Go Back   UG Community @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com > UG Community > The Pit
User Name  
Password
Search:

Reply
Old 10-09-2013, 04:12 AM   #341
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnivean
Comparing our laws wasn't your point at all. Your point (implied) was that all Muslims in this country are too scared to express themselves and tell the truth about how they feel towards our western society because of an alleged extreme level of hate and anti-Muslim crime that exists only here in America, and thus my friend's testimony cannot be truthful as he is simply too scared. You made your case by giving examples of CITIZEN anti-Muslim hate crime here in America. This is also highly hypocritical given that there is the exact same anti-Muslim sentiment/hate crime in your own country.

So kind of you to tell me what my point was.
I didn't imply that 'all' Muslims are too scared to express themselves in America, I implied that there are a lot of Muslims in America who are too scared to express themselves because of the extreme level of hate and anti-Muslim crime that exists in America, and I certainly didn't say or imply that it exists 'only' in America.
Really, if the only way you can find to argue against me is to twist what I actualy said into something else, then it's probably time to give it up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnivean
It really doesn't matter. It's no more effective if Jones actually burns books or not. Again, this is why 9/11 happened in the first place. Extremists can brainwash people on their own. People will believe it whether it actually happened or not.

But the fact is that it did happen, the fact is that Jones' past Qur'an burnings were reported worldwide in the press drawing criticism from all walks of life, not just Muslims, and because it attracted worldwide criticism that just made it easier for extremists to use it as anti-American propaganda rather than using 'made up' propaganda.

Real events, especialy if they are confirmed, reported and criticised by the global community, are far more effective as propaganda than fictional events.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnivean
And I would argue that they didn't need to see any book burning to hate us and retaliate against us in the first place, so it simply doesn't matter.

Are you excusing the intentional goading of extremists into violence towards others by saying that the extremists could have 'made it up' anyway?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnivean
Jones is not hitting anyone with a stick, man. He burned books.

Yeah, the stick thing was something that we call a 'metaphor', which is a figure of speech that describes a subject by asserting that it is, on some point of comparison, the same as another otherwise unrelated subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnivean
He didn't harm anyone; he insulted a religion. And again, this is something my friend has made clear that the MAJORITY of Muslims on this earth can deal with.

So now you're confirming something that I've already said?
I've already called the extremists a 'minority' amoung Muslims, remember? But it still doesn't stop what Jones attempted to do being completely repugnant to practicly all Muslims though.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnivean
Sure, but the reason why that HAPPENED, why people felt the need to hijack and fly planes into big buildings, was because extremists fabricated and instilled reasons to hate enough to do so. This was their own twisted making.

And the reason why they could fabricate reasons for Muslims to hate Americans so effectively was because they could base their fabrications upon real anti-Muslim sentiment that was already present in America.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnivean
Okay so I guess Britain should stop allying with America, because it has actually happened and it IN PART could fuel extremism?

If you say so... personally I couldn't possibly comment on whether Britain should stop allying with America or not.... well... I could probably make a case for it, but any argument I'd make in favour of ending the alliance would be be based on a list of pros and cons, (and only if the list of pros outweigh the cons for ending the alliance) of which this would be just one issue.

But it's a fact that following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, senior British government representatives criticized the refusal of the US Government to heed advice regarding post-war plans for Iraq, specifically the Coalition Provisional Authority's de-Ba'athification policy and the critical importance of preventing the power vacuum in which the insurgency subsequently developed. Speaking on the same topic, The Duke of York said there were "occasions when people in the UK would wish that those in responsible positions in the US might listen and learn from our experiences", that there was 'healthy skepticism' in the United Kingdom toward what was said in Washington DC, and a feeling of 'why didn't anyone listen to what was said and the advice that was given'. CNN acknowledged that the Prince's views were widely shared in the UK at the time too.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnivean
You've effectively excused extremism time and time again in this thread. We're all sitting here saying there is no excuse for killing innocent people because you're mad that someone burnt your goddamn bible. But you are excusing them by essentially saying that it's in their "nature" to react to book burning that way, and that that should be taken into consideration when writing our laws.

I've done nothing of the sort and you know it, or you should know it if you'd actualy read and taken on board my comments during the conversation in this thread rather than trying to find ways of twisting my words, I have repeatedly said in this thread that there is 'no excuse' for the killing of innocents and that those who willingly goad others into violence should be held 'partially' responsible, not 'fully' responsible.

Look, take a bit of free advice from a seasoned debater, you stand a much better chance at success in a debate if you actualy made structured, well-thought-out arguments against the points your opponent raises instead of simply trying to smear your opponent with blatently false accusations. Y'see, the whole purpose of a debate between two sides is for each side to attempt to convince others who are watching, (our 'peers') to side with their particular argument, which our peers usualy decide by considering which side has the strongest argument. When you try obvious smear tactics in a debate, then, to our peers, it makes it look like you're clutching at straws and in turn makes your argument look weaker to them.
__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.

Last edited by SlackerBabbath : 10-09-2013 at 05:32 AM.
SlackerBabbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 07:33 AM   #342
rabidguitarist
Ethnomusicologist
 
rabidguitarist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Liverpool
Obviously he hasn't realised that they can just print more.
__________________
VENUSIAN
FB SC BC TW
Patterns In The Ivy present ethnicity on an intriguing and dedicated level. ~Ambient Exotica
A mesmeric melange of yearning voice, delicate piano and carefully chosen samples. ~Lost Voices
rabidguitarist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 11:33 AM   #343
VanTheKraut
How tough am I?!
 
VanTheKraut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kansas City, Kansas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackal58
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/p...rly-3000-qurans

Personally I think the guy is an idiot but I don't know why he was arrested.


Quote:
Terry Jones and Marvin Sapp — an associate pastor in Jones' church — were arrested Wednesday on a felony charge of unlawful conveyance of fuel. Jones was also charged with unlawful open-carry of a firearm, a misdemeanor.

Nothing to do with the Qurans.
__________________
Better, Faster, Stronger
Kansas City Chiefs
Kansas State Wildcats

Quote:
Originally Posted by airbrendie
Hey guys in the last 3 weeks I ****ed all the girls in this picture, what do you think?

Old Country. Old Blues. Old Rock. Old Metal. Gangsta Rap.
VanTheKraut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 11:36 AM   #344
Jackal58
Pit Daddy
 
Jackal58's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: If I was up your ass you'd know it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanTheKraut
Nothing to do with the Qurans.

That came out several hours after I posed my original question.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
Jackal58 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2013, 04:12 AM   #345
Carnivean
Banned
 
Carnivean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: n.a.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath
So kind of you to tell me what my point was.
I didn't imply that 'all' Muslims are too scared to express themselves in America, I implied that there are a lot of Muslims in America who are too scared to express themselves because of the extreme level of hate and anti-Muslim crime that exists in America, and I certainly didn't say or imply that it exists 'only' in America.
Really, if the only way you can find to argue against me is to twist what I actualy said into something else, then it's probably time to give it up.


Okay, fair. I'm not trying to twist your words at all, Slacker. Sorry if it came off that way.

Here's the deal: You didn't SAY all Muslims were too scared in this country. I know this because you never actually answered my question in the first place. Here was the question:
Quote:
Are you trying to imply that NO Muslim can ever feel safe or express themselves in this country?


To which you answered:
Quote:
Yes, I am implying that Muslims often do not feel safe in America.


So you did not actually answer my question. You see? I asked specifically if NO (meaning ZERO) Muslims could feel safe, because you had alleged that my friend's testimony was untruthful because he was too fearful to express himself within our borders. But alas, you have now unwittingly answered the question. You've acknowledged that not ALL Muslims feel too scared to express themselves, which would render your accusation against my friend's testimony unreliable and bogus, as clearly not all Muslims here shake in their boots when they express themselves. And in fact, based on the fact that the same hate and hate crime exists in your country, id say the vast majority of Muslims here feel just fine expressing themselves, which is probably the case in your country as well.

Also, it is true that your point had nothing to do with comparing our countries' laws, which you claimed in your previous post (would you like me to quote it?). Your point was about hate crime and fear of hate crime in America.


Quote:
But the fact is that it did happen, the fact is that Jones' past Qur'an burnings were reported worldwide in the press drawing criticism from all walks of life, not just Muslims, and because it attracted worldwide criticism that just made it easier for extremists to use it as anti-American propaganda rather than using 'made up' propaganda.

Real events, especialy if they are confirmed, reported and criticised by the global community, are far more effective as propaganda than fictional events.


Again, I'll point you to 9/11, and any other random attacks against Christians or westerners. Propaganda and misinformation does happen in these groups. That's the extremist business.


Quote:
Are you excusing the intentional goading of extremists into violence towards others by saying that the extremists could have 'made it up' anyway?


No I'm excusing Jones's book burning because his actions are protected by 1st amendment (this is also proven by looking at case law, but we've already been through this).

Quote:
So now you're confirming something that I've already said?
I've already called the extremists a 'minority' amoung Muslims, remember? But it still doesn't stop what Jones attempted to do being completely repugnant to practicly all Muslims though.


But, while it was repugnant to many people who practiced Islam, only a very small percentage of those people chose to retaliate in a senseless and violent way. Funny huh? And if insult and repugnance against a religion is all you require to arrest someone, then you'd have to arrest a whole lot of other people on a daily basis, for instance the writer in my scenario who makes fun of and insults Islam.

Quote:
And the reason why they could fabricate reasons for Muslims to hate Americans so effectively was because they could base their fabrications upon real anti-Muslim sentiment that was already present in America.


So, you've just admitted that they FABRICATE reasons to act violently towards America. And just to let you know, it had nothing to do with fabricating a perception of hate coming from America. The 9/11 terrorists fabricated a reality that America was trying to abolish and infringe upon their culture, country, and general way of life, which wasn't actually true. They had to convince others that it was true. They had to convince others that ramming airplanes into buildings was the only way to rectify the situation.


Quote:
If you say so... personally I couldn't possibly comment on whether Britain should stop allying with America or not.... well... I could probably make a case for it, but any argument I'd make in favour of ending the alliance would be be based on a list of pros and cons, (and only if the list of pros outweigh the cons for ending the alliance) of which this would be just one issue.

But it's a fact that following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, senior British government representatives criticized the refusal of the US Government to heed advice regarding post-war plans for Iraq, specifically the Coalition Provisional Authority's de-Ba'athification policy and the critical importance of preventing the power vacuum in which the insurgency subsequently developed. Speaking on the same topic, The Duke of York said there were "occasions when people in the UK would wish that those in responsible positions in the US might listen and learn from our experiences", that there was 'healthy skepticism' in the United Kingdom toward what was said in Washington DC, and a feeling of 'why didn't anyone listen to what was said and the advice that was given'. CNN acknowledged that the Prince's views were widely shared in the UK at the time too.


Well, I didn't ask for you to elaborate on and support your claim for why terrorists bombed London. I asked: end the alliance with the U.S. or not? You've gotten bombed by terrorists for simply allying with the U.S. I think it's an interesting question to ask since you are hinging on things that have actually happened.

Quote:
I've done nothing of the sort and you know it, or you should know it if you'd actualy read and taken on board my comments during the conversation in this thread rather than trying to find ways of twisting my words, I have repeatedly said in this thread that there is 'no excuse' for the killing of innocents and that those who willingly goad others into violence should be held 'partially' responsible, not 'fully' responsible.


Partially responsible means that the other side is partially excused, for you've now determined that part of the violent retaliation of the other side has at least been partially caused without choice, by the person "goading" them into violence. That's what responsible means: you have power or control over something and thus are accountable. It means that you are the cause of something.

Quote:
Look, take a bit of free advice from a seasoned debater, you stand a much better chance at success in a debate if you actualy made structured, well-thought-out arguments against the points your opponent raises instead of simply trying to smear your opponent with blatently false accusations. Y'see, the whole purpose of a debate between two sides is for each side to attempt to convince others who are watching, (our 'peers') to side with their particular argument, which our peers usualy decide by considering which side has the strongest argument. When you try obvious smear tactics in a debate, then, to our peers, it makes it look like you're clutching at straws and in turn makes your argument look weaker to them.


So are you assuming that you are a more "seasoned" debater than me?

Last edited by Carnivean : 10-12-2013 at 04:13 AM.
Carnivean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2013, 07:38 AM   #346
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnivean
Okay, fair. I'm not trying to twist your words at all, Slacker. Sorry if it came off that way.

Here's the deal: You didn't SAY all Muslims were too scared in this country. I know this because you never actually answered my question in the first place. Here was the question:


To which you answered:


So you did not actually answer my question. You see? I asked specifically if NO (meaning ZERO) Muslims could feel safe, because you had alleged that my friend's testimony was untruthful because he was too fearful to express himself within our borders. But alas, you have now unwittingly answered the question. You've acknowledged that not ALL Muslims feel too scared to express themselves, which would render your accusation against my friend's testimony unreliable and bogus, as clearly not all Muslims here shake in their boots when they express themselves. And in fact, based on the fact that the same hate and hate crime exists in your country, id say the vast majority of Muslims here feel just fine expressing themselves, which is probably the case in your country as well.

Just read what I'm saying.
My answer obviously implied that you are correct that not all Muslims in America feel threatened, and I didn't accuse your friend's testimony of being 'bogus', I mearly 'suggested' that because he's a Muslim in America talking to an American then it 'might' not be 'reliable' testimony because he 'might' not want to tell the American how he truly feels about America. The fact is, I don't know the guy, so I have no idea if his testimony is relaible or not, but I have to take the way that the information is presented to me into consideration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnivean
Again, I'll point you to 9/11, and any other random attacks against Christians or westerners. Propaganda and misinformation does happen in these groups. That's the extremist business.


That still doesn't change the fact that 'real events', especialy if they are confirmed, reported and criticised by the global community, are far more 'effective' as propaganda than fictional events.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnivean

No I'm excusing Jones's book burning because his actions are protected by 1st amendment (this is also proven by looking at case law, but we've already been through this).

And the argument I'm making is that it's a mistake to protect his actions under the First Amendment , that there are already exceptions to First Amendment protections, and that this sort of public behaviour should be added the exceptions to First Amendment protections.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnivean
But, while it was repugnant to many people who practiced Islam, only a very small percentage of those people chose to retaliate in a senseless and violent way. Funny huh? And if insult and repugnance against a religion is all you require to arrest someone, then you'd have to arrest a whole lot of other people on a daily basis, for instance the writer in my scenario who makes fun of and insults Islam.

I think you're failing to see the significance in the difference between just words and burning the Qur'an from a Muslim's point of view.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnivean
So, you've just admitted that they FABRICATE reasons to act violently towards America. And just to let you know, it had nothing to do with fabricating a perception of hate coming from America. The 9/11 terrorists fabricated a reality that America was trying to abolish and infringe upon their culture, country, and general way of life, which wasn't actually true. They had to convince others that it was true. They had to convince others that ramming airplanes into buildings was the only way to rectify the situation.

What's to admit? It's blatently obvious that Muslim extremists fabricate reasons for Muslims to hate America. I just stated that there's no point in making their spreading of hate propaganda against America and Americans easier by allowing Americans to give Muslims real reasons to hate America.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnivean
Well, I didn't ask for you to elaborate on and support your claim for why terrorists bombed London. I asked: end the alliance with the U.S. or not? You've gotten bombed by terrorists for simply allying with the U.S. I think it's an interesting question to ask since you are hinging on things that have actually happened.

And as I just hinted, I'd have to do a lot of research and weigh up the pros and cons of ending the alliance with the U.S. before I could give you an answer. In short, I've got better things to do than spending time on it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnivean
Partially responsible means that the other side is partially excused, for you've now determined that part of the violent retaliation of the other side has at least been partially caused without choice, by the person "goading" them into violence. That's what responsible means: you have power or control over something and thus are accountable. It means that you are the cause of something.


"Partially responsible means that the other side is partially excused"? What sort of logic is that? If two guys in America teamed up to murder someone, do they get one person's life sentence split between them (so that they only serve half a life sentence each) or do they both get a full life sentence each?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnivean
So are you assuming that you are a more "seasoned" debater than me?


According to you're profile, you were born on March 24, 2001, I was born In 1966 and have been actively debating with people since I was at school, which I left in 1981, where I was an active member of the debating team. I've continued to regularly get involved with debates and debating since leaving school, especialy since the the internet became widely available in the mid 90s, so, according to your profile, I've been debating for about 20 years longer than you've even been alive.

Does that answer your question?
__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.

Last edited by SlackerBabbath : 10-12-2013 at 09:09 AM.
SlackerBabbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2013, 07:46 AM   #347
Todd Hart
Do Sadists go to Hell?
 
Todd Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Is 'debate' really poor rhyming slang?
__________________
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
Todd Hart is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:38 AM.

Forum Archives / About / Terms of Use / Advertise / Contact / Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2014
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.