(May 31, 2015 at 2:38 pm)abaris Wrote: Ah, yes. I'm pretty sure, you didn't bother to click any of the links.
And whatever happened to Newton's principle? I admit to have been rather curious how you would justify attacking innocents for a crime some belonging to the same social group have been comittting. Not so much for mob justice, eh?
And we had that Indonesia strawman before. About four months ago in the other thread you created. You're not the only one having been there. But obviously not to many other majority muslim countries, such as Bosnia, which has an entirely different culture. Or Turkey for that matter.
The rest is textbook Harris again. Not worthy to be bothered with, since I refrain from discussing anyone's theory of certain groups being kind of subhuman by nature of their beliefs.
Oh the drama. Where to begin with all the fallacies.
First of all, I was addressing your reasoning. Your logic was "only 2% of terrorist attacks are inspired by Islam" so I assume your point was that since 98% of terrorism is inspired by other things, that means Islam is not so bad. Am I correct? If not, what is your point? If so, this "logic" is akin to Fox Noise saying "sure people have died in the Iraq War but a lot more people died from car crashes, so it's not so bad" or the cigarette executive saying "sure, people die from smoking but people also die from eating apple sauce, so it's not so bad."
Second, why do you think I would justify attacking innocent people? What is your logic here? Is this the slippery slope fallacy where since I justify intellectually attacking the idea of Islam that I must also justify attacking individual Muslims? If we criticize Islam today we'll be massacring Muslims tomorrow? I ask because you're reasoning is not well articulated.
Third, straw man? I don't think that word means what you think it means. I was responding to a direct quote from Hilary Clinton. Further, Indonesia is a moderate Islamic nation, compared to the majority of others.
Fourth, your conclusion IS a classic straw man. When have I ever said Muslims are "subhuman"? Or when has Sam Harris said that? You can cut the hysterical melodrama (that dances on the edge of Godwin to boot) with a knife on that one. Sheesh. But then again, this is the kind of raw emotion and near-incoherent rage that I expect from pig-headed, co-exist fetishistic, religion-enabling demagogues like yourself.
It seems Randy is not the only one in need of a lesson in how logic works.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
