The Glade 4.0

That's what we call assumptions. I can make one too. Most of that 1.66 billion is centered around the Middle East and surrounding territories with a large number scattered throughout other countries in the world. If 90% of the Middle East were radicals and even 10% around the world, we're talking about 900 million people. That'd be a majority! See how silly that sounds. That's what your argument amounts to.

Ienan:

I did just back it up with facts. There are 1.66 billion Muslims in this world. The combined populations of Yemen, the U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Burma, Myanmar, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan is less than 50% of that number. And we'd have to assume every Muslim in every one of those countries is a Religious Whackjob.

_________________

No really you didn't. You backed it up with assumptions like Aizle did. You left out countries like Turkey, Indonesia, Phillipines, etc. which had extremist Islamic issues. You've also assumed Muslims outside the Middle East aren't radical or even supportive of these outbursts. I think that's a pretty large assumption on your part considering the problems Europe, Africa, and Asia have also faced with Islamic extremism.

Ienan:

It's not an assumption. You can, however, defend your positive assertion that the number of violent extremists among Muslim populations is substantial enough that the cursory and bigoted opinion presented by American media happens to be accurate.

_________________

I think Khross and Aizle are making some version of the Eric Holder argument. What exactly is the term to be used?

[youtube]HOQt_mP6Pgg[/youtube]

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

Dashel:

Nah, Holder's a douche. How would you react to Lars Vilks showing a film of Christ Iconography raping little boys and girls in your church?

_________________

Based upon past examples Khross, probably by picketing and/or boycotting the gallery/artist specifically, not by holding signs advocating for the death/beheading of anyone that does something similiar.

Your mileage may vary.

But that's the whole point. Vilks may very well be a dickweed and he's obviously trying to push buttons. What would I do? Well I dont go to church often but I cant imagine my church would ask someone to show such a film there.

I wouldnt physically assault the man. I wouldnt shout him down and get his talk stopped. Nor would I burn his home. I also wouldnt threaten his life for drawing a cartoon.

I guess I'd do what I did when I heard about the piss christ or the madonna with elephant poo on it. Laughed at the hippie "artist" trying to be edgy.

Violence is being rewarded, subsidized if you like. You're smart enough to understand what that will do.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

So why don't we hear from the reasonable and moderate muslims condemning this type of behavior?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I want to be clear. I am not defending the radicals in the images and article. They are religious **** and should be treated as such.

I am refuting the rediculous and hippocritical position taken by many in this thread that ALL muslims and Islam in general is a hateful religion and the actions of this small, vocal and violent minority in some way the views of the majority.

I'm amused by the comments of DE in particular in how Phelps isn't a "true" Christian. Didn't you take Bery to task for exactly that line of thinking a short while back?

It doesn't sell newspapers.

I don't believe I have seen anyone in this thread state that all muslims are hateful. I have seen plenty of people question the amount of support, and people making statements about the dichotomy between the self-described "religion of peace" and some of its supporters.

To say otherwise is a greatly misconstruing the posts.

It actually is despite your attempts to say it's not. I'm not making any such positive assertion. I said I don't know. I'm just blasting holes the size of the Grand Canyon in your fallacious logic. Try again Khross. You're better than this.

Also, the only reason I'm doing this is because you'd be doing the exact same thing if I said the opposite, as you should.

You're not blasting any holes in my logic. There are 1.66 billion Muslims on this planet. That's a full 25% of the world's population. It is neither reasonable, nor logical to assume that the majority of those individuals support violence and radical jihadist doctrine. And, if you think it is, then the positive assertion is yours. So, prove it. My logic is fine; it's yours that fails.

_________________

It's happened already many a time. For example, an artist in NYC had the crucifix in a tank of urine and blood. Christians complained and protested. But they did so without threatening the life of the artist, nor did they fire bomb the guy's home. They didn't even disturb his exhibit. I think Lars Vilks video is reprehensible and is meant purely for shock value, but the best reaction of those people should have been to walk out in digust and protest it.

Ienan:

And that's a perfectly valid opinion. However, the notion that someone intentionally displaying criminal fornication to a hostile audience is somehow overshadowed by the audience's behavior is rather ludicrous. Lars Vilks is scum. And, amusingly enough, he probably deserves an ass-beating.

_________________

No, the simple truth is that those who are violent are a minority, simply because of demographics. Muslims who are supportive of violence, if only by tacit approcal, are vastly more common. This is what makes Islamic terrorism that operates largely without regard to national boundaries possible. Without that tacit support, the supply of recruits and safe places to take shelter would dry up.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Nice try to resort back to your assumption. Prove it then. Where are polls showing people's views? Where is the data of a cross-section of each country? Something, anything? It is perfectly reasonable to believe that 12-13% of the world's population are extremists or at the very least back the extremism. I'm not saying it's true, it's just reasonable and logical.

I never made a positive assertion Khross. Thus there is no burden of proof on me. I clearly said I don't know. I don't know about the level of extremism in any religion or country for that matter. You're the only claiming it doesn't exist in the numbers that is claimed. I'm saying prove it. You don't have any proof because it doesn't exist, so you resort to an assumption. Nice try, but I'm not going to buy it.

Just as in this country, for every person that actually goes to protest, there are far more that agree with them.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

How'd he know who the audience would be? I could argue conversely they should have known what he was going to show and never showed up. I agree he's scum. But he's allowed to spread his horrible art and not have the threat of violence aimed at him.

Point to where I said Phelps isn't a true Christian. I said nothing of the sort.

Moreover, no one has said all muslims are hateful. What's been said is that it is not a religion of peace, which it isn't. It was founded by a warrior and has been warlike since its inception.

Not all muslims approve of radical jihadism, but huge numbers of those that don't approve, disapprove of non-muslims even more and so will tacitly approve of radicalism.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Ienan:

So, you're saying I have to prove a negative to convince you in the same breath you question my logic? Perhaps we should make this a little more clear to you.

Fact: Some Muslims are Radical Jihadists endeavouring to violent ends.

Fact: Some Muslims support these endeavours.

Some A are B. Some A are C. QED B+C = Majority or Significant Extant Minority of A.

The above is your argument.

My argument? Some A are B. Some A are C. C + B cannot be quantified and does not represent a majority of A.

One of those is logically sound; one is not. The only person making an assumption here is you.

_________________

Sorry, I was mixing your post with Mus. My bad.

You cannot go from "cannot be quantified" to " does not represent the majority".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Was this shown in a Mosque?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."