(09-15-2016, 11:44 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Well at least you took the high road when dude admitted his mistake.

(09-15-2016, 12:08 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm glad you're more concerned about someone mocking someone for lying than about the actual lying itself. 

Keep fighting those noble fights.

(09-15-2016, 02:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm happy that my actions make you happy; yours did not; therefore, I felt the need to respond.

I view "my bads" to be in scarce supply around here and I will venture to guess that they will become scarcer; when those that do admit their error have their noses is rubbed in it and they are called a liar.

I do thank you for giving me permission to continue to point out such things in an effort to have a more civil forum.

(09-15-2016, 08:17 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Remember that time you started a thread that falsely claimed an innocent mosque once hosted a vile homophobe and doesn't deserve sympathy for being the victim of arson, and then you chastised others for "the lengths they'll go to coddle the religion of brown people"?


And then you realized that you were wrong?

That was funny. The lengths people will go to attack the religion of brown people...

(09-15-2016, 02:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not going to engage in another attempt of yours to derail a thread by feigning concern over the civility of others. He acted like an ass when people questioned the false pretenses of his thread. If you had chimed in when he was saying things like "religious f*ck*ry", your Miss Manners act might be a little more believable. 

Better luck with your next derailing attempt. 

(09-15-2016, 02:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not going to engage in another attempt of yours to derail a thread by feigning concern over the civility of others. He acted like an ass when people questioned the false pretenses of his thread. If you had chimed in when he was saying things like "religious f*ck*ry", your Miss Manners act might be a little more believable. 

Better luck with your next derailing attempt. 

(09-15-2016, 02:47 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: I'm pretty consistent here. The mosque didn't meet the condition, so they're deserving of sympathy.

The mosque that hosted the shithead can burn in hell.

Also, given that people didn't bother to click my second link and made assumptions about my initial argument, you all still go to astonishing lengths to defend religious fuckery when it's done by brown people.

I mixed up my mosques. But my other point still stands.

(09-15-2016, 02:50 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Nobody questioned my pretenses. They created strawmen from them, including you.

So please go on.

(09-15-2016, 02:58 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Ummm.... I first asked if HIS mosque had a history of anti-gay sermons. You told me to check the link. When I then realized you were trying to pass the SECOND mosque off as the one that was attacked, I pointed out that they were not the same.

What straw man did I argue?

And what point are you making that still stands? That the mosque that was attacked doesn't deserve sympathy or that people who call for the death of gay people are shitty humans?

(09-15-2016, 03:04 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: You didn't ask if his mosque had a history of anti-gay sermons; you asked if they had a history of being jihadist & extreme, implying that you thought that my argument was that they weren't deserving of sympathy because  they had a history of being jihadist/extreme, not that they had a history of hosting anti-gay speakers:

"Wait, are they known for being jihadist/extreme, or are they just the mosque that he happened to go to?

Because if it's the latter, that's really pathetic".

You'll probably backpedal from this and try to say that having anti-gay speakers is "jihadist and extreme", even though you know  damn well that wasn't what you meant. If you wanted to question what my actual point was, you would've pointed out the mosque mixup in response to my OP instead of doing it after I pointed out that you weren't attacking my actual argument.

(09-15-2016, 03:15 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Calling for gay people to be killed is extremism. Considering how big of a supporter I am for gay rights, I'm not sure why you're trying to suggest that I wouldn't include that under the fold of "extremism". 

You're doing a horrible job at trying to save face here. 

(09-15-2016, 02:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt, I blame me. You were right on point for "calling him out".

My reply in post #16 was also uncalled for and imflamitory.

(09-15-2016, 03:18 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: There's nothing extreme about killing gay people in Islam. A ton of Islamic countries have that codified in law. There's nothing Jihadist about it either.

So even if that was your angle (It wasn't.), you'd just be showing that you don't know the definition of either term.

(09-15-2016, 04:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: In America there is. 

(09-15-2016, 04:46 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Again, why does that matter in a thread about Islam/A mosque? 

(09-15-2016, 04:46 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Again, why does that matter in a thread about Islam/A mosque? 

(09-15-2016, 04:48 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Because the mosque in question was on American soil and thus has to adhere to American law?

(09-15-2016, 07:58 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: I'm in the wrong and I'm tired of being told it.

So I'm taking my ball and going home.