Anyone who cares to (which is no one) can go back and read that, and the preceding context, for themselves.
Quite so. They'll see I'm right and you're wrong.
And they'll likely arrive at the same conclusion I did: that you think the courts don't matter because thugs can enforce Sharia freely in either scenario (which you haven't demonstrated, despite countless opportunities). Your initial reply bears this out, and did not contain any of the above caterwauling about supposed strawmen:
Where the heck am I supposed to have accused you of a strawman? I was perfectly clear that your misrepresentation of what I wrote was a misunderstanding caused by carelessness, not a deliberate attempt to set up a weakened argument for the purpose of being knocked down.
If you tell a victim of street thugs that the force that the people who beat him and robbed him backed up their demands with was illegitimate, do you think that will make him feel better about having been subjected to it? Do you think if he was afraid something like that would happen to him, the fact that what happened was illegitimate makes his fear paranoid?[your italics]
Precisely. As you can see, the point of that response was to refute DZ's characterization of such fears as irrational.
It was only after you were pressed for evidence to substantiate the plausibility of this scenario - and you realized you didn't have any - that you started whining about how your views were being misrepresented.
I didn't accuse DZ of misrepresenting anything because he didn't misrepresent me; he merely made a poor counterargument. The switch from substance to a conversation about the conversation is all on you.
Either (a) there is no hypothetical observation that you would accept as evidence in favor of the existence of no-go zones, or (b) you intend to deny that such zones exist regardless of evidence and you're afraid of being caught moving the goal posts.
I already told you why I won't answer: the question is <expletive deleted> dumb and not worth the time it takes to read, far less answer.
And yet, to you, repeatedly making excuses for not answering is worth the time it takes.
Intelligent people don't need an explanation as to why autonomous Muslim enclaves in the middle of Western cities would be known to the outside world. The only explanations as to why they wouldn't be are tinfoil conspiracy theory <expletive deleted> on par with 9/11 truthism and FEMA camp nuttery.
In the first place, "no-go zone" and "autonomous Muslim enclave" are not synonyms. And in the second place, who the heck has claimed there are no-go zones which aren't known to the outside world? The people who I've heard claiming there are no-go zones say they're well-known to the outside world. I've never heard anyone say they aren't known and try to explain that away.
Perhaps you misunderstood the question. What I asked you was
Supposing, hypothetically, that there were such areas, how do you think we would know?
Did you perhaps take that to mean "Supposing, hypothetically, that there were such areas, what makes you think they'd be known to the outside world?" That's not what it means. It means exactly what it says. I'm not disputing that there would be observable consequences; of course there would be. I'm trying to get you to say what the observable consequence of a no-go zone would be.
You're refusing to say what the observable consequence would be because you're afraid I'll produce links to cases of that consequence, aren't you?
you'll be showing that what you really meant was "He who makes assertions I disagree with, backs them up, using credible sources."
The point is that it would be a waste of my time to do so, and my time is precious enough as it is. The same is true of the idea that Muslims will legally impose Sharia on non-Muslim Europeans. It is an outlandish claim and the burden rests on those making it, not on anyone else to prove that it won't happen.
Hypocrite. You made an assertion; you said "He who makes assertions, backs them up, using credible sources."; and you're refusing to back up your assertion, even to the extent of showing there's a 51% chance you're right.
Your hypocrisy aside, public support for legal imposition of Sharia on non-Muslim Europeans is rising. Therefore, merely extrapolating from present trends implies that it will happen. Therefore, to claim that it will not happen is the same thing as claiming that
something is going to interrupt the present opinion trend before public support gets high enough to win. That's a
positive claim. That's sufficient to put the burden of proof on you. What's going to interrupt the trend?
"Weasel out", says the guy who's trying to redirect attention away from his unsourced actual claims onto hypothetical claims I might potentially make in the future. We both know that if "any of my claims" had included no-go zones, and if I had found credible sources for them, and if I had posted them, then you would simply declare the bar for credibility to be higher than whatever I'd found. So you go first. Tell our readers how high the bar is.
"Our readers," if there are any, understand that this is a forum for reasoned debate, which means no one should be making claims here that require evidence they can't produce, that they shouldn't be here unless they know what constitutes a legitimate source, and are prepared to defend said sources from scrutiny.
Are you still making believe I said there are no-go zones? Are you still making believe that your claim that Sharia on non-Muslims "is never going to happen in Europe" doesn't require evidence? Are you still making believe that I'm asking you to say what constitutes a credible source because I don't know and not in order to stop you from moving the goalposts?
So you are arguing, in effect, that what DZ meant was that a person afraid only of Sharia is a racist but a person afraid of Sharia might be a nonracist provided he's also afraid of a drop in demand for his pork products? That would be a rather stupid thing for DZ to have meant; but even if he meant that, it's still an extraordinary claim.
And this just confirms that you will deliberately misinterpret things and muddy the waters when it suits you - in this case, to avoid owning up to the fact that you obviously put words in DZ's mouth.
You have no grounds for those charges. If DZ thinks my summarization did not adequately express his meaning he's free to correct me; your two cents worth is just hairsplitting over infinitesimal shifts in theoretical category boundaries.
Your link is paywalled, and thus incomplete, but it doesn't matter; your claim was that "People in European ghettos have already been forced to pay for being Christian," not that prison inmates have. Wholly separate things.
So, do you actually have any evidence to back up your claim? And if not, do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that you can't substantiate it?
So your theory is what? That all the Islamist thugs in Britain have been locked up? Or that a crime the most heavily supervised Islamist thugs in Britain commit right under the noses of the authorities is a crime that unsupervised Islamist thugs loose in an underpoliced ghetto would shy away from?
Oh, sorry, you don't need a @#$%ing theory. All you need is a bullheaded refusal to ever convict on circumstantial evidence. There's a reason refusal to convict on circumstantial evidence is grounds for juror dismissal.
