450 posts IS a worse crime than wanting to kill us .
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Friday, May 22, 2009 14:59
VIEWED: 29463
PAGE 28 of 46
Because if Iran did it, they would have a firm beleif that their religion and Mohamed would protect them. If he would not protect them, they would be martyrs and would all get 72 virgins when they die. It's a win/win situation for them. Not so much for the rest of the world in their eyes.
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Really? A perfect logical equivalent huh?
Originally posted by SignyM:
What lines would YOU draw between handguns and nuclear weapons? If all nations had two nuclear bombs each, wouldn't that be the same as everyone owning a handgun except on an international setting? Wouldn't that make potential aggressors far more careful about not pissing off others, since they would never know which direction retaliation might come from? Wouldn't that make all nations equally powerful? It seems to me, on that basis, to be a perfect logical equivalent.
Gun ownership reduces crime because it keeps honest people honest, or puts the fear of god in the eyes of criminals. Criminals prey on the weak, and are less likely to prey on someone they believe to be armed. This actually does work the same on the international scale.
The problem is the lunatics. Nothing will stop the crazy guy who comes into McDonalds to shoots it up. But in an armed society someone can shoot him first or before he does too much damage.
The same thing does not work on an international scale. First of all, if you do shoot the nutcases before they shoot up the proverbial international McDonalds, as we did in Iraq, you get accused of invading a peaceful nation (**snicker**), and in any event there’s a huge difference between shooting a nutcase and waging a war to hang a nutcase. They are not “perfect logical equivalents,” as you seem to think. If you wait for this peaceful nation to lob a nuclear weapon at, say Jerusalem, so that you have a pretext for invasion, then you’re talking about potentially millions dead, not exactly a fair comparison to shooting up a McDonalds. If you respond by shooting nuclear weapons at the nutcase, then even if you manage to stop the nutcase, you’ve potentially killed more millions of people. Again, not exactly a fair comparison to shooting a single nutcase.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think Finn's arguments are more persuasive. Because nut-jobs around the world are all equivalent... as long as they don't hold your life in regard, it doesn't matter whether the reason is schizophrenia or religious mania.
Because if Iran did it, they would have a firm beleif that their religion and Mohamed would protect them. If he would not protect them, they would be martyrs and would all get 72 virgins when they die. It's a win/win situation for them. Not so much for the rest of the world in their eyes.
Quote:So in your opinion the difference is the amount of damage that can be done.
The problem is the lunatics. Nothing will stop the crazy guy who comes into McDonalds to shoots it up. But in an armed society someone can shoot him first or before he does too much damage.
Quote:Except in this case there was no indication that Saddam was about to invade anyone... or indeed, no solid evidence that he had WMD. When he invaded Kuwait, or even when Israel bombed Iran's nuclear facilities there wasn't too much of an outcry because the evidence was clear. Saddam may have been a nutcase, but all he was doing was standing on the streetcorner yelling.
The same thing does not work on an international scale. First of all, if you do shoot the nutcases before they shoot up the proverbial international McDonalds, as we did in Iraq, you get accused of invading a peaceful nation (**snicker**)
Quote:So, to reiterate your point, its the amount of damage and more specifically the number of innocent people at risk which makes the difference. Right?
and in any event there’s a huge difference between shooting a nutcase and waging a war to hang a nutcase. They are not “perfect logical equivalents,” as you seem to think. If you wait for this peaceful nation to lob a nuclear weapon at, say Jerusalem, so that you have a pretext for invasion, then you’re talking about potentially millions dead, not exactly a fair comparison to shooting up a McDonalds. If you respond by shooting nuclear weapons at the nutcase, then even if you manage to stop the nutcase, you’ve potentially killed more millions of people. Again, not exactly a fair comparison to shooting a single nutcase.
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:I think Finn's arguments are more persuasive. Because nut-jobs around the world are all equivalent... as long as they don't hold your life in regard, it doesn't matter whether the reason is schizophrenia or religious mania.
Because if Iran did it, they would have a firm beleif that their religion and Mohamed would protect them. If he would not protect them, they would be martyrs and would all get 72 virgins when they die. It's a win/win situation for them. Not so much for the rest of the world in their eyes.
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
Well said, Finn.
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:I think Finn's arguments are more persuasive. Because nut-jobs around the world are all equivalent... as long as they don't hold your life in regard, it doesn't matter whether the reason is schizophrenia or religious mania.
Because if Iran did it, they would have a firm beleif that their religion and Mohamed would protect them. If he would not protect them, they would be martyrs and would all get 72 virgins when they die. It's a win/win situation for them. Not so much for the rest of the world in their eyes.
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
That is correct, but both arguments hold true, nonetheless.
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Because if Iran did it, they would have a firm beleif that their religion and Mohamed would protect them. If he would not protect them, they would be martyrs and would all get 72 virgins when they die. It's a win/win situation for them.
Do you really believe this is true? Seriously?
You don't think that most Muslims, like most Christians, simply want to go about their daily life, love their children, and want to live? You seem to think they're some kind of death-cult race of automotons bent of destroying everything that isn't them.
I can show you instances of Christianity behaving in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. And the Bible says you should be happy to die for your lord, so aren't you really exactly like these "radical Muslims"? If you aren't, then how can you call yourself any kind of Christian?
You seem to have this idea that every Muslim is in a rush to martyrdom, that they're all living on some kind of death-high. Tell me, what would YOU do if you had a nuclear weapon? What's the VERY FIRST THING YOU'D DO? Would it be to utterly ensure that your nation, your people, your culture, and any speck of your existence were wiped from the face of the Earth forevermore? Because that's what you're saying others will do, simply because their god is addressed by a different name (even though he's the exact same god in every other respect).
It's a logical fallacy.
And I'm not saying we should "trust" anyone with nuclear weapons. What I'm saying is that we should automatically trust OURSELVES with them, either. We don't have a great track record with the things, ya know what I'm sayin'?
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm talkin' about the radicals of today's Muslim faith (of which there are far many more that can be pointed to directly than of any "radical Christian" of the same bent, I can tell ya that right now - don't go all Rosie O'Donnell on me 
).
Face it. Radical extremists take over the Muslim countries at an alarming rate. If you don't think Ahmadeenajad (phoenetic spelling) is a radical, you're fooling yourself. The Taliban, who ran Afghanistan for quite a while . . . same thing.
As a Christian I should be happy to defend my faith, yes. Absolutely. But to say that all who don't share my faith and are worthy of death? Absolutely not. I'll admit that I'm no Biblical scholar, but I have a faith in what the Bible says, why it says it and in the order it says it. In the Old Testament, God did order the death on non-beleivers. I won't contest that. It was so that His people could have the land He promised them and He didn't want them influenced by any other cultures. There are a whole lot of other things in the Bible in which all sorts of prophecies are made of the Messiah who is to save everyone who beleives in Him and finally bridge the gap between God and Man. When this Messiah came, his message was NOT to wipe out everyone who didn't beleive in Him, but to spread the Good News OF the Messiah so that they may come to a saving faith in Him and thus rebuild that relationship with God.
Now if Christ said literally to go kill non-beleivers, you'd have a case, but he doesn't so you don't. It is my understanding that the Koran explicitly tells people that they are justified in killing "infidels". Two radically different messages.
Christian = Die for my faith - YES.
Christian = Kill for my faith - NO.
Muslim - Die for my faith - YES.
Muslim - Kill for my faith - YES and even can be done at the same time.
*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I'm talkin' about the radicals of today's Muslim faith (of which there are far many more that can be pointed to directly than of any "radical Christian" of the same bent, I can tell ya that right now - don't go all Rosie O'Donnell on me ).
Sorry, but disagreeing isn't "going all Rosie O'Donnell" on anyone. Not any more than you're "going all Rush Limbaugh" on me.
You speak of radical Muslims as if there are inordinately more of them than there are radical Christians. I disagree. I think you SEE more radical Muslims, because you're attuned to look out for what you disagree with, and you don't tend to pay as much attention to what you DO agree with. There have been terrorist attacks right here in this country by people calling themselves "Christians", and they're carrying out these attacks for religious reasons, and for no other reasons whatsoever.
Quote:
Face it. Radical extremists take over the Muslim countries at an alarming rate. If you don't think Ahmadeenajad (phoenetic spelling) is a radical, you're fooling yourself. The Taliban, who ran Afghanistan for quite a while . . . same thing.
Face it. Radical "Christian" extremists have taken over countries at a rather alarming rate, too. Or do you not believe that Dubya is a Christian? How about Hitler? Mussolini? They SAID they were Christians; shouldn't we take them at their word on thier religious beliefs?
And if you don't think Dubya and Cheney are radicals, you're fooling yourself.
See how easy it is to distort the view, depending on which side of the mirror you're looking through?
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Distorting things does, indeed, seem to be your strong suit, my friend. LOL
"I think you SEE more radical Muslims, because you're attuned to look out for what you disagree with, and you don't tend to pay as much attention to what you DO agree with."
You point things out of me that are just as true of yourself and others on this board and I hope you see that.
Radicals, IMO, are the kind that say "You will do as I say and beleive as I do or you will suffer the consequences (i.e. death)." You're right that I don't see Christians doing that as much as I see Muslims doing that.
The problem with some of this stuff is that people will say/do anything to gain power. If it's to say they're a Christian to initially gain control then so be it. They'll lie and say they're devout Christians even though they don't really beleive it. Hitler and Mousilini are probably in that camp. Take the movie "V for Vendetta" for example. It was supposedly a "Neocon" government that V wanted to overthrow, but there was NOTHING Christian about that government's actions. They probably used that platform to gain power and then distorted it to the extreme.
You can't tell me that Dubya was an extremist who "took over" the U.S. That's preposterous. There was an election, he won. Twice. Plain and simple. You don't agree with his actions and think he's BSing about being a Christian, I don't begrudge your right to say that. You have every right to. He won the first election and every single recount in FL ended up in his favor. I remember that quite clearly. Just because the Supreme Court had to step in because Gore wouldn't accept that reality does not mean Bush took over the country.
Yes, this goes for every world leader - You have to judge people by their actions, NOT just their words. If someone says they're a Christian but acts in a way that doesn't seem very Christian to you, you kinda have to question it. You can press them for an answer and they may tell you without a doubt they ARE Christian. But in the end they have only ONE being to answer to for that. And it's not you or me.
Look. We're having a nice discussion on this and I do appreciate you not calling Christianity a "BS" religion like you did in another thread. But you're not going to see it my way, I'm not going to see it yours. I make no excuses for those that DO misinterpret the Bible or call themselves Christians while doing things FAR from Christian. I admit the faults others may find in my faith and that I'm not knowlegable enough to explain some things, but I also have a feeling that you'd dismiss out of hand the sources I would point you to that DO explain things far better than I ever could. I may be wrong here, so please tell me if I am.
I'm curious, though. You say there are terrorist attacks happening right now by "radical Christians". Where? When? How many? What did they base their Christianity on? Did they riot in the streets and mail death threats to anyone who maligned Jesus Christ? Did they videotape themselves cutting someone's head off?
There are a LOT of people out there who say they're Christian only because they know they're not Jewish or Muslim, but they know they celebrate Christmas and Santy Claus. If that's your basis for calling them radical Christians, I'm sorry to say that's a false pretense.
*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I could say the same for ObL, most of the Ayatollahs and pretty much any political/ military leader who claims religion on his (or her) side.
The problem with some of this stuff is that people will say/do anything to gain power. If it's to say they're a Christian to initially gain control then so be it. They'll lie and say they're devout Christians even though they don't really beleive it. Hitler and Mousilini are probably in that camp.
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME