Round Earthers and other progressions

[SoulReaver]

I wasn't making a point about religion. I was saying that the ends (abortion issue) don't justify the means (Perpetuating Islamophobia).

ok & I was saying in this case it does (if it's effective) and the risk is worth it

I'm the one that has been pointing out his racism....what are you talking about?

I said he's been using the argument himself (calling others racist) did you read the article

COLOR=#000080]Let me get this straight. You made wild assumptions about me, I called you out and modeled your wild assumptions. Then you modeled my modeling of your wild assumptions to teach me about making wild assumptions? I can't find a word to describe this, the closest I can think of is hypocrisy...but the kind where you don't even recognize what you are doing.
[/COLOR]

reality check you started this with wild assumptions of your own
here's a more flagrant example of hypocrisy: denouncing one perceived bigotry while ignoring another far worse brand of it which you also claim to oppose

Never heard of this. Seems more like a myth if you ask me, and a pretty stupid strategy too. The thing is, even Christian Jews were sent to the camps. The Nazis didn't care if you were Christian or not. Not entirely sure what the point of this is beyond simply invoking Godwin's Law. I've read extensively about Nazi Germany. Sure, I don't know everything and it is possible that this is just a detail I have missed/forgotten, but you'll have to excuse me if I don't simply take your word for it. Besides, that "prayer" isn't even a prayer in every Christian church. A lot of Christians don't know it by memory. You must be thinking about Catholics there.

dont take my word for it if you got the web. though personally I learnt about it in a TV documentary where the witnesses (whose parents taught them the prayer back then) were in Spain so this was about Spain but probably applies to all other occupied territories (at least traditionally christian ones like France)
dont really see what's so hard to believe about it you don't think the Gestapo would use any tactic they could think of? this one sounds like an easy & dirty way to do it
as for christian jews - of cos but how exactly would they know if the person was an ethnic jew? DNA tests in the 1940's?
when stopped & interrogated people would just pretend to be good white european christians which is why the Gestapo came up with that trick in the first place
(my guess is if the soldiers were convinced that the guy was a jew anyway they'd take him in after all the nazis themselves decided who was jew & who wasn't as they said)
PS. usually it's the Prolifers & other hardline conservatives who like to bring up the Godwin thing. you were saying something about "wild" assumptions? I don't make wild assumptions

I'm not sure how the ability to escape persecution or the tactics used in doing so or being detected by the persecutor makes one form of bigotry more acceptable than another...

you're not sure how choice matters? '_'

As I have said, my analogy was to describe "The ends don't justify the means". The ends being locking doors, the ends being using racist argument. Do you want me to use another one? It wouldn't change the illustration at all. I could use nationality instead.

that'd be a slightly better example cause even though you can change your nationality you don't get to choose the one you're born with (and it's trickier to hide your nationality from the authorities)
of course nowadays anti-americanism is rampant outside your borders & I'm sure you'll understand why

But no other form of bigotry can yield results similar to those of religious bigotry other than religion....maybe political?

discriminating against religion is on the same level as say, discriminating against those of a political camp, against vegans etc.

All of this is just a distraction from my argument....I'll give you this, you are good with goal post moving. This makes no sense.

you mean I'm good at not playing your game
basically you were suggesting some sort of symmetry where there was none
I (the OP too apparently) were calling you out on your double standards

Do you have any evidence to back up this wild claim? Like statistics, surveys, data, facts? Or are these just broad generalizations?

tell you what next time an article about an abortion clinic bombing turns up (on yahoo etc.) I'll just link you to it so you can see for yourself all the responders who rejoice

Are you telling me that you shouldn't use extremists to change an extremist's mind? Doesn't that defeat your entire "Let's put 'em scary Muslims on the pamphlets" thing?

nope I said don't use their own extremes to change their minds. capice?

Let's be honest, you weren't thinking of normal devout Muslims who bother no one as they practice their religion in peace.

of course not the counter-propaganda would be targeted especially at those who think of bearded bombers since exposing their contradictions is the idea

So because some use religion badly religion and those who practice it are bad? Do I really have to go into detail of how whacked up this "reasoning" is?

except the Church itself approves & from their point of view you're the one who gets it wrong (and 10 to 1 they know the bible a lot better than you do). you think they have it wrong? go tell them they got their own website

All the while ignoring 1 child policy atheist China implemented...
talk about reproductive rights, eh? And that's just one example...one out of others.

ah yes the Prolifers also like to use China's forced abortions as an argument
explain how exactly this is pro choice? you understand pro choice aint the same as pro abortion right? that's another assumption Prolifers like to make (why not pro surgery while they're at it)
that China's is an extreme on the other end of the spectrum doesn't make it less anti-choice

[COLOR=#000080]My motivation is a strong distaste for religious bigotry. I am also adverse to bad arguments even when they are done by people I agree with on topics I agree with

how about that religious bigotry's precisely what the OP was about - so far you've only shown distaste for the responses to it

As for the bolded part...I too can copy and paste.

congratulations

[aretood2]

ok & I was saying in this case it does (if it's effective) and the risk is worth it

This reminds me of a british skit where a prime minister asks his aids/ministers to ask a computer program to see if killing the poor would solve the economic woes of the UK. The aids started dodging his question and then finally said that it wouldn't work and that's why they shouldn't kill the poor. The Prime Minister's response was that he wouldn't have wanted to kill the poor even if it was an effective solution to the UK's economic woes and reacted in disgust at his ministers because the only reason they provided for not killing the poor was its ineffectiveness and not its moral shortcomings. The risk is death of actual living humans and the suffering of actual living humans. I say that the ends don't justify the means here.

In the end it's incredible that you concoct such a ridiculous series of assumptions just because I don't believe the ends justify the means. How you can make mammoth leaps of logic like that, I don't know.

I said he's been using the argument himself (calling others racist) did you read the article reality check you started this with wild assumptions of your own

What wild assumption did I make? And since when does Trump argue that the ends don't justify the means?

here's a more flagrant example of hypocrisy: denouncing one perceived bigotry while ignoring another far worse brand of it which you also claim to oppose

So in order to call out one form of bigotry you have to simultaneously call out all forms? So if I see someone discriminating against a person based on gender I should pause and make a giant speech about how the different forms of discrimination and how bad they all are because if I don't then my reaction to this one specific thing is invalid? That is ridiculous and pure nonsense.

dont take my word for it if you got the web. though personally I learnt about it in a TV documentary where the witnesses (whose parents taught them the prayer back then) were in Spain so this was about Spain but probably applies to all other occupied territories (at least traditionally christian ones like France) dont really see what's so hard to believe about it you don't think the Gestapo would use any tactic they could think of? this one sounds like an easy & dirty way to do it
as for christian jews - of cos but how exactly would they know if the person was an ethnic jew? DNA tests in the 1940's?
when stopped & interrogated people would just pretend to be good white european christians which is why the Gestapo came up with that trick in the first place

Spain wasn't occupied by the Nazis nor was it involved in WWII. There is no real way that this would apply to nazi occupied territories. Furthermore, Spain was and still is a highly Catholic nation, and that makes sense then since Catholics, unlike other Christians, would be more likely to know the prayer by memory. However not all Catholics do. A Jehovah's Witness couldn't tell you that prayer by memory any more than a Mormon or any other Mellerite group...or anabaptist groups for that matter. Some do, but not all. It would have been a bad test to use to find none-Christians outside of countries like Spain, say like Protestant Germany and Denmark and Norway or Orthodox eastern Europe considering that the Orthodox don't do it individually but in a service with a response to a priest. It would result in many Orthodox Christians being identified as not Christian. It's just a very poor way to do anything and too easily defeated. As soon as it is used within a few days everyone would memorize it.

As for looking this up on the web, I did and found nothing. It looks like there's a lot of context missing here for this TV documentary that you mentioned. You even sure you remember it correctly? Your description is quite vague to be honest. What was the documentary called? When did you see it? What was the subject, specifically? What channel did you see it on? I can't respond to vague obscure things that don't seem to match the history of WWII and Nazi Germany (Or even fail fall in those categories since you say this is in Spain).

(my guess is if the soldiers were convinced that the guy was a jew anyway they'd take him in after all the nazis themselves decided who was jew & who wasn't as they said)

Here's the thing though, the Holocaust wasn't some chaotic haphazard free for all snatch 'em and kill 'em thing. It was highly organized, planned, and executed from the very inception to the bitter end. It was extremely sophisticated and involved a large number of resources, manpower, and devoted incredible amount of time and effort to snuff out every "undesirable" possible. Germans would go through scores of records of both state documents, census lists, registries, church and synagogue records (in the case of Jews) and interview neighbors, coworkers, friends, extended family and so on.

To the Nazis, this was an extremely high priority and an existential purpose. They saw it as a scientific endeavour and approached it as such. Entire scores of men would spend day in and day out going through documents and informants just to find one person who is Jewish. Upon occupation, they simply made it illegal for Jews not to register as Jews, and then they had to identify themselves with those stars that you see in holocaust pictures. They didn't need to go around and do "tests" to see if someone was jewish (or more accurately not christian) because they already knew.

They offered incentives for people to turn on their friends and neighbors which worked extremely well. Hiding or aiding jews carried a strong punishment, and thus fear was a strong incentive to even go as far as to not associate with jews. There was no "pretending" to be christian. However, some people were there that helped forge documents, some people pretended to be relatives of jews who were hiding to support said jews' fake identities. But no one was saved by saying a simple one minute prayer that I know of. Problem is that several of these people who helped jews did get caught, not because of failing to memorize something, but because the nazis followed the paper trail or someone snitched.

This, as well as the Spain thing (especially the Spain thing) is why doubt the validity of this claim of yours.

PS. usually it's the Prolifers & other hardline conservatives who like to bring up the Godwin thing.

No, not it's not. In fact you do it quite often. Everytime you call the police the SS or the Gestapo...The Anti-Defamation League calls people out on it all the time. Unless you think they are hardline conservatives. BTW, I wonder what Annoyed thinks about me being called a hardline conservative....

[aretood2]

you were saying something about "wild" assumptions? I don't make wild assumptionsyou're not sure how choice matters?

What wild assumptions?

'_'that'd be a slightly better example cause even though you can change your nationality you don't get to choose the one you're born with (and it's trickier to hide your nationality from the authorities)
of course nowadays anti-americanism is rampant outside your borders & I'm sure you'll understand whydiscriminating against religion is on the same level as say, discriminating against those of a political camp, against vegans etc.you mean

Here's the thing, what matters is the end result. The end result is always the same no matter what aspect of a human is being used to discriminate. Honestly, I don't even know what your point is here. Religious bigotry is bad. Period. What's the point in saying that racism is worse or not? It's like saying "Yes officer, I did ram my car into that old lady and injured her. But I didn't kill anyone so I should be free to go". Sure, it wasn't bad as killing the old lady but....does that really matter? It's still something that shouldn't have been done because it is morally reprehensible.

I'm good at not playing your game

Game? What game? You're the one that's debating in bad faith. You're presenting other people's opinions as my own. You are putting words in my mouth (so to speak) based on what I don't say as if that's some full proof way to suss out what I believe and don't believe. You twist things I do say to make it seem like I am saying other things that I never say. You ignore my explanations for what I meant on previous comments. You move goal posts. You hold me responsible for other people's views and actions and associate my own views with their actions. You use my own religion as a club against me without even knowing what my specific beliefs are (That's an ad hominem). You use vague examples (like the spain thing) without being able to elaborate them. Then you bring up my being American out of nowhere after bringing up other things out of nowhere. How is people's opinions of American relevant?

All of these are signs of debating/arguing in bad faith. I made my initial post about the validity of the method you proposed, not about abortion or whatever. You made that post then about abortion. So I clarified with an analogy to illustrate my "means don't justify the ends" and then you made it into something else entirely.

basically you were suggesting some sort of symmetry where there was none

Whether or not there is symmetry between racism and religious bigotry (ignoring the fact that often islamophobia is closely associated to racism and behaves in the same exact way i.e. people using "muslim" as an ethnicity interchangeable with arab ethnicity and not as a religion in conversation and stereotypes) seems pretty irrelevant to me.

I (the OP too apparently) were calling you out on your double standards

You mean Chaka? He never said anything about double standards. He responded to my exchange with Annoyed about racism itself, and nothing about this. I don't know why he didn't say anything about my analogy, I can't speak for him. I could venture a few guesses. Maybe he understood what my intent was and has moved on, maybe he feels that he has nothing else to add, maybe he agrees with me, maybe he didn't want to respond to that at the time and may do so later, maybe he forgot to say something and was originally planning to. But it is way to convenience of a claim to make that he is "calling me out" with agreement with you. He may have agreed with your point and saw nothing wrong with it but he has yet to claim any double standards or to disagree with my clarification. That's your opinion, not his. We don't know his beyond what he said before posting my clarification. Don't try to play it of as anything different.

tell you what next time an article about an abortion clinic bombing turns up (on yahoo etc.) I'll just link you to it so you can see for yourself all the responders who rejoice

But you are claiming that they and I are one of the same. That's offensive. Awfully specific and direct. And white commentators on articles about white supremacist attacks celebrate too, should I then assume most white people share their views? That's a ridiculous way to gauge anything. It's the first thing they tell you not to do in a statistics class.

except the Church itself approves & from their point of view you're the one who gets it wrong (and 10 to 1 they know the bible a lot better than you do). you think they have it wrong? go tell them they got their own website

You do realize that to some Protestants, the Catholic church is "The Whore of Babylon" and the pope is "The Anti-Christ". How much about Christianity do you really know? The Catholic Church isn't the only church. And their understanding of the Bible is debatable. Just ask any non-Catholic. And conversely, Catholics would say the same about any Protestant calling them Schismatics, ignorant, misguided, dangerous, and "Not Christian".

ah yes the Prolifers also like to use China's forced abortions as an argument explain how exactly this is pro choice? you understand pro choice aint the same as pro abortion right? that's another assumption Prolifers like to make (why not pro surgery while they're at it)
that China's is an extreme on the other end of the spectrum doesn't make it less anti-choice how about that religious bigotry's precisely what the OP was about - so far you've only shown distaste for the responses to itcongratulations

You're moving the goal posts here. You stated that it's religious people who curtail reproductive rights as if they were the only ones. So I provided a counterexample to show that they are not the only ones. Now you are making it out to be that the point was about curtailing the reproductive rights and not who it is that's doing it.

And now the OP? What do you mean by OP? Because the OP has nothing to do with abortion or muslims at all.

[Annoyed]

The bolded part, that's wrong. Reread my post. Nowhere did I describe the demographics of the hypothetical city. The ad campaign is basically saying because there are "a lot" of black people, you will be a victim of theft. That's why I mentioned white "victims". Furthermore "a lot" doesn't give any real number. "A lot of black people" for a racist can be any number really. To a racist one is one too many. But what I find most interesting is your knee jerk reaction to deny racism. It works to the point where the clearly racist thing is taken as "suppose it's an area where 80% blah blah blah". The thing is, I set the hypothetical with the parameters that the campaign is racist. Therefore no, there is no area of 80% black people in the inner city, because the campaign is being racist they are making up racist crap.

From your post:

Bill boards have similar things with menacing black people standing around a house and the door unlocked and the captions say "A lot of blacks live here, they think that leaving doors unlocked is a good idea...but are your possessions and white girls safe?". And all the other ads follow the same pattern.

You specify that the area has a high percentage of blacks making up the population. Even disregarding statistics that show minorities commit more crimes as a percentage of their population than non-minorities do, you would expect that an accurate sampling of criminals vs race would show a high percentage of minorities. For ex: if the area is 70% black (not unheard of for urban areas, I think Baltimore is about 65%?, you would expect 7 of 10 criminals to be black.

That is not racism.

[Annoyed]

I suggest progress on ending world hunger. All it will take is the genocide of the Unas

Perhaps not. Perhaps they can be the solution.

Are they edible? Are they palatable? See if we can feed them to impoverished regions before we just kill them all.

[aretood2]

From your post:



You specify that the area has a high percentage of blacks making up the population. Even disregarding statistics that show minorities commit more crimes as a percentage of their population than non-minorities do, you would expect that an accurate sampling of criminals vs race would show a high percentage of minorities. For ex: if the area is 70% black (not unheard of for urban areas, I think Baltimore is about 65%?, you would expect 7 of 10 criminals to be black.

That is not racism.

That's not "me". It's the propaganda. Notice the ["] marks. "A lot" doesn't necessarily mean a majority. A lot of blacks to a racist means, "more than I'd like to see". I mentioned that the campaign is in fact racist....so logically they are not being honest.

And btw, there would be 3 non-black criminals.

And as for these statistics....you're missing a few variables. Most crimes committed by minorities, such as blacks, or non-violent drug related. Like getting caught with a small pack of marijuana. Outside of those, self reported *as in scientific anonymous surveys* as well as police statics show that the only prevailing difference defaults to economic status. Even beyond that, why would the victims be white? When the vast majority of crimes are committed against people of the same group. In this case, the victims in the visuals should also be black and not white...statistically speaking of course.

I made up the entire thing and you're telling me I'm wrong about the thing I made up????? I even used phrase like "white girls" as victims. Dude....you lived through this didn't you? When black guys kissing white girls was this horrible thing because "everyone knew" that black people were gonna get your white girls. You know, I doubt you can tell when anything racist happens. My mind is literally blown right now.

[SoulReaver]

What wild assumptions?

you know the whole islamophobia thing. worded more subtly & maybe you didn't mean it that way but when you try that especially in such a context (ie. ignoring what it was in response to) dont expect it not to be taken as a wild assumption

Here's the thing, what matters is the end result.

correct the end result is protecting people's rights

The end result is always the same no matter what aspect of a human is being used to discriminate. Honestly, I don't even know what your point is here. Religious bigotry is bad. Period. What's the point in saying that racism is worse or not? It's like saying "Yes officer, I did ram my car into that old lady and injured her. But I didn't kill anyone so I should be free to go". Sure, it wasn't bad as killing the old lady but....does that really matter? It's still something that shouldn't have been done because it is morally reprehensible.

to follow on your comparison it'd have to be a dilemma of sorts if you hadn't injured the old lady would it have killed her instead? was avoiding the old lady altogether not an option?

COLOR="#000080"]Game? What game? You're the one that's debating in bad faith. You're presenting other people's opinions as my own. You are putting words in my mouth (so to speak) based on what I don't say as if that's some full proof way to suss out what I believe and don't believe. You twist things I do say to make it seem like I am saying other things that I never say. You ignore my explanations for what I meant on previous comments. You move goal posts. You hold me responsible for other people's views and actions and associate my own views with their actions. You use my own religion as a club against me without even knowing what my specific beliefs are (That's an ad hominem). You use vague examples (like the spain thing) without being able to elaborate them. Then you bring up my being American out of nowhere after bringing up other things out of nowhere. How is people's opinions of American relevant? All of these are signs of debating/arguing in bad faith.

still dont get it do you? your very first response was suspicious enough (not to mention could be taken as an underhanded wild assumption) that started it all acknowledge responsibility for that
imagine an article about an ISIS attack showing Abu whatever & his goons' ugly mugs with their turbans etc. and you decide to jump in saying "hey that article could promote islamophobia" instead of talking about the attack itself (more so if some who read your reply are related to the victims). capice?[/COLOR]

I made my initial post about the validity of the method you proposed, not about abortion or whatever.

that's the problem

You made that post then about abortion.

because that's what it's about

Whether or not there is symmetry between racism and religious bigotry seems pretty irrelevant to me.

o well for me it's relevant

(ignoring the fact that often islamophobia is closely associated to racism and behaves in the same exact way i.e. people using "muslim" as an ethnicity interchangeable with arab ethnicity and not as a religion in conversation and stereotypes)

(good thing I don't make the association then at some point I specifically said westerners sometimes convert to islam etc.)

COLOR="#000080"]You mean Chaka? He never said anything about double standards. He responded to my exchange with Annoyed about racism itself, and nothing about this. I don't know why he didn't say anything about my analogy, I can't speak for him. I could venture a few guesses. Maybe he understood what my intent was and has moved on, maybe he feels that he has nothing else to add, maybe he agrees with me, maybe he didn't want to respond to that at the time and may do so later, maybe he forgot to say something and was originally planning to. But it is way to convenience of a claim to make that he is "calling me out" with agreement with you. He may have agreed with your point and saw nothing wrong with it but he has yet to claim any double standards or to disagree with my clarification. That's your opinion, not his. We don't know his beyond what he said before posting my clarification. Don't try to play it of as anything different.

that's recent I mean before that he called you out on the same thing I did

But you are claiming that they and I are one of the same. That's offensive. Awfully specific and direct. And white commentators on articles about white supremacist attacks celebrate too, should I then assume most white people share their views? That's a ridiculous way to gauge anything. It's the first thing they tell you not to do in a statistics class.

when thef did I say that
unless it was in response to your comment about Annoyed or Trump or something which I assume was also trolling

You do realize that to some Protestants, the Catholic church is "The Whore of Babylon" and the pope is "The Anti-Christ". How much about Christianity do you really know? The Catholic Church isn't the only church. And their understanding of the Bible is debatable. Just ask any non-Catholic. And conversely, Catholics would say the same about any Protestant calling them Schismatics, ignorant, misguided, dangerous, and "Not Christian".

sounds like a complete mess what's the ultimate authority for all christians on how to interpret the bible then? (I mean one you can refer to so God doesn't count)

You're moving the goal posts here. You stated that it's religious people who curtail reproductive rights as if they were the only ones. So I provided a counterexample to show that they are not the only ones. Now you are making it out to be that the point was about curtailing the reproductive rights and not who it is that's doing it.

good try accusing others of what you're doing you didn't even change the goalpost you changed the playing ground this is about the right to abortion it has been from the start & using semantics to talk about something else doesn't work (China does restrict reproductive rights...by forcing abortions which is the opposite) besides even IF you could find some secular regime which bans abortion fact is statistically the overwhelming majority of Prolifers are religious because let's be honest about it it takes something on the level of religious dogma to assert that a blastocyte is a person & warrants suppressing the rights of the host in its favour. you do get atheist Prolifers & their arguments are far more ridiculous since they try to use logic in an attempt to rationalize their point of view (not give the rest of the non-religious community a bad image)

And now the OP? What do you mean by OP? Because the OP has nothing to do with abortion or muslims at all.

I mean the one talking about faux pro choice propaganda obviously

Even disregarding statistics that show minorities commit more crimes as a percentage of their population than non-minorities do

also disregarding the statistics that show minorities tend to be a lot poorer than non-minorities meaning this is due to you know, socio-economic status not ethnicity '_'

[aretood2]

you know the whole islamophobia thing. worded more subtly & maybe you didn't mean it that way but when you try that especially in such a context (ie. ignoring what it was in response to) dont expect it not to be taken as a wild assumption

How is it a wild assumption? Here's what you said:

the Dems could easily fight back with something similar (distribute "PRolife(tm)" tracts that show a veiled woman & praise the merits of Sharia law) but are they clever enough to think of it?

Is it really that wild of an assumption to assume that your portrayal of a Muslim woman talking about Muslim things (Sharia Law) to scare prolifers away from prolife stance Islamophobic? It's implying that Muslim women talking about Sharia are scary...but they're not. And I did ask in a later post if you know what Sharia was. It's just a term that means Islamic Law. And like in all world religions, the "law" of a particular religion is up for interpretation. For some Muslim women, no veil is needed. For others a Burka is needed. For some a Hijab is needed. All three have their own Sharia they believe in. This type of phrasing leads people to believe there is only one Sharia and it's the one adopted by extremists.

That's how Islamophobia works. You ignore the actual diversity of belief in the religion and associate its terms with only the extremists giving them legitimacy over what the "authoritative interpretation" of their religion is instead of giving the non-extremists that legitimacy. It's like when people show a terrorist attack and say sarcastically that Islam is a religion of peace ignoring that said terrorist may not actually have the "authoritative interpretation" of Islam. That the terrorists might be the heretics breaking Sharia.

It's not a wild assumption, especially when you could have easily clarified it. Though I am not sure how you could "scare" prolifers using Muslims who are not extremists without invoking islamophobic stereotypes...can't use extremism to weed out extremism, I believe you said that yourself. Islamophobia has caused loss of life, so yeah, I think it's worth avoiding it in any faux prolife propaganda regardless of the merits of either side of the abortion debate. It's no different than comparing people who are prochoice to hitler. The problems of devolving argumentation to "you're a nazi" outweigh any consideration of the prolife position.

to follow on your comparison it'd have to be a dilemma of sorts if you hadn't injured the old lady would it have killed her instead? was avoiding the old lady altogether not an option? still dont get it do you?

What?

your very first response was suspicious enough (not to mention could be taken as an underhanded wild assumption) that started it all acknowledge responsibility for that

How was it suspicious? Here's my first responnse:

Because promoting Islamophobia is such a good thing?

Nothing here about prolife or prochoice. Just that promoting Islamophobia is not a good choice. Obviously I thought that using rando Muslims (Veiled Women) and a Muslim phrase that the media loves to misuse (Sharia) to "scare" someone is Islamophobic by its very nature. You taking anything from that to mean something about abortion is of your own invention with no textual basis from my post. You could have asked what I think about abortion and what I think the faux propaganda should be....but instead you assumed beyond the text. I made my statement based on the text. There's a clear difference there.

imagine an article about an ISIS attack showing Abu whatever & his goons' ugly mugs with their turbans etc. and you decide to jump in saying "hey that article could promote islamophobia" instead of talking about the attack itself (more so if some who read your reply are related to the victims). capice?

No. Because those are actual extremists and you are only talking about their extremist views and not some random muslim woman talking about a tern as innocuous as "Sharia" that is clearly a Muslim term that means different things to different Muslims all the while making "Sharia" seem like this dangerous thing when it's no more dangerous than any other common religious term.

that's the problem

But you didn't make it about disagreeing with my stance on whether or not the ends justifies the means. You made accusations that I was using islamophobia as a cover to argue abortion. You heard me challenge whether or not the particular propaganda was a good idea and made it seem like I was not talking about that but playing some weird mind game based on no evidence beyond that I am vaguely Christian.

that's recent I mean before that he called you out on the same thing I didwhen thef did I say that
unless it was in response to your comment about Annoyed or Trump or something which I assume was also trolling

No, he talked about kids and their parent's religious zeal. He didn't talk about abortion in the post you are referring to. That is all you. In any case, why does this matter? He's not in the discussion beyond what I mentioned and stating that he didn't see anything islamophobic about your proposed faux propaganda.

sounds like a complete mess what's the ultimate authority for all christians on how to interpret the bible then? (I mean one you can refer to so God doesn't count)

Like all world religions, there is no ultimate authority. Not in the way you are looking for. I know Catholics like to boast that they are the oldest church and the original one lead by the Apostles and that every other Christian religion broke away from them...but that's ignoring the Eastern Orthodox Church, Armenian Church, Ethiopian Church, Egyptian Coptic Church and a few others that either developed alongside the Catholic Church and thus never was part of it. And they each had their own take an various different beliefs and priorities. And as new churches were founded, they brought in new versions of everything and challenged the assumptions/interpretations of the other churches. Islam and Judaism have no central Authority. Neither does Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism (you think Christianity is complicated, Hinduism is technically a multitude of different religions that range from quasi monotheistic to polytheistic to pantheistic). Which is why you shouldn't assume what someone believes just because they give you one label be it Hindu, Muslim, Christian and so on.

good try accusing others of what you're doing you didn't even change the goalpost you changed the playing ground this is about the right to abortion it has been from the start & using semantics to talk about something else doesn't work (China does restrict reproductive rights...by forcing abortions which is the opposite)

You mean my first response? No, I raised an issue I thought you overlooked, how your faux prolife propaganda would spread/reinforce islamophobia. If you missed that shift and thought I was talking about abortion is your own fault for reading beyond what I said. The same thing applies to the china issue. You implied only religious people who had control of a state violated reproductive rights and I gave you an example of an atheist state that violated reproductive rights. Changing the parameters to only one reproductive right (the right to abort) is moving the initial goal post you established because you mentioned abortion. And in any case, the debate about states and laws is way beyond the issue of faux prolife propaganda

[aretood2]

besides even IF you could find some secular regime which bans abortion fact is statistically the overwhelming majority of Prolifers are religious because let's be honest about it it takes something on the level of religious dogma to assert that a blastocyte is a person & warrants suppressing the rights of the host in its favour. you do get atheist Prolifers & their arguments are far more ridiculous since they try to use logic in an attempt to rationalize their point of view (not give the rest of the non-religious community a bad image) I mean the one talking about faux pro choice propaganda obviously

And so you continue to talk about what I didn't start talking about. You started by associating me with specific sets of prolifers by throwing abortion clinic attackers at me out of nowhere as if I have some sort of responsibility for them. The insinuations are pretty clear. Read your posts:

Here I said this:

I am most certainly ignoring the abortion aspect of this
?

And you responded:

along with the whole terrorist-attacks-against-women-who-abort aspect
take it up with abortion clinic bombers there's a lot more of those

Which came from nowhere practically accusing me of indifference to victims of terrorist attacks based on a line of text saying that I wasn't debating abortion but the use of islamophobic stereotypes. (This is an example of bad faith argument)

Then came the next part:

What we say impacts perception, and that's just a fact. Peddle in islamophobic imagery and the impact will be Canadians and New Zealanders shooting up mosques, as they have done so in the past.

take it up with abortion clinic bombers there's a lot more of those

Once again, the discussion is about how what we say, such as faux propaganda that uses islamophobia, builds the culture that makes people feel it's okay to kill and persecute others. And you bring out this thing about abortion clinic bombers as if they somehow justify spreading islamophobia?

But this is where you get to the offensive association when I said:

So why not use pamphlets that showcase abortion bombings et al?

Your response:

go enquire on the abysmal human rights situation in Salvador & how the church itself encourages it then come back & say what you think of it

So out of nowhere you start pulling out other countries and their laws and how religious people are to blame and this after having assumed all sorts of things about me by me simply being Christian. Not to mention that I somehow owe some sort of allegiance to the Pope even though I would be categorically condemned by him because I am not Catholic.

Then you also said this after my comment about using pamphlets about abortion bombings:

cept it wouldn't work on lot of Prolifers since they support the bombings ("those heathen baby-killers had it coming! insh'Allah Deus vult!")

You said "on lot" of which i took to mean "A lot" because "lot" on its own doesn't make sense in English. Usually people use that ot mean "most". Sure, that's an assumption, but it has textual basis since "A Lot" has strong connotations of "a majority" in English speaking populations. If it's a result of the language barrier (I believe I remember seeing something about English not being your first language) then mea culpa, it happens. So I asked for proof, and your proof was the comment sections on news articles about abortion clinic bombings. This after you made a deal about "What I don't say" in my posts and asking me if I am good with abortion bombings starting with this post assuming that I am okay with showing prochoicers half eaten baby corpses:

the same way you think showing half eaten baby corpses is supposed to convert a pro-choicer to Prolife™?

Then I questioned you as to when I have ever said that and you responded:

it's not what you say but what you don't say. the original propaganda painting pro-choicers as baby-killers didn't seem to bother you even though to pick up on what you said this leads to terrorist attacks against abortion clinics - you good with that?

And assumption based on an assumption followed by an implied accusation.

So how am I not supposed to read between the lines and think that when you pull things like El Salvador, abortion clinic bombers, news article comment sections and so on out of nowhere?

[SoulReaver]

And so you continue to talk about what I didn't start talking about. You started by associating me with specific sets of prolifers by throwing abortion clinic attackers at me out of nowhere as if I have some sort of responsibility for them. The insinuations are pretty clear. Read your posts:

how about that I could've sworn you're the one who started down that line
ah yes here it is

the impact will be Canadians and New Zealanders shooting up mosques

(though admittedly that was aeons ago)

Here I said this:

exactly - and that's the problem & that's what I'm trying to get through to you

And you responded:

Which came from nowhere practically accusing me of

actually there were several paragraphs in between but hey who cares at this point

practically accusing me of indifference to victims of terrorist attacks based on a line of text saying that I wasn't debating abortion but the use of islamophobic stereotypes. (This is an example of bad faith argument)

correct in fact you weren't even addressing abortion (it's natural to respond to bad faith argument with bad faith argument)

COLOR="#000080"]So out of nowhere you start pulling out other countries and their laws and how religious people are to blame and this after having assumed all sorts of things about me by me simply being Christian. Not to mention that I somehow owe some sort of allegiance to the Pope even though I would be categorically condemned by him because I am not Catholic.

iirc I admitted I may have had you mixed up with another christian who's catholic
that said there are non-catholics who are even worse in the human rights department like the evangelists

You said "on lot" of which i took to mean "A lot" because "lot" on its own doesn't make sense in English. Usually people use that ot mean "most". Sure, that's an assumption, but it has textual basis since "A Lot" has strong connotations of "a majority" in English speaking populations. If it's a result of the language barrier (I believe I remember seeing something about English not being your first language) then mea culpa, it happens. So I asked for proof, and your proof was the comment sections on news articles about abortion clinic bombings.

tbh american isn't my first language but since we're splitting hairs maybe lot suggests 'most' in the US since you folks are a bit different but elsewhere a lot just means a lot I could've said 'many' or 'large number' or 'sizeable percentage' or ' ****load' if you prefer
that said whether it's 30% or 50% doesn't change anything it's still a lot of people. why would you suddenly care about how many anyway? new goalposts? I could ask you the same question how many people would support bombings on mosques? certainly not the majority of the NZ population (who accepted a new law in the wake of the attack). consider a false propaganda showing a veiled woman equating this with Prolife, Prolifers in the US usually don't like muslims BUT they also dont like abortions so this is unlikely to arouse their dislike of muslims (they'll probably react like "ok so the muslims agree with us on this, big deal"), progressives on the other hand (those you call "liberals") are pro-choice but they dont hate muslims so this is unlikely to cause islamophobia in them either in other words risk is low to none; on the other hand Prolife(tm) propaganda depicting half eaten baby corpses......is much more likely to arouse choicophobia/libertophobia/womenwhoabortophobia in those who are already Prolife(tm)
so, you were saying?

This after you made a deal about "What I don't say" in my posts and asking me if I am good with abortion bombings starting with this post assuming that I am okay with showing prochoicers half eaten baby corpses:

absolutely that's what the OP was about & that's what I was responding to
you started with (what could be interpreted as) insinuations about islamophobia thereby also decrying a perceived problem while at the same time completely ignoring a far greater problem (to some this could almost be construed as provocation) , a double problem at that (violation of human rights + a piece of faux propaganda that encourages terrorist attacks against clinics the same way you said my idea might encourage attacks on mosques) so when you start there don't be surprised it goes down that road

And assumption based on an assumption followed by an implied accusation.

So how am I not supposed to read between the lines and think that when you pull things like El Salvador, abortion clinic bombers, news article comment sections and so on out of nowhere?

hey maybe if you hadn't gone there things would've headed differently but for reminders all this is because you somehow made a connection between showing a veiled woman & shooting up a mosque you know as if one inevitably leads to another (that's like comparing a burp & a volcanic eruption because both contribute to global warming)
(besides I came up with an even better idea showing Bin Laden or Abu Bagdi's mug instead & you were good with that)

[Chaka-Z0]

Calif. skirts Trump, signs mileage deal with 4 automakers

DETROIT (AP) — Four major automakers have reached a deal with California to toughen standards for gas mileage and greenhouse gas emissions, bypassing the Trump administration’s push to relax mileage standards nationwide instead.

Ford, BMW, Honda and Volkswagen signed the deal with the California Air Resources Board, the state’s air pollution regulator, which had been at odds with the Trump administration for months, in a contest that automakers fear could set up years of confusion and litigation in the industry. California has said it would exercise its powers to set more stringent pollution and mileage standards than the federal government has proposed.

Nice.

All the GOP'ers of GW will have to shut up on that one, since they are the most vocal advocates of STATE INDEPENDANCE and FREEDOM OF STATE and KEEP THE FEDS OUT OF THIS. So hope you guys are happy that the evil WH and establishment can't do anything about it.

MAKE AMERICA GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREAAAAAAAT AGAIN

[Annoyed]

bet the neocons will show they can be very flexible when it comes to states' rights

chances are they'll take this to SDS/SCOTUS

It likely will go thru the courts, but I don't know why. Calif. has had stiffer emissions requirements than the rest of the US for decades, going back to the 1970's at least, so that right is established.

I don't see what the administration has anything to do with it.

From a practical standpoint, it could be that the automakers don't want to deal with the expense and other headaches of multiple models, and will just sell the CA version nationwide. A lawsuit might arise from that neck of the woods.

[Chaka-Z0]

From a practical standpoint, it could be that the automakers don't want to deal with the expense and other headaches of multiple models, and will just sell the CA version nationwide. A lawsuit might arise from that neck of the woods.

For starters, Cali had voted new regs limiting at 50miles/gallon for 2020. In Americans terms idk how much but your current restrictions are way more generous and Trump is seeking to get those current regs even more loosened up. That makes sense to you?

[Chaka-Z0]

Also I hope nobody's fooling themselves, this has nothing to do with the environment. You got to think like a businessman, what is the most profitable course vs risk assessment.

A) you decide to wait it out, and hope for an intervention of the feds (wh is definitely going to take actions). That implies years of legal limbo bc of lawsuits AND you might end up unable to sell in Cali at all.

Or B) you're not a damn baloney and you figure to pump the R&D budget and be ready for whatever happens in 2020 is the no-brainer

[Annoyed]

For starters, Cali had voted new regs limiting at 50miles/gallon for 2020. In Americans terms idk how much but your current restrictions are way more generous and Trump is seeking to get those current regs even more loosened up. That makes sense to you?

*snicker* If you think any automaker can meet a CAFE mark of 50MPG next year, you're out of your skull. Very few vehicles can meet that standard. And those that can aren't much use to a significant portion of the population. They just won't sell.