Antitheist Ex-Marine To Hold Draw Muhammad Rally in AZ Friday

[Thumpalumpacus]

Sure, they're sort of Muslim ish. Again, by definition, extremists take things to an extreme. Moderates, by definition, water down. 

By your definition.  You've ignored my point, while reiterating yours, and that adds nothing to this conversation.

Sure. I've known "moderate Christians" who are anti-gay and reliably vote Republican (the only thing "moderate" about them is they accept evolution). I've also known "moderate Christians" who are pro-gay rights and liberal Democrats. I did tell you that the "moderate" part tells us fuck-all about what the person really believes. I didn't say they water EVERYTHING down. Just that it's only the extremists who completely tow the line of an ideology. 

Firstly, that's "toe the line" -- forgive me pointing out a pet peeve of mine, but the goddamned language is the language -- use it correctly.

Secondly, you cannot even say that extremists toe the line unreservedly, because they must ignore the parts of the holy book of choice which advise moderation. You know, the whole "turn the other cheek" part which belies the "eye for an eye" part.  

You're ignoring the phenomenon of cherry-picking ... odd, considering how many times you've leveled that charge in another context.

It's not my definition and I don't think it's exclusive to the west either. I'm going by basic definitions of the words "radical" and "moderate". 

Nonsense:

Definition of radical in English:
adjective

1 (Especially of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough:
a radical overhaul of the existing regulatory framework


1.1 Forming an inherent or fundamental part of the nature of someone or something:
the assumption of radical differences between the mental attributes of literate and nonliterate peoples


1.2 (Of surgery or medical treatment) thorough and intended to be completely curative.

1.3 Characterized by departure from tradition; innovative or progressive:

2 Advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social reform; representing or supporting an extreme section of a political party:

3 Of or relating to the root of something, in particular.

3.1 Mathematics Of the root of a number or quantity.


3.2 Denoting or relating to the roots of a word.
3.3 Music Belonging to the root of a chord.
3.4 Botany Of, or springing direct from, the root or stem base of a plant.
4 [USUALLY AS EXCLAMATION] North American informal Very good; excellent:

The only possible denotation conforming to your usage is 3), and you've yet to actually demonstrrate that; you've restricted yourself to making claims, but you haven't demonstrated that the behavior of terrorists is at the root of the Muslim faith.

Now, for moderate:

Definition of moderate in English:
adjective

Pronunciation: /ˈmäd(ə)rət/
1 Average in amount, intensity, quality, or degree:

1.1 (Of a person, party, or policy); not radical or excessively right- or left-wing:

You're clearly not using "moderate" definitionally, and you've yet to demonstrate that you're applying "radical" correctly.

No, this is me using a dictionary. 

As shown above, this is incorrect.

No, because it's how words are defined. 

I'd suggest you look words up before you bandy them with a writer.

Occam's Razor: The reason that Islam seems to inspire such violence is because it does inspire such violence. 

Tautology is tautological.

I don't see Hindus killing and terrorizing people for mocking the Baghavad Gihta.

Oh, now you're moving the goalposts, requiring the violence to be in response to mockery. Duly noted.
Hindus kill all the time in the name of their faith:

http://www.milligazette.com/news/2353-hi...lent-faith
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_indiah.htm

I don't see Buddhists threatening to cut people's heads off for disrespecting Buddha.

More goalposting, I see.  But those who think Buddhism is peace, love, macreme, and waterbeds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/03/opinio...hists.html
http://time.com/3090990/how-an-extremist...ross-asia/

I can't think of the last time I heard about a Sikh terrorist.

Nor can I.

Some people blame Islamic terror on the oppression and economic conditions of the Middle East. Yet we see plenty of oppression and economic want elsewhere in the world without the same degree of religious inspired violence. Now all religions are crap and all of them have some potential to inspire sectarian violence but some clearly are more dangerous than others. 

The insistence among the pig-headed, religion-enabling, co-exist fetishistic demagogues that religion is never "really" the cause of religious violence, that it is always due to "mentally unstable" or "bad" people or some other cause, is a non-falsifiable hypothesis established by a bare assertion and defended with a chorus line of No True Scotsmen. 

I didn't say that religion is "never 'really' the cause of religious violence." Here, I'll do you the favor of cutting, pasting, and linking my issue with what's being said here:

Radicals do not define a movement, to the rationally- minded. One has to be terribly blinkered to se a sliver of a minority as representative ... that's like upholding Stalin and his Chekists as representative of leftists.

Silly, just bloody silly.

The next time you want to stick words in my mouth, remember this conversation, because while I have a lot of respect for you, I won't tolerate straw-manning from you any more than I would from your average creatard.

You're a better thinker than this.  You need to answer the point, rather than impute shit in order to push your own agenda -- or, alternatively, don't quote me in order to push your own screed.  I don't appreciate being used and I certainly don't appreciate having points imputed to me which I didn't make and don't hold.

Actually, we're talking about neither. We're talking about an ideology, specifically Islam. I have no doubt that you've known many nice Muslims in your time. That's great. Maybe they represent 99% of all Muslims out there. Sure, whatever. The fact remains that the extremists represent the molten core of Islam, what Islam is when it is fully and completely embraced.

No.  Reread the issue I had, which you responded to, and you'll see that my issue is with stereotypes, not ideologies.

Hey, since we're talking about percentages and what they do or don't represent, what percentage of all the Muslims in the world do you think have been implicated in terrorist attacks over the years? Out of all the Muslims, how many have attacked others for the "sin" of being non-Muslim, do you think?

Don't know. Don't care. Beside the point. Next?

I rest my case; your own words make it for me.