Messages

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

76

The Show / Re: Apology

« on: January 14, 2010, 01:21:32 PM »

This forum is full of trolls. It's part of the whole virtually-unmoderated thing. Jesus.

Very true - the one thing that I have always enjoyed when I do spend time here is the fact that this BBS will take all comers, and largely leave the role of "moderating" to the individual through the use of the ignore button.

And I also agree with Drifter - very genuinely classy.

77

General / Re: The Question Thread

« on: January 14, 2010, 11:31:22 AM »

Wow that was a lot of words.  I'm glad to have you back even if I'm yet to read one of your posts since returning cuz they are all far too long for me.

A fair point - and one that you are not the first to make, and likely won't be the last.  In that mind, I'll place concessions first, elaborations next.

And I didn't mean to insinuate anything about your level of chastisement.   

Excellent. Exactly my point in my earlier post.  You do see how it could very easily be read this way, don't you?

For my part, I apologize for incorrectly assuming the worst even if it was for only a moment.

I wasn't even really talking to you even though I used your handle.

That's the tricky thing about using someone's name/handle when posing a question:  They tend to think the question is directed at them.

And no.  I meant true things.  Doesn't care if they say true things, Doesn't care if they say untrue things.  Means the same thing.  How about, doesn't care about the truth of what they say, the truth of what they say in unimportant to them etc.  I mean really, you needed to include that little nitpick.

It was not a nit-pick, apologies if it seemed so.  What I was doing was assuming you meant the point that was most compelling to your cause from my point of view.  There's a reason I chose the untrue tac rather than what I now realize was your originally intended construction.  Your construction, through the mention of "true things" implies to the reader (me) that the person says things that are true to a point that it is worth mentioning.  If we are to talk about "truth" as that which is objectively verifiable and quantifiable (fact) - then whether or not a person has an emotional attachment to the truth they speak, or indeed that they are in fact speaking the truth is irrelevent.

Because it's the truth - and therefore truth is always worth at least listening to.

Conversely, when changing the sentence to "untrue things" - the inverse connotation applies:  the individual speaks untruths or falsehoods to the extent that it must be mentioned (i.e. more than a couple by a bunch).  With this reading, it a far more compelling point that if the person does not care or have an emotional attachment to the fact that they are speaking falsehoods - then this person should be largely ignored.

Summary: It was not me being malicious or looking for "easy points" against you, I was simply looking to respond to the best possible point you made that I could infer.

Peace keeping efforts... I appreciate it but I disliked her long before she claimed in one post that her remark was in response to Blackie and later confessed to having falsely attributed Blackie's comment to me when making that same remark and then pretended as if the words she says can be at all relied upon.

Fair enough, but I said previously it's context and information that I am unaware of, and would therefore be imprudent of me to use as context for judgment.

That's a great idea about making it protracted, maybe I'll stalk her posts for awhile and point out how she's full of shit.  She probably usually is, I don't much read them in general.

Fair enough.  I nor anyone else can prevent you from doing otherwise if you choose to do so.  My only question to this is: Is the vindictiveness and time/emotional investment really worth it to you?

I'm awfully bored here these days and I do think she's a callous holier than thou cunt with far more moral flexibility than qualifies one as an honest person.
I'm pretty sure she already knew that. 

Again, these are your personal feelings which are 100% fine and acceptable for you to have - even if they are 100% true or 100% off-base.  Personally, I don't even think it's a bad thing for you to let her know that you don't like her.  I think the honesty is far better than smiling through your teeth.

With that said, at some point, I have to imagine there's a point of diminishing returns.  When I read statements like the above, I just can't help but ask myself if this is how you deal with all issues where conflict arises.  My guess is, obviously, no - the Internet and a BBS allows the individual some liberties that generally are not considered acceptable in a more corporeal social context.  I guess my only point here is that on this BBS, where (at least the last time I was here) issues and points of view are often debated - I would be extremely reticent to engage in a protracted discussion of a potentially controversial nature if I have a good suspicion that should it turn south this is what awaited me.

If you're REALLY bored you can find every time over the years someone has suggested that I'm being deliberately untruthful and see that it pisses me off a LOT.  It's quite an explicit request to meet angry Royce.

Understandable. I don't know many people who enjoy being called a liar - explicitly or implicitly.  As I said in my previous post - both of you used ad hominems.



At this point, I see that during writing this that you have already posted another response - and I think that further involvement on my part here would be inappropriate.  I will summarize that I still maintain the belief that there has been some mis-interpretation of some of the original quotes on your part - and that happens, so it's not really a mark of right/wrong.  Similarly I think Rillion has at least 1 misinterpretation, which I mentioned previously as well.

I also still think the veracity of the vitriol (perhaps on the part of both parties) is unfortunate.

78

General / Re: I FUCKING HATE IPODs

« on: January 14, 2010, 12:10:36 AM »

meh - I've worked lots of places; even Japan for a couple years.

Still - being as objective as possible, now that iTunes is DRM free, I *really* like my E-Series walkman, as I literally only have to change once a week, I used it literally every day for at least a couple hours.

Doesn't necessarily make iPods "bad" (except the 4th Gen & it's battery) - I've just had a much better experience with walkman.

79

General / Re: The Question Thread

« on: January 13, 2010, 10:35:50 PM »

I genuinely appreciate the sentiments - though I'm not sure if my "peace-keeping effort" really will be that or simply the opening salvo into a more protracted confrontation, despite my intentions 

...and thanks for the confirmation.  I'll have to PM him.

80

General / Re: The Question Thread

« on: January 13, 2010, 10:11:10 PM »

Really Celestrian.... why?  Maybe you haven't been paying attention.

Ecolitan. I understand that things are a bit heated at the moment, but I'll be more than happy to answer your question:

It's been about a year and since I was last on the BBS with any measure of consistency.  Rillion happens to be one of the few names that's still present and unchanged.  I have reason to believe Drifter is Brasky, but if that's mistaken - he's an individual I already miss hearing from.

My parting statement was not intended either as an endorsement or condemnation of either of your positions.

Why would anyone give a damn what she has to say when she herself doesn't care if it's truthful. 

My experiences with Rillion have in the past been to the contrary; generally in our exchanges she has been as far as I'm aware, honest and up-front.  In fact, she has made it clear to me in the past the at times my posts got on the far side of ridiculous to the point of requiring a level of focus to maintain reading.

She gets a lot mileage 'round here for being female.  Is that what it is Celestrian? 

<smiles> Insinuating that I'm not exercising the proper level of chastisement because she is in possession of a vagina?

If so: clever.  However, I will also chalk this up to me incorrectly interpreting your honest question for an implied insult, for reasons I will delineate further later.

As I mentioned before, it's been a while since I've posted on here with any regularity, so I understand why my motivations/reservations could potentially be suspect, and in regards to that I will endeavor to clarify:

• Not all experiences with an individual are the same - I can only form my judgments based upon my experience or the empirical facts as they are presented to me.  As I've mentioned before, my direct correspondence with Rillion in the past has not been consistent with what you allege.  It doesn't necessarily make me right and you wrong, or vice versa.  It just means that pending something more substantive, it's difficult to in good conscience make a summary judgment contrary to that evidence and experience.
  
  
• Misunderstandings, particularly on a BBS or IM, are commonplace:  Simple reason: most communication between human beings is non-verbal.  It's not just what is said - it's the body language, the tone of voice, that look she give you when she says, "everything's fine."  On a BBS or IM - gone.  All that nuance, that subtle information that gives you better clues as to whether or not the person posting simply misunderstands or is being genuinely pernicious is not present. My own experience has often taught me that when ever there is doubt - give the other person the benefit of yours. (Just ask Brasky - if he's still here)
  
  In this case, I can understand how anyone could potentially mis-interpret "for the neighborhood." What neighborhood are you exactly referring to?  The BBS?  Libertarians? North Americans? The message is clear to you, but there is plenty of room for misinterpretation.
  
  Similarly, I can also understand you could take the quotations to have been a implied slight - but again giving the person the benefit of the doubt on either side could very easily deferred the issue.
  
  As a further illustration, I could very easily interpret your question, “Is that what it is, Celestrian,” as an implied insult, but because I have only the text - a very poor conveyance for all the things I mentioned above - it would be improper for me to do so, and begrudge you that without some further clarification.
  
  
• Who ran to my old friend, Ad Hominem first:  This is probably where I'm going to be entangled in this argument despite how much I wish to remain neutral.  I've re-read the entire string since Anarchir asked his first question, the very first clear-cut ad hominem was here:
  
  

  My apologies if I over estimated you but since you decided to mock me while I'm having my coffee I'll tell you straight that while emotionally you seem healthier than some here so your brain functions relatively clearly I don't think it does so at great capacity. 
  

  
  The only place I can even potentially see the slight you refer to here was Rillion's comment here:
  
  

  
  
  HAHAhahahaha......good one.
  

  
  In response to blackie’s comment of “All Libertarians are geniuses.” The quote that you seem to be taking exception to is what Rillion said after (likely in response to the quote above):
  
  

  I have found that, without exception, people who throw their IQ around tend to be assholes who are most likely liars as well. 
  

  
  Interestingly enough, I don't think I read you ever mention your IQ, so when taken to the truest sense of the ad hominem, this statement would not apply to you since you did not fulfill the assumption:
  
  
  • Ecolitan throws his IQ around
  
  to support the conclusion that you inferred:
  
  
  • Ecolitan is an asshole, and likely a liar as well
  
  So regardless of whether or not Rillion thought that 132 you mentioned was your IQ or not, it would not apply.  Upon clarification, Rillion made the counter supposition that it would not fundamentally change the issue because of this statement:
  
  

  You are a 120.
  

  
  Which is very clearly a reinforcement of the first Ad Hominem that you laid out.  So, were we to get technical: Per Rillion’s statement, the respondent Ad Hominem changed to this:
  
  

  I have found that, without exception, people who throw their other people’s IQ around tend to be slightly lesser assholes who are most likely liars as well. 
  

  
  At this point, however, the issue is moot. You were the initiator of the Ad Hominems in this instance, regardless.   Now perhaps there some deeper history between the two of you floating out there in the BBS ether, but as of the moment of this reply, I am unaware of it - though regardless I would not use that as a pretext for the justification of insulting someone's intelligence unprovoked in a particular conversation.  Sure, one could also make the argument that both you and Rillion are equally guilty of using attacks to the man, but I would like to posit one more interesting observation:
  
  The insult you levied was explicit and categorical.
  
  Rillion’s insult was one of implication and couched in the qualifier of personal experience.
  
  I would just encourage you to take a moment and think about that as it relates to your estimation of her intelligence quota.
  
  
• Since this *is* the a BBS, holding hard feelings only makes yourself feel bad at the end of the day:  Let's just say, for the sake of discussion - 100% of your accusations are completely, unequivocally true.  How much, outside of this BBS, does Rillion affect your life, or vice versa? My guess: infinitesimal at best.
  
  Also, looking at it from a "debate club" kind of standpoint - getting upset, hurling good 'ol insults really only work to make yourself momentarily feel better and present your position, regardless of what it is, in a negative light.  Perhaps you don't care - and that's perfectly fine and understandable.  Just keep in mind that how one comports himself in certain situations tends to speak very loudly of his/her character, and how likely I would be willing to congress with that individual in matters intellectual, social or otherwise.
  
  

Cuz she's not a particularly truthful person and that's OK with her,

Again, I would need to see evidence where she was unilaterally caught in a lie beyond all shadow of a doubt/misinterpretation, for her to acknowledge that it was a deliberately false statement, and her actions or comments to show an indication of the indifference.

Should Rillion make the same accusation of you, I would also require the same of her.

people who don't care that they say true things are not worth listening to.

I am assuming you meant untrue things, and even then I'm reminded of the Axiom, Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.  While I understand that one must always wiegh a pathological liar's statements with a fair amount of skepticism and caution, simply and categorically disregarding everything one says as 'all lies' may sometimes prevent you from hearing that one bit of truth that could be very informative.

Again, I think given the circumstances, I understand that some things probably were misread all around.  It's just unfortunate that the tenor had to turn so sour.




oh. One last thing:  Calling anybody, but a woman in particular, a cunt:  never classy. :/



-----
edit: cleaned up some typos and grammar, but I'm sure there will be more as I re(re)read.
edit: yep, cleaned up a little more garbage. : /

81

General / Re: What Video Games Are You Currently playing?

« on: January 13, 2010, 06:37:13 PM »

plants vs. zombies (if that even counts as a video game)...and I cannot stop!!!

Great game.

edit: Oh!  If you like tower defense games (and a PS3 I'm assuming or even an X360):

PS3: Pixel Junk Monsters
X360/PC: Defense Grid

82

General / Re: The Question Thread

« on: January 13, 2010, 06:28:44 PM »

Normally, my better sense would tell me to stay out of this and mind my own GD business based on where this conversation has been going, but I do want to comment one thing, Rillion:

I estimated that they are based on sheer literacy and test-taking ability.  You can't get into most colleges without those, and yet a good proportion of the country doesn't have them. 

I would have thought this too, until I actually went to college.  I was quite surprised to see what constituted 'literate' even in my final years of college by supposedly learned individuals.  I will freely admit however, that my sentiments fall dangerously close to the Fallacy of Personal Experience and readily concede this could be the exception rather than rule.

Good to read your stuff again, by the way. 

------
edit: Removed a prepositional phrase that causes a redundancy in my paragraph, thus weakening my own position of literacy as a point of comparison.

83

General / Re: I FUCKING HATE IPODs

« on: January 13, 2010, 05:42:25 PM »

Wow...I've never experienced a battery issue, and I've been using my current iPod daily for something like four years...

Well, I used to work for Apple a while back, hence why I bought each and every single model. The 4th gen (click-wheel) in particular had lots of battery problems.

84

General / Re: I FUCKING HATE IPODs

« on: January 13, 2010, 05:36:21 PM »

Who says anything about Zune?  Theres lots of alternatives.  My Sony works like a champ, and holds a charge for weeks. 

I use iTunes, but love my E-Series walkman.


I could be biased through^*.


^*(even through I bought every single ipod from the original -> touch,.... and only the Original didn't suffer from battery failures)

85

General / Re: @ Celestrian;Purveyor of Crapulence

« on: January 13, 2010, 05:02:30 PM »

Hahaha!  I never thought of that, actually.

My signature space is more of a reflection of my laziness; rather than try to "wow" you with my awesome ability either manufacture or reference a signature quote - I thought it would be easier for me to simply leave the placeholder for you to fill it in with a statement most appropriate to you.

Why?  Are you thinking of making a proposition of some kind?

86

General / Re: Questions for the believers

« on: January 13, 2010, 04:23:30 PM »

with the intention to win over the prospective convert by means of emotional appeal.

Based on my experiences with religious types and their reasons for being religious when faced with rational thought, this seems like an appropriate tactic for debate with them.

Of course this is an appropriate tactic for many of the religious; matters of faith are at their core matters of emotion.  A core part of "having faith," is (supposedly) understanding that you as a human being don't have all the answers and therefore have to surrender yourself and place your trust in that which is unquantifiable.  Personally, I've never been much of one for surrender and/or supplication.

However, if you wish to understand the frame-of-mind, think of it this way:

• The Stakes are profound and Eternal:  One the things that one must keep in mind when speaking to those who are devoutly religious is that this is not your college or chums-at-the-pub debate club.  This isn't even about "life or death."  To them, this literally about your state of being for eternity. 
  
  With this in mind, of course they're going to use every possible method of persuasion in order to prevent (what they see as) the eternal suffering an damnation of your immortal soul.  What's really unfortunate, is that it's this same "compassion" that has led to periods of human history like the Spanish Inquisition - where if you could not be saved my normal means, then the faithful were willing to gamble that if you were to die horribly and painfully (burned, etc..) then maybe, just maybe you might be saved as your mind/soul reached clarity in your dying moments - as the paint you were experience here would be infinitesimal compared to the suffering that awaited you as one of the unfaithful.
  
  
• Pascal's Wager: Summarized from Balise Pascal as:
  
  

  Since the existence of God can never be objectively determined,
  one who lives his life as though God exists and follows His prescribed
  wishes has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.

  
  As far as many of the faithful are concerned, the rational discussion ends here.  What else is there consider, particularly when taken into context with the previous point?  For the religious, it doesn't make sense why anybody wouldn't simply "cover the spread," especially when the consequences for "guessing wrong" are so dire and absolute.  However, there is a bit of a problem with this, though, isn't there?
  
  Unfortunately, all of the major 3 religions don't say, "Thou shalt pay lip service unto me, and thine shall be the kingdom of Heaven."  Sincere belief and acceptance is what is required - so simply saying you believe in God doesn't quite cut it. There is also the problem of, "which version is the correct, prescription?"  Depending on which of the Big 3 you study, your salvation is dictated by:
  
  
  • Being one of God's chosen
    
    
  • Accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior, and living your life according to his teachings
    
    
  • The desires of Allah, which cannot be determined or the sacrifice of one's life to further God's cause¹
    
  
  So this, in our post-modern, pluralistic religious landscape muddies up the wager because it's no longer a question of to believe or not to believe - it becomes if I believe, which belief is correct?
  
  
• For the devout - faith and devotion are *the* cornerstones of their lives: The faithful are human, the non-faithful are also human.  One thing humans do universally is that they have a tendency to react poorly when the cornerstone of their values are either challenged or completely up-ended as a result of objective discovery.  Consider:
  
  
  • Pythagoras' reaction to the lack of a 10th planet (10 being a sacred and recurring number in Pythagorus metaphysical premises), despite his fervent attempts to observe one.
    
    (He posited an "invisible, tenth planet" which he called the counter-sphere)
    
    
  • The discovery the world was round
    
    
  • Historical accounts of when Karl Marx was presented with historical evidence that contradicted his theories outlined in the Commununist Manifesto (he summarily dismissed them).
    
    
  • Einstien's reaction to scientific observation and calculation that showed the Universe to be accelerating, rather than remaining "stable and constant," as he had predicted.
    
  
  So, like any other human being, it's not surprising that the religious tend to get a little emotional when being confronted with either logical arguments or evidence that would seem to either contradict or summarily invalidate their foundational beliefs, and since for them - the position once again circles back to faith - the only position left which to argue from is the emotional appeal.
  

A bit long, perhaps, but I have found in my experiences in discussion/debate with the devout that understanding these point allow me to better address many of their arguments in a way that makes the discussion much more productive, or failing that, when to acknowledge the discussion has become cyclical and when to politely and constructively draw the discussion to a close.

------------------------
1. For Islam, following the 4 pillars of Islam does not necessarily guarantee salvation according to the Qu'ran - the only passage the clearly ensures entry into paradise is martyrdom for God's cause.

87

General / Re: Questions for the believers

« on: January 12, 2010, 09:17:26 PM »

Anyway, most atheists I know are angry at the idea believers have of a mass murdering, petty, vain, homophobic psychopath being the most infallible, caring and merciful being alive.

...and for those who look govern their lives with logic and reason, this makes sense.  Other than the fact that I simply will never be able to make a meaningful conclusion on a subject which I will never have sufficient evidence to do so, is one of the major reason I've only become more Agnostic as I've gotten older.

I would actually find the case for God more compelling if the suppositions were consistent; Go ahead and tell me that God doesn't love everyone, or that "hell" as described by many simply doesn't exist, and therefore the potential of damnation as a result of playing our "parts" in life (predetermined by God, of course, because He's omnipotent) is no longer an issue.

just my (very short this time) .02

88

General / Re: What Video Games Are You Currently playing?

« on: January 12, 2010, 08:12:27 PM »

Street Fighter 4
Left 4 Dead 2

89

General / Re: Questions for the believers

« on: January 12, 2010, 07:06:50 PM »

Interesting.  I'll bite for this one, even though I'm agnostic and don't prescribe to dogmatic religion, I'll play Devil's advocate:

Why can god act with impunity and not be held to the same standards as your neighbors?

After all, morality is made clear in regards to violence "Thou shalt not kill" - unless its god who does it, to provide a lesson or perhaps just for kicks.

You're making some interesting assumptions here.  Let me see if I can accurately break down all the suppositions at play:

• God dictates morality: We shall refer to this as "God's law" for the sake of simplicity.
• God's Law applies to humanity.
• God's Law applies to God.
• Human beings are capable of holding God responsible for his/her/its actions/inactions.

I think the difficulty here is points #3 and #4.  In my readings of the Bible, Koran, and the Torah - I do not think I have really seen any book address the applicability of God's morality upon God him/her/itself other than in the Koran when dealing with abrogation - basically Allah (through Gabriel) telling Muhammad that when two revelations seem to be in conflict, the more recent revelation chronologically is the "better" and correct revelation.  The part that is relevant to your question is that in the final part of the verse is the phrase, "know you not that Allah can do all things?"

This could then suggest that the assumption that God's law applies to God would be incorrect, and that as human beings (not the creator of all things), posing this question is a non-sequitur because the laws being set forth are not for God to follow, and even if they were, as human beings we would have no possible method of redress to "punish" God for his/her/its transgressions of the law.

Why do believers defend or explain away his acts of violence?

fatcat has already laid out the examples- stoning women, killing gays, etc. How is this made reasonable in the conscience of a believer?

Excellent question - and it's a problem I have with most dogmatic "western" religions, which I am assuming based upon your examples is whom this question is primarily posed against.  A lot of this deals with a few (now) commonly held assumptions/accepted beliefs about God in our modern, contemporary contexts and interpretations.  For example:

• God loves everyone: This one in particular causes lots and lots of problems when counted amongst the other assumptions or statements either held as fact, or laid out in various holy books.
  
  However, this is very largely a result of the New Testament. Prior to this, the God of Abraham (the god shared by Jews, Christians and Muslims), have some very definite preferences as to whom he gave the lions share of his love to, which is why God made his convenant to the Jews, and not say... the Egyptians.  It was only in the New Testament that through Jesus' martyrdom that "his convenant was extended to all mankind."
  
  This is an issue for another reason: Assuming God has equal love for all people increases the paradox and even "last stop" I outline below - as one could argue that this renders Assumption #1 and #3 logically inconsistent.
  
  
• God doesn't change his mind: So far, amongst the "big 3," only muslims openly will admit that God changes His mind frequently and often - again as evidenced by the passage of abrogation.  For westerners, indeed since the time of Plato's writing of The Republic, we like to hold onto the thought that because of God's omniscience, it is extremely unlikely that He/She/It would ever have a "change of heart."  Indeed, in the old testament, the only time we see God openly admit to a "mistake" was the flood, and His resulting convenant as an assurance the God would not do that again.
  
  
• The Paradox of Omnipresence, Omniscience and Omnipotence:  In the bible, God introduces himself to Moses as, I am that which is I am.  I am the Alpha and the Omega....  Here and in other passages he declares and/or reveals Himself to be:
  
  
  • Omnipresent: That he is everywhere, and see's all of creation.  Personally, the concept of God as omnipresent is not anything I would consider overly controversial.
    
    
  • Omniscient: When Abrahams wife, Sarah scoffs at an Angel's proclamation that she would give birth (despite her advanced age), God speaks to her directly asking her why she laughed at the idea - showing that not only was every where, but he was aware of everyone's thoughts as well
    
    
  • Omnipotent:  "God has a plan."  How often do you hear this?  This many could claim this gets it's roots from the comment, "I am the Alpha and the Omega," and that because God is all powerful, He has already had his masterplan laid out, and nothing could ever possibly "surprise" Him.
    
    Personally, this is the one "property" of God that I find the least plausible and compelling, as an absolutist interpretation of Omnipotence invalidates suppositions of choice, free will, and several mechanical processes in Nature including quantum mechanics.
    
    
  • The Paradox: So who cares, right? All of this is important because although the devoutly religious are all too happy to lay the credit for all that is good, wholesome and just (see your conversation of ethics) in the Universe,. . . they are a little skittish of following the Logic train to it's final stop:
    
    Assuming Omnipotence, God is 100% responsible and culpable for all that is Evil in the world.
    
  
  

Part of what makes the discussion of Religion and religious texts problematic in today's culture is that we're in today's culture, and everyone who is religious is no a student of hermeneutics: basically studying the language and the context for how it was used at a certain period in history.  The good example of this would be the word, "gay" and its use prior to the late 1950's and after.

The other problem is that as is often admitted - these issues boil down to faith, and thus ensuring that the assumptions held by the faithful are not required to be consistent. 

Why is it not acceptable for followers of a religion to perform violent deeds as suggested in holy texts?

If god punished kids by having a bear maul them to death, why is it not acceptable for a believer to do the same?

Probably the easiest to address with a very simple answer were I to put on the "Boots of being Religious:" Because Man is not God, and for Man to consider his judgment, morality and actions as that equal to God is foolish and improper.

However, with fundamentalist Islam, there is no such compunction - in fact many of the acts of the more militant muslims reflects many of the actions that the Prophet Muhammed committed in his life, including the decapitation of prisoners.  In this particular case, your attempted Reductio Ad Absurdum is a non-valid reductio, because there are those (the fundamentalist muslim) who do not believe the conclusion is absurd.


----
edit: fixed a couple typos

90

General / Re: Fatcat is ruining this forum...

« on: May 21, 2009, 07:58:48 PM »

Someone mention my name?