This conversational forum is starting to look hostile - precisely why I left KH440

General Mackevili wrote:

Georgina wrote:This conversational forum is starting to look hostile - precisely why I left KH440

Say what? I haven't even counted a single F-word.

Ha, get Falcon Randwick over here for an hour...

Some brilliant concepts in this opinion piece from Canada.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/terr ... 3717667001

A note for American listeners - the speakers in this video are speaking English, which may be foreign to you.

Classic quote: it's not appropriate to profile someone based on their ethnicity or their passport, but it is more than okay to profile someone based on their ideology (yes, OD, they are directly referring to Muslims, you don't need to spell this out).

Note this is social/political commentary on a troubling topic - your view may vary. If so, try to express yourself rationally.

UKJ wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote: I'm just going to focus on this one piece of you putting words in my mouth, as you tend to like to do...
.

How can I be doing that, when I supply quotes?

OrangeDragon wrote:
Saying all/most jihadists are Purple People Eaters doesn't make all Purple People Eaters jihadists. Presuming such, and/or presuming to punish all of the group for the actions of those who are, is racist.

To go one further... all jihadists are muslim doesn't mean all muslims are jihadists (as i've covered) but it also doesn't mean all people from the countries in question are even muslims. Or that muslims only come from a limited set of countries/belong to specific ethnic groups/have specific skin color or specific styles of last names.
.

Basically it's your usual straw man argument, so you call everyone racist, ignorant, rude, or whatever, yet you make blatantly biased or racist comments about things you don't have a clue about.

And yet, you skip the quote before that one... because you're all about only seeing what you want to believe. You're tragic.

UKJ wrote:You can let some of us have a valid opinion on issues we are a lot more experienced than you in.

Let me know when you find one, especially when it's one you can support without copouts, your own straw men made up of selective quote removal, mass generalizations of a people based on their race/religion, and so on.

Oh, and here was the FIRST mention of jihadists in that line of quotes... the part you left out either intentionally, or because you somehow subconsciously block out anything that doesn't suit your argument:

StroppyChops wrote:If only or mainly Elbonians engage in terrorist or hate related activity such as jihad, it is not wrong to say so - however politically correct it might be claimed to be.

here is another attack in NYC now.
dude used IS iconography, but more an angry black man than a muslim it would appear.

https://www.facebook.com/Zale.Thompson?fref=ts

StroppyChops wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:You just implied: Apples are fruit. All of these apples are fruit. All fruits are apples.

No, actually, I didn't - you read that implication into what I actually said.

Then how is applying a "solution" that involves discriminating against all members of that group an acceptable solution?

Because that's what's being suggested, and what you're defending. You're saying that enough of the group are ________ to just go ahead and treat the whole group as _________.

OrangeDragon wrote:

StroppyChops wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:You just implied: Apples are fruit. All of these apples are fruit. All fruits are apples.

No, actually, I didn't - you read that implication into what I actually said.

Then how is applying a "solution" that involves discriminating against all members of that group an acceptable solution?

Because that's what's being suggested, and what you're defending. You're saying that enough of the group are ________ to just go ahead and treat the whole group as _________.

No, you're now extrapolating on what I said - and deliberately trying to move away from the simple point that what you said about my post was wrong. And you've just done it again. It's usually pretty easy to tell when I support an argument because I use words like "I agree with that" or "I support that" - when you take issue with me it's generally because you've chosen to infer or extrapolate from what I've actually said.

You are gifted at changing the narrative, and I say that with a degree of grudging admiration.

No, I was expanding on why I stated that was your implication in your original statement. Because you seem to not see it as such... when in fact it is. By passing the buck on to the reader with an "i never said that, you read that into it!"

Because by nodding and winking at a thing, you aren't force to come directly out and say the thing... so can backpedal out with such moves.

Sigh. Let's stop with your inferences about my implications for a moment then. Your interpretation of my intention does not a gospel make, regardless of your conviction in your own eternal rightness.

What specifically is it that you say I 'nodded and winked' at?