[quote=surveyor][quote=urbanrealtor]
[quote=surveyor]I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.
(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)
[/quote][/quote]
dan, once again you fail reading comprehension. That is both being dishonest and a failure of understanding. That someone pointing out that islamofacism is due to the problems within the core koranic texts and instructions is not the same as calling every muslim “inherently warlike and all pious followers violent”. You were the one who said that, not me. I don’t think all muslims are violent and inherently warlike. I don’t call all Germans Nazis. But yet you seem to have trouble with distinctions like that.
Reading is so fundamental.
I am somewhat careful with what I say, unlike you. If you don’t get my facts, it’s because you’ve had a history of problems with reading comprehension. Even the media now is starting to admit he was a terrorist, so my analysis was at least factually correct, despite it being a purported “broad collection of anecdotes” and “debate-club rehash”.
If I am successful in calling out others’ lack of logical thinking because of their use of logical fallacies and ineffective arguments, that is a construct meant to foster debate, not intimidate it. More than anything it is your tendency to call people names that intimidates dissent.[/quote]
Your specific comment was that “…not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.”
If my paraphrase was not to your liking then I think your direct quote will suffice in drawing out my point.
This was a statement linking adherence to specific contemporary norms to a world religion in negative way.
Ergo, it constitutes normative prejudice about a group of people based upon religious affiliation.
That is, by definition, a bigoted statement.
Without the cheesy oh-Dan-you-have-no-reading-comprehension speech can you clarify what is inaccurate ?
I don’t think you can call me a name-caller (thus name-calling me) if I am drawing a logical conclusion based upon what you have said and the literal definition of bigotry (honestly you have called you a bigot).
This would be culpable and weak as an ad-hominem fallacy if you said that to be pious Muslims must make war and then I were to respond by calling you ugly.
What I did respond with was that your statements constituted bigotry. Look up the definition. I am not wrong.
I do find bigotry especially entertaining in minorities.
That you are asian, I find to be just gleefully ironic.
The hypocrisy just tickles me.
For me it fits neatly and weirdly in with your statements about canonical history being wrong and here-is-a-fringe-author-who-says-so as “evidence”.
