RE: "With or without religion.." Quote. Is Weinberg wrong?
January 4, 2015 at 5:57 pm
(This post was last modified: January 4, 2015 at 6:04 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(January 3, 2015 at 1:11 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I just don't get the same vibe from the 187 Marches. Did the 'Murrica Firsters go ape-shit about the mexican flag? Yes. Don't put that on the marchers. The 'Murrica Firsters go ape-shit about everything.
Yeah, you missed my point.
(January 4, 2015 at 12:12 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:(January 3, 2015 at 8:13 pm)Alex K Wrote: Where do you get that number???
From the word "if".
It's called a hypothetical.
And as such, is about as useful as tits on a boar.
(January 4, 2015 at 11:48 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:(January 4, 2015 at 6:50 am)Alex K Wrote: Since it didn't come from a previous claim which you attempted to address or refute, you were obviously insinuating that it's somehow a probable number. Why else would you bring it up.
I was addressing the look-it's-just-a-crazed-minority-that-become-radicals argument.
My response is if even only 10% (a pretty small minority) become radicalized, that's still too many.
You think the 10% number is high? How about if only 1%? Still too many.
The ideal percentage is zero. How far do you want to go to achieve that ideal? How small must the minority be before the media stops tarring the majority?
(January 4, 2015 at 3:27 pm)Drich Wrote: In 8 pages of dialog has anyone pointed out the fact that Christ and Paul both tell us there are no 'good people.' If there are no 'good people.' Then the quote the op posted is flawed.
Who cares what they think? The first is mythical, the second deluded.
