Muslims are not inherently violent

[Coelacanth]

Hpslugga,

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Hpslugga]

Yes, I do want to stick with #2. If you're going to sit there and suggest that people with different values than you are worse/lesser people, we have nothing more to discuss. That's a non-starter.

 

[Hpslugga]

Getting back to the OP, and away from this insanity which I (mostly) have apparently incited, what THEU said is correct and I think it's worthy of a discussion on West Mall (or Quack's) in itself. He said "You and I might agree that the debate about which 'religion' is most brutal are the religions of 'communism' and 'capitalism'." Of course, like I said, my only nitpick is the redundant effect produced by separating "capitalism" and "communism" in the context that he used the terms. Nonetheless, he (at least I believe) is correct in accusing them of having "a history of brutality and has seen humanity as an means to an end." And borna_horn is correct when he says "Muslims are not inherrently violent." No race of people has some sort of inherently violent trait. The only entities that have inherently violent tendencies are institutions that "see humanity as a means to an end," namely nation states.

 

[Coelacanth]

Hpslugga,

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Hpslugga]

First, just to get this out of the way, I'm not rattled in the slightest bit. You've an insanely high opinion of yourself if you really believe that. It's almost as if you're trying to convince yourself of these things moreso than anyone else.

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Coelacanth]

Hpslugga,

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Coelacanth]

And by the way, why didn't you berate buckhorn for being "Yay team"? Why go after 100p?

And while we're at it, where the heck is buckhorn to give some credit for making a thorough analysis of a source, rather than simply cherry-picking? Or is it about team, after all?

 

[Hpslugga]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Coelacanth]

Hpslugga,

In reply to:

---

---

 

[buckhorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Coelacanth]

buckhorn,

So you really only care about using sources when they agree with your team, regardless of whether they're properly understood? I mean, it was his use of the source that prompted your earlier post. But now that the source has been more fully examined and doesn't seem to support your cause, we can say that the use of the source wasn't really that big of a deal.

What more could a guy ask for? Debating with the two members of the opposition that he admires most.

 

[buckhorn]

Oh please.

I thought the use of the document was funny as a matter of form given the context. The substance of the document, and the substance of how Hp was using it, were not at issue. There was no rah rah moment. I use documents all of the time -- but not on this board.

I think you missed his point and went on to make a nice argument for your own point. That is a cornerstone of the dynamic that exists on message boards, hence the comment in re 'par,' and a tepid attaboy.

 

[Dionysus]

I thought maybe this would blossom into an interesting religion thread. Imagine my disappointment.

 

[Coelacanth]

Page 3 of this thread is about as interesting as West Mall is going to get.

But why are you disappointed, exactly?