right? And you are not just talking about Germany now.  I am not "lying" or "deliberately misquoting you" or some such, am I?

But it would be wrong to characterize your words as denigrating a whole religion? Do you maintain that too?

Before going any further, you need to tell me if I have got you right. If I have not, then do not go off on a rant about lying and misrepresentation--instead, explain what I have misunderstood and what you really mean.

And you need to tell me if you recognize any distinction between asking a question about racism and accusing someone of racism.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-08-2017, 07:00 PM)Dill Wrote: So you are going to present yourself as unfairly accused.

Just pointing out the truth.

Quote:I actually haven't labeled you a "racist."

100% bullshit.  To be blunt about it.

Quote:I asked you what, in your view, separates your condemnation of a whole world religion from racism, given the odious genealogy of such views. That is a question. Where is that "nuance" you see lacking? Instead of regarding this as a piece of cake and setting to work on your clarifying explanation, you demand an apology.

No, you made a statement, you didn't ask a question.

Quote:But it would be wrong to characterize your words as denigrating a whole religion? Do you maintain that too?

Even if it did, which it does not, that wouldn't be racism or equatable to the nazis, a direct comparison you deliberately made.

Quote:Before going any further, you need to tell me if I have got you right. If I have not, then do not go off on a rant about lying and misrepresentation--instead, explain what I have misunderstood and what you really mean.

Nope, you don't get to try and flip the script.  You made a serious accusation, back it up or apologize.

Quote:And you need to tell me if you recognize any distinction between asking a question about racism and accusing someone of racism.

Asked and answered, you'll get no more response from me on this issue until you apologize.

[Dill]

(05-08-2017, 04:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 1. Your first premise is that Fear of Islam is not Islamophobia because it is justified. "THEY are an ideology"--I guess meaning all Muslims. (That is talking point now circulating right wing circles: Islam is not really a religion.) Not a troublesome few. And they have ADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATED that they are to be feared. That has me wondering how they have adequately demonstrated this? Have they recently invaded and occupied Christian/Western lands? Have they massacred 6,000 Christians? Perhaps their refugees from our wars are flooding Western countries, threatening to become 1.02 percent of the population in some particular country? Perhaps they have responded to a poll? No sample-size problem here?

Yes, when discussing islam we are discussing people who practice it.  Don't ascribe points to me that i didn't make, e.g. islam is not really a religion.  This is intellectually dishonest and a tactic you frequently engage in.  I suppose I should be grateful you haven't called me a nazi yet.  Do you really need me to cite examples of islamic terrorism?  Could you be more dishonest?

Most people distinguish between an "ideology" and a "religion."  As I say, the right now uses the term ideology to discredit Islam as a religion.  No one ascribed a point to you that you did not make.  Were I in your position, I would simply explain why I believe Islam may be an "ideology" and a religion at the same time, rather than claiming someone ascribed a point you didn't make and then launching into charges of "intellectual dishonesty."  If you cannot explain, it looks like you are just adopting others' rhetorical terms with no idea what other baggage you are dragging along with it. Charging me with "intellectual dishonesty" is simply substituting accusation for explanation/argument when you have none.

Citing "examples of Islamic terrorism" to characterize Islam would rather prove my point. You denigrate an entire religion on the actions of a few, while exempting Christians and other Westerners from the same standard.

So the expectation here was not that you supply "examples of Islamic terrorism." It was that you explain why your examples should define a billion innocent Muslims.  What is "honest" about generalizing from so small a sample in this case?

The high road was there, but you chose the low, called me "dishonest" and ran from the question.

(05-08-2017, 04:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Guess I need to remind you that Nazis did not "equate" opponents with racism. They condemned them for criticizing racism. Remember their goal was to slander an entire religion and Semitic race, calling them a threat to Western culture as well as German values.  So I understand your sensitivity to Nazi analogies, even where they are not directly made. You also want to denigrate an entire religion and define its (predominately Semitic) followers as a wholesale threat to "Western values." If denigrating an entire people is what you want to do, then where do you see lack of nuance? Your wholesale denigration is not racist? I have met people who avoid this rather obvious question by presenting themselves as unfairly accused by it. They want to condemn a whole religion without any blowback in world where that always turns out badly. But rather than putting the issue to rest with a clear answer, they choose not to dignify it with an answer. Which doesn't work.

Damn, I spoke too soon.  I underlined your previously bolded statement as ultimate proof of your disgusting tactics in this thread.  In no way shape or form did I make or imply what you just accused me of.  Seriously, you should be completely ashamed of yourself.  That would require you to have some sense of shame though, which you appear to lack.

Again, the high road was there.  If you think you have been misunderstood, if you want "examples of Islamic terrorism" to characterize an entire religion of a billion people as threat to western values, but you don't think that is denigrating an entire religion, then you could explain why it is not. You could explain why your accusation of an entire religion is not a "disgusting tactic" and a "vile slanderous attack on a viewpoint that differs from your own."  

But again the low road beckons. You substitute accusation for explanation, leaving the impression that accusation is simply a tactic for avoiding explanation. And you are now the victim, not a billion people known from "examples of terrorism."

Your take on Islam finally comes down to an accusation. And when asked to explain why it is not just an accusation--and a very unfair one at that--you can only broaden the accusation, attack whoever asks the question.  Thus you change the terrain of the debate so no argument can really occur. Like Trump calling reporters "fake news" and walking out of a news conference.

[Dill]

(05-08-2017, 08:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Just pointing out the truth.
100% bullshit.  To be blunt about it.
No, you made a statement, you didn't ask a question.
Even if it did, which it does not, that wouldn't be racism or equatable to the nazis, a direct comparison you deliberately made.
Nope, you don't get to try and flip the script.  You made a serious accusation, back it up or apologize.
Asked and answered, you'll get no more response from me on this issue until you apologize.

Looks like I get the final word in this series, then, in which I make the following points.

1. Your "accusation" is really still just a question from me about your statement--the kind of question people regularly get when they characterize an entire religion as a "threat to Western values." And unable to quote any "statement" accusing you of racism, you'll just continue claiming I made one. Somewhere. (And you have this kind of difficulty with "ONLY" three posters, right?)

2.  Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I have restated your claims in my own words giving you every chance to explain what I have misunderstood. You are not going explain, so apparently I have not misunderstood. The question still stands, on the basis of your own hasty generalizations--grounding statements like these:

"So, do we need to wait a further 2,000 years for muslims to stop blowing themselves up, treating women like chattel, raping and disfiguring women and executing homosexuals?"

"As islam has quite adequately demonstrated that they are an ideology whose teaching should quite logically be feared by anyone who cherishes Western democratic and secular values then such fear cannot be considered unreasonable."

" I find it odd that the left has latched on to the most misogynistic, homophobic and theocratic organization on Earth."

"As to how to "get rid of it", as you ask in your hyperbolic way, that needs to come from within, but the start is to no longer turn a blind eye to the problem and pretend it's the work solely of fringe elements.

Rather than just call all this "vile" "disgusting" and "dishonest," I have sought to explain why these statements are a mischaracterization based upon lack of knowledge, wending my way through your barrage of quips, one-line "arguments," deflections, accusations and misunderstandings, standing to all your challenges with thorough explanations, definitions, and a deal of religious history. But I am only getting more scattershot quips, accusations etc. in response--nothing comparable in depth or rigor to what I have put up-- So I am comfortable leaving this dialogue with you as it now stands.   

3. But do know this--someone who denigrates an entire religion--over a billion believers--and then when questioned spends two pages calling me a "liar" and a plagiarist, and "histrionic," doesn't get to suddenly play the hurt card and change the entire terrain of the debate. My calling out your misrepresentation does not make YOU a victim. 

So choose the low road. Again. Stamp your feet and hold your breath. But if you fold, you just fold. That's that.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-09-2017, 11:27 AM)Dill Wrote: Looks like I get the final word in this series, then

No, you don't.  

[StLucieBengal]

Hey Dill what is your love fest with Islam? And why are you calling anyone racist who doesn't have the same love affair with Islam? You do realize race has nothing to do with Islam......

[Dill]

(06-26-2017, 10:37 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Hey Dill what is your love fest with Islam?  And why are you calling anyone racist who doesn't have the same love affair with Islam?   You do realize race has nothing to do with Islam......

Lucie, glad to see you are interested in theology and politics. Can you provide a quote in which I called anyone a racist who "doesn't have a love affair with Islam"?  I think SSF would like that too.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2017, 01:04 AM)Dill Wrote: Lucie, glad to see you are interested in theology and politics. Can you provide a quote in which I called anyone a racist who "doesn't have a love affair with Islam"?  I think SSF would like that too.

That'd be right here.

Quote:Dill

2. Guess I need to remind you that Nazis did not "equate" opponents with racism. They condemned them for criticizing racism. Remember their goal was to slander an entire religion and Semitic race, calling them a threat to Western culture as well as German values.  So I understand your sensitivity to Nazi analogies, even where they are not directly made. You also want to denigrate an entire religion and define its (predominately Semitic) followers as a wholesale threat to "Western values." If denigrating an entire people is what you want to do, then where do you see lack of nuance? Your wholesale denigration is not racist? I have met people who avoid this rather obvious question by presenting themselves as unfairly accused by it. They want to condemn a whole religion without any blowback in world where that always turns out badly. But rather than putting the issue to rest with a clear answer, they choose not to dignify it with an answer. Which doesn't work.

In typical Mark Antony fashion you call your opponents racist while maintaining the thinnest veneer of deniability that you did so.  No one but you and your buddy buy this, at all.  I'm sure you'll have some long, bloviating response as to why I'm wrong.  Thankfully the only people impressed and convinced by your post will be you (maybe?) and your ultra reactionary friends who like to pretend they're not reactionary.  So, please, continue to claim you didn't label your opponents as racist when your own words clearly do so.

I'll leave off with this point, again.  Muslim is not a race.

[StLucieBengal]

What the heck happened on this board over the past year? SSF and I have been on the same side of quite a few discussions. That would have been considered madness before ....

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(06-27-2017, 02:01 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: What the heck happened on this board over the past year?   SSF and I have been on the same side of quite a few discussions.    That would have been considered madness before ....

Lucy!....you got some splainin to do!

[Dill]

(06-27-2017, 01:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In typical Mark Antony fashion you call your opponents racist while maintaining the thinnest veneer of deniability that you did so.  No one but you and your buddy buy this, at all.  I'm sure you'll have some long, bloviating response as to why I'm wrong.  Thankfully the only people impressed and convinced by your post will be you (maybe?) and your ultra reactionary friends who like to pretend they're not reactionary.  So, please, continue to claim you didn't label your opponents as racist when your own words clearly do so.

I'll leave off with this point, again.  Muslim is not a race.

So after you complained about an analogy which was not based solely upon race, but upon a pattern of wholesale denigration of groups supposed to threaten the Western values, and which could be grounded in race, ethnicity, OR religion, or any combination of these, you ignored the chance to explain why your views did not fit that pattern. Instead you complained I said the word "Nazi" and that was so unfair and typical and lazy and lacking nuance.

So then came the restatement of my point, and since you were so upset about the N-word, the QUESTION--if your wholesale denigration is not racist like the Nazis, then how so? There I am giving you another chance to explain, to restore the "nuance."

Rather than simply counter-argue that your wholesale denigration was not racist because it was solely based upon religion, or that you are not really denigrating Muslims by calling Islam an ideology that threatens Western Values, you chose none of the above. Rather you positioned yourself quickly as a"victim" and pronounced you'd say no more until you had an apology. Like you were horribly insulted and victimized because you could not get a free pass to insult and victimize Muslims wholesale.

Sounds like you still want to demonize people as threats to "Western Values" based on religion without any one making a structural analogy to other forms of demonizing people as threats to Western values based upon race or ethnicity. Somehow all of that denigration is all ok if it's not about race. And perhaps all this accusation of accusation is to avoid discussion of the pattern.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2017, 04:30 AM)Dill Wrote: So after you complained about an analogy which was not based solely upon race, but upon a pattern of wholesale denigration of groups supposed to threaten the Western values, and which could be grounded in race, ethnicity, OR religion, or any combination of these, you ignored the chance to explain why your views did not fit that pattern. Instead you complained I said the word "Nazi" and that was so unfair and typical and lazy and lacking nuance.

Nope, once someone compares me to a Nazi I'm done have a rational discussion with them.  You made the bed, you lie in it.

Quote:So then came the restatement of my point, and since you were so upset about the N-word, the QUESTION--if your wholesale denigration is not racist like the Nazis, then how so? There I am giving you another chance to explain, to restore the "nuance."

And once again.   

Quote:Rather than simply counter-argue that your wholesale denigration was not racist because it was solely based upon religion, or that you are not really denigrating Muslims by calling Islam an ideology that threatens Western Values, you chose none of the above. Rather you positioned yourself quickly as a"victim" and pronounced you'd say no more until you had an apology. Like you were horribly insulted and victimized because you could not get a free pass to insult and victimize Muslims wholesale.

Muslims no, muslims who either engage in extremist behavior or enable extremist behavior, yes.  It's odd to me that you can't understand the distinction, as I've voiced it several times.

Quote:Sounds like you still want to demonize people as threats to "Western Values" based on religion without any one making a structural analogy to other forms of demonizing people as threats to Western values based upon race or ethnicity. Somehow all of that denigration is all ok if it's not about race. And perhaps all this accusation of accusation is to avoid discussion of the pattern.

Or perhaps I don't appreciate condescending and arrogant posts from a person whose only argument on this topic is to denigrate his opponent with a comparison to the most hateful regime in human history.  I mean, who would take exception to that?

Like I said, you made the bed, don't complain about all the crumbs in it.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2017, 02:01 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: What the heck happened on this board over the past year?   SSF and I have been on the same side of quite a few discussions.    That would have been considered madness before ....

I'm thinking he'd rather you didn't point that out.  

[Dill]

(06-27-2017, 09:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nope, once someone compares me to a Nazi I'm done have a rational discussion with them.  You made the bed, you lie in it.
And once again.   
Muslims no, muslims who either engage in extremist behavior or enable extremist behavior, yes.  It's odd to me that you can't understand the distinction, as I've voiced it several times.
Or perhaps I don't appreciate condescending and arrogant posts from a person whose only argument on this topic is to denigrate his opponent with a comparison to the most hateful regime in human history.  I mean, who would take exception to that?

Like I said, you made the bed, don't complain about all the crumbs in it.

LOL no one having a "rational discussion" turns tail because of a Nazi analogy.  You cannot extricate your position from a structural analogy between denigrating people based upon religion and denigrating people based upon race, all in the service of Western values. You would if you could, but you cannot. Hence all the Huff, victimhood, and deflection. And somewhere in all that you suppose I "made a bed" I now have to lie in, like it or not.  Wow.

But wait--looks like now you are appealing to a distinction between "Muslims" and "Muslims who engage in extremist behavior." And suddenly, unsurprisingly, you assert that I cannot "understand the distinction," as if my entire criticism of your position had not all along been based upon your erasure of this distinction via wholesale condemnation of Islam:  "As islam has quite adequately demonstrated that they are an ideology whose teaching should quite logically be feared by anyone who cherishes Western democratic and secular values."  So are we to understand ISLAM as the source of "mass rape, murder, torture, enslavement and terrorism" and not just "extremist Muslims"? How would you "voice the distinction" here? There are OK Muslims and you have no problem with them. But their religion is evil. Yet somehow they practice the religion and they are not evil?  Perhaps they are just evil potentiality waiting to break out?  No need to answer if you are "done with rational discussion."
 
Anyone who reads any of the many threads in which you and I have disagreed will see that you frequently resort to personal invective, often pretending I do not understand points you are making, as you do in the very post quoted here. The invective, plus other unsubstantiable accusations ("liar" " plagiarist") spin discussion away from any issue at hand. You do this to other posters as well (But "only two" others, right? No pattern there.)

Anyone who reads these threads will also see that I do not do resort to personal invective.  Rather, on most every thread I must spend a post asking you to stop the name calling and return to civil discussion. See post #54 on the "White Terrorist" thread for a recent example. Or look at post #181 and 182 on this thread--and your response. Once again I was asking you to end the personal invective and focus on issues. Is that what you mean by "arrogance" and "condescension"?