Shooting in Munich, let me guess who is responsoible

[Shadowy Man]

Islam is just very convenient ideology for turning disorganized scambags into organized terrorists.

I think it's more than that--it's a tool for turning the unhappy into terrorists. Without Islam many of them would have done nothing wrong.

I bet you could do the same with almost any religion.

 

[Bomb#20]

The above Lincoln meme is obviously a fake because it is anachronistic, the internet did not exist when Lincoln was alive. The Koran passage that you changed and attributed to Darwin contains nothing anachronistic in that way, <snip>

And it's obviously a fake because of a different reason: because it's a changed Koran passage, which isn't the sort of thing Darwin wrote. What the two obvious fakes have in common is that a reader would have to be an idiot to take either of them at face value.

The internet is full of memes improperly, and in many cases dishonestly, attributing statements to people who did not make them, and idiots on the internet fall for it all the time. For all I knew, you were one of those people falling for a meme, but I thought you were more intelligent than that, so I attributed it to you providing a fake quote on purpose. That is pretty much the definition of dishonesty.

No, it isn't. Look it up.

Instead of making a fool of yourself by defending the dishonesty, you probably should have

There was no dishonesty for me to defend. Instead of making a fool of yourself by doubling down on your idiotic accusation, you probably should have answered my question about the Lincoln meme. Here it is again. "Do you think that's dishonest?" Don't dance around it. Don't tell me why it's obviously fake without telling me whether that makes a difference. Don't offer distractions about people repeating memes they fell for. Was it dishonest when some guy first created that fake Lincoln quote on purpose? Yes or no?

noted in that same post that you were providing a fake quote, and laid out your reasoning for doing so.

Well, yes, I probably should have, were I to have assumed that TFT readers were idiots of the sort who couldn't figure both of those things out for themselves. But I thought you were more intelligent than that.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have a meeting with the other Greys to hash out how we are going to wrest control of this planet from the Reptillians.

Knock yourself out. Humanity is in no danger from the Greys. The Greys are idiots.

 

[KeepTalking]

And it's obviously a fake because of a different reason: because it's a changed Koran passage, which isn't the sort of thing Darwin wrote. What the two obvious fakes have in common is that a reader would have to be an idiot to take either of them at face value.

For the quote you faked, one would need to know quite a bit about the Koran to identify the quote as having originated there, or one would have to know a little about Darwin's nature to know he was unlikely to make such a statement. For the Lincoln quote, one would only need to know that Lincoln lived and died long before the internet came along to understand that it is a fake.

The internet is full of memes improperly, and in many cases dishonestly, attributing statements to people who did not make them, and idiots on the internet fall for it all the time. For all I knew, you were one of those people falling for a meme, but so I attributed it to you providing a fake quote on purpose. That is pretty much the definition of dishonesty.

No, it isn't. Look it up.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dishonest

characterized by lack of truth, honesty, or trustworthiness

Your faked quote lacked truth, as it attributed a quote from the Koran to Darwin. It lacked honesty as you knew the quote did not originate with Darwin, and you attributed it to him anyway. It lacked trustworthiness, as anyone trusting that you provided a legitimate quote from Darwin would be mistaken. So, 3 for 3 in the definition of dishonesty department.

Instead of making a fool of yourself by defending the dishonesty, you probably should have

There was no dishonesty for me to defend. Instead of making a fool of yourself by doubling down on your idiotic accusation, you probably should have answered my question about the Lincoln meme. Here it is again. "Do you think that's dishonest?"

Yes.

Don't dance around it.

I don't believe I have danced around it, I'm the one who called it dishonest to begin with. I'm not sure why you would think I would call it dishonest, and then immediately turn around and say it wasn't, just like I'm not sure why you think intentionally attributing a quote from the Koran to Darwin, with no indication that makes the reader aware that it was a fake, was anything but dishonest.

Don't tell me why it's obviously fake without telling me whether that makes a difference. Don't offer distractions about people repeating memes they fell for. Was it dishonest when some guy first created that fake Lincoln quote on purpose? Yes or no?

Yes. I will repeat it as many times as you like, it was dishonest. You even said I was doubling down on the accusation, so I'm pretty sure you realized I was standing behind it.

noted in that same post that you were providing a fake quote, and laid out your reasoning for doing so.

Well, yes, I probably should have, were I to have assumed that TFT readers were idiots of the sort who couldn't figure both of those things out for themselves. But I thought you were more intelligent than that.

You might consider that I immediately noticed it was a fake, labelled it as such, and revealed where you obtained the original quote you modified and attributed to Darwin. That might be something you could factor into your consideration of my intelligence. I don't assume that everyone who reads this board is as familiar with the Koran and Darwin as you and I seem to be, and in fact some of the regular participants in the Islam bashing threads on this forum seem to know very little about the Koran, and I don't doubt that they are just as ignorant when it comes to knowing about Darwin. In short, never underestimate the stupidity and/or gullibility of people on the internet.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think it's more than that--it's a tool for turning the unhappy into terrorists. Without Islam many of them would have done nothing wrong.

I bet you could do the same with almost any religion.

No, I doubt you could use something like Buddhism for terrorist purposes. Beyond that, I don't know. In practice it's Islam but that might simply be because they're the current crop of religious crusaders.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I bet you could do the same with almost any religion.

No, I doubt you could use something like Buddhism for terrorist purposes.

If someone really wants to do something violent for a political agenda, and also really wants to consider themselves Buddhist, that's exactly the sort of rationalizations a human being depends on to get through the day.

Sure, some (or many) Buddhists would decry the violence, and call the violent 'not true Buddhists,' but again, that can be seen in any religion where someone is ignoring 'the true tenets of my religion.'

 

[Shadowy Man]

I bet you could do the same with almost any religion.

No, I doubt you could use something like Buddhism for terrorist purposes. Beyond that, I don't know. In practice it's Islam but that might simply be because they're the current crop of religious crusaders.

I did say "almost", but there is indeed a wikipedia page about "Buddhism and violence".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

 

[Bomb#20]

In the first place, "one of many factors" is a new argument for your contention, not the argument you previously made.

You are mistaken.

Based on what? Here's an executive summary of the exchange:

NS: So rather than look at the roots of the causes of mass killings we should always just blame Islam, rather than trying to understand them in a way that stops them?
T: But you're not trying to understand them. When a terrorist says he commits an act of terror because of Islam, why don't you believe him? We seem to have no problem accepting when Tim McVeigh, Dlyann Roof, or Ted Kaczynski say what motivated them to do what they did.
ld: Let's apply that reasoning. When peaceful Muslim who lives in peace say that Islam is a religion of peace, why don't you believe him?
TS: Well, neither of those are misunderstandings of Islam. They're simply different interpretations of Islam. ... When a peaceful accountant cites Islam as a rationale for living a decent and honest life, he's not making a mistake about what Islam teaches, he's just emphasizing certain teachings and downplaying others.
ld: Exactly. Which means that the claim that Islam is inherently evil or good is wrong. Which means the claim that Islam drives people to ___________ is not really valid.​

Where in that conversation did you make an issue of there being multiple factors? You were talking about multiple outcomes.

My argument only assumes Islam is driving the particular action I specified: treating "God wants you to." as a good reason. If you're proposing that Islam is not driving that action... Name another factor. What the heck do you think there is besides religion that would incline a person to treat "God wants you to." as a good reason?

These particular terrorists did not say "Because God wants me to" (and terrorists do not commonly say "Gold to me to"). Your argument assumes facts not in evidence. So, you are mistaken, again.

Huh? Facts not in evidence about which particular terrorists? The discussion had moved on from the Munich attacker (who may or may not have yelled "God is great") to Trausti's generic "a terrorist". Some Muslim terrorists say things that amount to "God wants me to" and some don't. Some Muslim accountants say things that amount to "God wants me to" and some don't. (And, regardless of what they say, when you wrote "Your argument is wrong because ... it assumes Islam is driving their actions rather than simply one of many factors.", you appear to have de facto stipulated that "God wants me to" is a partial cause of their actions.)

In case you didn't recognize it, I was referencing W. K. Clifford's famous 19th-century essay. ..

I don't which 19th century essay you were referencing.

That's what the link was for. You hang out on an atheism forum for twelve years without ever encountering it? Wow. Do you never set foot outside the politics section?

People act on belief all of the time. And belief does not require knowledge. The fact you have a problem with reality is your problem, not mine.

No one denied that people act on unjustified belief all the time; what's in dispute is whether it's ethical to do so. Seems to me all religions that presume to tell people what to do are inherently evil.

Normal trust of strangers is based on evidence -- we have ample experience with strangers behaving well, and we know there's a good psychological explanation for them behaving well, since we live under governments that enforce good behavior. Under hunter-gatherer conditions there's a lot less trust of strangers, for good reason.

No one has ample evidence that any specific person whom they do not know is trustworthy. When we go into a restaurant to eat, we believe the chef and the servers are trustworthy but we don't know they are trustworthy.

And you don't have ample evidence that any specific place you haven't stepped before isn't hiding a land mine. Whoop-de-do -- it's called inductive reasoning. You have ample statistical evidence that most chefs and most servers don't poison their customers, based on which you can reasonably infer that a specific person whom you do not know probably won't poison you. You don't need to believe the chance that the chef won't poison you is 100% in order to bet that she won't.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I bet you could do the same with almost any religion.

No, I doubt you could use something like Buddhism for terrorist purposes. Beyond that, I don't know. In practice it's Islam but that might simply be because they're the current crop of religious crusaders.

There is violence from Buddhists, even though its teachings are to the contrary. I remember this about Thailand but there are other flash points and in Sri Lanka where there has been tension between the Buddhist Sinhalese and the Tamils.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

To save time I checked out Wikie

 

[repoman]

Anyone here good at German?

So, the bystander who yelled at the shooter and put the video online is now under legal action?

This is a crappy translation archive link followed by the original:

https://archive.is/mMIvq

http://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article157477536/Anwohner-nach-Balkon-Wutrede-angezeigt.html#disqus_thread

 

[Trausti]

 

[laughing dog]

Based on what?

From post #121
"A person's ideology is different than the ideas contained in a specific religion or philosophy. To say that Islam is evil because it helps to shapes a terrorist's ideology and action ais bogus because it also helps to shape a peaceful person's ideology and actions." [Italics added for this response]. Helping to shape a terrorist's ideology and action means that that other factors are also involved.

Huh? Facts not in evidence about which particular terrorists? The discussion had moved on from the Munich attacker (who may or may not have yelled "God is great") to Trausti's generic "a terrorist". ..

No, it had not (at least by me).

That's what the link was for.

Wow, you don't understand the meaning of "I don't care"!!!!

You hang out on an atheism forum for twelve years without ever encountering it? Wow. Do you never set foot outside the politics section?

You cannot distinguish the difference between the Politics forum and the Morals and Principles?

To answer your pointless question, I do step out of the Politics section when I wish to read or participate in discussions outside of Politics. But you are mistaken if you think I am interested in dealing with your mental masturbation on an irrelevant issue.

 

[Bomb#20]

In the first place, "one of many factors" is a new argument for your contention, not the argument you previously made.

You are mistaken.

Based on what?

From post #121 <rest snipped>

119 < 121

Q.E.D.

Even if it's a good new argument, that doesn't change the fact that your contention doesn't follow from your previous argument, which is what I said.

Repeating a false claim does not make true. You are mistaken.

The irony of your remark is no doubt lost on you.

 

[laughing dog]

119 < 121

Q.E.D.

Your response is post 124. 121<124. Q.E.D.

Your argument was based on a mistake due to sloppiness. Instead of admitting that mistake, you double down on your sloppiness to produce an invalid "proof". Most people Perhaps you should consider that most people quit digging when they find themselves in an unwanted hole.

 

[Trausti]

119 < 121

Q.E.D.

Your response is post 124. 121<124. Q.E.D.

Your argument was based on a mistake due to sloppiness. Instead of admitting that mistake, you double down on your sloppiness to produce an invalid "proof". Most people Perhaps you should consider that most people quit digging when they find themselves in an unwanted hole.

But you're not most people, are you laughing dog?

 

[Bomb#20]

For the quote you faked, one would need to know quite a bit about the Koran to identify the quote as having originated there, or one would have to know a little about Darwin's nature to know he was unlikely to make such a statement.

Gosh, how widespread can that knowledge be in an atheism board?

And no, one wouldn't even need to know that much; one would merely need to notice the incongruous mixture of religious and scientific writing.

... so I attributed it to you providing a fake quote on purpose. That is pretty much the definition of dishonesty.

No, it isn't. Look it up.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dishonest

characterized by lack of truth, honesty, or trustworthiness

Well, don't stop reading...

characterized by lack of truth, honesty, or trustworthiness : unfair, deceptive

Your faked quote lacked truth, as it attributed a quote from the Koran to Darwin. It lacked honesty as you knew the quote did not originate with Darwin, and you attributed it to him anyway. It lacked trustworthiness, as anyone trusting that you provided a legitimate quote from Darwin would be mistaken. So, 3 for 3 in the definition of dishonesty department.

But it contained a truth that I was honestly communicating: the truth that Darwin would have had to have said something like that in order for the previous poster's contention to be correct. When you ignore the "unfair, deceptive" clause in M.W.'s definition, and mulishly insist that truth has to be literal, you are defining all sarcasm to be dishonest. And, for that matter, all fiction -- as though "It was a dark and stormy night" were dishonest on the grounds that anybody trusting that its author was talking about an actual night that really was dark and stormy would be mistaken. You're entitled to your opinion, but it's an idiotic opinion.

... you probably should have answered my question about the Lincoln meme. Here it is again. "Do you think that's dishonest?"

Yes.

Don't dance around it.

I don't believe I have danced around it, I'm the one who called it dishonest to begin with. I'm not sure why you would think I would call it dishonest, and then immediately turn around and say it wasn't,

No, you didn't call the fake Lincoln quote dishonest, until just now. Nobody called it dishonest. Instead, you implicitly excused it from being dishonest, by contrasting it with mine, by claiming it was more obvious about being fake. Why did you even do that if you think it's dishonest too? Why do you claim you called it dishonest? Are you under the impression that "The above Lincoln meme is obviously a fake because it is anachronistic, the internet did not exist when Lincoln was alive." means "It's dishonest."? Or are you mixing up which quote we're talking about? Or are you mixing up what you said about one quote with what you said about the other?

just like I'm not sure why you think intentionally attributing a quote from the Koran to Darwin, with no indication that makes the reader aware that it was a fake, was anything but dishonest.

If you are sincerely not sure why I think what I wrote wasn't dishonest, even after I painstakingly explained it to you, then that's a problem with you, not a problem with me.

Was it dishonest when some guy first created that fake Lincoln quote on purpose? Yes or no?

Yes. I will repeat it as many times as you like, it was dishonest. You even said I was doubling down on the accusation, so I'm pretty sure you realized I was standing behind it.

Oh, for the love of god! The accusation I said you were doubling down on was the accusation against me, not some at-that-time non-existent accusation against the Lincoln artist. Duh! You appear to be seriously unable to keep track of what you were talking about when.

noted in that same post that you were providing a fake quote, and laid out your reasoning for doing so.

Well, yes, I probably should have, were I to have assumed that TFT readers were idiots of the sort who couldn't figure both of those things out for themselves. But I thought you were more intelligent than that.

You might consider that I immediately noticed it was a fake, labelled it as such, and revealed where you obtained the original quote you modified and attributed to Darwin.

I do indeed consider it. My expectations concerning the reading comprehension of TFT readers, which I relied on when I made that post, received a theory-confirming observation, when you did that. Why on earth would you think you have a point?

I don't assume that everyone who reads this board is as familiar with the Koran and Darwin as you and I seem to be... In short, never underestimate the stupidity and/or gullibility of people on the internet.

You have successfully shown people on the internet can be quite stupid, yes; but first produce somebody who says he took my fake quote literally, then you'll have something to base an iota of a case for criticizing my post on. Until then, explain this:

Now, if you will excuse me, I have a meeting with the other Greys to hash out how we are going to wrest control of this planet from the Reptillians.

Your claim lacked truth, as it asserted an appointment, a purpose, and an extraterrestrial identity you did not have. It lacked honesty as you knew you did not have any such meeting to go to. It lacked trustworthiness, as anyone trusting that you provided a truthful claim about your itinerary would be mistaken. So, 3 for 3 in the definition of dishonesty department, according to your asserted criterion for dishonesty. Are you claiming that you yourself are a dishonest person? Or are you ready to finally admit to yourself that sarcasm is not a species of dishonesty?

 

[Bomb#20]

119 < 121

Q.E.D.

Your response is post 124. 121<124. Q.E.D.

Your argument was based on a mistake due to sloppiness. Instead of admitting that mistake, you double down on your sloppiness to produce an invalid "proof".

Well, neither of those are misunderstandings of Islam. ... When a peaceful accountant cites Islam as a rationale for living a decent and honest life, he's not making a mistake about what Islam teaches, he's just emphasizing certain teachings and downplaying others. ... Islam isn't any more or less than what the followers of Islam say that it is.

Exactly. Which means that the claim that Islam is inherently evil or good is wrong. Which means the claim that Islam drives people to ___________ is not really valid.

That doesn't follow at all. Furthermore, the claim that "the claim that Islam is inherently evil or good is wrong" not only doesn't follow from what TS wrote, but it also doesn't follow from anything you may have written subsequently.*

You're right. I admit my sloppy mistake.*

(For KT's benefit,

(* [/sarcasm]
Full disclosure: the part after "That doesn't follow at all." is a faked quote from me. I put those words in my mouth not in order to trick people into thinking I said that but in order to sarcastically exhibit the sort of thing I would need to have written in order for LD's "121<124." argument to be a sound argument for his contention that I made a sloppy mistake and my "119 < 121" proof was invalid.

Also in the spirit of full disclosure, "Bomb#20" is not my real name. I have been posting under a fake name for many years. Also, "Tom Sawyer" is not the real name of the person who wrote the stuff that ld claimed meant Islam isn't inherently evil or good. "Bomb#20" and "Tom Sawyer" are the names of fictional characters (respectively from a movie and a novel) that for some reason appealed to real TFT posters, who choose to hide our identities behind these aliases.

Also, the novel was by Mark Twain. "Mark Twain" wasn't the novel's author's real name either, which makes not-Tom-Sawyer's choice of a pen name marvelously meta.

Also, "laughing dog" may or may not be laughing, but he is definitely not a dog. The above quotes should not be taken to be claims on my part that any text appearing on TFT was posted here by an actual canine.))

 

[KeepTalking]

This is all I really care to comment on here:

No, you didn't call the fake Lincoln quote dishonest, until just now.

I misread your previous post, and did not realize you were talking about the Lincoln meme there. I had already covered which meme was dishonest, and which was not, as well as my reasoning why. Obviously you are not going to own up to it, and I have no intention of continuing this derail with you

- - - Updated - - -

(For KT's benefit,

Okay this post is just pure douchebaggery. Why don't you just go ahead and fuck yourself.