Inventing Moderate Islam

Lastly, my apologies for the lack of quote boxes - I'm still trying to figure this board out a bit..

Please, don't apologize for the lack of quote boxes, it is nice to read a coherent and articulate thought expressed without the interruption and gimmick of those boxes. I make that statement fully aware that I have frequently overused those boxes.

Welcome to the LVC board. I've very much enjoyed reading your recent posts.
 
Furthermore, the early years of Christianity may have had theological disputes, but not bloody ones.

you serious?


* As soon as Christianity became legal in the Roman Empire by imperial edict
(315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan
priests were killed.
* Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.
* Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegean, the
Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, and the Heliopolis.
* Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous
as "temple destroyer." [DA468]
* Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468]
* Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because
they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian
teachings..."
* In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.
* In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand
of Christian authorities. [DA466]
* The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces
with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister
named Peter, in a church, in 415.


* Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to
Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]
* Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes:
between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain 5/27/1234 near
Altenesch/Germany. [WW223]
* 15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by Knights
of the Order. Number of victims unknown.

Crusades (1095-1291)
* First Crusade: 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41]
* Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96
thousands. [WW23]
* 9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then Turkish), thousands respectively.
[WW25-27]
* Until January 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered
(number of slain unknown) [WW30]
* After 6/3/98 Antioch (then Turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000
slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women and children) killed. [WW32-35]
Here the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy's]
tents - save that they ran their lances through their bellies," according to Christian
chronicler Fulcher of Chartres. [EC60]
* Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the
subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by the
Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis. [WW36]
* Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (Jewish, Muslim,
men, women, and children). [WW37-40]
In the words of one witness: "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a
carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after
that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Savior’s tomb, to honor
it and to pay off our debt of gratitude."
* The Archbishop of Tire, eyewitness wrote: "It was impossible to look upon the
vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human
bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not
alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions
that roused the horror of all that looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to
gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an
ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within
the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished." [TG79]
* Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following summer
in all of Palestine the air was polluted by the stench of decomposition". One million
victims of the first crusade alone. [WW41]
* Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered "in the name of
Our Lord Jesus Christ". [WW45]
* Fourth crusade: 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims
unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian. [WW141-148]
* Rest of Crusades in less detail: until the fall of Akron 1291 probably 20 million
victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas alone). [WW224]
Note: All figures according to contemporary (Christian) chroniclers.

Heretics and Atheists


* Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus and six
followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany [DO26]
* Manichaean heresy: a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice birth
control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics) was exterminated in
huge campaigns all over the Roman Empire between 372 C.E. and 444 C.E.
Numerous thousands of victims. [NC]
* Albigensians: the first Crusade intended to slay other Christians. [DO29]
The Albigensians (Cathars) viewed themselves as good Christians, but would
not accept Roman Catholic rule, and taxes, and prohibition of birth control. [NC]
Begin of violence: on command of pope Innocent III (the greatest single mass
murderer prior to the Nazi era) in 1209. Beziérs (today France) 7/22/1209
destroyed all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Number of victims (including
Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbors and friends) estimated
between 20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]
* Carcassonne 8/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed. [WW181]
* Subsequent 20 years of war until nearly all Cathars (probably half the
population of the Languedoc, today southern France) were exterminated. [WW183]
* After the war ended (1229) the Inquisition was founded 1232 to search and
destroy surviving/hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the stake 1324. [WW183]
* Estimated one million victims (Cathar heresy alone), [WW183]
* Other heresies: Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, and many
others. Most of these sects exterminated, (I believe some Waldensians live today,
yet they had to endure 600 years of persecution) I estimate at least hundred
thousand victims (including the Spanish inquisition but excluding victims in the
New World).
* Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada, a former Dominican friar, allegedly was
responsible for 10,220 burnings. [DO28]
* John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was burned at the
stake in 1415. [LI475-522]
* Michael Sattler, leader of a Baptist community, was burned at the stake in
Rottenburg, Germany, May 20, 1527. Several days later his wife and other
followers were also executed. [KM]
* University professor B.Hubmaier burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna. [DO59]
* Giordano Bruno, Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for seven
years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori (Rome) on
2/17/1600.
* Thomas Aikenhead, a twenty-year-old Scottish student of Edinburgh
University, was hanged for atheism and blasphemy.
Witches
* From the beginning of Christianity to 1484 probably more than several
thousand.
* In the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern scholars several
hundred thousand (about 80% female) burned at the stake or hanged. [WV]
* Incomplete list of documented cases:
The Burning of Witches - A Chronicle of the Burning Times

* 15th century: Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain. [DO30]
* 1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all English
as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into action). [DO31]
* 1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million rebels in
(then Spanish) Netherlands. [DO31]
Between 5000 and 6000 Protestants were drowned by Spanish Catholic Troops,
"a disaster the burghers of Emden first realized when several thousand broadbrimmed
Dutch hats floated by." [SH216]
* 1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope
Pious V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee. [DO31]
* 17th century: Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader. After
murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, "cutting off his head, his
hands, and his genitals... and then dumped him into the river [...but] then,
deciding that it was not worthy of being food for the fish, they hauled it out again
[... and] dragged what was left ... to the gallows of Montfaulcon, 'to be meat and
carrion for maggots and crows'." [SH191]
* 17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany: roughly 30,000
Protestants were slain. "In a single church fifty women were found beheaded,"
reported poet Friedrich Schiller, "and infants still sucking the breasts of their
lifeless mothers." [SH191]
* 17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant): at least 40% of
population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]
Jews
* Already in the 4th and 5th centuries Christians burned synagogues. Number of
Jews slain unknown.
* In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed on
command of Bishop Innocent of Dertona in Northern Italy. The first synagogue
known to have been burned down was near the river Euphrates, on command of
the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388. [DA450]
* 694 17. Council of Toledo: Jews were enslaved, their property confiscated,
and their children forcibly baptized. [DA454]
* 1010 The Bishop of Limoges (France) had the cities' Jews, who would not
convert to Christianity, expelled or killed. [DA453]
* 1096 First Crusade: Thousands of Jews slaughtered, maybe 12.000 total.
Places: Worms 5/18/1096, Mainz 5/27/1096 (1100 persons), Cologne, Neuss,
Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund, Kerpen, Trier, Metz,
Regensburg, Prague and others (All locations Germany except Metz/France, Prague/
Czech) [EJ]
* 1147 Second Crusade: Several hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully,
Carentan, and Rameru (all locations in France). [WW57]
* 1189/90 Third Crusade: English Jewish communities sacked. [DO40]
* 1235, Fulda/Germany: 34 Jewish men and women slain. [DO41]
* 1257, 1267: Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton,
Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated. [DO41]
* 1290 Bohemia (Poland) allegedly 10,000 Jews killed. [DO41]
* 1337 Starting in Deggendorf/Germany a Jew-killing craze reaches 51 towns in
Bavarian, Austria, Poland. [DO41]
* 1348 All Jews of Basel/Switzerland and Strasbourg/France (two thousand)
burned. [DO41]
* 1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly burned
alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians in 200 years of ancient
Roman persecution of Christians). [DO42]
* 1389 In Prague 3,000 Jews were slaughtered. [DO42]
* 1391 Seville's Jews killed (Archbishop Martinez leading). 4,000 were slain,
25,000 sold as slaves. [DA454] Their identification was made easy by the brightly
colored "badges of shame" that all Jews above the age of ten had been forced to
wear.
* 1492 In the year Columbus set sail to conquer a New World, more than
150,000 Jews were expelled from Spain, many died on their way: 6/30/1492.
[MM470-476]
* 1648 Chmielnitzki massacres: In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain.
[DO43]
(I feel sick...) this goes on and on, century after century, right into the kilns of
Auschwitz.
Native Peoples
* Beginning with Columbus (a former slave trader and would-be Holy Crusader)
the conquest of the New World began, as usual understood as a means to
propagate Christianity.
* Within hours of landfall on the first inhabited island he encountered in the
Caribbean, Columbus seized and carried off six native people who, he said, "ought
to be good servants ... [and] would easily be made Christians, because it seemed to
me that they belonged to no religion." [SH200]
While Columbus described the Indians as "idolaters" and "slaves, as many as
[the Crown] shall order," his pal Michele de Cuneo, Italian nobleman, referred to
the natives as "beasts" because "they eat when they are hungry," and made love
"openly whenever they feel like it." [SH204-205]
* On every island he set foot on, Columbus planted a cross, "making the
declarations that are required" - the requirement - to claim the ownership for his
Catholic patrons in Spain. And "nobody objected." If the Indians refused or delayed
their acceptance (or understanding), the requirement continued:
"I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter in your
country and shall make war against you ... and shall subject you to the yoke and
obedience of the Church ... and shall do you all mischief that we can, as to vassals
who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict
him." [SH66]
* Likewise in the words of John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts Bay
Colony: "justifying the undertakers of the intended Plantation in New England ... to
carry the Gospel into those parts of the world, ... and to raise a Bulworke against
the Kingdome of the Ante-Christ." [SH235]
* In average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist-imported
smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of "the marvelous goodness
and providence of God" to the Christians of course, e.g. the Governor of the
Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as "for the natives, they are near all dead
of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we
possess." [SH109,238]
* On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a
rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural
resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead. [SH204]
* The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and Spanish
raids.
* As one of the culprits wrote: "So many Indians died that they could not be
counted, all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere. The stench was
very great and pestiferous." [SH69]
* The Indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned
alive. As "they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take
Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into
hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather
go to hell." [SH70]
* An eyewitness described what happened to his people:
"The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They
built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent
strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Savior
and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and
they were burned alive." [SH72]
Or, on another occasion:
"The Spaniards cut off the arm of one, the leg or hip of another, and from
some their heads at one stroke, like butchers cutting up beef and mutton for
market. Six hundred, including the cacique, were thus slain like brute
beasts...Vasco [de Balboa] ordered forty of them to be torn to pieces by
dogs." [SH83]
* The "island's population of about eight million people at the time of
Columbus's arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half before the year
1496 was out." Eventually all the island's natives were exterminated, so the
Spaniards were "forced" to import slaves from other Caribbean islands, who soon
suffered the same fate. Thus "the Caribbean's millions of native people [were]
thereby effectively liquidated in barely a quarter of a century". [SH72-73] "In less
than the normal lifetime of a single human being, an entire culture of millions of
people, thousands of years resident in their homeland, had been
exterminated." [SH75]
* "And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of Mexico and
Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The exquisite city of Tenochtitlán
[Mexico city] was next." [SH75]
* Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other Spanish conquistadors likewise
sacked southern and mesoamerican civilizations in the name of Christ (De Soto also
sacked Florida).
* "When the 16th century ended, some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the
Americas. By that time probably more than 60,000,000 natives were
dead." [SH95]








not all catholic, but enough.
 
Hi hrmwrm,

Thanks for giving us all that long list of historic events to read through. While I obviously can't reply to everything on it, I must say that you have made two fatal errors which undercut your entire post:

1) When I said "early years of Christianity" I was referring to the years between 33-381 AD, a period beginning roughly with the birth of Christianity and ending with the Council of Constantinople, the second ecumenical council of the Catholic Church. Thus by this dating criteria, the vast majority of your points simply do not apply.

2) I also said that Christian "theological disputes" where not "bloody" disputes. This is very, very important because I am NOT referring to how Christians and non-Christians interacted (e.g. Christians vs Pagans or Christians vs. Muslims) but rather Christians vs. Christians. In early Islam, when theological disputes arose between Muslims, one side litterally killed the other. Because Christianity is based on reason, Christians argued logically and then the bishops met at a council and made a theological decision as this is what the Apostles set down in Acts of the Apostles, chapter 15.

So please, if you plan on undercutting my argument, show me a list of Christians killing Christians over theological debates in the first, second, third, or fourth centuries. Christians are sinners like everyone else, but if we want to get an idea of what Christianity is all about - and what Islam is all about - let's look back at their origins and see what's there. What we will see is a Christian religion based on reason and an Islamic religion based on no reason and thus prone to violence.
 
The hrmwrm "wall 'o' text" post: a convenient tool for the simply minded to ratify their smug sense of superiority while subverting honest discourse and avoiding the risk of being shown for a fool. :rolleyes:
 
I would also like to point out here that our argument regarding Islam really ought to remain about Islam. While I don’t mind discussing Christianity, it seems to me that when one is accusing Islam of ‘x’ - simply saying Christianity does ‘x’ as well sounds like a fallacious ad hominem attack on Christianity and does nothing to get Islam off the hook.

Of course, some may simply reject Islam and Christianity – but this is why my fundamental point about the two remains (and I have yet to see anyone refute it): Islam’s theological belief that God is so powerful that he is not bound by reason or logic make’s Islam impossible of true moderation. Christianity can ask for forgiveness when its adherents fail to live up to Christ-like action because Christians can use both faith and reason to say that a Christian, or group of Christians, have not acted morally. Islam has no ultimate theological grounding in reason whatsoever, so there can be no objective norm to criticize the behavior of jihadists who claim their actions are the will of Allah.

This is the point Pope Benedict XVI raised in his Regensburg Address a few years back. If Islam cannot base itself in reason, as Christianity does, it will always be susceptible to violent, terrorist activity.
 
Lastly, my apologies for the lack of quote boxes - I'm still trying to figure this board out a bit..

Hey, I only planned on hopping on for a little while tonight, so I'll read your post later, but I noticed this at the end and figured you would like a little help with that.

To enter something as a quote, you can surround it with this [ quote ] at the beginning (without the spaces) and [ /quote ] at the end.
it will look like this

If you want to make it even fancier [ quote = FIND ] text goes here [ /quote ] will look like this

FIND said:
text goes here

You can also use indent tags if you like, which are simply [ indent ] and [ /indent ] at the end. There should also be buttons at the top of the message box to do this for you.

It will end up looking like this
and will continue
for as many lines as you like
until you use the /indent tag​

Hope that helps, good luck with posting.

If you want to find out more, google vBulletin

The hrmwrm "wall 'o' text" post: a convenient tool for the simply minded to ratify their smug sense of superiority while subverting honest discourse and avoiding the risk of being shown for a fool. :rolleyes:

You know.... that is the kind of post that really adds nothing to discussion and only seeks to destroy any chance at honest discourse.
 
You know.... that is the kind of post that really adds nothing to discussion and only seeks to destroy any chance at honest discourse.

Neither did Hrmwrm posting it.
That's a piece of widely circulated, unattributed, historically inaccurate and misleading internet rant that is embraced and circulated by radical atheists and Muslim propagandists....

-like this guy:
http://te-in.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=18901237714&topic=13976
 
Neither did Hrmwrm posting it.
That's a piece of widely circulated, unattributed, historically inaccurate and misleading internet rant that is embraced and circulated by radical atheists and Muslim propagandists....

-like this guy:
http://te-in.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=18901237714&topic=13976

IDK, I haven't taken the time to read it. I just get tired of seeing shag post that same thing over and over again. If he doesn't want to respond to what someone is typing, then he should quit responding, especially if his only response usually tends to be something dismissing another persons post based upon their "character", or what shag wants to portray that person as.
 
You know.... that is the kind of post that really adds nothing to discussion and only seeks to destroy any chance at honest discourse.

Actually, it was simply an attempt to shine a light on hrmwrm's effort to subvert honest discourse by throwing an overwhelming number of "facts" that would be impractical to respond to.

It is a technique hrmwrm has habitually utilized on this forum over the years...when he isn't simply calling those who disagree with him "@$$holes" or "dipsh!ts".

I think you are confusing efforts to highlight subversion of discourse with attempts to subvert discourse. They are not the same thing.
 
Federali Aundy said:
I also said that Christian "theological disputes" where not "bloody" disputes.
i see you missed the heretics section then. i don't think the gnostics and a few other christian sects are properly represented in there either.


Calabrio said:
That's a piece of widely circulated, unattributed, historically inaccurate and misleading

evidence? assertion doesn't equal proof.
 
The hrmwrm "wall 'o' text" post: a convenient tool for the simply minded to ratify their smug sense of superiority while subverting honest discourse and avoiding the risk of being shown for a fool.

and the standard useless shag reply. anything to actually say against it?
 
Actually, it was simply an attempt to shine a light on hrmwrm's effort to subvert honest discourse by throwing an overwhelming number of "facts" that would be impractical to respond to.

either respond to them, as federali did, or keep your mouth shut.
apparently it's only you incapable of honest discourse.
if you can't properly respond to a post, then stop coming off as a flaming troll.
 
either respond to them, as federali did, or keep your mouth shut.
apparently it's only you incapable of honest discourse.
if you can't properly respond to a post, then stop coming off as a flaming troll.

Tell me, what is the "proper way" to respond to habitual attempts to undercut discourse, bait people of faith and disparage anyone who points out that incivility?

I have tried to engage trolls and propagandists numerous times in civil discourse on this forum and it simply gets thrown back in my face with increasingly nasty and defensive posts that impugn me and/or intentionally distort what I have to say instead of taking the time to first understand and then confront the merits of the arguments that I present.

In fact, this thread serves as a prime example of that. Here is an image from post #66 of that thread.
shaggie.jpg


And from post #122 of the same thread:
Hrmwrm.jpg


These images, in no way further honest, productive dialog or serve to highlight someone's attempts to subvert that dialog. They are simply expressions of vitriol that have no place in civil discourse.

What is the "proper way" of dealing with that? How can there be honest dialog with someone like that?
 
assertion doesn't equal proof.

Yet that is all your post offers.

Again, no shame in dishonestly shifting the burden of proof instead of attempting to logically meet it.

:rolleyes:
 
These images, in no way further honest, productive dialog or serve to highlight someone's attempts to subvert that dialog. They are simply expressions of vitriol that have no place in civil discourse.

What is the "proper way" of dealing with that? How can there be honest dialog with someone like that?
Are you being rhetorical? Is this a trick question? :D
 
Thanks Calabrio and thanks FIND for the quote tips. I believe I'll give them a try right here!

hrmwrm said:
i see you missed the heretics section then. i don't think the gnostics and a few other christian sects are properly represented in there either

Actually, I didn't miss the heretics section. It's just that they all fall out of the period of time I spoke of (i.e. 33-381 AD). When violence is seen between Christians in the few centuries after 313 AD (when Christianity was legalized in the Roman Empire) it is usually not direct violence between Christians but state-run persecution of dangerous, heretical sects claiming to be Christian. This was particularly the case in the Byzantine Empire because the Empire had a difficult time not overly involving itself in the affairs which the Church itself was to govern. This problem of secular power has had very negative effects on Eastern Orthodox Christianity and has even helped block a restoration of unity between them and the Catholic Church.

In the West, heresy was by and large settled through counciliar decree and the leadership of saints. However, the Albigensians (in the latter middle ages) were first slaughtered by civil authorities who sought their land - and the Catholic Church stepped in with the Inquisition to protect the innocent and give all a fair trial. In some cases, the death penalty was given for good reason because the Albigensians believed that all humans needed to die in order to free their souls from their wicked material bodies. Thus even infanticide was practiced among them and both Church and State authorities saw the Albigensians as a truly legit threat to the human race.

Again, it seems we're talking more about Christianity than about Islam here. I don't mind it, but the real question is whether or not any reasonable discussion of faith is found in the early history of Islam. History tells us their faith was spread through invasion, war, and violence. If it wasn't for the successful Chrisitan *defensive* victories at Byzantium in 717 AD and at Tours in 732 AD, Europe would have been an Islamic stronghold. I think we owe a great deal to our Christian defenders.
 
Tell me, what is the "proper way" to respond to habitual attempts to undercut discourse, bait people of faith and disparage anyone who points out that incivility?

I have tried to engage trolls and propagandists numerous times in civil discourse on this forum and it simply gets thrown back in my face with increasingly nasty and defensive posts that impugn me and/or intentionally distort what I have to say instead of taking the time to first understand and then confront the merits of the arguments that I present.

In fact, this thread serves as a prime example of that. Here is an image from post #66 of that thread.
shaggie.jpg


And from post #122 of the same thread:
Hrmwrm.jpg


These images, in no way further honest, productive dialog or serve to highlight someone's attempts to subvert that dialog. They are simply expressions of vitriol that have no place in civil discourse.

What is the "proper way" of dealing with that? How can there be honest dialog with someone like that?

How long are you going to rely on that excuse? If you don't want to talk, then quit talking. Simple as that. How about instead of continuously relying on telling everyone how dishonest and unqualified to speak your opponents are, why don't you actually try debating issues instead of ad hominem. Jeez, you are linking to a thread over a year old where you acted like an ass and got called on it. Grow the hell up. Move on.

You never try to engage anyone civilly. The moment you are disagree with, you begin ad hominem and incredibly long proof by verbosity posts or posts quoting nearly every blog you can find that supports your worldview. Facts are irrelevant to you in most cases, and you accuse anyone of misrepresenting you or lying anytime they call you on your BS.
 
FIND, why are you on this forum? It is clearly not to engage in honest discourse, to question your own views or to understand and critically examine views you are unfamiliar with. In fact, you habitully reject opposing views out of hand, especially when they call into question your own viewpoints. You also tend to lie about those who attempt to engage you in a way that would necessitate critical examination of your viewpoint.

If your focus here is not honest inquiry, what is it? What do you gain out of this forum?
 
shagdrum, why are you on this forum? It is clearly not to engage in honest discourse, to question your own views or to understand and critically examine views you are unfamiliar with. In fact, you habitully reject opposing views out of hand, especially when they call into question your own viewpoints. You also tend to lie about those who attempt to engage you in a way that would necessitate critical examination of your viewpoint.

If your focus here is not honest inquiry, what is it? What do you gain out of this forum?

applies the same.
 
FIND said:
Jeez, you are linking to a thread over a year old where you acted like an ass and got called on it. Grow the hell up. Move on.
thanks for also seeing the point he fails to realize
 
FIND, why are you on this forum? It is clearly not to engage in honest discourse, to question your own views or to understand and critically examine views you are unfamiliar with. In fact, you habitully reject opposing views out of hand, especially when they call into question your own viewpoints. You also tend to lie about those who attempt to engage you in a way that would necessitate critical examination of your viewpoint.

If your focus here is not honest inquiry, what is it? What do you gain out of this forum?

so..... Going back to that because you got called on your crap?
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top