Oh, but they swear to big mo...so imma let em own it.

That's why I'm a historian and not a religitard!

(June 4, 2018 at 1:37 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: So, this entire post is nothing more than a tu quoque fallacy.

Nicely player sir!

Thank you for informing us that all religions are guilty of religious based massacres. I don't think any of us were aware of that.

Oh, and by the way. I was vacationing in Washington DC during the time of the ethnic cleansing (it might have been this Srebrenica Massacre specifically, I can't remember), and guess what I did? I spent 2 days of my vacation protesting the Bosnian Embassy over the "ethnic cleansing".

Yes, you read that correctly. An atheist, protested the slaughter of Muslims.

See if you are able to wrap your head around that...

Where is the tu quoque fallacy in my OP?

An example on the fallacy is:

Quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque#Example

In the trial of Nazi criminal Klaus Barbie, the controversial lawyer Jacques Vergès tried to present what was defined as a Tu Quoque Defence—i.e., that during the Algerian War, French officers such as General Jacques Massu had committed war crimes similar to those with which Barbie was being charged, and therefore the French state had no moral right to try Barbie. This defense was rejected by the court, which convicted Barbie.[5]

I fail to see where I excused "terrorists" when I said:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-55207-p...pid1768434

Quote:AtlasS33 said:

That is one thing that extremists never understand: when Non-Muslims massacre Muslims; terrorists from the Muslim side spawn for generations.
When Muslims massacre Non-Muslims; terrorists from the Non-Muslim side spawn for generations.

Crimes done by a person who is a Muslim will generate non-Muslim hate response.
Crimes done by a person who is a non-Muslim in the name of anti-Islamic ideas towards Muslims will generate a Muslim hate response.

As for protesting for the dead Muslims, thank you. Seriously, I'm grateful. The west has good people in it still, I never denied that, protests and stances helped a lot with the criminalization of so many brutalities carried on against civilian Muslims, but these good people are getting butchered by the right.

You can't realize the disastrous victory of Trump in the U.S, and the insane expansion of populism in the European states; favoring mob mentality over reason.

Quote:You can't realize the disastrous victory of Trump in the U.S

I can, sir!

(June 4, 2018 at 4:58 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: Where is the tu quoque fallacy in my OP?

An example on the fallacy is:

Quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque#Example

In the trial of Nazi criminal Klaus Barbie, the controversial lawyer Jacques Vergès tried to present what was defined as a Tu Quoque Defence—i.e., that during the Algerian War, French officers such as General Jacques Massu had committed war crimes similar to those with which Barbie was being charged, and therefore the French state had no moral right to try Barbie. This defense was rejected by the court, which convicted Barbie.[5]

I fail to see where I excused "terrorists" when I said:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-55207-p...pid1768434

The tu quoque fallacy literally translates to "you too".

Your entire post seem to be saying "see, Islam isn't the only religion responsible for terrorism. Other religions suck, too".

Yeah, you won't get any disagreement from anyone here.

I NEVER said you were excusing terrorism.

We get it, Atlas - bad things have happened to Muslims.  But no atheist or Christian on the boards (as far as my spies are able to suss out) has ever been party to these atrocities you're so very, very fond of digging up.  Collectively, I'm sure we wish these had never happened.

But you're beginning to sound like a one-note Johnny.  Getting tiresome.

Boru

(June 4, 2018 at 4:22 pm)Khemikal Wrote: So says the rosy islamist.   

Mad props on standing between them and the mongols...hows that been working out?  You don;t actually know who I am, do you...who I identify with?

You don;t think that any self respecting christian european would sport that mullet...do you?  Ask around.  Me and mine never needed protection -by- your abrahamic barbarian hordes....we needed protection -from- them.  

You failed, and most of us are dead on account of it.

Some European Christians ate Muslims (literally):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma%27arra

Quote:The Siege of Maarat, or Ma'arra, occurred in late 1098 in the city of Ma'arrat al-Numan, in what is modern-day Syria, during the First Crusade. It is infamous for the claims of widespread cannibalism displayed by the Crusaders.

Quote:Some European Christians ate Muslims (literally):

*shrug*  And some European Christians forced other European Christians to eat other European Christians.

But the Crusaders you referenced didn't eat Muslims because they were Muslims.  They ate Muslims because they (the Crusaders) were starving.  This isn't an example of religious persecution.

Boru

(June 4, 2018 at 5:23 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(June 4, 2018 at 4:58 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: Where is the tu quoque fallacy in my OP?

An example on the fallacy is:



I fail to see where I excused "terrorists" when I said:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-55207-p...pid1768434

The tu quoque fallacy literally translates to "you too".  

Your entire post seem to be saying "see, Islam isn't the only religion responsible for terrorism. Other religions suck, too".

Yeah, you won't get any disagreement from anyone here.

I NEVER said you were excusing terrorism.

"You too" is an excuse; like a killer saying "I kill people of that land because one person from it killed too".

Quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque#Example

In the trial of Nazi criminal Klaus Barbie, the controversial lawyer Jacques Vergès tried to present what was defined as a Tu Quoque Defence—i.e., that during the Algerian War, French officers such as General Jacques Massu had committed war crimes similar to those with which Barbie was being charged, and therefore the French state had no moral right to try Barbie. This defense was rejected by the court, which convicted Barbie.[5]

I posted this example to you in my previous comment: The lawyer Verges tried to excuse Barbie of his crimes, by pointing to the crimes of French generals. In other words: "don't throw stones on people houses when yours is made of glass".

Terrorists do this: they kill you, and justify their crimes using crimes done by the other side.



I said, that doing a crime, will generate believers in the above. Thus; a reaction equal to it in magnitude, but in reverse.

---

(June 4, 2018 at 7:31 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: We get it, Atlas - bad things have happened to Muslims.  But no atheist or Christian on the boards (as far as my spies are able to suss out) has ever been party to these atrocities you're so very, very fond of digging up.  Collectively, I'm sure we wish these had never happened.

But you're beginning to sound like a one-note Johnny.  Getting tiresome.

Boru

The board has visitors who never comment their opinions; topics like this are a good reminder to them.
The majority of people doesn't share your opinion; as it seems.

I'm not writing for the entertainment of people.

---

(June 4, 2018 at 7:39 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:Some European Christians ate Muslims (literally):

*shrug*  And some European Christians forced other European Christians to eat other European Christians.

But the Crusaders you referenced didn't eat Muslims because they were Muslims.  They ate Muslims because they (the Crusaders) were starving.  This isn't an example of religious persecution.

Boru

They didn't view Muslims as humans; that had religious bases, the Pope's speech also at that time indicates that.

Fulcher of Chartres report of what pope urban II said at Clermont is generally regarded as the earliest and most accurate.  Written around 1100, shortly after the Crusaders finished murdering anyone who did not look like them, he recounts how anyone going east to recover the holy lands from the muslims would receive a free pass to heaven.


https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/urban2-5vers.asp




Unusually, we have an actual letter from the then pope fuckface in which he still fails to mention that his precious 'holy land' had been overrun centuries earlier instead of being some sort of recent atrocity.  So rare that we get an actual document written in the hand of the criminal himself!

Quote:Urban II: Letter of Instruction to the Crusaders, December 1095
Urban, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to all the faithful, both princes and subjects, waiting in Flanders; greeting, apostolic grace, and blessing.
Your brotherhood, we believe, has long since learned from many accounts that a barbaric fury has deplorably afflicted an laid waste the churches of God in the regions of the Orient. More than this, blasphemous to say, it has even grasped in intolerabe servitude its churches and the Holy City of Christ, glorified b His passion and resurrection. Grieving with pious concern at this calamity, we visited the regions of Gaul and devoted ourselves largely to urging the princes of the land and their subjects to free the churches of the East. We solemnly enjoined upon them at the council of Auvergne (the accomplishment of) such an undertaking, as a preparation for the remission of all their sins. And we have constituted our most beloved son, Adhemar, Bishop of Puy, leader of this expedition and undertaking in our stead, so that those who, perchance, may wish to undertake this journey should comply With his commands, as if they were our own, and submit fully to his loosings or bindings, as far as shall seem to belong to such an office. If, moreover, there are any of your people whom God has inspired to this vow, let them know that he (Adhemar) will set out with the aid of God on the day of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary, and that they can then attach themselves to his following.