Sorry to those who disagree with me, but I think it's ridiculous to waste energy on a question about "who's worse". ISIS have done atrocious things, America have done atrocious things. Both are either delusional in their notion of what "right" looks like, or have a hidden agenda and are using something more absolute as a scapegoat. Both bastardize the ideals they claim to stand behind. If it's "who started it", that's a different story, as it sets the context for the issues at hand today, but to say, "hm, ISIS are a 7 on the evil scale, and I'd put America at 7.5" seems so childish, and more importantly - meaningless.
The goal of any of these discussions regarding current events, is to come to some sort of actionable conclusions. Whether ISIS are worse than America, America is worse than ISIS, or they're both equally shitty entities, I don't think anyone's goals here are different: find out what's wrong, start to figure out how the fuck we make it right.
Was the discussion really ever about 'who's worse'? (not sure where you materialized that from) I think the point of the discussion was to show that 'we' are not truly any better, so before we go around trying to fix problems, we need to first recognize that we are part of the problem. So we don't make the same mistakes, causing the...same problems.
and I think it's (to a large degree) been fairly clear in this thread already what needs to be done, to make it 'right'.
Stay out of other nations affairs, treat people fairly etc etc etc.
Idris, see the post directly above my first one. Unless I see something factually inaccurate, I prefer not to call people out directly. The reason I posted that is because sometimes these threads meander in directions that really serve no purpose. I do see where you're coming from about considering the US's involvement, I guess I misinterpreted the purpose of that discussion, my apologies!
Meanwhile, I'm glad that we're on the same page about getting to the crux of these issues and contemplating how best to fix these situations.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I don't know. How many Americans think Hussein was responsible for 9/11? I wouodn't have thought it was vry many. Just a small number ifnreally stupid people. What does that have to do with anything?
It has to do with the fact that what many people think, especially in the U.S, doesn't always have any relation to reality.
I was under the impression that only factual based statements with links to back them up were allowed here.
What you wrote sounds more like an opinion than actual fact.
Sorry to those who disagree with me, but I think it's ridiculous to waste energy on a question about "who's worse". ISIS have done atrocious things, America have done atrocious things. Both are either delusional in their notion of what "right" looks like, or have a hidden agenda and are using something more absolute as a scapegoat. Both bastardize the ideals they claim to stand behind. If it's "who started it", that's a different story, as it sets the context for the issues at hand today, but to say, "hm, ISIS are a 7 on the evil scale, and I'd put America at 7.5" seems so childish, and more importantly - meaningless.
The goal of any of these discussions regarding current events, is to come to some sort of actionable conclusions. Whether ISIS are worse than America, America is worse than ISIS, or they're both equally shitty entities, I don't think anyone's goals here are different: find out what's wrong, start to figure out how the fuck we make it right.
Was the discussion really ever about 'who's worse'? (not sure where you materialized that from) I think the point of the discussion was to show that 'we' are not truly any better, so before we go around trying to fix problems, we need to first recognize that we are part of the problem. So we don't make the same mistakes, causing the...same problems.
and I think it's (to a large degree) been fairly clear in this thread already what needs to be done, to make it 'right'.
Stay out of other nations affairs, treat people fairly etc etc etc.
Idris, see the post directly above my first one. Unless I see something factually inaccurate, I prefer not to call people out directly. The reason I posted that is because sometimes these threads meander in directions that really serve no purpose. I do see where you're coming from about considering the US's involvement, I guess I misinterpreted the purpose of that discussion, my apologies!
Meanwhile, I'm glad that we're on the same page about getting to the crux of these issues and contemplating how best to fix these situations.
I actually said that 25% at least supported extremist views. Which is what that article was about. So not gibberish. If you don't think those polls are relevant, that's fine with me. I found it interesting. People's idea of what extremism is or isn't would determine if they consider being supportive of extremist views to be the same as being an extremist.
Don't change what actually happened here. You got the number 25% out of thin air - that poll did not say that. Secondly, don't act like this is us saying the poll "isn't relevant". I tore that shitty poll to shreds and you ignored my post and critiques in typical fashion. If that's the best source material you can find to defend your absurd claim then your arguments are what's "not relevant".
That's bullshit. I specifically said that it was a rough number that I estimated from looking at all his polls (which i still stand by) and from other things I've read which i openly admitted that in couldn't remember where they were. I have been totally honest about it. Pretty sure it was Byrnzie who said somewhere that the article or the polls were irrelevant.
And the reason I sometimes don't respond to you, just so you know, is because I have no interest in engaging either you or Byrnzie. Sometimes I make the mistake of doing so, but usually I do my best to just ignore both of you as much as possible while still trying to participate in the discussion because of the way you two conduct yourselves in these threads. I have no respect for the way you two behave and treat everyone and i usually try to disengage from both of you when I can (not this time obviously... it's hard to ignore something so obnoxious, but I do my best). Not that you both don't have some good points, but the way you both handle actual conversations is atrocious. So that is why i often don't respond to you, not because I don't have anything to say or an answer to your points. I don't like this way of trying to get through a thread, but unfortunately I and many others either have to think of ways to deal with you two or be chased away from the discussion altogether, and I don't see that as the best option.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I actually said that 25% at least supported extremist views. Which is what that article was about. So not gibberish. If you don't think those polls are relevant, that's fine with me. I found it interesting. People's idea of what extremism is or isn't would determine if they consider being supportive of extremist views to be the same as being an extremist.
Don't change what actually happened here. You got the number 25% out of thin air - that poll did not say that. Secondly, don't act like this is us saying the poll "isn't relevant". I tore that shitty poll to shreds and you ignored my post and critiques in typical fashion. If that's the best source material you can find to defend your absurd claim then your arguments are what's "not relevant".
That's bullshit. I specifically said that it was a rough number that I estimated from looking at all his polls (which i still stand by) and from other things I've read which i openly admitted that in couldn't remember where they were. I have been totally honest about it. Pretty sure it was Byrnzie who said somewhere that the article or the polls were irrelevant.
And the reason I sometimes don't respond to you, just so you know, is because I have no interest in engaging either you or Byrnzie. Sometimes I make the mistake of doing so, but usually I do my best to just ignore both of you as much as possible while still trying to participate in the discussion because of the way you two conduct yourselves in these threads. I have no respect for the way you two behave and treat everyone and i usually try to disengage from both of you when I can (not this time obviously... it's hard to ignore something so obnoxious, but I do my best). Not that you both don't have some good points, but the way you both handle actual conversations is atrocious. So that is why i often don't respond to you, not because I don't have anything to say or an answer to your points. I don't like this way of trying to get through a thread, but unfortunately I and many others either have to think of ways to deal with you two or be chased away from the discussion altogether, and I don't see that as the best option.
Don't be ridiculous. You think you can say a fourth of Muslims are extremists (or "support extremism" or whatever other fucking variable of the same allegation you wanna throw) without defending it properly, and then you get all pissy if someone challenges you. And then to top it off you actually go on a whole rampage about how I "conduct" myself? Get some thicker skin and get used to people calling you out for any BS claims you make. You can keep running away from confronting these valid points that show your inconsistency and apparent biases (not to mention where your intelligence falls short) by personalizing it and acting as if I'm attacking you, but I and I'm sure others here who aren't also blinded by their ignorance, can see right through it all. My point has to do with your argument being full of shit. Not you personally. I don't know you, and frankly I don't care to talk about you. You just happen to be the person posting claims that have no factual basis, and I will be there when I can to show you where you're wrong.
I did explain myself completely, did not actually get pissy about it at all, and you kept going at me for some reason, even after i clearly explained myself as much as i was going to. You refused to shut up about it. I guess you were going to do that until i said what you wanted me to say? Sorry, I'm not a performing monkey. Why would i continue on with that? If you want to prove me wrong then prove that around 25% aren't okay with extremist views. That would be making your point, as opposed to just calling me ridiculous over and over. I haven't seen anything to suggest that 25% isn't a fairly reasonable number, assuming we're on the same page as far as what that actually means re extremism.
I've got thick skin. If i didn't I wouldn't even be here. I'm not offended by you. I'm just sick of you. I think you act like a bully. Generally. Not just with me. I know a LOT of people who won't participate in this topic specifically because of you and Byrnzie, and that's annoying. It's not about you disagreeing with me or your views. I think most know me as someone who does not back away from a disagreement. It's about how you express your views.
I don't expect you to care. I just think that you and Byrnzie conduct yourselves poorly and am not interested in carrying on conversations with either one of you. So that's that. You're gonna do what you do. I'm just not into it. I'll continue to engage with those who know how to carry on civil conversations and can get their views across without insulting everyone and making strange demands about how they express themselves.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
but now come on byrnzie is damn funny. this fuck guy i don't know much about. are byrnzie & fuck very similar or something?
I don't know them, but they just play a very similar game in these AMT threads. And i don't find Byrnzie funny, LOL. It's just not a game I like, that's all. It tends to actually make the conversations way worse than they could be because most people won't even stick around to talk. It just kind of becomes the Byrnzie and Fuck show with a couple others who are always willing to stick it out. I wish the threads would go in a way that allows more people to participate without fear of getting brow beaten.
It's honestly nothing personal. I'd probably get along fine with them IRL. I am just not into how they do the discussion board thing.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Yeesh. It happened on a Greyhound bus outside of Winnipeg too if people recall that horror (btw, the guy who did that is now being let out on day trips now). It is certainly gruesome. It's no small task to hack off someone's head. I haven't seen it myself (thank goodness), but I've read that when these extremists behead people like this they purposefully use a dull weapon and they have to hack and hack and hack at the poor hostage's neck and it's really horrible and painful. No one clean cut with these guys.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I did explain myself completely, did not actually get pissy about it at all, and you kept going at me for some reason, even after i clearly explained myself as much as i was going to. You refused to shut up about it. I guess you were going to do that until i said what you wanted me to say? Sorry, I'm not a performing monkey. Why would i continue on with that? If you want to prove me wrong then prove that around 25% aren't okay with extremist views. That would be making your point, as opposed to just calling me ridiculous over and over. I haven't seen anything to suggest that 25% isn't a fairly reasonable number, assuming we're on the same page as far as what that actually means re extremism.
This paragraph pretty much symbolizes what you've turned this discussion into. You made a claim, and I asked you to cite it. You provided a link, and I point out flaws in the polls that were conducted. What do you do after that? You ignore my points, in which I responded one by one to your link, you say I'm mean, and then you back away from the argument. Then, for the cherry on top, you demand that I show you proof that 25% ISN'T a real number, rather than you having to provide proof it is (and then having to actually provide some arguments to support it, instead of "this is how the math skills in my head told me to make sense of that silly poll").
This isn't a discussion only because you won't let it be. This is just your tactic of deflecting from the substance of the conversation by calling me uncivil for daring to challenge your absurd claims. I also find it amusing how all of your insults directed towards Byrnzie and I (for which there are plenty) are somehow considered highbrow or fair play for you, whereas he and I are accused of being too mean in the way we speak. But I guess since we don't spend the majority of the time whining to everyone here about it - because we actually like to focus on the discussion at hand - these insults of yours go on, while you sit here pointing the finger as if no one else can see it for themselves. When you're ready to engage the actual points of debate, I'm ready. Until then, have fun making up more numbers and statistics to feed your biases. Just be careful who you tell them to - they might be crazy enough to tell you you're wrong!
Regardless of how byrnzie and fuck present their arguments, they are always factual and evidence based. I think it's a little too convenient that the two most informed people on this board in regards to the middle east, definitely in regards to the I/P conflict, are the two people that you claim scare people away with their style of debate.... Everyone that disagrees with them (with B in particular, I haven't seen anyone complain about fuck before now), have such hard-ons for them, that if they could prove them wrong, they'd jump at the chance. Also....I personally wouldn't have bothered calling you out on the unsubstantiated opinions of your 'six friends'...and it raised an eyebrow a bit to see you accused of doing this often....But here you are with these 'I know a LOT of people who won't participate' / 'most people won't even stick around to talk' comments....like...if that's the case, tell those people to grow a pair and speak for themselves, or to stfu. And if you don't want to do that, name them.....or.....just don't bring them up to try to sway readers to your side......I've even seen you talk shit about B on fb, in a PJ group he isnt a member of. And you call them insulting? I don't know if you think of myself or ben the same way....maybe I'm one of the 'others' you're vaguely mentioning....but I challenged you on what you took from that poll, arguing that it is a snapshot without context, not the whole story....Ben challenged the semantics framing the poll itself - two points that, if combined, make up a good chunk of what fuck and B were saying....you could have addressed them without dealing with either of the two that frustrate you so....what I'm saying is...you took part in this little sideshow as much as they did.
The US never said to Muslims "Convert to Christianity or die".
No, it just said "Accept our terms, or die".
First, I just wanted to clarify that the US isn't the one attacking a religion. Clearly ISIS is.
Second, with regards to accept our terms or die, the US attacked the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The US attacked Saddam in Iraq. Both are proven to be brutal dictators/groups and not innocent Christians living in Iraq killed just because of their religion.
I'm not going to buy into the line of thinking you are trying to sell that the USA is no better than ISIS.
There was a comment earlier in the thread regarding the rape/murder by US soldiers in Iraq. Horrible event. The perpetrators should be put to death in my opinion. But, no one I believe clarified that ISIS beheadings are sanctioned by the group, and are used to extort ransoms. The rape by US soldiers is not sanctioned or used to further an agenda. There are monsters in every country that committ rape/murder, but the key difference is that ISIS does it to advance an agenda, where as the US soldiers did not do it to advance the war in the US's favor but they did it because they are individually sadists.
First – why are you focused solely on the Christians the IS is murdering in Iraq? I find that pretty telling, considering they are not the only victims, in fact they're probably a minor percentage of the victims (I say probably because I haven't checked, but I'd bet money on it...) Second – do you know anything about Christianity in the middle east? Me neither.
You are so missing the point, man….. You keep defending your stance with your ‘everyone else is worse’ non-sequitor, even after I call you on it earlier in the thread. We are talking about US/NATO/Western Imperialist policy, and the ‘blowback’ it results in….The fact that you are citing the US attacking Saddam and Al Qaeda and the Taliban tells me you don’t want to go back in history far enough, or look at a broad enough picture to see anything that won’t paint the US in a positive light. In doing this, you are helping us build an argument against you….I know you’re perfectly aware that ALL THREE of these entities were US allies when they were ‘accepting our terms’. When they stopped accepting those terms, they were annihilated. THE USA SUPPORTS BRUTAL DICTATORS WHEN IT IS CONVENIENT TO THEIR INTERESTS TO DO SO. So explain to me how you can reconcile your statement about ‘at least it’s not innocent Christians living in Iraq killed just because of their religion’, with the deaths of innocents killed just because the US and her allies promote corrupt leaders, and then bomb entire countries when that corruption runs contrary to our wishes? What difference does it make if it's an economic or religious ideology pushing the agenda of a murderer? We’re not trying to say that the US is no better than ISIS, we’re saying they’re one and the same; the IS is a natural evolution of disastrous policy, and it keeps repeating thanks to the brand of nationalism you promote in defense of phony ‘regime change’ idealism…..Saddam, AQ, Taliban….now it’s the IS, Al Nusra, the FSA….how many other countries are full of ‘rebels’ and ‘freedom fighters’ that will become ‘terrorists’ when we’ve decided we don’t need/want them as allies any longer?
As far as the murder of Christians in Iraq goes….you do know this has been going on since the US invaded, right? Remember the ‘death squads’ we always heard about when Iraq was falling apart under US occupation, with entire neighbourhoods being ethnically cleansed and sectarian enclaves formed? You know that Al Nusra, the group the US is now openly funding in Syria, has been responsible for the murder and displacement of thousands of Christians in that country, right? They’ve ethnically cleansed entire cities. It’s been pretty well established that the IS was created, funded and directed by the US and her allies…it’s openly admitted that Al Nusra and other groups in Syria have received the same….so could there be something else at play here that you are unwilling to acknowledge? You haven’t addressed any of my comments regarding balkanization of the region….could it be that the West WANTS the Christians in the area displaced to help in redrawing the regional borders?
EDIT: Disclaimer - I forgot which thread this was, thought it was an Israeli/Palestinian discussion thread. I still think it's true, though it's not relevant to this topic in particular.
PJ_Soul, sadly that emoticon perfectly represents the reaction of Jews or around the world on the topic of Israel and the potential that it could be anything less than 'flawed but within permissible extents or justified cause'. And when that's the case, you and other Jews wonder why anti-Jewish sentiment is on the rise? It's because of an assumed moral superiority that allows many Jews to say "oh, you support terrorists, you're an anti-Semite, you bigot, you asshole, I refuse your opinion and don't even need to enter logic-driven debate with you because of it".
There is going to be anger and aggression in conversation, because heated opinions have always surrounded injustices! And it's been proven to promote change historically! If someone attacks my brother, just try and restrain me, or ask me to "calm down" or "just be rational". I would suspect it would be the same for anyone else here. Cliche as it is, if we're all brothers and sisters in the human race, why should that loud and impossible to ignore voice need to be snuffed out?
Post edited by benjs on
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Silence the informed.........what a shitty concept. Keep posting B, Fuck, Idris, Ben and Drowned out. And anyone else who has something to bring. As long as it's not bullshit.
Regardless of how byrnzie and fuck present their arguments, they are always factual and evidence based. I think it's a little too convenient that the two most informed people on this board in regards to the middle east, definitely in regards to the I/P conflict, are the two people that you claim scare people away with their style of debate.... Everyone that disagrees with them (with B in particular, I haven't seen anyone complain about fuck before now), have such hard-ons for them, that if they could prove them wrong, they'd jump at the chance. Also....I personally wouldn't have bothered calling you out on the unsubstantiated opinions of your 'six friends'...and it raised an eyebrow a bit to see you accused of doing this often....But here you are with these 'I know a LOT of people who won't participate' / 'most people won't even stick around to talk' comments....like...if that's the case, tell those people to grow a pair and speak for themselves, or to stfu. And if you don't want to do that, name them.....or.....just don't bring them up to try to sway readers to your side......I've even seen you talk shit about B on fb, in a PJ group he isnt a member of. And you call them insulting? I don't know if you think of myself or ben the same way....maybe I'm one of the 'others' you're vaguely mentioning....but I challenged you on what you took from that poll, arguing that it is a snapshot without context, not the whole story....Ben challenged the semantics framing the poll itself - two points that, if combined, make up a good chunk of what fuck and B were saying....you could have addressed them without dealing with either of the two that frustrate you so....what I'm saying is...you took part in this little sideshow as much as they did.
I'm actually not trying to sway anyone to "my side". I said one sentence about B on FB weeks ago when other people were talking about him and that anti-war thread. Not going to feel bad about that, especially considering how many time he's suggested that I'm an idiot.
That accusation of me "doing that often" was a bullshit lie. I can't believe anyone thinks we're not "allowed" to talk about things we've heard through word of mouth. If we're not going to consider things that we glean from face to face discussions then I guess we should just stop talking about shit altogether, since apparently there is no point. I very reasonably told everyone what some people said to me in conversations, and told everyone that they could take that as they like. It's unsubstantiated because I didn't record the conversations. Not sure why you seem to think that I presented that as though the conversations amounted to unarguable fact in the context of the overall discussion. When see someone say, "I talked to these people from that community and this is what they said" I'd take it for what it is. Someone passing on what they heard from an few people. In didn't mean for that to have any more bearing than that. So unless you actually think I am making it up, I find it bizarre that you'd have an issue with it.
What I am talking about has nothing to do with whether or not they are right or wrong in terms of the topic.
No, I don't think of you or anyone else is the same way because no one else calls various people stupid in every post.
As for any points about the polls I posted... i told everyone what I surmise from it. People don't have to agree. I simply am not going on about it because I've stated what my takeaway is and there just isn't anymore for me to say about it.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
So to be clear, 25% of Muslims are extreme? That's what you're saying and standing by? That's 400,000,000, yes 400,000,000 MILLION Muslims that, according to your statement, are extreme or share extreme views? I just want to be clear.
Regardless of how byrnzie and fuck present their arguments, they are always factual and evidence based. I think it's a little too convenient that the two most informed people on this board in regards to the middle east, definitely in regards to the I/P conflict, are the two people that you claim scare people away with their style of debate.... Everyone that disagrees with them (with B in particular, I haven't seen anyone complain about fuck before now), have such hard-ons for them, that if they could prove them wrong, they'd jump at the chance. Also....I personally wouldn't have bothered calling you out on the unsubstantiated opinions of your 'six friends'...and it raised an eyebrow a bit to see you accused of doing this often....But here you are with these 'I know a LOT of people who won't participate' / 'most people won't even stick around to talk' comments....like...if that's the case, tell those people to grow a pair and speak for themselves, or to stfu. And if you don't want to do that, name them.....or.....just don't bring them up to try to sway readers to your side......I've even seen you talk shit about B on fb, in a PJ group he isnt a member of. And you call them insulting? I don't know if you think of myself or ben the same way....maybe I'm one of the 'others' you're vaguely mentioning....but I challenged you on what you took from that poll, arguing that it is a snapshot without context, not the whole story....Ben challenged the semantics framing the poll itself - two points that, if combined, make up a good chunk of what fuck and B were saying....you could have addressed them without dealing with either of the two that frustrate you so....what I'm saying is...you took part in this little sideshow as much as they did.
I'm actually not trying to sway anyone to "my side". I said one sentence about B on FB weeks ago when other people were talking about him and that anti-war thread. Not going to feel bad about that, especially considering how many time he's suggested that I'm an idiot.
That accusation of me "doing that often" was a bullshit lie. I can't believe anyone thinks we're not "allowed" to talk about things we've heard through word of mouth. If we're not going to consider things that we glean from face to face discussions then I guess we should just stop talking about shit altogether, since apparently there is no point. I very reasonably told everyone what some people said to me in conversations, and told everyone that they could take that as they like. It's unsubstantiated because I didn't record the conversations. Not sure why you seem to think that I presented that as though the conversations amounted to unarguable fact in the context of the overall discussion. When see someone say, "I talked to these people from that community and this is what they said" I'd take it for what it is. Someone passing on what they heard from an few people. In didn't mean for that to have any more bearing than that. So unless you actually think I am making it up, I find it bizarre that you'd have an issue with it.
What I am talking about has nothing to do with whether or not they are right or wrong in terms of the topic.
No, I don't think of you or anyone else is the same way because no one else calls various people stupid in every post.
As for any points about the polls I posted... i told everyone what I surmise from it. People don't have to agree. I simply am not going on about it because I've stated what my takeaway is and there just isn't anymore for me to say about it.
Ok....You said 'a few other people' when talking about the Byrnzie and fuck show. Glad you don't think of me or anyone else that way. And I don't think word of mouth is inadmissible in debate...just not a very effective way to prove a point. I said I wouldn't have brought it up....I only did to point out that you were doing it again with your he said/she said gossip about people staying away from these discussions. Those comments were no more constructive than some of the petty shit you're calling them out on. Anyway.....back to our regularly scheduled bickering.....
Regardless of how byrnzie and fuck present their arguments, they are always factual and evidence based. I think it's a little too convenient that the two most informed people on this board in regards to the middle east, definitely in regards to the I/P conflict, are the two people that you claim scare people away with their style of debate.... Everyone that disagrees with them (with B in particular, I haven't seen anyone complain about fuck before now), have such hard-ons for them, that if they could prove them wrong, they'd jump at the chance. Also....I personally wouldn't have bothered calling you out on the unsubstantiated opinions of your 'six friends'...and it raised an eyebrow a bit to see you accused of doing this often....But here you are with these 'I know a LOT of people who won't participate' / 'most people won't even stick around to talk' comments....like...if that's the case, tell those people to grow a pair and speak for themselves, or to stfu. And if you don't want to do that, name them.....or.....just don't bring them up to try to sway readers to your side......I've even seen you talk shit about B on fb, in a PJ group he isnt a member of. And you call them insulting? I don't know if you think of myself or ben the same way....maybe I'm one of the 'others' you're vaguely mentioning....but I challenged you on what you took from that poll, arguing that it is a snapshot without context, not the whole story....Ben challenged the semantics framing the poll itself - two points that, if combined, make up a good chunk of what fuck and B were saying....you could have addressed them without dealing with either of the two that frustrate you so....what I'm saying is...you took part in this little sideshow as much as they did.
I'll be honest; I read most of the threads that Byrnzie posts in because they are a great source of information but I try to avoid posting because I find posters like Byrnzie and Fuck to be incredibly hostile and antagonistic. I generally find that I agree with what they post however I am very reluctant to engage either them in conversation because they are absolutely merciless with people they disagree with. A number of people on these boards are guilty of generalizations (I know that I am), but some posters really take pleasure in taking you task for it. As near as I can tell, this thread jumped the shark when Badbrains made an overreaching generalization concerning the number of Muslims who are peaceful which was in turn followed up by another unsupported, overreaching generalization from PJ_Soul. Both claims were unsubstantiated and completely absurd however it seems that PJ_Soul is taking far more heat for her claim than Badbrains, complete with vitriolic comments and underhanded slights. It's that nastiness that makes participating in these forums exceedingly difficult.
I honestly find myself feeling anxious whenever I post here so I generally avoid doing so. These forums are simply too hostile for my tastes.
So to be clear, 25% of Muslims are extreme? That's what you're saying and standing by? That's 400,000,000, yes 400,000,000 MILLION Muslims that, according to your statement, are extreme or share extreme views? I just want to be clear.
Yes. Well, actually no. It meant only thise in the countries polled. Not every Muslim in the world. Now what do you think I mean when I say they hold or support extreme ideologies?? Maybe this is where the backlash is coming from, since I didn't really outline that I guess, although touched on it. It includes a LOT of things. Sharia law first comes to mind. Fundamentalist views about women is another.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Regardless of how byrnzie and fuck present their arguments, they are always factual and evidence based. I think it's a little too convenient that the two most informed people on this board in regards to the middle east, definitely in regards to the I/P conflict, are the two people that you claim scare people away with their style of debate.... Everyone that disagrees with them (with B in particular, I haven't seen anyone complain about fuck before now), have such hard-ons for them, that if they could prove them wrong, they'd jump at the chance. Also....I personally wouldn't have bothered calling you out on the unsubstantiated opinions of your 'six friends'...and it raised an eyebrow a bit to see you accused of doing this often....But here you are with these 'I know a LOT of people who won't participate' / 'most people won't even stick around to talk' comments....like...if that's the case, tell those people to grow a pair and speak for themselves, or to stfu. And if you don't want to do that, name them.....or.....just don't bring them up to try to sway readers to your side......I've even seen you talk shit about B on fb, in a PJ group he isnt a member of. And you call them insulting? I don't know if you think of myself or ben the same way....maybe I'm one of the 'others' you're vaguely mentioning....but I challenged you on what you took from that poll, arguing that it is a snapshot without context, not the whole story....Ben challenged the semantics framing the poll itself - two points that, if combined, make up a good chunk of what fuck and B were saying....you could have addressed them without dealing with either of the two that frustrate you so....what I'm saying is...you took part in this little sideshow as much as they did.
I'll be honest; I read most of the threads that Byrnzie posts in because they are a great source of information but I try to avoid posting because I find posters like Byrnzie and Fuck to be incredibly hostile and antagonistic. I generally find that I agree with what they post however I am very reluctant to engage either them in conversation because they are absolutely merciless with people they disagree with. A number of people on these boards are guilty of generalizations (I know that I am), but some posters really take pleasure in taking you task for it. As near as I can tell, this thread jumped the shark when Badbrains made an overreaching generalization concerning the number of Muslims who are peaceful which was in turn followed up by another unsupported, overreaching generalization from PJ_Soul. Both claims were unsubstantiated and completely absurd however it seems that PJ_Soul is taking far more heat for her claim than Badbrains, complete with vitriolic comments and underhanded slights. It's that nastiness that makes participating in these forums exceedingly difficult.
I honestly find myself feeling anxious whenever I post here so I generally avoid doing so. These forums are simply too hostile for my tastes.
I'll apologize for my 99.9999999999% of Muslims are peaceful. I just figured everyone knew it was kind of sly remark to be taken lightly. Cuz in reality, NO religion, country or whatever has 99.999999999999% peaceful people. NO ONE. I'm not trying to be hostile towards you, just trying to clear up my part.
EDIT: Disclaimer - I forgot which thread this was, thought it was an Israeli/Palestinian discussion thread. I still think it's true, though it's not relevant to this topic in particular.
PJ_Soul, sadly that emoticon perfectly represents the reaction of Jews or around the world on the topic of Israel and the potential that it could be anything less than 'flawed but within permissible extents or justified cause'. And when that's the case, you and other Jews wonder why anti-Jewish sentiment is on the rise? It's because of an assumed moral superiority that allows many Jews to say "oh, you support terrorists, you're an anti-Semite, you bigot, you asshole, I refuse your opinion and don't even need to enter logic-driven debate with you because of it".
There is going to be anger and aggression in conversation, because heated opinions have always surrounded injustices! And it's been proven to promote change historically! If someone attacks my brother, just try and restrain me, or ask me to "calm down" or "just be rational". I would suspect it would be the same for anyone else here. Cliche as it is, if we're all brothers and sisters in the human race, why should that loud and impossible to ignore voice need to be snuffed out?
I actually don't wonder why anti-Jewish sentiment is on the rise. I just think it's misplaced sentiment. Just like I think anti-American sentiment is misplaced. And whatever anti-Palestinian or anti-Muslim sentiment is misplaced. The problem with all is that the sentiment is applied to the entire group instead of those who are actually responsible.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Silence the informed.........what a shitty concept. Keep posting B, Fuck, Idris, Ben and Drowned out. And anyone else who has something to bring. As long as it's not bullshit.
Whoa. I never suggested anyone should be silenced. Not sure where that concept was mentioned, but it certainly wasn't from me.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Regardless of how byrnzie and fuck present their arguments, they are always factual and evidence based. I think it's a little too convenient that the two most informed people on this board in regards to the middle east, definitely in regards to the I/P conflict, are the two people that you claim scare people away with their style of debate.... Everyone that disagrees with them (with B in particular, I haven't seen anyone complain about fuck before now), have such hard-ons for them, that if they could prove them wrong, they'd jump at the chance. Also....I personally wouldn't have bothered calling you out on the unsubstantiated opinions of your 'six friends'...and it raised an eyebrow a bit to see you accused of doing this often....But here you are with these 'I know a LOT of people who won't participate' / 'most people won't even stick around to talk' comments....like...if that's the case, tell those people to grow a pair and speak for themselves, or to stfu. And if you don't want to do that, name them.....or.....just don't bring them up to try to sway readers to your side......I've even seen you talk shit about B on fb, in a PJ group he isnt a member of. And you call them insulting? I don't know if you think of myself or ben the same way....maybe I'm one of the 'others' you're vaguely mentioning....but I challenged you on what you took from that poll, arguing that it is a snapshot without context, not the whole story....Ben challenged the semantics framing the poll itself - two points that, if combined, make up a good chunk of what fuck and B were saying....you could have addressed them without dealing with either of the two that frustrate you so....what I'm saying is...you took part in this little sideshow as much as they did.
I'll be honest; I read most of the threads that Byrnzie posts in because they are a great source of information but I try to avoid posting because I find posters like Byrnzie and Fuck to be incredibly hostile and antagonistic. I generally find that I agree with what they post however I am very reluctant to engage either them in conversation because they are absolutely merciless with people they disagree with. A number of people on these boards are guilty of generalizations (I know that I am), but some posters really take pleasure in taking you task for it. As near as I can tell, this thread jumped the shark when Badbrains made an overreaching generalization concerning the number of Muslims who are peaceful which was in turn followed up by another unsupported, overreaching generalization from PJ_Soul. Both claims were unsubstantiated and completely absurd however it seems that PJ_Soul is taking far more heat for her claim than Badbrains, complete with vitriolic comments and underhanded slights. It's that nastiness that makes participating in these forums exceedingly difficult.
I honestly find myself feeling anxious whenever I post here so I generally avoid doing so. These forums are simply too hostile for my tastes.
I'll apologize for my 99.9999999999% of Muslims are peaceful. I just figured everyone knew it was kind of sly remark to be taken lightly. Cuz in reality, NO religion, country or whatever has 99.999999999999% peaceful people. NO ONE. I'm not trying to be hostile towards you, just trying to clear up my part.
No worries. I didn't really take any issue with your post. I appreciate that the number was something of an exaggeration. I only mentioned it because I found the hostility directed towards PJ_Soul to be quite off putting. I don't agree with her numbers but I don't see why posters feel the need to be snarky or condescending about it either. It seems rather unreasonable to rip into somebody for making a generalization and it's something I truly dislike about the train.
Let me be clear; I find that most of the posters here are pretty cordial. I simply find that there are a few individuals who tend to be extremely hostile. I tend to avoid posting because I don't really want to get into a pissing contest with some of the more aggressive members on the train. Badbrains, you've never come across as anything but a class act from what I've seen. I think I can say that about most people here however there are a few posters that are just too confrontational for me to post here regularly.
Regardless of how byrnzie and fuck present their arguments, they are always factual and evidence based. I think it's a little too convenient that the two most informed people on this board in regards to the middle east, definitely in regards to the I/P conflict, are the two people that you claim scare people away with their style of debate.... Everyone that disagrees with them (with B in particular, I haven't seen anyone complain about fuck before now), have such hard-ons for them, that if they could prove them wrong, they'd jump at the chance. Also....I personally wouldn't have bothered calling you out on the unsubstantiated opinions of your 'six friends'...and it raised an eyebrow a bit to see you accused of doing this often....But here you are with these 'I know a LOT of people who won't participate' / 'most people won't even stick around to talk' comments....like...if that's the case, tell those people to grow a pair and speak for themselves, or to stfu. And if you don't want to do that, name them.....or.....just don't bring them up to try to sway readers to your side......I've even seen you talk shit about B on fb, in a PJ group he isnt a member of. And you call them insulting? I don't know if you think of myself or ben the same way....maybe I'm one of the 'others' you're vaguely mentioning....but I challenged you on what you took from that poll, arguing that it is a snapshot without context, not the whole story....Ben challenged the semantics framing the poll itself - two points that, if combined, make up a good chunk of what fuck and B were saying....you could have addressed them without dealing with either of the two that frustrate you so....what I'm saying is...you took part in this little sideshow as much as they did.
I'm actually not trying to sway anyone to "my side". I said one sentence about B on FB weeks ago when other people were talking about him and that anti-war thread. Not going to feel bad about that, especially considering how many time he's suggested that I'm an idiot.
That accusation of me "doing that often" was a bullshit lie. I can't believe anyone thinks we're not "allowed" to talk about things we've heard through word of mouth. If we're not going to consider things that we glean from face to face discussions then I guess we should just stop talking about shit altogether, since apparently there is no point. I very reasonably told everyone what some people said to me in conversations, and told everyone that they could take that as they like. It's unsubstantiated because I didn't record the conversations. Not sure why you seem to think that I presented that as though the conversations amounted to unarguable fact in the context of the overall discussion. When see someone say, "I talked to these people from that community and this is what they said" I'd take it for what it is. Someone passing on what they heard from an few people. In didn't mean for that to have any more bearing than that. So unless you actually think I am making it up, I find it bizarre that you'd have an issue with it.
What I am talking about has nothing to do with whether or not they are right or wrong in terms of the topic.
No, I don't think of you or anyone else is the same way because no one else calls various people stupid in every post.
As for any points about the polls I posted... i told everyone what I surmise from it. People don't have to agree. I simply am not going on about it because I've stated what my takeaway is and there just isn't anymore for me to say about it.
Ok....You said 'a few other people' when talking about the Byrnzie and fuck show. Glad you don't think of me or anyone else that way. And I don't think word of mouth is inadmissible in debate...just not a very effective way to prove a point. I said I wouldn't have brought it up....I only did to point out that you were doing it again with your he said/she said gossip about people staying away from these discussions. Those comments were no more constructive than some of the petty shit you're calling them out on. Anyway.....back to our regularly scheduled bickering.....
Did I say a few other people were like those two? I don't think I did.... either you misread ot or I misspoke.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The hostility on AMT has always been a problem. It got amped up after Milton Keynes, but it has very little to do with the Palestinians, Gaza or even Israel. The same tone can be found in the Death Penalty thread and the Edward Snowden thread and probably a dozen others. There are a few prominent repeat offenders, including both Byrnzie and fuck. Some may even include me on that list.
There are ways to disagree and debate without constantly attacking. Not saying there are not times when it is appropriate and/or even necessary, but it does not need to happen in every single thread.
Just my two cents. As always, feel free to flame away. ;-)
The hostility on AMT has always been a problem. It got amped up after Milton Keynes, but it has very little to do with the Palestinians, Gaza or even Israel. The same tone can be found in the Death Penalty thread and the Edward Snowden thread and probably a dozen others. There are many repeat offenders, including both Byrnzie and fuck. Some may even include me on that list.
There are ways to disagree and debate without constantly attacking. Not saying there are not times when it is appropriate and/or even necessary, but it does not need to happen in every single thread.
Just my two cents. As always, feel free to flame away. ;-)
You're always a pleasure Jimmy. Disagreement and debate is great. Conflict has an undeserved reputation. But yeah, the constant personal attacks and snide shit in reaction to posts (like B's weird little thing about the lols, and fuck's comments about intelligence) have just worn me out.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
Meanwhile, I'm glad that we're on the same page about getting to the crux of these issues and contemplating how best to fix these situations.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
What you wrote sounds more like an opinion than actual fact.
Do you have links to back up your opinion?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
And the reason I sometimes don't respond to you, just so you know, is because I have no interest in engaging either you or Byrnzie. Sometimes I make the mistake of doing so, but usually I do my best to just ignore both of you as much as possible while still trying to participate in the discussion because of the way you two conduct yourselves in these threads. I have no respect for the way you two behave and treat everyone and i usually try to disengage from both of you when I can (not this time obviously... it's hard to ignore something so obnoxious, but I do my best). Not that you both don't have some good points, but the way you both handle actual conversations is atrocious. So that is why i often don't respond to you, not because I don't have anything to say or an answer to your points. I don't like this way of trying to get through a thread, but unfortunately I and many others either have to think of ways to deal with you two or be chased away from the discussion altogether, and I don't see that as the best option.
I've got thick skin. If i didn't I wouldn't even be here. I'm not offended by you. I'm just sick of you. I think you act like a bully. Generally. Not just with me. I know a LOT of people who won't participate in this topic specifically because of you and Byrnzie, and that's annoying. It's not about you disagreeing with me or your views. I think most know me as someone who does not back away from a disagreement. It's about how you express your views.
I don't expect you to care. I just think that you and Byrnzie conduct yourselves poorly and am not interested in carrying on conversations with either one of you. So that's that. You're gonna do what you do. I'm just not into it. I'll continue to engage with those who know how to carry on civil conversations and can get their views across without insulting everyone and making strange demands about how they express themselves.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
It's honestly nothing personal. I'd probably get along fine with them IRL. I am just not into how they do the discussion board thing.
It happened on a Greyhound bus outside of Winnipeg too if people recall that horror (btw, the guy who did that is now being let out on day trips now). It is certainly gruesome. It's no small task to hack off someone's head. I haven't seen it myself (thank goodness), but I've read that when these extremists behead people like this they purposefully use a dull weapon and they have to hack and hack and hack at the poor hostage's neck and it's really horrible and painful. No one clean cut with these guys.
This isn't a discussion only because you won't let it be. This is just your tactic of deflecting from the substance of the conversation by calling me uncivil for daring to challenge your absurd claims. I also find it amusing how all of your insults directed towards Byrnzie and I (for which there are plenty) are somehow considered highbrow or fair play for you, whereas he and I are accused of being too mean in the way we speak. But I guess since we don't spend the majority of the time whining to everyone here about it - because we actually like to focus on the discussion at hand - these insults of yours go on, while you sit here pointing the finger as if no one else can see it for themselves. When you're ready to engage the actual points of debate, I'm ready. Until then, have fun making up more numbers and statistics to feed your biases. Just be careful who you tell them to - they might be crazy enough to tell you you're wrong!
Also....I personally wouldn't have bothered calling you out on the unsubstantiated opinions of your 'six friends'...and it raised an eyebrow a bit to see you accused of doing this often....But here you are with these 'I know a LOT of people who won't participate' / 'most people won't even stick around to talk' comments....like...if that's the case, tell those people to grow a pair and speak for themselves, or to stfu. And if you don't want to do that, name them.....or.....just don't bring them up to try to sway readers to your side......I've even seen you talk shit about B on fb, in a PJ group he isnt a member of. And you call them insulting?
I don't know if you think of myself or ben the same way....maybe I'm one of the 'others' you're vaguely mentioning....but I challenged you on what you took from that poll, arguing that it is a snapshot without context, not the whole story....Ben challenged the semantics framing the poll itself - two points that, if combined, make up a good chunk of what fuck and B were saying....you could have addressed them without dealing with either of the two that frustrate you so....what I'm saying is...you took part in this little sideshow as much as they did.
Second – do you know anything about Christianity in the middle east? Me neither.
You are so missing the point, man….. You keep defending your stance with your ‘everyone else is worse’ non-sequitor, even after I call you on it earlier in the thread. We are talking about US/NATO/Western Imperialist policy, and the ‘blowback’ it results in….The fact that you are citing the US attacking Saddam and Al Qaeda and the Taliban tells me you don’t want to go back in history far enough, or look at a broad enough picture to see anything that won’t paint the US in a positive light. In doing this, you are helping us build an argument against you….I know you’re perfectly aware that ALL THREE of these entities were US allies when they were ‘accepting our terms’. When they stopped accepting those terms, they were annihilated. THE USA SUPPORTS BRUTAL DICTATORS WHEN IT IS CONVENIENT TO THEIR INTERESTS TO DO SO. So explain to me how you can reconcile your statement about ‘at least it’s not innocent Christians living in Iraq killed just because of their religion’, with the deaths of innocents killed just because the US and her allies promote corrupt leaders, and then bomb entire countries when that corruption runs contrary to our wishes? What difference does it make if it's an economic or religious ideology pushing the agenda of a murderer?
We’re not trying to say that the US is no better than ISIS, we’re saying they’re one and the same; the IS is a natural evolution of disastrous policy, and it keeps repeating thanks to the brand of nationalism you promote in defense of phony ‘regime change’ idealism…..Saddam, AQ, Taliban….now it’s the IS, Al Nusra, the FSA….how many other countries are full of ‘rebels’ and ‘freedom fighters’ that will become ‘terrorists’ when we’ve decided we don’t need/want them as allies any longer?
As far as the murder of Christians in Iraq goes….you do know this has been going on since the US invaded, right? Remember the ‘death squads’ we always heard about when Iraq was falling apart under US occupation, with entire neighbourhoods being ethnically cleansed and sectarian enclaves formed? You know that Al Nusra, the group the US is now openly funding in Syria, has been responsible for the murder and displacement of thousands of Christians in that country, right? They’ve ethnically cleansed entire cities. It’s been pretty well established that the IS was created, funded and directed by the US and her allies…it’s openly admitted that Al Nusra and other groups in Syria have received the same….so could there be something else at play here that you are unwilling to acknowledge? You haven’t addressed any of my comments regarding balkanization of the region….could it be that the West WANTS the Christians in the area displaced to help in redrawing the regional borders?
This is a two part article that explains a lot of behind the scenes and unreported events in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, with a focus on the christian communities and their place in the middle east as a result of the instability the US created by invading Iraq and attempting a coup in Syria:
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/08/01/wiping-out-christians-syria-iraq-remap-mid-east-prerequisite-clash-civilizations-ii.html
There is going to be anger and aggression in conversation, because heated opinions have always surrounded injustices! And it's been proven to promote change historically! If someone attacks my brother, just try and restrain me, or ask me to "calm down" or "just be rational". I would suspect it would be the same for anyone else here. Cliche as it is, if we're all brothers and sisters in the human race, why should that loud and impossible to ignore voice need to be snuffed out?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I said one sentence about B on FB weeks ago when other people were talking about him and that anti-war thread. Not going to feel bad about that, especially considering how many time he's suggested that I'm an idiot.
That accusation of me "doing that often" was a bullshit lie. I can't believe anyone thinks we're not "allowed" to talk about things we've heard through word of mouth. If we're not going to consider things that we glean from face to face discussions then I guess we should just stop talking about shit altogether, since apparently there is no point. I very reasonably told everyone what some people said to me in conversations, and told everyone that they could take that as they like. It's unsubstantiated because I didn't record the conversations. Not sure why you seem to think that I presented that as though the conversations amounted to unarguable fact in the context of the overall discussion. When see someone say, "I talked to these people from that community and this is what they said" I'd take it for what it is. Someone passing on what they heard from an few people. In didn't mean for that to have any more bearing than that. So unless you actually think I am making it up, I find it bizarre that you'd have an issue with it.
What I am talking about has nothing to do with whether or not they are right or wrong in terms of the topic.
No, I don't think of you or anyone else is the same way because no one else calls various people stupid in every post.
As for any points about the polls I posted... i told everyone what I surmise from it. People don't have to agree. I simply am not going on about it because I've stated what my takeaway is and there just isn't anymore for me to say about it.
And I don't think word of mouth is inadmissible in debate...just not a very effective way to prove a point. I said I wouldn't have brought it up....I only did to point out that you were doing it again with your he said/she said gossip about people staying away from these discussions. Those comments were no more constructive than some of the petty shit you're calling them out on.
Anyway.....back to our regularly scheduled bickering.....
I honestly find myself feeling anxious whenever I post here so I generally avoid doing so. These forums are simply too hostile for my tastes.
It includes a LOT of things. Sharia law first comes to mind. Fundamentalist views about women is another.
Let me be clear; I find that most of the posters here are pretty cordial. I simply find that there are a few individuals who tend to be extremely hostile. I tend to avoid posting because I don't really want to get into a pissing contest with some of the more aggressive members on the train. Badbrains, you've never come across as anything but a class act from what I've seen. I think I can say that about most people here however there are a few posters that are just too confrontational for me to post here regularly.
There are ways to disagree and debate without constantly attacking. Not saying there are not times when it is appropriate and/or even necessary, but it does not need to happen in every single thread.
Just my two cents. As always, feel free to flame away. ;-)
"...I changed by not changing at all..."