[quote=urbanrealtor]
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.[/quote]
Ah, but you missed a VERY important part of the quote. Allow me to illustrate:
[quote=surveyor]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 per the koran (sic.).[/quote]
The previous statement established that according to the koran, it was required for muslims to wage war against unbelievers. By me stating they are required to do so, it is because it is stated in the koran. Many of the jihadists will tell you that is why they are going to war because they are required to per the koran, as I have “reported.”
[quote=urbanrealtor]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.[/quote]
Oh, so if I talk about a religion in a negative way, I’m supposed to be a bigot? If I report on what jihadists say about their own koran or if I tell you what the koran says, I’m supposed to be a bigot? Nice try dan.
Because I even said not all muslims want to go to war, so there was a distinction between the individuals practicing the religion and the tenets of a religion being practiced by islamofacists.
[quote=urbanrealtor]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).[/quote]
By trying to portray me as a bigot, you were attempting to stifle debate. That is why I called you a name-caller. The name-calling argument is generally a weak argument. Instead of debating the facts, you try to label your opponent negatively.
And this is your favorite tactic. Instead of debating the facts you throw out “bigot” or “fringe-author”. Your tendency to demonize any who disagree with you instead of debating the facts, that is what makes you a name-caller. That is not a personal attack, such as your calling me a bigot. That is your debating strategy.
[quote=urbanrealtor]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”.
Just several centuries of liberal media I guess.[/quote]
See? Right there, you’re using the name-calling argument again. Instead of debating the facts, you’re arguing that because a “fringe-author” submitted evidence, you’re instantly dismissing him instead of debating the evidence itself.
Weak sauce, dan. As always.
Because no matter what you call me, it doesn’t change what the koran says, what the jihadists say, and your inability to debate the facts.
