First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
THEY ARE NOT REAL MUSLIMS A.K.A. "The No True Scotsman Fallacy"
2011 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / Inside your head...
Offline
Posted 2/27/08 , edited 4/18/08

hezakkkk wrote:


Darknile wrote:

Hezakkkk Try to google the following countries with bombings (i,e Pakistan+bombings), India, Ethiopia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Thailand, Spain, London train. Germany, Iraq....Other keywords, if you're still so ignorant to this, you must be in a very heavily censored country.


i did what you said. Some news sites came up, saying a bombs exploded, and it must have been Islamic Extremist. Most of them no proof. Like Afghanistan and Iraq, there was no bombs going off when it was not invaded. However, now that it is invaded, bombs keep going up, killing innocent people. So the invaders are justified in staying, because the situation is "Not Stable". I also remember seeing a article, about 2 British soldiers in Iraq being detained, because they were trying to set up a bomb in Iraq, in populated places.

Are disagreement is who are doing these bombs. You think some crazy person that has Islam as his fate, I think its the crazy invaders doing so, because they want to stay there.

Ah, a conspiracy theorist? the big old bad old US/western powers be doing covert operations to make things look bad?? You say theres no proof, but you don't have any proof either. From your perspective the only way of proving something is actually being on the scene yourself while these things are happening is the only way for you to believe something, and quite frankly neither you or I are in any position to prove anything unless we dust off our passports and travel there now can we?

I also see Iraq Being invaded, for a fake war. it was because of "Weapons of Mass Destruction", however we all know there was none. The people who started the war are the "Extremist". I would much rather see the real people behind the death of thousands of people being called Extremist, rather some made up fairy tale by the media.

Suicide is the single worse sin you can do in Islam. If one was a Muslim Extremist, then he/she would not suicide no mater what, because he/she follows Islam so devotedly that it seems extreme, am I not right?

Just because you say it isn't supposed to happen by their religious text doesn't mean those people aren't making these decisions themselves. For some reason the Shiites and Sunni just don't like each other... at all in Iraq, The Taliban wants their own Islamic law re-constituted in Afghanistan Something happened in their history I guess, the story in the Phillipines, well thats just an example of someone wanting to take land to implement their own religious laws. Whether you believe it or not, the people that have to live with it may have something reliable to listen too

What a coincident, that the same people who advertised about going to War in Iraq, are the same people who are saying there are "Islamic Extremist". I turned off my TV a long time ago buddy ....


nothing says you have to believe everything you hear, but its also not good to totally ignore things either just because you want to look away in the other direction.



Posted 2/27/08 , edited 4/18/08

hezakkkk wrote:
Like Afghanistan and Iraq, there was no bombs going off when it was not invaded.

That's because Saddam would brutally ass rape anyone setting off a bomb.



I also remember seeing a article, about 2 British soldiers in Iraq being detained, because they were trying to set up a bomb in Iraq, in populated places.

Can you provide a link to this article? I'd like to read it.



Are disagreement is who are doing these bombs. You think some crazy person that has Islam as his fate, I think its the crazy invaders doing so, because they want to stay there.

The invaders have killed 3,000 of their own people just because they want to stay there? Forgive me if I'm doubtful. I think the invaders could probably come up with a more creative excuse that would involve killing fewer of their own people, and involve a lesser chance of themselves getting "un-elected."
636 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
60 / F
Offline
Posted 2/27/08 , edited 4/18/08

magnus102 wrote:


hezakkkk wrote:


magnus102 wrote:


hezakkkk wrote:


magnus102 wrote:


OptimusGatts wrote:

being extremist as to what?


You know when people try to say bombers etc are not real muslims or whatever. Its annoys the fuck out of me.


what bombers? what are you talking about man?

Islamic terrorists duh!


Like who? What? Where?

www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Check this out buddy.

11tc wrote:

/Sigh this post fails, once i gain i have to feel ashamed for the out right stupidity of some of the western population to which i belong.

What point are you trying to make exactly ? That islamic terrorists are still technically muslims ? well nice brain wave there Einstein.





Many Muslims make the claim that this thread is designed to argue with. It is easy to see they are muslims but they deny it anyway and say they are simply extremists.


Ok. Im at this web site. Has reports of people being killed. Its very weird that the reports always say what religion was the attacker, as if they know it right away. Its as if some one actually made this web site, to make that religion look bad.

Then if the daily civilian death by lets say, US Army in Iraq and Afghanistan is listed, should it be:
Christians using depleted uranium kills a family of 4. And so on?
Or lets say, Jews in West Bank kidnapped 20 people, and killed 4 in the process.
Nah, it sounds to bad no? lets call the dead "Collateral Damage" or "insurgents" , as if they arent even
human. You get the point. If your going to make "Islamic Extremism" to be this bad, then "Christian Extremism" is even going to look worse.
Posted 2/27/08 , edited 4/18/08
And by the way, speaking of no true scottsman, no true scottsman would be a muslim. Or maybe it was no true muslim would be a scottsman. Then again he might if he were the archbishop of canterbury.
636 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
60 / F
Offline
Posted 2/27/08 , edited 4/18/08

shibole wrote:


hezakkkk wrote:
Like Afghanistan and Iraq, there was no bombs going off when it was not invaded.

That's because Saddam would brutally ass rape anyone setting off a bomb.



I also remember seeing a article, about 2 British soldiers in Iraq being detained, because they were trying to set up a bomb in Iraq, in populated places.

Can you provide a link to this article? I'd like to read it.



Are disagreement is who are doing these bombs. You think some crazy person that has Islam as his fate, I think its the crazy invaders doing so, because they want to stay there.

The invaders have killed 3,000 of their own people just because they want to stay there? Forgive me if I'm doubtful. I think the invaders could probably come up with a more creative excuse that would involve killing fewer of their own people, and involve a lesser chance of themselves getting "un-elected."


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KEE20050925&articleId=994

Heres a nice link. I always wondered who was doing these bombings. It seriously does not make sense, all those bombings in Iraq. Why would they kill them selves? The Answer is, they dont.

Or you can just turn on your FOX NEWS and believe "Muslim Extremist" are doing them, lol, what a joke.
We did Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, another fake war, that killed so many. You think we wouldnt do it again? Come on, get real buddy.
636 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
60 / F
Offline
Posted 2/27/08 , edited 4/18/08

magnus102 wrote:


hezakkkk wrote:


magnus102 wrote:


hezakkkk wrote:


magnus102 wrote:


hezakkkk wrote:


magnus102 wrote:


OptimusGatts wrote:

being extremist as to what?


You know when people try to say bombers etc are not real muslims or whatever. Its annoys the fuck out of me.


what bombers? what are you talking about man?

Islamic terrorists duh!


Like who? What? Where?

www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Check this out buddy.

11tc wrote:

/Sigh this post fails, once i gain i have to feel ashamed for the out right stupidity of some of the western population to which i belong.

What point are you trying to make exactly ? That islamic terrorists are still technically muslims ? well nice brain wave there Einstein.





Many Muslims make the claim that this thread is designed to argue with. It is easy to see they are muslims but they deny it anyway and say they are simply extremists.


Ok. Im at this web site. Has reports of people being killed. Its very weird that the reports always say what religion was the attacker, as if they know it right away. Its as if some one actually made this web site, to make that religion look bad.

Then if the daily civilian death by lets say, US Army in Iraq and Afghanistan is listed, should it be:
Christians using depleted uranium kills a family of 4. And so on?
Or lets say, Jews in West Bank kidnapped 20 people, and killed 4 in the process.
Nah, it sounds to bad no? lets call the dead "Collateral Damage" or "insurgents" , as if they arent even
human. You get the point. If your going to make "Islamic Extremism" to be this bad, then "Christian Extremism" is even going to look worse.


The difference is the US army does NOT have a religious affiliation.



Thats funny dude. Who said those "Islamic Extremist" are doing anything because of religion.
If a average Joe in Iraq, fights back for his family and his country ... why is that called "Islamic Extremist" , but a invader is not any extreme? Why not, "Pissed of Iraqi Citizen"?

Why is one side being called out with their religion and the other one is not?
So your just naming any one as you please? lol
So if we now start calling the US Army in Iraq as "Christian Extremist", we can call Christianity a crappy religion?

What a beautiful name game no? If there is 2 forces, just name them differently, and the the entire situation will be changed to any way you want.
636 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
60 / F
Offline
Posted 2/27/08 , edited 4/18/08

magnus102 wrote:


hezakkkk wrote:

Thats funny dude. Who said those "Islamic Extremist" are doing anything because of religion.
If a average Joe in Iraq, fights back for his family and his country ... why is that called "Islamic Extremist" , but a invader is not any extreme? Why not, "Pissed of Iraqi Citizen"?

Why is one side being called out with their religion and the other one is not?
So your just naming any one as you please? lol
So if we now start calling the US Army in Iraq as "Christian Extremist", we can call Christianity a crappy religion?

What a beautiful name game no? If there is 2 forces, just name them differently, and the the entire situation will be changed to any way you want.

Many of them say it. Many are openly religious groups. If you deny this you are very very ignorant or a liar.


Why is one side being called out with their religion and the other one is not?
So your just naming any one as you please? lol
So if we now start calling the US Army in Iraq as "Christian Extremist", we can call Christianity a crappy religion?

There are many openly religious groups fighting for Islam. Al Qaeda, springs to mind off the top of my head. No matter how much you might want to say they are....the US army has not and hopefully never will be a religiously affiliated organizations. As an atheist I do not really give a fuck what you call Christianity .




What a beautiful name game no? If there is 2 forces, just name them differently, and the the entire situation will be changed to any way you want.

You can rename shit nesquick but it aint gonna taste like chocolate.



How fortunate for the invaders that Iraq has Al Qaeda in it, to set off bombs, so the invaders have a reason to stay, dont you think? In the mean time, the more bombs go off in Iraq, the more US Army can justify staying there, and the more Dick Chaney's bank account gets bigger ... how fortunate for him as well, I mean, its not like he was in an extremely influential position to start a war, right? All of it is just pure coincidental ...

Yet, the average Joe in Iraq, is an "Islamic Extremist" and Dick Chaney is "Extremely Rich". lol

So you CHOOSE not to call US Army "Christian Extremist" and CHOOSE to call a Iraq Defending his family as a "Islamic Extremist". Thats fine buddy, name any one how would like to hear it.

Lets not even talk about the World Trade Center and how they were insured for TERRORIST ATTACK, just weeks before 9/11, and how the owner made billions of dollars, I mean, its all just coincidental ...

Dont you find all these coincidents funny? The media that we listened to, didnt even tell us about the above situation, what did they tell us? Islamic Extremism. Im sure a guy in a cave just suddenly got up and learned how to fly one of the most extremely hard to pilot air planes in the world from a piloting book-let, and im sure from all the debris at the site of WTC, they found the ID of the 'Islamic Extremist" un-damaged, i mean its not like everything was destroyed and nothing was left, its just coincidental ... lol

Oh well, people are shown some truth , but they dont want to accept it, their business I guess. We should all know tho, that God knows everything, and all these "extremist" well pay in the after life (If you believe in afterlife hehe).

But in the meantime, we can go back to live in the world where alot of coincidental events seem to happen to make a selected few extremely rich and powerful. Lets just turn on the tv, watch some FOX NEWS, and relax, because after all, its just as they say it is ...
1704 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / California
Offline
Posted 2/27/08 , edited 4/18/08
Jesus Christ, magnus got a bite.

And to keep my post somewhat relevant.


shibole wrote:
Yes, but some religions are much easier to use to manipulate people into fighting than others.


Probably true, but my point still stands. See, my thing about anti-religion preaching and the point I'm trying to make is this -- religion is a symptom, not a cause. I think everyone would be alot better off if folk hating on religion would put as much energy into advocating the improvement of the standards of education as they did banning religion; it'd fix twice as more shit with half as much controversy.

Isn't it wierd how that works out?
Posted 2/27/08 , edited 4/18/08

DKangN3 wrote:
I think everyone would be alot better off if folk hating on religion would put as much energy into advocating the improvement of the standards of education as they did banning religion; it'd fix twice as more shit with half as much controversy.

Yea, true. People need to learn better critical thinking skills across the board, whether they're religious or not.

I suppose that teaching about logical fallacies is a step in the right direction though. People might like this site:
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
Posted 2/27/08 , edited 4/18/08

magnus102 wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
This all comes from a book by Antony Flew.

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
For the argument, it is important that Brighton is in England and Aberdeen is in Scotland.

Flew's original example may be softened into the following [1]:

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus, who is a Scotsman, likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Aye, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
It should also be noticed that in putting forward this fallacious rebuttal one is employing an ad hoc shift in argument.

This form of argument is an informal fallacy if the predicate ("puts sugar on porridge" or "does such-and-such an act [as committing a sex crime]") is not actually contradictory of the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.[2]

As a real-world example, suppose a non-technical layman is debating the merits or otherwise of various video camcorders. He might assert that: "Any video engineer will tell you that the Matsushiba KYX300 format is vastly superior to the Magnasonic VBX2000." If someone points out, many engineers are on record as saying that the VBX2000 is actually the better system, the original speaker may modify his premise to state: "Any video engineer who knows what they are talking about."

This is really another form of begging the question. His assertion is essentially self-nullifying, in that, not being an engineer, he is hardly in any position to judge the credentials of people who are.

This fallacious technique is often used in politics, in which critics may condemn their colleagues as not being "true" Muslims,Communists, Christians[, conservatives, etc. because of a disagreement concerning certain matters of policy.

This is connected to the widespread attempt in debate to assert that positive terms (good, decent) imply, naturally or by definition, the characteristics argued for (opposition to capital punishment, pornography, smoking in public), rather than actually making an argument why they are connected. "No decent Scotsman" can be considered the moral (practical) equivalent of the theoretical "No true Scotsman".


Most of the Muslims here commit this when they talk about people being extremist.



It's quite true that the "no true scotsman" fallacy is used all the time to excuse certain behavior. however, understand that you can dismiss certain people as not being true to a religion without commiting the fallacy.

if a person claims they are muslim yet fail to follow the pillars of muslim belief, you can probably assume that they're not really muslim. people who claim to be christians but fail to follow biblical principals are probably not christians either.

after all, not everyone is what they claim to be.
Posted 2/27/08 , edited 4/18/08
Oh, BTW:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080227/ts_nm/dutch_islam_film_dc

"AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - A politician making an anti-Koran film that has stirred Muslim outrage, brought him death threats and alarmed the Dutch government said on Wednesday the movie would be finished this week."

I don't know what it is, but for some reason it's only the anti-Muslim films that cause death threats, not the anti-Christian or other anti-religion films.
Posted 2/27/08 , edited 4/18/08

magnus102 wrote:


JuliaRhys wrote:


magnus102 wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
This all comes from a book by Antony Flew.

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
For the argument, it is important that Brighton is in England and Aberdeen is in Scotland.

Flew's original example may be softened into the following [1]:

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus, who is a Scotsman, likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Aye, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
It should also be noticed that in putting forward this fallacious rebuttal one is employing an ad hoc shift in argument.

This form of argument is an informal fallacy if the predicate ("puts sugar on porridge" or "does such-and-such an act [as committing a sex crime]") is not actually contradictory of the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.[2]

As a real-world example, suppose a non-technical layman is debating the merits or otherwise of various video camcorders. He might assert that: "Any video engineer will tell you that the Matsushiba KYX300 format is vastly superior to the Magnasonic VBX2000." If someone points out, many engineers are on record as saying that the VBX2000 is actually the better system, the original speaker may modify his premise to state: "Any video engineer who knows what they are talking about."

This is really another form of begging the question. His assertion is essentially self-nullifying, in that, not being an engineer, he is hardly in any position to judge the credentials of people who are.

This fallacious technique is often used in politics, in which critics may condemn their colleagues as not being "true" Muslims,Communists, Christians[, conservatives, etc. because of a disagreement concerning certain matters of policy.

This is connected to the widespread attempt in debate to assert that positive terms (good, decent) imply, naturally or by definition, the characteristics argued for (opposition to capital punishment, pornography, smoking in public), rather than actually making an argument why they are connected. "No decent Scotsman" can be considered the moral (practical) equivalent of the theoretical "No true Scotsman".


Most of the Muslims here commit this when they talk about people being extremist.



It's quite true that the "no true scotsman" fallacy is used all the time to excuse certain behavior. however, understand that you can dismiss certain people as not being true to a religion without commiting the fallacy.

if a person claims they are muslim yet fail to follow the pillars of muslim belief, you can probably assume that they're not really muslim. people who claim to be christians but fail to follow biblical principals are probably not christians either.

after all, not everyone is what they claim to be.


Fair enough


nice to see someone on here with a philosophical side...
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.