Morning Must Reads: Attack

  • Share
  • Read Later
278 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
PatrickSartor
PatrickSartor

Many religions have statements like this. For example:

.

Kill those who are not Christian or Jewish:

You must kill those who worship

another god.  Exodus 22:20

Kill any friends or family that

worship a god that is different than your own.  Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Kill all the inhabitants of any

city where you find people that worship differently than you.  Deuteronomy

13:12-16

Kill everyone who has religious

views that are different than your own.  Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Kill anyone who refuses to

listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

Kill any false prophets.

Deuteronomy 18:20

Any city that doesn’t receive

the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that

of Sodom and Gomorrah.  Mark 6:11

Jude reminds us that God

destroys those who don’t believe in him.  Jude 5

.

http://www.evilbible.com/Bibli...

paulejb
paulejb

PatrickSartor,

Patrick is unaware that Christ brought a new message into the world which is recorded in the books of the New Testament.

Do you suppose he is just ignorant or is he engaging in Islamic agitprop?

PatrickSartor
PatrickSartor

 

Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah.  Mark 6:11

Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him.  Jude 5

.

"...Christ brought a new message into the world..."

.

It's sad how Paulie Bianco is getting bible lessons from an atheist.

.

I clearly compared parts of the Koran Rustburket found unused and unknown to anybody but the most extremist, violent, hate filled Muslim to some equally disturbing unknown and unused parts of the bible which, hypothetically a lunatic born Christian may use to murder people and Paulie believes that I am a Muslim.

.

I eat ham and cheese on a croissant with my coffee for breakfast. 

.

I promise you, I am not Muslim. (Not that there is a moral difference between Muslims and Catholics, but, I didn't leave behind the deity of my Irish ancestors for a deity far, far from anywhere I have ever lived).

PatrickSartor
PatrickSartor

Who's the thid grader:

.

1) A man citing hirsotrical facts about the bible and it's previous interpretations and comparing it to the Koran

.

or

.

2) "My Christian God can kick their Muslim God's butt"?

.

Can my Dad beat up your Dad? 

.

Why don't you stick to a fact-free right wing blog like Redstate?

.

Oh. I forgot. You are too obnoxious even for them.

.

How about you start your own blog?

.

Oh, yeah. You did and nobody liked it.

.

Maybe you should sit back and learn from people before posting.

 .

"name calling"

.

Outside of "Paulie Bianco" which is his name - perhaps he prefers "Paul" over "Paulie"- like Paulie Walnuts of the Sopranos - or "RustBurket" combining your, apparent, birth name of Rod(ney) Burket and your previous self declared nickname of "Rusty" when I was I name calling?

.

You are the one, as usual, being the child.

PatrickSartor
PatrickSartor

.

"who gives a crap what happened over a 1000 years ago?"

.

1) Muslims, who are taught about the Crusades the way Americans are taught about George Washington crossing the Delaware.

.

2) Since the bible has not changed, it could still be used to justify actions like the crusades should it be in the hands of people as violent minded as the Knights Templar.

.

 "... the Torah is not the Christian Bible..."

.

Sorry, Liar. Word for word the Torah is the so-called "old testament" of the Bible less disagreements about translations with Jewish scholars regarding the foreshadowing of Jesus. 

.

Too bad that yo, like Paulie, need an atheist to tell you about the bible. (I was raised Catholic and we always knew that the old testament is the Torah).

.

"THIRD, show me anywhere in the past 1000 years that Christians have waged war or "jihad" on any other people."

.

The crusades went from the first crusade in 1096 ((916 years ago) to the 9th Crusade ending in 1272.

.

But, if you want a more recent example, there would be the removal of the Moors from Spain ending in 1492.

.

Next came the Inquisition, which clearly banned the celebration of any other religions including Muslims.

.

The last of multiple inquisitions was  ended in 1858 with the Edgardo Levi Mortara case.

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

.

Closer to home, there were the Salem Witch Trials.

.

Grow up, Liar.

.

After 9/11 there were as many Muslims astonished about what had been done in the name of their religion as there were astonished Americans.

LiberalLies2012
LiberalLies2012

As usual Sartor plays and acts like a little 3rd grader with his name calling and stupid explanations which are no more than word salad and the delusions of a psychotic loon.

First, these things were used as justifications for the Crusades a thousand years ago..Second, please send a link to a part of the New Testament disowning Exodus and Deuteronomy.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"First", who gives a crap what happened over a 1000 years ago?  We are in the here and now, 2012.  Not 1000 years ago when BOTH religions were waging war against each other.  Prove me wrong on that asswipe.

"Second", the Torah is not the Christian Bible.  The Christian Bible started with the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Christ did not advocate or demand his followers "kill the infidels" in his name as does Mohammed.  

What I took from the Qu'ran was not taken out of context at all.  These are the demands that Mohammed had placed upon his believers at the time, and today.  

THIRD, show me anywhere in the past 1000 years that Christians have waged war or "jihad" on any other people.  

You can't, because you are an ugly little troll and someone that should be ignored.

PatrickSartor
PatrickSartor

 "God destroying those who do not believe is a lot different than instructing men to kill in God's name."

.

First, these things were used as justifications for the Crusades a thousand years ago.

.

Second, please send a link to a part of the New Testament disowning Exodus and Deuteronomy.

.

Deuteronomy is the Christian source of the band on cross dressing: The woman shall not

wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's

garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

.

(Yes, I do believe cross dressing is very disturbing. But I don't believe it is like committing harm to somebody else - just disturbing.)

PatrickSartor
PatrickSartor

 Paulie,

.

For any of the three major world religions and, as far as I can tell, most of the lesser known religions, one can find text as a reason to be the most amazingly kind person who ever lived or as a reason to slaughter millions of people.

.

So, when radical Islamists murder people the way that the Crusaders did a thousand years ago, I don't believe that they have a Satan god. I believe that we have to wonder about the misery in their world and wonder why more people read horrible, inhumane parts of their book than read horrible, inhumane parts of the bible.

.

That doesn't make anything okay.

.

I just don't buy guilt by association.

LiberalLies2012
LiberalLies2012

God destroying those who do not believe is a lot different than instructing men to kill in God's name.

Get a clue, idiot

PatrickSartor
PatrickSartor

This was in response to Rustburket's list of out-of-context and/or unused parts of Koran regarding non-Muslims.

.

Unfortunately, Disqus has a mind of it's own.

LiberalLies2012
LiberalLies2012

Mr. Obama said the U.S. will work with Libya to bring the attackers to justice. He and other officials didn't rule out a U.S. strike. "Make no mistake, justice will be done,'' the president said.

Who is Obama going to blow up?  Mr Wipple?  Barry is totally out of his league with this one.  Terrorists will twist him like a pretzel, and he will run with his tail between his legs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/... 

Libya is Obama's little mistake.  He started it, and now he's going to make it even worse.  At least with Gaddafi in place, the Islamic extremists were in check.  Now Libya is nothing more than a smoldering powder keg.  

Egypt is out of control.  Libya worse yet.  Syria is all but ready to go down as well.  Obama's doctrine of appeasement has failed miserably.  

paulejb
paulejb

LiberalLies2012,

Barry promises to get right on this as soon as he returns from his Vegas fundraiser.

MrObvious
MrObvious

Who is Obama going to blow up? Mr Wipple? Barry is totally out of his league with this one. Terrorists will twist him like a pretzel, and he will run with his tail between his legs.

Which makes perfect sense since this is what righties accuse him of not wanting to do, even more - you yourself Rod wrote that if it comes to war to get these guys, so be it.

So what is it Rod? How is it that you can say one thing in one moment, and then another thing in another?

When I say that you and other righties always pivot 180 degree against anything we or Obama says, it's perfectly illustrated time and time again - some times in the same post and certainly within hours or so.

LiberalLies2012
LiberalLies2012

http://rt.com/news/cairo-clash...

History does indeed repeat itself.  This is Jimmy Carter's Presidency all over again.  The only difference at that time Iran wasn't nearing the unbelievable level of having a nuclear bomb.  

With Obama at the head of the helm, we are all in deep sh*t.  Maybe the French can save us.

ahandout
ahandout

 What exactly is a religious feeling?  Try using that in a sentence.

 

You b@st@rds:disqus you really hurt my religious feelings when you elected a Muslim sympathizer as president.   Not sure if that works.

 

paulejb
paulejb

"Libyans commemorate 9/11"

"Obama said: “We must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms … our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for the governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.” (Emphasis mine)

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09... 

That was then. This is now.

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

It appears that "including the freedom for people to express themselves" is no longer operative in the Obama administration.

paulejb
paulejb

MomentoMori,

"Yup, that's him. Well done, gold star for being able to use the internet."

==================================

Gotta love the geniuses who make up the hive mind. They don't even know how much they don't know.

A challenge by the hive is like being assaulted by chipmunks.

MrObvious
MrObvious

A challenge by the hive is like being assaulted by chipmunks.

And a challenge from you isn’t worth the digital spit.

 

Why – because your entire existence here is one of one fallacy after another.

Affirming the consequent -- Believing that an effect proves a cause, i.e. A -> B, B, therefore A.

Like your example today of OWS equals the attackers. Which is just one of the many times you use this form of fallacy

Argument from ignorance -- Basing the truth of a premise only on whether it has been proved to your satisfaction.Argument from incredulity -- Literally "that's unbelievable = that's obviously not real". This kind of thinking would quickly put an end to virtually all quantum physics.Negative proof -- Arguing that something must exist because there is no evidence it does not exist. One single proof -- Dismissing all circumstantial evidence in favor of a single "smoking gun" that may not (and may not need to) exist.

Like your example of how dems have to be godless because they didn’t spell out God (Negative proof).

Argumentum ex culo -- Various forms of making things up or lying.Ad hoc -- Yanking shoddy explanations from where the sun don't shine in response to new information rather than from a coherent logical method. Often results in daisy-chaining various other fallacies.Argument by assertion -- The belief that if you say something enough times, it eventually becomes true and therefore you win the argument.Bullshit -- Placing your argument above the truth.Equivocation -- Deliberately substituting the meaning of a given word in one context for another context that is inappropriate in order to make your argument. False analogy -- Creating an analogy or metaphor, then extending it to prove one's point.Generalisation from fictional evidenceMoving the goalposts -- Changing evidential requirements in an argument once they have been met, "what I really meant was..."Red herring -- A group of fallacies which bring up a fact which is irrelevant to the issue, in an attempt to distract the opponent and/or audience.Straw man -- Distorting an opponent's position for greater rhetorical flexibility.

Like you saying that I had a choice of either your fantasy about me or the lying eyes about the fallacy you created. Or the many times (just read todays posts) of posting the same things over and over, no matter how untrue. Or like removing context and adding new context, often by endthreading.

Or changing the subject or premise after its blown to bits by basic logic or adding irrelevant information to change the subject or distorting what other writes – often completely foreign to what they wrote in the first place.

Argumentum ad hominem -- Attacking the opponent directly rather than addressing the opponent's idea.Argumentum ad cellarium -- attacking the opponent directly by accusing him of still being in "mom's basement"Poisoning the well -- Attempting to refute an argument based on the perceived veracity of the presenter.Tu quoque, where a criticism is falsely dismissed because its author is also guilty of the charge.

This is something Rod is very good at but we’re all guilty of it from time to time – you’re definitely not a stranger of it. Although in the beginning when you came here you swore up and down with indignation how this was a argument loser – until you gave up all pretense and started doing it daily.

Argumentum ad verecundiam -- The Appeal to Authority; because someone famous/powerful/respected believes it, it must be true.Appeal to ancient wisdom -- It's right because the Maya/Chinese/Hebrews said it thousands of years ago!Appeal to tradition -- Just because it's always been that way doesn't mean it's the right way.Argumentum ad Hitlerum -- Saying something is bad because Hitler did it.Argumentum ad populum or bandwagon -- Arguing for a point based on popularity rather than merit.Galileo gambit -- If someone is going against the tide of popular thinking, they must be right because the likes of Galileo were right, while in reality, Galileo was right because he had evidence.

Sarah Palin worship, Mitt said this, Mitt said that, God this, God that. Or when you talk about how conservatives is this and that trying to hide about values you have a hard time displaying – or your interest in molesting Godwin’s law or how you claim that ‘we the hive’ are ganging up on you so then you the lone crusader have to be right.

Balance fallacy -- Giving equal weighting to both sides of an argument, even if one really doesn't deserve the time.

This is something journalists and pundits are very good at but it’s also the false equivalance you blend with a healthy dose of straw men.

Begging the question -- Assuming the conclusion as part of the premise (similar to circular reasoning).

You like this particular fallacy; conclusion before evidence. Or simply one ripped out sentence or headline and then you simply rant out a string of nonsense around it.

Confusing correlation for causation -- The number of pirates on the seas has gone down, this correlates with global temperatures rising. So, do pirates cause global cooling?Post hoc, ergo propter hoc -- Saying that because event A happened before B, A must have caused B.Texas sharpshooter fallacy -- A data mining fallacy and pattern recognition error where the arguer makes an ad hoc conclusion from a set of unrelated data without looking for corroborating data.

One of your specialties – you probably learned in from masters like Rush and Coulter. Always proving it with wonky correlations. X mean Y – why? Doesn’t matter. Add liberal and you’re right off Ad Hocing begging the question with straw men.

Composition and division -- A pair of fallacies confusing what is true of a part with what is true of the whole.Association fallacy -- Associating the values of one group with the values of another due to superficial or coincidental similarities.No True Scotsman -- Excluding an inconveniently misbehaving member of a class to defend the class as a whole.Overgeneralisation -- Taking a few specifics and making a general rule out of them, without the few specifics adequately representing the entire group.Spotlight fallacy -- Assuming aspects of a group from aspects from a smaller observed part of the group.

Association fallacy; Ayers, Wright – we have to deal with Muslim brotherhood when we pretend that we really want Middle East democracy but A mean B so Obama loves Muslim brotherhood. Or like if you hear one dumb dem we’re all dumb or we’re all ‘like that’. With your rant about liberals totalitarian impulse. A string of fallacies without evidence and context with the conclusion that we’re all like that.

Or that all dems are just as the fringest part. Note that’s why I call you guys righties and not conservatives – because you ARE the fringe.

Denying the antecedent -- If A implies B, and not-A, therefore not-B.

False dilemma -- Portraying two options as the only possibilities, with no middle ground (see Pascal's wager for an example).

Are you going to believe Mr Obvious or your lying eyes? Both fallacies with implication of what I am and the fallacy of the original Affirming.

Intuition pump -- Deliberately abusing a thought experiment to prove a fallacious point.

Presupposition -- Making an implicit assumption as part of an argument.

Your assumption is always to make what you believe (not proven) about liberals and their actions part of an argument.

My enemy's enemy -- Supporting someone because you've a mutual enemy with them.

Non sequitur -- Arguably the most fundamental logical fallacy, this is claiming A implies B when it doesn't
.

Hello – how many times do you string together fallacies to follow one of your fallacy conclusion, often irrelevant to the conversation and nothing more than opinions without a factual basis.

Reification -- Treating an abstraction as a real thing, e.g. treating the test score called "intelligence" as an innate part of a person.

That would be your basic idea that I’m dumber then you simply because we disagree and you think I vote for something you don’t.

Reductio ad absurdum -- Following a chain of thought to its absurd or contradictory conclusion. Sometimes worthwhile, but oftentimes fallacious.Argument from adverse consequences -- Arguing against a point based on expected negative outcome.Argumentum ad baculum -- A subset of arguing from adverse consequences, the negative outcomes are being actualised by the one making the argument. Also a form of the style over substance fallacy (see below).Slippery slope -- If event A happens, it will lead downhill to further undesirable results. For example, "if we allow gays to get married, then we'll have to let men marry little kids".

And here you have your basic way of operating. You want to call it the socratic method, but it’s often a bunch of absurd statement meant to ‘win’ the argument by forcing the person you argue with to say something emotionally charged. Of course it’s also something righties like to make – gays marrying – you know end of marriage. You allow this, it leads to that. Give help to people, you get people who are so lazy that they vote one way and will never want to work.

Special pleading -- Demanding that your point of view is subject to different standards than all other points of view without any justification beyond "it's the only real support I have for my argument".

We’re the hive, or you’re so smart that it’s only natural that all of us have to agree to your absurd rules in order for you to do X or for X to happen.

Style over substance fallacy -- Using language or rhetoric (ethos or pathos) to enhance the appeal of an argument, but not its validity.Argumentum ad baculum -- Also an argument from adverse consequences, this is attempting to intimidate an opponent (baculum is Latin for "stick").Argumentum ad nauseam - The belief that something becomes true if repeated often enough to make you vomit.Emotional appeal -- evaluating an argument based on its emotional consequences rather than logical ones.

We shouldn’t mess with you right – because we haven’t see the worst of it. When you fire up all cylinders of your might intellect we’re in for it. And of course arguing the same point over and over and over.

And foremost – think of the children.

paulejb
paulejb

MrObvious,

Birds of a feather...

The rapists of OWS were quite happy to be associated with the rapists in Tahrir square.

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

 This has been "Inside the Neocon's Brain."

LiberalLies2012
LiberalLies2012

Pure and unadulterated BULLCRAP.

Shorter Ob'd, you'll blow your last gasket.

LOL

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

If you want examples of 'losing it'

...insert something about "significant other" here  ; )

MrObvious
MrObvious

Rod,

that would be a fallacy - it's not BULLCRAP because I wrote it.

Sorry bud - while it was a longer post showing examples of paulejb many fallacies I certainly have not 'lost it'. If you want examples of 'losing it' then all we have to read is your many nonsensical hateful posts.

ahandout
ahandout

 Have some extra time on your hands today, Mr O?

MrObvious
MrObvious

ahandout

I wrote a long post. No more and no less time consuming then your many.

MrObvious
MrObvious

Or shorter

Why should we have to worry about what you brag about yourself when your entire barrage of the many posts you drop every day is one fallacy after another?

You know what; I take my chance against your so called higher intellect.

So far it's not even causing a mild rash other then the head scratch now and then.

ahandout
ahandout

 Indeed, they will tell you that Obama really didn't support the Muslim Brotherhood, and other ignorant "liberal facts."

paulejb
paulejb

"How the media turned Obama's foreign policy bungle into a Romney gaffe"

http://washingtonexaminer.com/... 

Obama's Ministry of Propaganda aka the mainstream media swings into action to defend his fecklessness. The only presidential leadership skills on foreign affairs were demonstrated by Mitt Romney.

paulejb
paulejb

It appears that the Chicago teacher's strike is actually a blessing in disguise for Chicago students.

"Che-cago teachers strike riddled with radicals having a blast"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... 

H/T Ace of Spades.

paulejb
paulejb

Barack Hussein Obama has his priorities set.

"Vegas Baby....VEGAS!!!!!!!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?f... 

 If GWB pulled this the mainstream media would have had a collective meltdown.

H/T Ace of Spades

paulejb
paulejb

Barack (The Cambridge Police acted stupidly) Obama claims Mitt Romney shoots before aiming.

"Obama: Cambridge Cops "Acted Stupidly" In Prof. Gates Arrest"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... 

"Obama: Romney shoots first, aims later"

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/w...

LiberalLies2012
LiberalLies2012

Obama is a two bit dork, November can't come soon enough. Carter was the worst President. Barry sealed the deal today.

ahandout
ahandout

Paul, Obama never shoots his mouth off.  

"I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played," Obama said Wednesday night while taking questions after a White House news conference."...

He just said that he wasn't there, didn't see all the facts, and then mentions that race played a role, maybe. 

ahandout
ahandout

It is idiotic to suggest it is OK to riot and murder because someone has offended your religion.

 

paulejb
paulejb

"All of You Who Harshly Condemn Anti-Homosexuality Religious Beliefs, Take Note"

"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." 

http://www.volokh.com/2012/09/... 

ahandout
ahandout

Yes. only Muslims get special treatment when is comes to offensive images, etc.  A video game that was supposed to "teach tolerance" was removed only after Muslims complained.

"After an official statement from the Organisation of Islamic Conference

we decided to remove the game Faith Fighter from our site."

http://www.jesusorsquirrel.com...

paulejb
paulejb

Cairo Embassy after mob breaches the walls and tears down Old Glory.

"We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others"

Unless they are Christians, Jews or Hindus. Then it's fine.

paulejb
paulejb

"Video: Obama criticizes Romney for politics of Libya statement while headin’ off for campaign fun in Vegas"

Erick Erickson✔

@EWEricksonHad George Bush gone to Vegas for a fundraiser on a day like today, the nat'l political press would be in an uproar.

http://hotair.com/archives/201... 

paulejb
paulejb

"Congressman: Embassy attack in Libya was coordinated"

"WASHINGTON - Intelligence experts and U.S. government officials are starting to view the attack in Libya that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others in Benghazi as a coordinated attack." 

http://wtop.com/215/3033617/Of... 

Only imbeciles would believe that this atrocity has anything to do with a video disparaging Muhammed. That was just a convenient excuse for a planned attack on 9/11.

ahandout
ahandout

 We have some of those imbeciles right here in river city.