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

[abaris]

This kind of logic reminds me of when Fox Noise was reporting on American casualties in W Bush's Iraq War of Aggression, that they were insignificant in comparison to the number of Americans who die in auto accidents, so really it's no big deal. 

Or the cigarette executive who once, on camera, admitted "sure smoking is dangerous but so is eating too much apple sauce." The logical fallacy he floundered on being apparently that sure, smoking is bad but really, the odds are good that you can just as easily die from something else anyway. 

I'm struggling to identify how to categorize this particular fallacy: "Sure, this is dangerous, but hey, look at all the other danger that's out there, so it's no big deal." 

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.

[DeistPaladin]

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, let me explain it in more detail and let's use a non-religious example. 

Let's say you're on a game show. You have to predict the political views of two people. The only information you're given is one proudly says he's a "radical libertarian" and the other says he's a "moderate libertarian". You are then asked a series of questions pertaining to their views on various issues of government involvement with the economy, regulation, education, civil liberties or the "safety net". 

The radical you can pretty well predict. He might surprise you in a few ways but you can fairly confidently predict that he'll tow the line when it comes to anything that pertains to libertarian ideology. 

With the "moderate" you might as well be blindfolded and throwing darts at a board. He could believe anything. For example, maybe he thinks that "some" government safety net is a good thing, just not too much, and your guess is as good as anyone else's as to how much that is. Those who self-identify with "moderate" labels tell you next to nothing about what they believe.

In sum:

• Radicals believe wholeheartedly. 
  
• Moderates kind of believe "...but..." 
  

Hence, show me the radicals of any ideology and I'll show you what that ideology in its purest form teaches. Radical Muslims are Muslims. Moderate Muslims are sort of Muslim ...ish. 

They're all Muslims. Just as you don't like someone else doling out your self-identity, you shouldn't do it for others.

The fact is, some moderates can be very intense believers about some things, say the requirement for hajj, others can be much more concerned about being purelyl halal, but they're both moderate Muslims in the sense that they're not willing to kill non-Muslims over their differences.

Just because they're not radical by your Western definition doesn't mean they're not Muslim. This is simply you practicing a No True Scotsman: [/i]All[/i] true Muslims are radicals. You wouldn't accept this logic from a Christian asserting that WBC demonstrators aren't True Christians. Why are you then pushing the same fallacy?

Because it supports your own narrative, that's why.

This is why "oh, don't worry, those are just the tiny fringe of radicals" falls flat with me. Even if we assume that they really are only a tiny fringe of the ideology, that only tells me only those who really take their Islamic faith seriously will turn into homicidal maniacs. Thanks but that's not a comfort. 

I don't care whether or not you're comforted. I think you're entirely missing a kep issue in the matter, which is the use of religion as a fig-leaf to cover what are already mentally unstable thoughts and actions. In other words, you're confusing cause and effect, in my opinion; you have no way of konwing that radicals are radicals because they've read the Koran and take it seriously, of if they've read the Koran and cherry-picked the [i]suras which support and strengthen their mental instability.

And Capt.Awesome makes a refreshingly astute point to ask what Muslim-majority country represents these "moderate Muslims"? Indonesia, perhaps? I've been to this country and trust me, you don't want to be a non-Muslim, a non-believer or gay in this country.

Unlike Indonesia, most Muslim-majority countries aren't democratic. The one which you've chosen to highlight is ... and you know what? That government, democratically elected, is co-operating with American efforts to crack down on Muslim extremists:

While the extremists have been largely marginalized by Jakarta’s bare-knuckle counterterrorism efforts over the past decade, they have posed a nagging threat since being bolstered by foreign fighters returning from jihad missions in Afghanistan in the late 1990s.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014.../?page=all

See also:

http://blogs.wsj.com/indonesiarealtime/2...extremism/
http://blogs.wsj.com/indonesiarealtime/2...ys-report/

Now, the country may well have backwards laws regarding human rights, no doubt -- but that doesn't speak, necessarily, to the attitudes of the people therein. And although Indonesia is the most populous Islamic country, it is far from the only one.

I lived in Iran for four years. The Muslim majority there is much larger, percentage-wise, than that of Indonesia. I was a non-Muslim. Your argument from personal experience doesn't impress me. We're talking about people, not governments.

---

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." 

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?

[paulpablo]

How can you say that the realities you presented don't make it into the media when the links you posted were from 4 different online distributors of media, some of them who are publishers of newspapers and each of them have thousands and thousands of readers?

Well, do you get these figures from the mainstream networks when turning on you tv?

I happened to watch the Breijvik attack unfold live on the German news and event channel Phoenix. When the bomb exploded, the first thing they did was to call an expert on islamic terror into the studio, while I was there thinking, why the hell would Islamists attack Oslo of all places?

That should give you the right impression of how the mainstream media goes about their coverage.

The links you gave showing the information that you said isn't covered by the mainstream media are publishers of the mainstream media. 
 The metro is the 4th largest British newspaper and you showed the link from its website which is viewed by millions, in England where I live it's given out for free on public transport so when I used to catch the bus I used to read it all the time. I don't know how big the independent is but I've heard of it and I don't often read newspapers.


And as for the realities presented by these websites they don't really make a difference to how I personally view Islamic terrorism for many reasons.
First of all it's just a crude pie chart, it doesn't show the severity of any of the terrorist attacks, the casualties, who was injured or killed.  They also don't show the amount of sympathy and support each group gets from other people within that group.

The pie chart only shows how many terrorist activities were taken out by each group, that's a poor indicator of which group to be most afraid of.  If people were to use this as an indicator of who to mostly be afraid of then environmental activists and animal rights activists would be one of the scariest groups on there.  But they mainly set fire to housing developments and various tactics like that to prevent the cutting down of trees and things like that.

If the pie charts showed the deaths of people resulting from different terrorist groups then those would be interesting figures to see.

Another thing that a pie chart can't possibly show is how crude and attention grabbing the acts of terrorism are.  You can't really blame the media for reporting more on Islamic terrorism when the acts of terrorism are designed specifically to attract media attention and to show off the acts of violence, for example putting heads on spikes, chopping down a guy in broad daylight in the center of London with machetes while waving blood stained hands at the camera talking about the quran, flying two planes into two separate buildings, that's always going to get someone's attention.

Also not mentioned in the pie charts is how sympathetic other members of each group are towards the terrorism.  Now according to the pie chart the group responsible for the most terrorism is latinos.  From my personal experience which I suppose might not count for much, I've been going on latino chatrooms for months and months when I was trying to learn Spanish, I never heard anyone expressing severe hatred for another nation, never heard anyone being sympathetic towards any terrorists or anything like that.
Now compare that to when I joined Islamic forums for a few days and it wasn't hard to find people on there who hate China, hate Russia, hate America.  There were many people quoting bin laden on there and his views on Jewish people, people who saw the meteor in Russia as a sign from god, people who would have pictures of the planes going into the twin towers as their avatar.
I don't know what it's like in America but in the UK we also have a number of people actually coming from here to go to join ISIS.

[DeistPaladin]

They're all Muslims.  

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

The fact is, some moderates can be very intense believers about some things, ...

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. 

Just because they're not radical by your Western definition doesn't mean they're not Muslim.

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". 

This is simply you practicing a No True Scotsman: [/i]All[/i] true Muslims are radicals.  

No, this is me using a dictionary. 

Because it supports your own narrative, that's why.

No, because it's how words are defined. 

I think you're entirely missing a kep issue in the matter, which is the use of religion as a fig-leaf to cover what are already mentally unstable thoughts and actions.  In other words, you're confusing cause and effect, in my opinion; you have no way of konwing that radicals are radicals because they've read the Koran and take it seriously, of if they've read the Koran and cherry-picked the [i]suras which support and strengthen their mental instability.[/i]

Occam's Razor: The reason that Islam seems to inspire such violence is because it does inspire such violence. 
I don't see Hindus killing and terrorizing people for mocking the Baghavad Gihta. I don't see Buddhists threatening to cut people's heads off for disrespecting Buddha. I can't think of the last time I heard about a Sikh terrorist. 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. 

We're talking about people, not governments.

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. 

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?

[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.

[Minimalist]

How strange....I'm not used to actual journalism from CNN any more.  See, guys?  You can still do it.

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/06/anti-m...t-was-just

Jon Ritzheimer, the man who organized an anti-Muslim protest rally and “draw Muhammad” cartoon contest on Friday in Phoenix, reportedly launched aGoFundMe page to raise $10 million to “protect his family.”
KPNX television reporter Brahm Resnik tweeted on Sunday that Ritzheimer had set up a GoFundMe page to raise $10 million to “protect his family or run against” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

One thing wingnuts understand fully: how to turn their own idiocy into dollars. And of course, he turned to Facebook for the ask.

[CapnAwesome]

Oh the drama. Where to begin with all the fallacies.

etc etc etc*

It seems Randy is not the only one in need of a lesson in how logic works.

*added by me

Classic DeistPaladin post. This is basically how all of your arguments go with so much smugness thrown in. Start with accusing the person of fallacies. Point out fallacies from the wikipedia fallacy list. Little else. Tell them they need to learn logic. All that was missing was some stolen meme.

The funny thing is that you consider yourself a master debater. literally 0 pro-debaters start anything by accusing the other person of using logical fallacies. I'm not sure I can recall it happening at all really. This is only done by internet hacks. I'm sure that you are a nice guy in real life and we agree on this point about Islam (although you still managed to smugly insult me in the process of agreeing) but nobody thinks this is good debate or logic outside a very small circle of people who are overly engaged in strictly internet debate on forums. The same people who break things down sentence by sentence. Which is also not how professional debaters or even academic papers work. This is why I don't really feel like engaging with you on many occasions. You don't really engage at all. Everybody who disagrees with you on anything is accused of using poor logic. What has a higher chance of happening: A. Everybody who disagrees with you uses bad logic. B. Maybe your personal bias is clouding your judgement. You aren't polite at all, in fact you manage to be simultaneously insulting and overly offended at the same time. I think more people need to stop engaging and start calling you out on it and the forums (and possibly you) would actually learn something for a change.