The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[Meclazine for Israel]

That’s just run of the mill hillgoose he wants to use recreational nuke on everyone that isn’t america

I would take "Run of the Mill" Hillgoose over half the pea-hearts on this forum 7 days a week.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

FWIW it's not gonna be the same Map I know Conserv users want to throw off Indictments and move onto something else but there is gonna be a trial Brown isnt losing and Rs aren't winning OH by 9 pts when we still as ai always say have to vote

If I knew it was only gonna be 303 like if the S map was like 22 and we don't need OH and MT I would make only a 303 map, especially Brown and Tester and Manchin aren't losing with TRUMP on ballot

[John Dule]

Then why not join ISIS and kill gay people if this is how you feel? If it's really as bad for society as you say, then why do you allow them to go on living? Why not become a terrorist and save the world from destruction?

Ferguson97 thinks that if you think the LGBT movement is wrong, you are literally ISIS and Hitler.

What an absolutely disgusting personal attack, but this is to be expected when you isolate yourself from anyone who has any political disagreement with you (including your own mother) and become intolerant like that.

You basically called him a baby-eater for his beliefs, and now you're whining that he called you a terrorist for yours? Nice try Karen.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Then why not join ISIS and kill gay people if this is how you feel? If it's really as bad for society as you say, then why do you allow them to go on living? Why not become a terrorist and save the world from destruction?

Ferguson97 thinks that if you think the LGBT movement is wrong, you are literally ISIS and Hitler.

What an absolutely disgusting personal attack, but this is to be expected when you isolate yourself from anyone who has any political disagreement with you (including your own mother) and become intolerant like that.

You basically called him a baby-eater for his beliefs, and now you're whining that he called you a terrorist for yours? Nice try Karen.

Also Ferguson phrased it a a question, so Abdullah is indirectly admitting he'd rather join ISIS than support the LGBT community.

[free my dawg]

Overall it just seems really f**king racist to tell a Muslim man to "go be a terrorist" or that he "would rather join ISIS than X". Be better.

[John Dule]

The difference is that what I say has basis while what he says does not.

If someone's gonna join ISIS, they aren't interested in Islam. ISIS does very, very many things that go directly against Islam, as does every single terrorist group. The idea of terrorism itself goes against Islamic rules on combat. I can explain in detail how ISIS and other terrorist groups are unislamic, and I've done this in a few posts, but I doubt you're interested in that given the fact you still think this comparison is valid even after reading my posts on this topic

Literally LMAO dude. You were whining to Ferguson about how "By 2050, liberals will endorse cannibalism and infanticide," even though no one is doing this. Meanwhile, there are thousands of Muslims right now who are committing acts of terrorism in the name of Islam. Apparently speculative and imaginary future liberals reflect badly on liberalism, but very real Islamic terrorists in the present don't reflect badly on Islam at all.

Your arguments are deeply unserious, and you come across as a radicalized teenager.

[John Dule]

I actually think it's more likely they become vegans.
What puzzles me so much is why you don't embrace that.

What's actually going to happen is this: Technology will advance to the point that healthy and tasty meat will be grown in huge quantities in labs, which will render the moral debate over vegetarianism moot while also increasing food supplies. In other words, capitalism will solve our problems yet again.

No, they don't reflect badly on Islam.
This is because they aren't following Islam.

Now you're gonna say that the USSR reflects badly on atheism, I presume?

The ultimate No True Scotsman argument. Every Muslim terrorist has been motivated to commit his atrocities by the doctrine of Islam. Whether he's using your particular subjective interpretation of the scripture or not is completely irrelevant.

Of course the USSR reflects badly on atheism. Did you actually think I'd dispute that? The difference, however, is that the vast majority of Soviet atrocities were not carried out "in the name of atheism," whereas the vast majority of Islamic atrocities are carried out in the name of Islam. But in both cases, it proves that one's adherence to atheism or Islam does not automatically make someone a good person.

I would never contest that being an atheist is the end-all, be-all of what it takes to be moral. But you would say that for being a Muslim.

And as for your other posts, I'm not going to engage with the imaginary liberal bugaboos you dream up until you confront the concrete and real horrors of Islam that are displayed daily for all the world to see. I think that's fair.

[John Dule]

Yes, this is what happens when someone doesn't know what Islam is.
The prime example of someone not being educated about it, yet talking with the utmost confidence about it. I don't blame someone for not being educated, but being very confident about your knowledge is interesting. I don't speak in this way about Mormonism, Judaism, or Buddhism, since I know little about the inner workings of these faiths.

Unsurprising, though, I've seen all your other posts. I also am fairly sure you know this little about other religions, too.

You're right, I don't know all there is to know about Islam. This is why I defer to the religious scholars (and ex-Muslims) who tell me the specifics of what the Koran says. This is also why I don't listen to the ramblings of a random anonymous Muslim teenager on the internet who is clearly attempting to absolve his faith of every wrongdoing ever committed in its name.

Islam, the word, itself, means "Submission", submission to one indivisible, infinite, benevolent, and omnipotent God. Us Muslims, we believe that this God is the creator and sustainer the universe, all the things in it, and everything outside it which we cannot perceive, being is the ultimate judge of all things right and wrong. He sent down messengers, and the final one of these is the Prophet Muhammad (SAW). God revealed the Qur'an, which is the word of God, to the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), and this is a book which has been preserved perfectly through time. We believe that we will all be held accountable for our actions in this life in the hereafter, after a Day of Judgement.

Every single statement in the paragraph above is unanimously agreed on by all Muslims, whether or not they're Sunni or Shia, whether or not they belong to various movements like the Barelvi movement, the Deobandi movement, the Salafi movement etc. etc.. Even people like Qadianis*, non-Muslim people who exist on the fringes of Islam, claim to believe all this stuff

Ok. And nothing you've described here precludes the concepts of terrorism or martyrdom.

That's the thing, sometimes there are people who are indeed not Scotsmen, who claim to be Scotsmen. Similarly, there are people who claim to be following Islam, but they don't. I don't have to apologize for what these guys do in the name of my religion.

You should be familiar with this yourself, there are plenty, plenty of people in the U.S. who claim to be Libertarians without an ounce of Libertarian ideology. I've seen you criticize these people. But you are unable to conceive that this could happen to other groups.

I certainly accept that the people in the Libertarian Party subscribe to essentially the same moral framework as I do (though they approach it from a rights-oriented standpoint as opposed to my efficiency/utility-oriented standpoint). Nonetheless, I completely understand the fact that anarcho-capitalists represent my ideology taken to its most extreme point. We're not the same, but they're definitely my embarrassing cousins, and I wouldn't say that they're "not libertarians."

Part of being introspective and mature is analyzing how one's own beliefs could be warped or pushed to an extreme that one did not intend. This can happen with every ideology and belief system. To inoculate myself against this, I personally try to adopt concepts and perspectives from multiple philosophical systems I agree with. When one ideological framework runs up against another, I then analyze that conflict from the perspective of both. My goal is to avoid blind adherence to one single worldview, which would (without exception) logically carry me to a series of extreme conclusions that I find abhorrent for other reasons. Hence my unique blend of Hobbesianism, libertarianism, and utilitarianism.

When you're confronted by someone who subscribes to your ideology but takes it to radical new levels that you find morally odious, there are three ways of reconciling your resulting cognitive dissonance:

1) Adopt their views as your own, because you adhere to your shared ideology without question and their views are just the logical extension of that ideology.
2) Pathetically attempt to explain that they aren't "really" a member of your ideology and that they're just lying when they say they believe in everything you believe.
3) Accept the fact that your ideology alone cannot provide all the answers.

I'm glad to see you haven't chosen option #1. Sadly though, you've gone with option #2 instead of the far more mature #3. This is the ultimate pitfall of religion-- if you believe that your faith is the ultimate truth, then accepting #3 is impossible. After all, why would you need any alternative moral frameworks outside of The Revealed Word Of God? Say what you will about the pitfalls of atheism, but I know of no atheists who say that atheism is all it takes for someone to understand moral truth. You, on the other hand, have asserted many times on this site that your moral analysis begins and ends with the edicts of your faith. That is a stunted and ultimately unsustainable moral framework. You can continue with denial (#2), or your moral framework will inevitably collapse into either #1 or #3.

An immature person chooses denial. A mature person looks at the world and says "Perhaps given the fact that this ideology in practice sanctions (or at the very least tolerates) the subjugation of women, brutal killings of apostates, heinous acts of violence, wife-beating, the murder of homosexuals, abhorrent forms of criminal punishment, and laws prohibiting free speech, it is not the only moral framework necessary for one to live a decent life." I will leave it to you to decide.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

@Prez Johnson Biden is still vulnerable to losing because he still have Docugate with Hunter Laptop that didn't go away just because of Trump Indictments Trump can still be Prez Convicted, his Donation page looks bland because very few are Donating unlike last time where it was Pre Pandemic it's 7% inflation if you have extra money tithe in a Church they ran out of money last time to support Ryan

When Biden does campaign he won't campaign in OH and TX and FL he is going to 303 especially if Manchin won but we need OH and MT to win the S and Brown and Tester can win on their own of there is a blue wave

Biden is still fav to win but it complicates things with Joe Manchin whom isn't running against Justice if he runs for Prez but he would cost Biden voted not Trump like Nadar

RFK Jr like Booker don't have Hunter Laptop and can do better if they primary Biden but the D's wont

Instead of a 53/47 landslide like it looked with Trump Indictments it goes to 51(49 Biden allowing Manchin to split the vote again like Gary Johnson in MI, PA and WI

Biden isn't leading Trump by a landslide he is now tied 44/44%, we got complacent with Trump Indictments that Biden has 100% chance of winning, Manchin possible run is a wake up call just like Gary Johnson was a sleeper

I had a nut map still because Manchin won't announce till Dec but he isn't running against Justice

[Gizmodian]

I'm glad to see you haven't chosen option #1. Sadly though, you've gone with option #2 instead of the far more mature #3. This is the ultimate pitfall of religion-- if you believe that your faith is the ultimate truth, then accepting #3 is impossible. After all, why would you need any alternative moral frameworks outside of The Revealed Word Of God? Say what you will about the pitfalls of atheism, but I know of no atheists who say that atheism is all it takes for someone to understand moral truth. You, on the other hand, have asserted many times on this site that your moral analysis begins and ends with the edicts of your faith. That is a stunted and ultimately unsustainable moral framework. You can continue with denial (#2), or your moral framework will inevitably collapse into either #1 or #3.

An immature person chooses denial. A mature person looks at the world and says "Perhaps given the fact that this ideology in practice sanctions (or at the very least tolerates) the subjugation of women, brutal killings of apostates, heinous acts of violence, wife-beating, the murder of homosexuals, abhorrent forms of criminal punishment, and laws prohibiting free speech, it is not the only moral framework necessary for one to live a decent life." I will leave it to you to decide.

Most of what you've said here is definitely incorrect. First, let's start with gaining morality from a God.

Here's how a God will grant objective morality:
P1) God is omniscient.
P2) If God is oniscient, then if God believes that p, then p.
P3) If God believes that murder is wrong/we ought not murder, then murder is wrong.
P4) God believes that murder is wrong.
C) Therefore, murder is wrong/we ought not murder.

The most decent life you can live is one in accordance with the granted morals of a God.

You can properly derive objective morality from a God. However, on your worldview, you cannot.

You can talk of all those murders and atrocities, but none of them are wrong on your view.

Here's a quote from a secular moral philospher:

"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it's necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. "

The core of moral reasoning, obligations/oughts/shoulds, is unattainable by reason. You have not demonstrated how you would derive the idea that something is moral or immoral from describing a state of the world.

If you believe that morality can be objective on a secular view, this is your burden:

"According to the principles of those who maintain an abstract rational difference betwixt moral good and evil, and a natural fitness and unfitness of things, it is not only supposed, that these relations, being eternal and immutable, are the same, when considered by every rational creature, but their effects are also supposed to be necessarily the same; and it is concluded they have no less, or rather a greater, influence in directing the will of the deity, than in governing the rational and virtuous of our own species. These two particulars are evidently distinct. It is one thing to know virtue, and another to conform the will to it. In order, therefore, to prove, that the measures of right and wrong are eternal laws, obligatory on every rational mind, it is not sufficient to shew the relations upon which they are founded: We must also point out the connexion betwixt the relation and the will; and must prove that this connexion is so necessary, that in every well-disposed mind, it must take place and have its influence; though the difference betwixt these minds be in other respects immense and infinite. Now besides what I have already proved, that even in human nature no relation can ever alone produce any action: besides this, I say, it has been shewn, in treating of the understanding, that there is no connexion of cause and effect, such as this is supposed to be, which is discoverable otherwise than by experience, and of which we can pretend to have any security by the simple consideration of the objects. All beings in the universe, considered in themselves, appear entirely loose and independent of each other. It is only by experience we learn their influence and connexion; and this influence we ought never to extend beyond experience."

First, a perfectly rational entity just refers to an entity whose beliefs about what is the case matches up to what is the case. Such an entity would be omniscient (like God); that is, no deductive, inductive, empricial, or any other epistemic error would be made by such an entity.

To demonstrate that moral good and evil are stance-independence/objective & understood by reason rather than by sentiment, you must demonstrate that any perfectly rational being will be causally compelled to act in a particular manner. The connection between a particular line of reasoning (knowing what is the case) and its causal influence on the will of an agent (what ought to be the case) must then be demonstrated as universal to all rational beings to confirm moral realism, no matter how much their preferences differ. David Hume above argued that simply knowing what is the case could not compel a person to act, so he recognized the is-ought gap.

Under your view, which is secularism, there is no way to derive moral claims. There is no way to prove that murder is wrong. At most, you can say "I dislike murder". Stop pretending that your preferences are objectively correct without needing a proof, and demonstrate to me that you can hold any moral positions under your worldview.

[Ferguson97]

Meanwhile, he couldn't actually tell me a reason that he thought cannibalism was objectively wrong or eating animal meat was objectively OK, it was all emotional stuff and these strange appeals to "intelligence" which kept falling apart after more questions were asked. This is why he dodged the question numerous times. He dodged it so much, in fact, that he had to bring in a few strawman fallacies and flipped between maybe a dozen or so non sequiturs (every single one of which I answered in full) looking for a way to weasel out of the argument (If you want to see them I am more than happy to point them out).

I actually am still waiting for an answer from him, but I know that I'm probably not gonna get one. (I'm also waiting for an answer from you! But I don't think I'll get that either given how you came to whine about me being a "Karen" more than three hours after I destroyed your argument).

I've answered your stupid ass question like 5 times. You didn't like the answer, but that doesn't mean I didn't answer it.

[John Dule]

It's fine admitting things that you don't know. You can't do it, clearly, but it's fine.

You clearly don't care what Muslim scholars have to say. The fact that Muslim scholars unanimously condemn murder and massacre of innocent civilians doesn't matter to you. I doubt you've read a single thing on your own from it, and I indeed find it very likely that when you say that you have already studied and deferred to what "Muslim scholars" have to say, this goes no farther than watching random clips on social media that popped into your feed.

You do care what Ex-Muslims (the vast, vast majority of whom have pathetic, easily debunkable arguments) have to say, though, since whenever they say something, it's because it feedbacks your preconceived notions in your mind. You eat that stuff up since it tells you exactly what you want to hear, whatever the reality actually is.

And the vast majority of Christian scholars today condemn slavery-- yet the Bible is clearly compatible with slavery, and it was even used to justify it in the past. If a Christian fails to engage with the fact that his religious text tacitly endorses (or is at least morally ambiguous on) slavery, then he is not to be taken seriously. The same is true for a Muslim who fails to accept the fact that the Koran is compatible with certain practices that we consider morally odious in modern times.

I care about what ex-Muslims say because they (A) Have firsthand experience with the faith, and (B) Do not feel obligated to reflexively and blindly defend it against all criticism.

Martyrdom, Terrorism, these words aren't the same. This is attempted conflation (one of your most common fallacies).

Uh... I said "terrorism or martyrdom." Do you know what "or" means? Do you understand what "conflation" means?

And yes, it does indeed preclude the concept of terrorism practiced by these "jihadist" groups. Since if you're going to look in the Qur'an or the actions and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), you're going to find that there's direct refutations and condemnations of terrorist actions. This is why ISIS and other groups have been condemned numerous times by Muslim scholars, and why the vast majority of people who join ISIS have no background in Islamic knowledge.

None of this stuff you have to take my word for it! You can search up this stuff yourself.

Let's look at this debate from a different perspective. You say that none of the jihadis are "real" Muslims because they pick and choose elements of the Koran to follow, and they ignore other aspects of the text. In your view, how many "real" Muslims are there in the world, then? The number of people who actually follow the Koran to the letter in their daily lives is much lower than the number of people who claim to be Muslims (the same is true for all religions). If our good friends at ISIS aren't "real" Muslims, what about the multitudes of self-proclaimed Muslims who similarly fail to follow the Koran's commands? Do you disown them as well? Do you personally obey every single edict the Koran lays out?

This was a nice attempt at creating some kind of framework (which you clearly just made up for the purposes of this debate, and has numerous flaws anyway, I'd love to see you try to use this on other places).

I'm just articulating something I've believed for a long time, and you're failing to engage with it on an intellectual level.

[John Dule]

words words words

I see you haven't been on this site long, but I never claimed to have any kind of "objective" morality, and I don't think morality is even real (at least in the sense of a universal moral system that exists independently from human thought). Therefore I'm afraid you wasted your time on this (very eloquent) response, as you're not addressing anything I actually believe.

If you're interested in my views on subjective morality, you can look at my posting history on the Religion & Philosophy board.

[Gizmodian]

words words words

I see you haven't been on this site long, but I never claimed to have any kind of "objective" morality, and I don't think morality is even real (at least in the sense of a universal moral system that exists independently from human thought). Therefore I'm afraid you wasted your time on this (very eloquent) response, as you're not addressing anything I actually believe.

If you're interested in my views on subjective morality, you can look at my posting history on the Religion & Philosophy board.

Ah, if it's the case that you believe that morality is subjective, then I'm not sure what arguments you could provide against the user Abdullah. Besides, all he has to say is "I disagree" and he's no more incorrect than someone claiming to prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla. This would apply even if his religious morals really did conclude that he should work towards eliminating & murdering certain groups (which I don't think they do anyways).

On top of that, given the argument I provided at the beginning of my response, Abdullah has the best bet of objective morality anyways.

[John Dule]

words words words

I see you haven't been on this site long, but I never claimed to have any kind of "objective" morality, and I don't think morality is even real (at least in the sense of a universal moral system that exists independently from human thought). Therefore I'm afraid you wasted your time on this (very eloquent) response, as you're not addressing anything I actually believe.

If you're interested in my views on subjective morality, you can look at my posting history on the Religion & Philosophy board.

Ah, if it's the case that you believe that morality is subjective, then I'm not sure what arguments you could provide against the user Abdullah. Besides, all he has to say is "I disagree" and he's no more incorrect than someone claiming to prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla. This would apply even if his religious morals really did conclude that he should work towards eliminating & murdering certain groups (which I don't think they do anyways).

On top of that, given the argument I provided at the beginning of my response, Abdullah has the best bet of objective morality anyways.

I'm not trying to "disprove" Abdullah's interpretation of morality using some hypothetical objective moral framework. I'm merely trying to demonstrate to him that his chosen moral framework does not guarantee moral righteousness, as it clearly leads certain people to conclusions with which he disagrees. I am attacking the internal contradictions in the statements he's made; I'm not doing so using my own personal subjective moral system.

[Gizmodian]

When you're confronted by someone who subscribes to your ideology but takes it to radical new levels that you find morally odious, there are three ways of reconciling your resulting cognitive dissonance:

1) Adopt their views as your own, because you adhere to your shared ideology without question and their views are just the logical extension of that ideology.
2) Pathetically attempt to explain that they aren't "really" a member of your ideology and that they're just lying when they say they believe in everything you believe.
3) Accept the fact that your ideology alone cannot provide all the answers.

Well, I'd like to respond to this section of your argument against Abdullah. I do not believe that these are the only options that Abdullah has, especially pertaining to the way you described #2. Why would it be considered "pathetic" for him to argue that they don't believe in the same things that he does? This happens with multiple different ideologies, corruption can occur and the people in power use the name of a particular social group to hide their true intentions. If Abdullah chooses to not associate with those people, why should he agree with you that they are part of his ideology? I do not see why that would be necessarily entailed.

[John Dule]

When you're confronted by someone who subscribes to your ideology but takes it to radical new levels that you find morally odious, there are three ways of reconciling your resulting cognitive dissonance:

1) Adopt their views as your own, because you adhere to your shared ideology without question and their views are just the logical extension of that ideology.
2) Pathetically attempt to explain that they aren't "really" a member of your ideology and that they're just lying when they say they believe in everything you believe.
3) Accept the fact that your ideology alone cannot provide all the answers.

Well, I'd like to respond to this section of your argument against Abdullah. I do not believe that these are the only options that Abdullah has, especially pertaining to the way you described #2. Why would it be considered "pathetic" for him to argue that they don't believe in the same things that he does? This happens with multiple different ideologies, corruption can occur and the people in power use the name of a particular social group to hide their true intentions. If Abdullah chooses to not associate with those people, why should he agree with you that they are part of his ideology? I do not see why that would be necessarily entailed.

Abdullah is committing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy when he says terrorists are by definition "not real Muslims." True, we shouldn't take at face value what someone claims to be (North Korea is definitely not a "Democratic People's Republic," despite what they call themselves). However, Abdullah is constructing an artificial standard that excuses all the excesses and extremes of Islam. He is trying to define away the bad aspects of his faith.

Here are the reasons why his attempts fail:

1) Most obviously, there are no adherents to any religion who manage to follow every single command of that religion to the letter. According to Abdullah, those who do violence in the name of Islam are cherrypicking particular aspects of the Koran to follow and not follow-- but this is true for how all people of faith end up approaching their religious texts, no matter how dogmatic they are. Has any Christian lived a 100% truly Biblical life? No. The mere fact that self-professed "Islamic terrorists" do not obey every single element of their holy text does not automatically render them non-Muslims. If this were true, no Muslim would be a "true Muslim." Thus, even if the Jihadis are not following the Koran to the letter, that doesn't suddenly mean that their actions are completely independent from the doctrine of Islam. The opposite is true: They are inseparable.

2) His logic cuts multiple ways. Christianity has an explicit commandment: "Thou Shalt Not Kill." But the Crusaders certainly broke this commandment frequently-- does this mean that the Crusades were carried out by non-Christians? It would be ahistorical in the extreme to make that argument. Doing so would ignore all the nuances of how religious people engage with their faith, and I highly doubt that Abdullah-- as a Muslim-- would be willing to excuse the atrocities committed by Christians due to the perpetrators being "fake Christians."

3) In other threads (and I don't expect you to know this, being a newcomer), Abdullah has suggested that the philosophy of liberalism will ultimately lead to the legalization of infant murder and cannibalism. Ignoring whether or not that's the case, it is intellectually dishonest of him to claim that liberalism leads to hypothetical and speculative future conclusions while ignoring the reality of where Islam is today. I only raised the counterexample of Islam to illustrate that all ideologies, when taken to their most extreme points, end in disturbing places.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This belongs here New York Express was indeed right after all Manchin all this time was contemplating a run against Biden not standing a blowout loss to Justice and users still don't think he is running for Prez, everyone knows Biden is compromises by Hunter Biden he is a student of Bill Clinton not Al Gore was a student of Bill Clinton you see Al Gore doing Earth Day and Bill Clinton isn't interested Gore is a liberal Clinton was a Populist

I just downgraded my map once I heard Manchin is thinking about running and making g further adjustable but OH and MO are in play for S that means we can win wave insurance seats like FL and NC this is the first downgrade right Now

That's why I took my endorsement down it's too early to endorse Biden but not too early to Donate to Kunce and Gallego whom are breaking record

[Gizmodian]

Abdullah is committing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy when he says terrorists are by definition "not real Muslims." True, we shouldn't take at face value what someone claims to be (North Korea is definitely not a "Democratic People's Republic," despite what they call themselves). However, Abdullah is constructing an artificial standard that excuses all the excesses and extremes of Islam. He is trying to define away the bad aspects of his faith.

Here are the reasons why his attempts fail:

1) Most obviously, there are no adherents to any religion who manage to follow every single command of that religion to the letter. According to Abdullah, those who do violence in the name of Islam are cherrypicking particular aspects of the Koran to follow and not follow-- but this is true for how all people of faith end up approaching their religious texts, no matter how dogmatic they are. Has any Christian lived a 100% truly Biblical life? No. The mere fact that self-professed "Islamic terrorists" do not obey every single element of their holy text does not automatically render them non-Muslims. If this were true, no Muslim would be a "true Muslim." Thus, even if the Jihadis are not following the Koran to the letter, that doesn't suddenly mean that their actions are completely independent from the doctrine of Islam. The opposite is true: They are inseparable.

2) His logic cuts multiple ways. Christianity has an explicit commandment: "Thou Shalt Not Kill." But the Crusaders certainly broke this commandment frequently-- does this mean that the Crusades were carried out by non-Christians? It would be ahistorical in the extreme to make that argument. Doing so would ignore all the nuances of how religious people engage with their faith, and I highly doubt that Abdullah-- as a Muslim-- would be willing to excuse the atrocities committed by Christians due to the perpetrators being "fake Christians."

3) In other threads (and I don't expect you to know this, being a newcomer), Abdullah has suggested that the philosophy of liberalism will ultimately lead to the legalization of infant murder and cannibalism. Ignoring whether or not that's the case, it is intellectually dishonest of him to claim that liberalism leads to hypothetical and speculative future conclusions while ignoring the reality of where Islam is today. I only raised the counterexample of Islam to illustrate that all ideologies, when taken to their most extreme points, end in disturbing places.

I would not agree with you that this is an instance of the no true scotsman fallacy. From what I recall, Islam scholars make references to particular rules. It's stated in the Quran that if a person chooses to not follow some of these rules, then they are to not be considered a Muslim. His claims are coming from scholars who have studied this material for their entire lives; its not a matter of a fallacy, its explicitly known in his faith.

You can certainly pick and choose your definitions in a way to make it so that Abdullah shares the same ideology as these terrorists, but then you would simply be making a trivial claim. In my eyes, to call someone apart of the same or differing ideology, in this case, seems to be a matter of semantics. Do as you wish, but there would be no significance to your claim. Abdullah is claiming that he does not share an ideology with these terrorists, given that some live a life filled with murder while he does not. I would trust him more pertaining to this claim, because he has referenced many scholars who make the same claims, and he has a decent understanding of the Quran.

You can claim that he shares the same ideology as these terrorists because they use the same book and worship similar Gods, but I genuinely do not understand the significance of that claim either. It'd be like saying that because you and Stalin had a similar ideas pertaining to the origins of the universe, you are like him, and hence your ideas must be dangerous.

[John Dule]

I would not agree with you that this is an instance of the no true scotsman fallacy. From what I recall, Islam scholars make references to particular rules. It's stated in the Quran that if a person chooses to not follow some of these rules, then they are to not be considered a Muslim. His claims are coming from scholars who have studied this material for their entire lives; its not a matter of a fallacy, its explicitly known in his faith.

You can certainly pick and choose your definitions in a way to make it so that Abdullah shares the same ideology as these terrorists, but then you would simply be making a trivial claim. In my eyes, to call someone apart of the same or differing ideology, in this case, seems to be a matter of semantics. Do as you wish, but there would be no significance to your claim. Abdullah is claiming that he does not share an ideology with these terrorists, given that some live a life filled with murder while he does not. I would trust him more pertaining to this claim, because he has referenced many scholars who make the same claims, and he has a decent understanding of the Quran.

You can claim that he shares the same ideology as these terrorists because they use the same book and worship similar Gods, but I genuinely do not understand the significance of that claim either. It'd be like saying that because you and Stalin had a similar ideas pertaining to the origins of the universe, you are like him, and hence your ideas must be dangerous.

I'm not trying to discredit Islam or Abdullah's belief in it. I am simply exposing a logical fallacy. Abdullah said that liberalism can lead people to terrible conclusions (and implied that therefore liberalism is fundamentally flawed). I am illustrating to him that Islam can also lead people to terrible conclusions, and that by his own logic, it must also be fundamentally flawed.

[fhtagn]

(snip because I'm not going to support doxxing)

Can we not do doxxing on this forum?

And yes the removing of the film is bad.

Public information. I just think an organization that is supposed to be open to everyone should be made aware that an employee has a racial bias. They need to sit her down and have a conversation.

(snip)

Behold the sadistic nature of the leftist trying to ruin the life of a random person who dares to have a different opinion. Once again, this place is literally Twitter now.

No, I'm an African-American who is sick of White racists trying to erase history that they don't like. Accountability is not sadistic, it's reality and it is a necessity.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Trump is surging over Biden no negotiate over the Debt Ceiling it's 20 months til Eday but he has a lackadaisical approach to the Debt Ceiling and it's now showing up in the polls like last time except there is no VA but it's 20 months till Eda

Users are obsessed with the indictment stuff  it's not helping the Debt Ceiling one bit McCarthy didn't win the Speaker to lose it we are favs to win but not prohibited favs

[fhtagn]

Who cares? He's a disgusting human being who's an accessory to genocide.

genocide?

They're trying to do a genocide against transgender people. If you look at the ten stages, we're already at like stage 6.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Abdullah is committing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy when he says terrorists are by definition "not real Muslims." True, we shouldn't take at face value what someone claims to be (North Korea is definitely not a "Democratic People's Republic," despite what they call themselves). However, Abdullah is constructing an artificial standard that excuses all the excesses and extremes of Islam. He is trying to define away the bad aspects of his faith.

Here are the reasons why his attempts fail:

1) Most obviously, there are no adherents to any religion who manage to follow every single command of that religion to the letter. According to Abdullah, those who do violence in the name of Islam are cherrypicking particular aspects of the Koran to follow and not follow-- but this is true for how all people of faith end up approaching their religious texts, no matter how dogmatic they are. Has any Christian lived a 100% truly Biblical life? No. The mere fact that self-professed "Islamic terrorists" do not obey every single element of their holy text does not automatically render them non-Muslims. If this were true, no Muslim would be a "true Muslim." Thus, even if the Jihadis are not following the Koran to the letter, that doesn't suddenly mean that their actions are completely independent from the doctrine of Islam. The opposite is true: They are inseparable.

2) His logic cuts multiple ways. Christianity has an explicit commandment: "Thou Shalt Not Kill." But the Crusaders certainly broke this commandment frequently-- does this mean that the Crusades were carried out by non-Christians? It would be ahistorical in the extreme to make that argument. Doing so would ignore all the nuances of how religious people engage with their faith, and I highly doubt that Abdullah-- as a Muslim-- would be willing to excuse the atrocities committed by Christians due to the perpetrators being "fake Christians."

3) In other threads (and I don't expect you to know this, being a newcomer), Abdullah has suggested that the philosophy of liberalism will ultimately lead to the legalization of infant murder and cannibalism. Ignoring whether or not that's the case, it is intellectually dishonest of him to claim that liberalism leads to hypothetical and speculative future conclusions while ignoring the reality of where Islam is today. I only raised the counterexample of Islam to illustrate that all ideologies, when taken to their most extreme points, end in disturbing places.

I would not agree with you that this is an instance of the no true scotsman fallacy. From what I recall, Islam scholars make references to particular rules. It's stated in the Quran that if a person chooses to not follow some of these rules, then they are to not be considered a Muslim. His claims are coming from scholars who have studied this material for their entire lives; its not a matter of a fallacy, its explicitly known in his faith.

You can certainly pick and choose your definitions in a way to make it so that Abdullah shares the same ideology as these terrorists, but then you would simply be making a trivial claim. In my eyes, to call someone apart of the same or differing ideology, in this case, seems to be a matter of semantics. Do as you wish, but there would be no significance to your claim. Abdullah is claiming that he does not share an ideology with these terrorists, given that some live a life filled with murder while he does not. I would trust him more pertaining to this claim, because he has referenced many scholars who make the same claims, and he has a decent understanding of the Quran.

You can claim that he shares the same ideology as these terrorists because they use the same book and worship similar Gods, but I genuinely do not understand the significance of that claim either. It'd be like saying that because you and Stalin had a similar ideas pertaining to the origins of the universe, you are like him, and hence your ideas must be dangerous.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

DTW, CHI, SF, NY, BLT, DC, DALLAS, NY, MAD, MKW, CLE, STL, KC  blks are looking for reparations that's why Kelly did so badly compared to Johnson the blks and white females in MKE, MAD and GB suburban areas came out in full force this time against RS and Rs Johnson, Vance and Budd got a DeSantis bump that they won't get this time a Hurricane is likely to develop but not a tsunami like IAN or Katrina and Trump criminal probes

Of course we are gonna have Hurricanes in FL due to climate change but a tsunami type won't happen now but will again happen I. The future but  probably not this or next yr

I figured it out after last Tues Johnson won by 1pt he got like Vance and Budd and Rubio a DeSantis bounce they were losing before IAN, DeWine wasn't up by 25 before IAN he was up 6

Users keep barreling on and predicting RS to win the S because it's only a 303 map but we are competetive in KY, MS, LA, NC, Gov and won AK Rep and KS 22 415 states lol