Define conservatism

[palerider]

Unreal.
palerider, what else do you think you're asking me to do - when you ask me to prove that certain events DID NOT HAPPEN ?
That is a near perfect illustration of asking someone to "prove a negative" !

Lilly. You seem to have gloamed onto friendindeed's comment without fully understanding that he was mistaken when he claimed that I was guilty of a logical fallacy. I can assure you, I am not. Lets walk through an example that may clarify this for you.

For the sake of argument, lets say that you have told me that it is an historical fact that the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776. I tell you that you are mistaken and that the document was in reality signed on August 2, 1776.

I would tell you that you are mistaken and refer you to the Allison-Antrim Museum, a veritable cornucopia of little known knowledge about the Declaration of Independence ranging from the fact that Timothy Matlack, a Quaker was the calligrapher who actually penned the parchment document we see on display in DC to the fact that the minutes of congress verify that the document was not actually signed until August 2, 1776. If that failed to satisfy you, I would then direct you to the national archives.

The point is, that I have not proved a negative by proving that the declaration was not signed on July 4, 1776, I have simply proved that you were incorrect in your assessment of history. Proving a negative is an entirely different thing.

I would be asking for you to prove a negative if I asked you to prove that God doesn't exist.

I could sit here and compose a few centuries' worth of horrific deeds by French people - without giving any source for them the same way you don't - and then challenge you to "prove" they didn't happen.

Sure you could. And I would respond in exactly the same way as I would should you make the claim that the declaration of independence we see in the national archives was signed on July 4, 1776. I would provide evidence to the contrary and then if necessary, we could hash out the discussion from there. I have given you names, dates, places, etc. If you are unable to prove them wrong, then you must accept them as truth.

In the case of the history of islam and the events that I have provided so far, I am not suggesting that you prove that they didn't happen, I am saying that if you don't believe them, then provide evidence that something else happened besides what I have said.

And btw, it is not an ad hominem for someone to point out that your source is biased (not that it wasn't obvious anyway from the deprecating language in which most of the deeds were recounted).

Of course it is. Information is either true or it is not. Your (and friendindeed's) logical fallacy is known as Ad hominem circumstantial, That is, rather than addressing the argument made by the source, you merely points out that the source is biased. Whether or not the source is biased is irrelavent to the truth or falsity of the history provided. Even biased people can present truthful information.

An ad hom would be if he attacking YOU PERSONALLY, very much like you've done to me three times in this thread.

you have a lot of study to do lilly. First islamic history, and now learning the logical fallacies. And I have not engaged in an ad hominem attack on you either. In order for me to have done so, I would have had to attack you personally, in lieu of an argument. I might have jabbed you in the process of presenting my argument, but a certain amount of taunting is perfectly acceptable and even encouraged in debate to keep the audience engaged.

 

[palerider]

Now I know to say the correct name whereas otherwise I would have just gone on saying "The Golden Age of Spain" probably for the rest of my life, which refers to the time IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING what I was discussing.

Doesn't it strke you as odd, Lilly, that no writing appears about the "golden age of islamic rule in spain) until the 19th century and that writing flows from romantics? Isn't it even in the least suspcicious to you that the writings of the historians who were actually alive during that age have an entirely different story? The jewish scholars wrote of terrible persecution and the islamic scholars write of conquest and gained treasure?

You know, some people cannot be told anything because they believe they are always right. Such people are not here to have a conversation; they are only here to "win".

Some people are almost always right. They are those people who view engage these boards in much the same way as they would engage an opponent in chess. Being sure of what one is saying before one says it is a pretty good way to stay ahead of the game. I was confident in presenting the history of islam to you because I know the information to be true.

And this is the arena of ideas is it not? An arena is a place of contest. If you weren't interested in "winning" why did you engage me in the first place.

[I will not throw away any more pleasantries on Mr. Rider, since it is clear that he can never be bothered to return any, as I just noticed while I was rifling through this thread].

The pleasantries come after the debate is over. If I compliment you during the debate, there would be some ulterior motive at work on my part. Would you want a compliment that wasn't sincere?

 

[Lilly Marlene]

What audience ?
What are you thinking - there's not an audience here !

There is little use in going back and forth with someone who thinks they CANNOT be mistaken, palerider.

And yes you have not only 'jabbed' me but you have been freaking rude the whole time too. You could not even return a holiday greeting ! Of course, it is easily conceivable that you despise Catholics as well as Muslims and do not wish to validate a Saint's day.

Really, I did scan through this thread and it is instructive to look at WHEN you went for your jabs.

It was always when I highlighted something that might cast PNAC's or AIPAC's agenda in an unfavorable light.

The first time, you accused me of being happy to point out incriminating facts about my country.
The second time, you decided to take your toys and go home.
The third time, you warned me that I was in danger of becoming unattractive to neocons because of my supposed PC.
The fourth time (yes there was a fourth, I forgot about that), you menaced me with a loss of credibility if I continued to question your [literal] demonizing of Islam.


Originally Posted by palerider
Of course it is. Information is either true or it is not. Your (and friendindeed's) logical fallacy is known as Ad hominem circumstantial, That is, rather than addressing the argument made by the source, you merely points out that the source is biased. Whether or not the source is biased is irrelavent to the truth or falsity of the history provided. Even biased people can present truthful information.

Alright, they can, maybe so.
But can you blame me for finding it odd that you have no source for your list of facts EXCEPT an admittedly biased one ?

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Doesn't it strke you as odd, Lilly, that no writing appears about the "golden age of islamic rule in spain) until the 19th century and that writing flows from romantics? Isn't it even in the least suspcicious to you that the writings of the historians who were actually alive during that age have an entirely different story? The jewish scholars wrote of terrible persecution and the islamic scholars write of conquest and gained treasure?

Excuse me? You cited ONE Jewish scholar, and when I put that quote in my search engine, the only sites I came up with were of the frontpagemag variety.

I will look later and try to find out more about this.

Some people are almost always right. They are those people who view engage these boards in much the same way as they would engage an opponent in chess. Being sure of what one is saying before one says it is a pretty good way to stay ahead of the game. I was confident in presenting the history of islam to you because I know the information to be true.

Well, there you go ..."some people are almost always right."

But yet when I ask you for sources you tell me to "visit the library".
Generally, my understanding of internet debate is that one cites sources which can be checked online. Why would something so verifiably true ...be available only in hard copy ?

And this is the arena of ideas is it not? An arena is a place of contest. If you weren't interested in "winning" why did you engage me in the first place.

Sure I'd like to "win" as much as anybody ...IF I am correct.
But winning just seems to be all you care about here.

The pleasantries come after the debate is over. If I compliment you during the debate, there would be some ulterior motive at work on my part. Would you want a compliment that wasn't sincere?

I was not talking about compliments. I was talking about pleasantries.
Pleasantries are like, "Good Morning", "Have a good weekend", or like "Merry Christmas" or "Happy St. Patrick's Day".

However, I did happen to see you compliment another person during your debate with them so does that mean you had an ulterior motive then ?

 

[Friendindeed]

FYI.
From Answers.com:

"According to Spencer, Jihad Watch aims to bring public notice to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and thus the site is focused on documenting the part that jihad and religion play in contemporary conflicts. [2] The site has been accused of Islamophobia by The Guardian's Middle East Editor [3], among others..."

 

[palerider]

However, I did happen to see you compliment another person during your debate with them so does that mean you had an ulterior motive then ?

Did I? Did the compliment seem to serve its purpose?

 

[Friendindeed]

Lily don't wear your feelings on your sleeves too much.

There are lot of people who won't say Happy St. Patrick day for political reasons.

 

[palerider]

Lily you are wearing your feelings on your sleeves too much
There are lot of people who won't say Happy St. Patrick day for political rasons.

Nothing political here. My ancestry is irish. I just don't go in for the minor holidays. No st patricks, no cinco de mayo, no may day etc.

 

[palerider]

FYI.
From Answers.com:

"According to Spencer, Jihad Watch aims to bring public notice to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and thus the site is focused on documenting the part that jihad and religion play in contemporary conflicts. [2] The site has been accused of Islamophobia by The Guardian's Middle East Editor [3], among others..."

Friendindeed, jihad is islam. Have you ever read the qur'an’. Jihadists haven't corrupted islam, islam has corrupted them. Here are some passages from the qur'an. And these aren't just cherry picked passages, you have to cherry pick, if you want to quote anything peaceful from any of the books.

"They are surely Infidels who say Christ, the Messiah is God." (5:72)

"Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace." Ishaq:587

"O believers, do not hold Jews and Christians as your allies. They are allies of one another; and anyone who makes them his friends is one of them." Qur'an 5:51

"Allah said, 'A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion." Ishaq:327

"Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad, Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad, Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite." surah 2:190

"Arabs were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah’s helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in the Cause of Allah. Killing him is a small matter to us." Tabari IX:69

"It was so criminal, men could hardly imagine it. Muhammad was ennobled because of the bloody fighting. I swear we shall never lack soldiers nor army leaders. Driving before us infidels until we subdue them with a halter above their noses and a branding iron. We will drive them to the ends of the earth. We will pursue them on horse and on foot. We will never deviate from fighting in our cause. Any people that disobey Muhammad will pay for it. If you do not surrender to Islam, then you will live to regret it. You will be shamed in Hell, forced to wear a garment of molten pitch forever!" Ishaq:315


"'You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men. Is there no honor among you?' Upon hearing those lines Muhammad said, 'Will no one rid me of this woman?' Umayr, a zealous Muslim, decided to execute the Prophet’s wishes. That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling babe and then plunged his sword into the poet. The next morning in the mosque, Muhammad, who was aware of the assassination, said, 'You have helped Allah and His Apostle.' Umayr said, 'She had five sons; should I feel guilty?' 'No,' the Prophet answered. 'Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads." Ishaq: 676


"Muhammad said, 'A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it." Bukhari:V4B52N50

"The Prophet said, 'If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath." Bukhari:V7B67N427

"The Prophet said, 'If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him." Bukhari:V4B52N260

Anyone who has read the books of the qur'an and isn't concerned that a billion people live under this demented and perverse religion and are expected and called upon by their god to kill everyone who is not one of them isn't really thinking if you ask me.

Again, radical islam is islam and their own book warns that if they are not with the program, then they are to be killed.

 

[Friendindeed]

Nothing political here. My ancestry is irish. I just don't go in for the minor holidays. No st patricks, no cinco de mayo, no may day etc.

Some guys just take pride in being rude.
If someone says Happy whatever day to me I say it back.
Big ****ing Deal.

.

 

[Friendindeed]

Don't bother with all the quotes palerider I have already seen them.

And there are milions of Muslims that don't follow those any more than you probably follow the one about wearing wool with cotton which is in the bible.

 

[palerider]

Don't bother with all the quotes palerider I have already seen them.

And there are milions of Muslims that don't follow those any more than you probably follow the one about wearing wool with cotton which is in the bible.

The New Testament superceded much of the old orthodox laws. Eating pork, circumcision, wool and cotton, etc. No such revision exists within islam. This is why very little outcry from muslims about the violence done in the name of their religion. To speak out against the violence is to make oneself known as an infidel and in islam, they still actually do kill you for heresy.

Have you ever actually read the books? They are disjointed madness and the entire religion is based on the writings of one man and it must be taken entirely on his word and that one man lived as vile a life as anyone ever has.

 

[Friendindeed]

Please look at a private message I sent you palerider.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Please look at a private message I sent you palerider.

Now you've got me curious.

 

[palerider]

Now you've got me curious.

Not part of this topic USMC. The pm was about something else.