Re: orlando shooting
never brought up the crusades, you continue to say that i did. i brought up the byzantine empire which predates anything you have mentioned about muslims probably because it predates the birth of muhammad by 200 years or so.
you still cant realize that when i compare muslim on muslim terror to the IRA it's to say that it's NOT because of religion. not trying to say that christians are terrorists, i'm saying the opposite. just because the IRA had a religious affiliation doesnt mean that their terror was inspired by religion. it was tribal. which is what muslim on muslim violence is, which is what makes up the bulk of terrorism related deaths.
you say that third world christian countries dont have sharia law, but uganda tried to pass a death for gays law and actually passed a life in prison for gays law, that was only thrown out on a technicality. well done christianity.
not to mention that LGBT deaths in south america are rampant. i'm not linking again because you wont read the links anyways. basically if there isn't a pretty picture you'll just ignore it. if you want to, just go back and find the links i posted before. but you wont. so oh well.
god damn this is getting me fumed i dont know if there's a language barrier or if you're just a fucking moron but you continue to strawman instead of responding to the things i actually say.
it's very, very easy to find buddhist, jewish, and hindu terror. like, ridiculously easy, but i'm done googling for you. you dont even read the things i say or link to anyways. live in ignorance, it seems that you are comfortable there already.
you say christians dont preach death, i prove you wrong in two seconds. but then it's that *not all* christians preach death but *some* muslims do so yeah one religion is way better.
way way better.
never tried to take away agency. individuals all make decisions on their own. not sure what that has to do with the fact that ISIS would not exist without the war in Iraq.
the split between shia and sunni was about who should lead after muhammad died. the split was along family lines. about as tribal as it gets. yes, it had to do with religion, in that they were picking who should be the leader next. had nothing to do with any beliefs other than who should be the leader, and they've been fighting ever since.
so in summation: strawmanning is perfectly fine for you to do, but when i do it in response you get real, real salty. and then you continue to strawman me, over and over. and over. and over.
maybe middleasterners hate the west because we spent half a century fighting our wars in their countries with their citizens? nah, it's just islam obviously.
your response to "things are complicated" is a bunch of oversimplifications of any argument i've made and several things i havent said. great work there bud.
it's clear that you've made up your mind, you've chosen to see the world the same way that islamic terrorists do. they're bad, i'm good. i could never do bad because i'm good and they're bad. some are bad, all are bad, only i and people like me are good. enjoy the company.
since you dont actually read anything i've said, and i'm just going to go ahead and assume that you will continue to read maybe one word, interpret that word however you'd like and then strawman away.
it would be one thing if we simply disagreed, i would probably continue to argue until we came to some kind of conclusion, but when you completely ignore the words i'm writing and respond to some kind of delusional version of them, i start to get frustrated.
imagine if i had responded to everything you posted with this:
because that's basically all you've done this entire time. so i'm done.
hopefully someday you can look back at this and feel really stupid.
never brought up the crusades, you continue to say that i did. i brought up the byzantine empire which predates anything you have mentioned about muslims probably because it predates the birth of muhammad by 200 years or so.
you still cant realize that when i compare muslim on muslim terror to the IRA it's to say that it's NOT because of religion. not trying to say that christians are terrorists, i'm saying the opposite. just because the IRA had a religious affiliation doesnt mean that their terror was inspired by religion. it was tribal. which is what muslim on muslim violence is, which is what makes up the bulk of terrorism related deaths.
you say that third world christian countries dont have sharia law, but uganda tried to pass a death for gays law and actually passed a life in prison for gays law, that was only thrown out on a technicality. well done christianity.
not to mention that LGBT deaths in south america are rampant. i'm not linking again because you wont read the links anyways. basically if there isn't a pretty picture you'll just ignore it. if you want to, just go back and find the links i posted before. but you wont. so oh well.
god damn this is getting me fumed i dont know if there's a language barrier or if you're just a fucking moron but you continue to strawman instead of responding to the things i actually say.
it's very, very easy to find buddhist, jewish, and hindu terror. like, ridiculously easy, but i'm done googling for you. you dont even read the things i say or link to anyways. live in ignorance, it seems that you are comfortable there already.
you say christians dont preach death, i prove you wrong in two seconds. but then it's that *not all* christians preach death but *some* muslims do so yeah one religion is way better.
way way better.
never tried to take away agency. individuals all make decisions on their own. not sure what that has to do with the fact that ISIS would not exist without the war in Iraq.
the split between shia and sunni was about who should lead after muhammad died. the split was along family lines. about as tribal as it gets. yes, it had to do with religion, in that they were picking who should be the leader next. had nothing to do with any beliefs other than who should be the leader, and they've been fighting ever since.
so in summation: strawmanning is perfectly fine for you to do, but when i do it in response you get real, real salty. and then you continue to strawman me, over and over. and over. and over.
maybe middleasterners hate the west because we spent half a century fighting our wars in their countries with their citizens? nah, it's just islam obviously.
your response to "things are complicated" is a bunch of oversimplifications of any argument i've made and several things i havent said. great work there bud.
it's clear that you've made up your mind, you've chosen to see the world the same way that islamic terrorists do. they're bad, i'm good. i could never do bad because i'm good and they're bad. some are bad, all are bad, only i and people like me are good. enjoy the company.
since you dont actually read anything i've said, and i'm just going to go ahead and assume that you will continue to read maybe one word, interpret that word however you'd like and then strawman away.
it would be one thing if we simply disagreed, i would probably continue to argue until we came to some kind of conclusion, but when you completely ignore the words i'm writing and respond to some kind of delusional version of them, i start to get frustrated.
imagine if i had responded to everything you posted with this:
because that's basically all you've done this entire time. so i'm done.
hopefully someday you can look back at this and feel really stupid.
Comment