• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

WARNING: Watching Anti-Islam Videos Leads to Independent Thought!!

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Koran 2:191 " slay the unbelievers wherever you find them"
Koran 3:28 "Muslims must not take unbelievers as friends"
Koran 3:85 " any religion other than Islam is unacceptable"
Koran 5:33 " Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam"
Koran 8:12 " terrorize and behead those that believe in scriptures other than Islam"
Koran 8:60 " Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels"
Koran 8:65 " the unbelievers are stupid, urge Muslims to fight them"
Koran 9:5 " when opportunity arises kill the infidels wherever you catch them"
Koran 9:30 "the Jews and Christians are perverts : fight them"
Koran 9:123 " make war on the infidels in living in your neighbourhood"
Koran 22:18 " punish the unbelievers with garments of fire,hooked iron rods, melt their skin and bellies"
Koran 47:4 " Do not hanker for peace with the infidels: behead then when you catch them"

You may say these verses were meant for "wartime", well the definition of "jihad" gets expanded more and more to go way beyond wartime too and allow these (and many more) verses to be called up at any moment for superfunwhackytime!

+ the concept of taqiyya that allows muslims to lie at will in order to defend/promote/spread islam.

...changing/updating islam to more compatible in today's humanity is going to be monumental.
 
Last edited:
Omar F1 said:
Just a small hint in case it never came to your mind, do you really believe that the USA with all it's power, most advanced intelligence and spying network, along with their Arabic allies in this region, can't determine the funds source of a Group such as al Qaeda since the 90s? all that time and it's still going on as strong as it ever was? Can we be realistic for once and see the bigger picture beside all that chaos.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that organizations like AQ do NOT get their money from wealthy Muslim donors?

Also you way overestimate how easy it is to track stuff down. It took years just to bust the owner of Silk Road for instance and even that was due to the owner messing up and letting his guard down on a technicality.
 
Last edited:
Blue_Max said:
Koran 2:191 " slay the unbelievers wherever you find them"
Koran 3:28 "Muslims must not take unbelievers as friends"
Koran 3:85 " any religion other than Islam is unacceptable"
Koran 5:33 " Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam"
Koran 8:12 " terrorize and behead those that believe in scriptures other than Islam"
Koran 8:60 " Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels"
Koran 8:65 " the unbelievers are stupid, urge Muslims to fight them"
Koran 9:5 " when opportunity arises kill the infidels wherever you catch them"
Koran 9:30 "the Jews and Christians are perverts : fight them"
Koran 9:123 " make war on the infidels in living in your neighbourhood"
Koran 22:18 " punish the unbelievers with garments of fire,hooked iron rods, melt their skin and bellies"
Koran 47:4 " Do not hanker for peace with the infidels: behead then when you catch them"

+ the concept of taqiyya that allows muslims to lie at will in order to defend/promote/spread islam.

...changing/updating islam to more compatible in today's humanity is going to be monumental.
Click to expand...

Islam is definitely not the "religion of peace" some people pretend it is. Hitler thought Islam would be a great "warrior's religion." But it is not entirely violent, either. It does have some peaceful passages. The Quran has so many self-conflicting passages that you could basically interpret it any way you want to. You can make it seem very peaceful or violent. My problem with it is that it is literally taken to be the Word of God immutable, in the first place.
 
blastingcap said:
Are you saying that organizations like AQ do NOT get their money from wealthy Muslim donors?

Also you way overestimate how easy it is to track stuff down. It took years just to bust the owner of Silk Road for instance and even that was due to the owner messing up and letting his guard down on a technicality.
Click to expand...

Wealthy Saudi donors, a major ally in the War on Terror
 
blastingcap said:
Islam is definitely not the "religion of peace" some people pretend it is. Hitler thought Islam would be a great "warrior's religion." But it is not entirely violent, either. It does have some peaceful passages. The Quran has so many self-conflicting passages that you could basically interpret it any way you want to. You can make it seem very peaceful or violent. My problem with it is that it is literally taken to be the Word of God immutable, in the first place.
Click to expand...

Religion of Peace is a political neologism used as a description of Islam. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, some politicians described Islam as a "religion of peace" in an effort to differentiate between Islamic terrorists, Islamism, and non-violent Muslims
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_of_Peace

You should get over to reddit and see how many Christian believe the Bible is literally the Word of God immutable

https://www.reddit.com/search?q=bible+word+of+god

edit- Yes I know, this thread is about Islam, shaddup about American terrorists and Christians
 
Last edited:
justoh said:
You were in that thread too. Dank just doesn't know the difference between induction, deduction, and abduction. No formal logic training. No discipline. Imprecision. There was never any absolute proof for his assertion, yet he specifically and repeatedly stated that there was, using language inappropriate for abduction.
Click to expand...
Haha, I see you learned some new words in the last year. Well, maybe attempted to learn, because if you really understood them you would see that their proper use has nothing to do with what I said in that thread.

I also like how you keep saying I didn't give absolute proof even though you failed to refute my logic despite repeated tries to the point that you gave up in a huff.
 
dank69 said:
Haha, I see you learned some new words in the last year. Well, maybe attempted to learn, because if you really understood them you would see that their proper use has nothing to do with what I said in that thread.

I also like how you keep saying I didn't give absolute proof even though you failed to refute my logic despite repeated tries to the point that you gave up in a huff.
Click to expand...

What thread was this? Was this the whole blacks were not part of history thing?

"He gets so twisted up in technicalities that he loses sight of the message."

Also, why are you getting so twisted in his use of words, when you should focus on his message?
 
Londo_Jowo said:
Maybe you should start a thread on the Dunning–Kruger effect and use Orignal Earl's posts as an example.
Click to expand...

The problem is that he does not really say anything, so its super hard to counter.

So blasting pointed out that there are not any Muslim majority countries that are considered role models. So Earl then counters with a list of countries and says there must be one. He did not name one then, so he really said nothing. So I then ask him to name 2, and when he did, I showed how they were nothing to look up to. So then he goes back to relativism so he does not have to take a stance again.

He will tell you that something is wrong, but wont explain why, and when pushed, he deflects. He never really makes a falsifiable claim. This is why Blasting calls him a troll, because he never really sticks to a point and will never really back up anything he says.
 
realibrad said:
What thread was this? Was this the whole blacks were not part of history thing?

"He gets so twisted up in technicalities that he loses sight of the message."

Also, why are you getting so twisted in his use of words, when you should focus on his message?
Click to expand...
Lol, the post is right in your sig, though I'm not sure why you don't give me credit for it.
 
dank69 said:
Haha, I see you learned some new words in the last year. Well, maybe attempted to learn, because if you really understood them you would see that their proper use has nothing to do with what I said in that thread.

I also like how you keep saying I didn't give absolute proof even though you failed to refute my logic despite repeated tries to the point that you gave up in a huff.
Click to expand...

I just had a bagel. Was so good!
 
dank69 said:
http://forums.anandtech.com/search.php?searchid=2495230
Click to expand...

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2393831&highlight=white+dont+teach+here

I had forgotten how dumb you were there.

Person a says that the people were arguing for X.
Waggy then says
exactly. so i guess they should fire every black history teacher (except for African-American, Latino and Southeast Asian studies).
Click to expand...

You then took what he said as to mean that blacks were not apart of American history. God that was so dumb and you went on for pages trying to defend that claim.

Wow, I had forgotten how dumb you look in that thread.
 
realibrad said:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2393831&highlight=white+dont+teach+here

I had forgotten how dumb you were there.

Person a says that the people were arguing for X.
Waggy then says

You then took what he said as to mean that blacks were not apart of American history. God that was so dumb and you went on for pages trying to defend that claim.

Wow, I had forgotten how dumb you look in that thread.
Click to expand...
Yeah, my favorite part was where I refuted your last attempt to discredit my position so thoroughly that you never returned again:

dank69 said:
Progress! At least you are not asking me why I think what I've already told you I do not think! 😀

realibrad said:
Mostly correct. Protestors believe that the teacher does not have direct experience of the subject matter, and that they believe inherently makes the teacher unqualified to teach the subject.
Click to expand...
Mostly correct? I reiterated what they were saying specifically and you inferred what they meant generally. My representation is more accurate than yours is. It does not matter at all for the purposes of this discussion anyway.



Correct



Mostly Correct. Black people do not have direct experience with being from the race that makes up the vast majority of Europe. As explained before, the protesters believe a teacher needs direct experience.
Click to expand...
Adding the word "direct" doesn't change anything. I think it is relatively clear from my post that when I said experience I was talking about direct experience.



Here is where it really starts to break down. American history is a history made up of many different events, and the people who went through those events. The people who went through the events were also shaped by their culture. A major part of American history has to do with how the US dealt with racial relations. So, the issue then becomes, how can any teacher have broad enough firsthand experience to be qualified to teach all facets of “American History”? So, the idea by Spungo is that a black teacher would have very little firsthand experience with European issues and history, and thus would be unable to effectively teach.
Click to expand...
No, you are flailing wildly for any other explanation you can possibly think of. Yes American History has many different facets to it, as does any history, but there is no indication in Spungo's or Waggy's posts that they think the protesters' logic, if extended, means nobody can teach history anymore. They said black people wouldn't be able to teach European History and black people would only be able teach Minority studies. If they meant no single person would be able to teach European History, that's what they would have said.



Correct



Correct



Correct



NO. Again, the protestor’s logic is that you can only teach a historical subject you have firsthand experience in. As teaching any nations or regions history is far too complex for a single person black or otherwise, you can draw a conclusion from the protestor’s logic that nobody would be qualified to teach a broad subject like European or American history. Waggy did not state that he believes that whites can teach American history, and blacks can’t. That is an inference you made, and it does not follow logically. If first had experience is necessary, then neither blacks or whites or anyone would be qualified. Nothing that Waggy has stated can lead you to know what he believes. But the protestor’s necessity for firsthand experience would preclude anyone from teaching American History effectively.

Here is an example. Blacks are not qualified to teach anything outside of minority studies. Whites are not qualified to teach anything outside of majority studies.

Both would be inline and would still preclude both from teaching American History.




American History is not a subset, but minority relations is a subset of American History.
So if A+B=C, and you need to have firsthand experience to teach C, you would also need to have firsthand experience in A and B. Blacks would not, and neither would Whites.
Click to expand...
Again, reaching. I understand what you are saying, but you are reaching and nothing in either of their posts indicates that this is where they were going.




Mostly correct. They believe whites do not meet the requirement of enough firsthand experience as set by the protestors.
Click to expand...
Again, a distinction without a difference.



Correct



Correct, insofar that A+B+C=European History, and no one person can ever have enough first hand experience to teach it.



Correct



Incorrect. Waggy believes that a black person could not have enough firsthand experience to teach a broad subject such as a nations or regions history.
Click to expand...
Again, your conclusion drawn from your own logic not supported by anything in their posts.



Partly correct. Waggy does not believe anyone has enough firsthand experience to teach American History, black or white.
Click to expand...
Again, a distinction without a difference.



Correct. Waggy does not believe that black people should be disqualified.




Holy crap, you just summed up your whole point in one sentence. How did that feel? That’s pretty amazing that you were finally able to do it.

Minority studies is mostly made up of minority history. There is far more that has gone on in the past, than is going on in the present.
Click to expand...
This isn't my whole point. It has nothing to do with my original point. It is a complete tangent to my point. I just tacked it on the end because, why not discuss it as well?
Click to expand...

I mean, your rebuttal hinged on two claims:

1) That "direct experience" was so different from "experience" that it rendered my point invalid when I actually used the term "life experience" in at least one post anyway.

2) Some ridiculous inferences you drew that were completely unsupported by their posts.
 
dank69 said:
Yeah, my favorite part was where I refuted your last attempt to discredit my position so thoroughly that you never returned again:
Click to expand...

Or maybe I had better things to do, but lets do this I guess.



dank69 said:
I mean, your rebuttal hinged on two claims:

1) That "direct experience" was so different from "experience" that it rendered my point invalid when I actually used the term "life experience" in at least one post anyway.

2) Some ridiculous inferences you drew that were completely unsupported by their posts.
Click to expand...

Protesters thought that a white person should not teach minority students on the grounds that a white person did not have real understanding of minority subjects as being white meant they did not have experience which is the only way to fully understand.

So Spungo says
Spungo said:
On the flip side, Karen Crozier is implicitly saying that black teachers are incapable of teaching European history. How progressive of her.
Click to expand...

European history is mainly a white history, as the players in it were white. If we were to follow the protesters logic, then a black person could not teach European history because black experience would not be sufficient to cover the full breath of European history.

This is where Waggy picks up on the thread.
waggy said:
exactly. so i guess they should fire every black history teacher (except for African-American, Latino and Southeast Asian studies).


I didn't know that the color of your skin dictated what history you could teach! Thanks karen!
Click to expand...

Now, history is the study of the past. Its understood that history is inherently subjective. So, when Waggy says that blacks should only be limited to the studies of the groups he listed, its obvious that he is talking about minority studies in terms of US history which blacks were a part of but not whites. So, following the logic of the protesters, it would be correct to assume that black teachers did not have life experience to cover topics to teach all US history. US history being as varied as it is, would also imply that if you were to follow the protesters logic, that nobody would be qualified to teach US history completely as every part of history had perspectives that are arguably unique.

So, when you claimed that Waggy thought that black people were not apart of history, that is wrong. He was simply taking the logic of the protesters to the logical conclusions.

If white people cant teach minorities because they are not a minority, then blacks cannot teach all of US history, as there inherently were parts that dealt with majority races.
 
dank69 said:
Not here dumbass. If you want to rez that thread from the dead I'll be happy to discuss it further with you.
Click to expand...

Holy shit what?

You just posted a wall of text, and then say I can't because it was the wrong thread to do it in.

So why was it ok for you, but not me?

You are just full of double standards.
 
Rebuttal? If it must be the case, then it's necessarily deductive, so "rebuttal" or "refutation" doesn't make any sense. There was never any valid deductive argument given, and there could never have been one, because the premises couldn't support that conclusion deductively. Make sense? Am I getting through to you at all?

Abandon your pride and try seek the truth instead of always engaging in mindless rhetoric.

Then the case is the same in all the other arts for the orator and his rhetoric: there is no need to know the truth of the actual matters, but one merely needs to have discovered some device of persuasion which will make one appear to those who do not know to know better than those who know.
Click to expand...

from gorgias. You rely on your wit and rhetoric because all people are clueless on some things, and many on most, so you can often seem right with enough conviction, insults, misdirection and imprecision, to an average audience.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top