Islam hates us?

[canceled.2021.1]

No, I wasn't "guessing." And it's an established psychological principle that marginalization can make an individual or group more susceptible to radicalization.

Again - is that a concept that you dispute? If you do, what is your reasoning and proof for that?

Are you afraid to answer that question? You seem to be the one that's scared here. I don't think you're capable of actually discussing it.

So how do you explain the fact that it seems to be so prevalent among muslimes? Are you saying they are the only group in the world that is marginalized?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

So how do you explain the fact that it seems to be so prevalent among muslimes? Are you saying they are the only group in the world that is marginalized?

I think your conclusion is disputable, but even taken at its surface - who is arguing that marginalization is the only reason for radicalization?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No, I wasn't "guessing." And it's an established psychological principle that marginalization can make an individual or group more susceptible to radicalization.

Again - is that a concept that you dispute? If you do, what is your reasoning and proof for that?

Are you afraid to answer that question? You seem to be the one that's scared here. I don't think you're capable of actually discussing it.

But you were obviously guessing; because you rejected my presentation that used your "facts" and have been running from it since.

How am I disputing it, when I used your "logic" in my response to that presentation??

Your downward slide to being Desh like, is continuing and you are rapidly reaching your intend goal.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

But you were obviously guessing; because you rejected my presentation that used your "facts" and have been running from it since.

How am I disputing it, when I used your "logic" in my response to that presentation??

Your downward slide to being Desh like, is continuing and you are rapidly reaching your intend goal.

It's not a guess. I've studied psychology. The idea that marginalizing & isolating an individual or group makes them more susceptible to radicalization is accepted fact. I'm not running from anything. This is what I have stated consistently throughout this thread, from beginning to end.

If you're not disputing that concept, as you seem to be saying (but who knows, since your posts are getting more nonsensical), then good on you. Because you'd look foolish disputing it.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It's not a guess. I've studied psychology. The idea that marginalizing & isolating an individual or group makes them more susceptible to radicalization is accepted fact. I'm not running from anything. This is what I have stated consistently throughout this thread, from beginning to end.

If you're not disputing that concept, as you seem to be saying (but who knows, since your posts are getting more nonsensical), then good on you. Because you'd look foolish disputing it.

But you're the one who rejected my presentation, even when it used you "logic"; so maybe, you should return to studying.

The only one who is looking foolish, is you; because all you do is keep trying to move the goal posts, to where you're more comfortable.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

But you're the one who rejected my presentation, even when it used you "logic"; so maybe, you should return to studying.

The only one who is looking foolish, is you; because all you do is keep trying to move the goal posts, to where you're more comfortable.

How am I moving the goalposts?

Again - my original goalpost is that marginalizing an individual or group can make them more susceptible to radicalization. That's also my current goalpost.

Do you want to attempt to dispute that concept, or offer some proof as to why that might not be true? I'm not sure why you keep repeating the fairly meaningless charge that I'm "moving the goalposts." I haven't changed anything.

 

[christiefan915]

The left would actually be amusing on this issue if it weren't such a serious problem. It's like if you refuse to utter certain phrases reality will automatically conform to what you think it ought to be.

But saying Islam is a religion of peace doesn't neccessarily make it so.

The left, and again, much of the national security apparatus, is hell-bent on searching for 'root causes' for Islamic terrorism that will exempt Islam from the equation. Unbelievably, any unbiased observer can figure it out using Google during their lunch break.

Google 'political Islam' and you'll find the Muslim Brotherhood and from there it's pretty obvious the root cause is an ideology.

It even has a name: radical Islam.

All religions claim to be religions of peace. Show me an example of any that claim to be religions of war.

It's the followers who are either peaceful or warlike.

 

[anatta]

Islam was never a religion of peace. Islam is the religion of fighting. No one should believe that the war that we are waging is the war of the Islamic State.
It is the war of all Muslims, but the Islamic State is spearheading it. It is the war of Muslims against infidels.
O Muslims, go to war everywhere. It is the duty of every Muslim

Caliph Ibrahim al-Baghdadi

 

[USFREEDOM911]

How am I moving the goalposts?

Again - my original goalpost is that marginalizing an individual or group can make them more susceptible to radicalization. That's also my current goalpost.

Do you want to attempt to dispute that concept, or offer some proof as to why that might not be true? I'm not sure why you keep repeating the fairly meaningless charge that I'm "moving the goalposts." I haven't changed anything.

And I used your presentation in my example, with you immediately rejected.
The only reason you would reject it, is either you didn't believe in what you presented or it made you uncomfortable.
I'm not intending to enable your goalpost movement; just because you don't like your "logic" being used against your liberal political beliefs.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

And I used your presentation in my example, with you immediately rejected.
The only reason you would reject it, is either you didn't believe in what you presented or it made you uncomfortable.
I'm not intending to enable your goalpost movement; just because you don't like your "logic" being used against your political beliefs.

You didn't use my presentation in your example.

Your example is what is known as a false analogy. It's something you're very practiced at. Your example had little to do w/ my original point.

Regardless, I haven't moved any goalposts.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You didn't use my presentation in your example.

Your example is what is known as a false analogy. It's something you're very practiced at. Your example had little to do w/ my original point.

Regardless, I haven't moved any goalposts.

Yes I did and it's not a false analogy.
You just don't agree with it; because if your comment is true, then so is mine and your mind just can't let you accept it.

You did attempt to move the goalposts, regardless.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Yes I did and it's not a false analogy.
You just don't agree with it; because if your comment is true, then so is mine and your mind just can't let you accept it.

You did attempt to move the goalposts, regardless.

It was definitely a false analogy, because it oversimplified the concept of radicalization, and did nothing to disprove the established concept that marginalization can make an individual more susceptible to radicalization.

If you want to take a moment to think about the concept, it's basically indisputable: if someone is on the fringes, whether due to poverty or issues with socialization, of course they're going to be more easy targets for radical groups. There is an inherent desperation there. Further marginalization just makes them more susceptible. Again - this is not a Thing1 theory. It's established principle, and something we've seen throughout history (too many times to count).

Your somewhat lame attempt at an analogy took none of that into account. It was linear & simplistic - thus, false.

What goalposts did I move? Again - I've been arguing the same concept this whole thread. And you have obstinately refused to try to refute it or offer an opposing idea of any kind.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It was definitely a false analogy, because it oversimplified the concept of radicalization, and did nothing to disprove the established concept that marginalization can make an individual more susceptible to radicalization.

If you want to take a moment to think about the concept, it's basically indisputable: if someone is on the fringes, whether due to poverty or issues with socialization, of course they're going to be more easy targets for radical groups. There is an inherent desperation there. Further marginalization just makes them more susceptible. Again - this is not a Thing1 theory. It's established principle, and something we've seen throughout history (too many times to count).

Your somewhat lame attempt at an analogy took none of that into account. It was linear & simplistic - thus, false.

What goalposts did I move? Again - I've been arguing the same concept this whole thread. And you have obstinately refused to try to refute it or offer an opposing idea of any kind.

Where did I ever say I was trying to disprove what you originally suggested; because my presentation was not an over simplification and used did nothing more then use what you posted.

Thank you for agreeing, in your second sentence, that my example was spot on.

You moved the goal posts when I used your example and you then wanted to add more ingredients to the mix; as you now attempted to do again, in your third sentence.

 

[Airstrip One]

Did he move the goalposts, or did he move the kicker back?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Did he move the goalposts, or did he move the kicker back?

He tried to bring in an illegal substitution.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Where did I ever say I was trying to disprove what you originally suggested; because my presentation was not an over simplification and used did nothing more then use what you posted.

Thank you for agreeing, in your second sentence, that my example was spot on.

You moved the goal posts when I used your example and you then wanted to add more ingredients to the mix; as you now attempted to do again, in your third sentence.

1) I didn't agree in my 2nd sentence
2) That isn't a goalpost move. As I have said a few times, never did I present what I was saying as a full history & analysis of radicalization. I was presenting one aspect of radicalization - the whole time.

Sorry 'bout that. If you'd care to try to refute that aspect of radicalization, I'm all ears. I've invited you to try many times at this point.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

1) I didn't agree in my 2nd sentence
2) That isn't a goalpost move. As I have said a few times, never did I present what I was saying as a full history & analysis of radicalization. I was presenting one aspect of radicalization - the whole time.

Sorry 'bout that. If you'd care to try to refute that aspect of radicalization, I'm all ears. I've invited you to try many times at this point.

Sure you did; but you just want to deny it.

Then why did you summarily dismiss my presentation, seeing as how it was only one aspect of radicalization??

At no point in this entire exchange have I suggested I was attempting to refute anything, except for your attempt to move the goalposts.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Sure you did; but you just want to deny it.

Then why did you summarily dismiss my presentation, seeing as how it was only one aspect of radicalization??

At no point in this entire exchange have I suggested I was attempting to refute anything, except for your attempt to move the goalposts.

No, I didn't. You just don't understand that, because you don't understand things.

I summarily dismissed your presentation precisely because it narrowly reflected one aspect of radicalization, without considering anything else.

And again, I haven't moved any goalposts. And as long as you seem to be saying that you don't refute my original premise - I'm glad you agree.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No, I didn't. You just don't understand that, because you don't understand things.

I summarily dismissed your presentation precisely because it narrowly reflected one aspect of radicalization, without considering anything else.

And again, I haven't moved any goalposts. And as long as you seem to be saying that you don't refute my original premise - I'm glad you agree.

You can keep saying that you didn't attempt to move the goal posts; but anyone with intelligence can see that you did try to.

My comment was based solely on what you had posted.
Are you now saying that your post narrowly reflected one aspect of radicalization, without considering anything else?

By the way, you do tap dance really well.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

You can keep saying that you didn't attempt to move the goal posts; but anyone with intelligence can see that you did try to.

My comment was based solely on what you had posted.
Are you now saying that your post narrowly reflected one aspect of radicalization, without considering anything else?

By the way, you do tap dance really well.

Actually, anyone WITH intelligence would never claim that I moved the goalposts. Because I've been saying the exact same thing the entire time.

Your post only reflected your endless quest on JPP to come up with inappropriate faux-gotcha analogies. And you're not even that good at it.

And I don't know where the "now I'm saying" comes from. My discussion has always centered around marginalization. Again - not once have I tried to claim that this thread would be a thorough history & analysis of radicalization & its many factors.