Tuesday, May 14, 2019

The Donald Trump of atheism

Dawkins is kind of the Donald Trump of atheism. But he has his following, just as Trump does. 

157 comments:

StardustyPsyche said...

"Dawkins is kind of the Donald Trump of atheism. But he has his following, just as Trump does"
Huh?

Sorry Victor, this one is kinda sparse.

But, Ok, Trump, the most dishonest, criminal, incompetent, financially bankrupting, traitorous president in our history.

Dawkins is just a guy who writes books and gives video lectures variously attacking religion or describing the science of biological evolution.

So, how are these guys comparably similar?

Legion of Logic said...

I'm assuming the comparison is over them both getting in trouble over tweets, but I'm not sure.

One Brow said...

Atheism has worse characters than Dawkins, but Dawkins is narcissistic, Islamophobic, and sexist, so I don't find the comparison inapt.

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
A phobia is an irrational fear. Criticizing a religion that leads people to riot over a cartoon, push gay people from rooftops, stone adulterers to death, enslave women, murder people for being apostates, and generally perpetrate violence, ignorance, and mayhem...well, it is hardly irrational to fear such a religion, and such is Islam.

A great deal of what passes for modern feminism is just misandry and idiocy. Calling out the bigotry and stupidity that saturates so much of feminism will result in the label of sexist.

Dawkins has a pathological lack of empathy? Really, for who?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

The problem with the comparison is that Trump is not the champion of Christianity Dawkins is the champion of atheism.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Did Dawkins steal the presidency of atheism?

Starhopper said...

I believe what is being referred to here is Dawkins' rather unfortunate (to put it kindly) tweets. Is that right, Victor?

Jimmy S. M. said...

lord I wish Trump was as irrelevant and Dawkins, having peaked in like, 2007

bmiller said...

Did Dawkins steal the presidency of atheism?

Who was he running against? Marx is dead right?

Legion of Logic said...

Did Marx get the electoral vote?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Legion of Logic said...
Did Marx get the electoral vote?

The comparison was Trump and Dawkins not Trump and Marx..The electoral college was to keep Trump like people out so it obviously fails.One might also consider the fact that the founding fathers really had no faith in democracy and really didn't want "the people" to have voice. But they did want to keep out people like Trump.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

If you think the comparison must be between elected officials how about Trump and Hitler? Hitler burned the Richstag, Trump received benefit from from Russian Propaganda on face book

Legion of Logic said...

My Marx statement was in response to bmiller. I'm aware the initial comparison was between Trump and Dawkins, hence why my first post in this thread addressed that very thing.

Whether a foreigner lies on Facebook or an American citizen lies on Facebook (or CNN), both result in benefits based on lies. I'm not too worried about Facebook.

bmiller said...

Nick Fish is the President of Atheism after David Silverman was ousted under disputed corruption charges.
Sounds fishy to me :-). I understand they use Super Delegates! 😱

Victor Reppert said...

I am mainly thinking that after Dawkins, and after Trump, dialogue on the relevant issues got considerably worse.

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche said...
A phobia is an irrational fear.

Why do Islamophobes always use the same, stupid rhetoric? Don't you actually know English? A phobia can be an irrational fear (agoraphobia), an extreme fear of something dangerous (acrophobia), or a dislike of something different (Francophobia). Calling Dawkins, or you, an Islamophobe is doing nothing more than idetifying your irrationally setting Islam apart.

Criticizing a religion that leads people to riot over a cartoon, push gay people from rooftops, stone adulterers to death, enslave women, murder people for being apostates, and generally perpetrate violence, ignorance, and mayhem...well, it is hardly irrational to fear such a religion, and such is Islam.

Such is also Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Marxism, and pretty much every other belief system that has gained any sort of power in the world. There's no reason to single out Islam as being uniquely bad there.

A great deal of what passes for modern feminism is just misandry and idiocy.

A great deal of what passes for criticism of feminism is just ignorance, privilege, and self-protection.

Calling out the bigotry and stupidity that saturates so much of feminism will result in the label of sexist.

I'm guessing you get call sexist a lot, and have no idea how much you have earned that appellation.

Dawkins has a pathological lack of empathy? Really, for who?

Among others, those who have been molested as children.

One Brow said...

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
Did Dawkins steal the presidency of atheism?

The great thing about skepticism is that we don't need heroes of our movement.

Blogger Jimmy S. M. said...
lord I wish Trump was as irrelevant and Dawkins, having peaked in like, 2007

That goes for both of us.

bmiller said...
Who was he running against? Marx is dead right?

Marxism is just another belief system, and probably less popular among atheists than Christians.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Legion of Logic said...
My Marx statement was in response to bmiller. I'm aware the initial comparison was between Trump and Dawkins, hence why my first post in this thread addressed that very thing.

Whether a foreigner lies on Facebook or an American citizen lies on Facebook (or CNN), both result in benefits based on lies. I'm not too worried about Facebook.

May 15, 2019 3:19 PM

and if Russia hand picked our alleged president for us you would not care as long as they chose the republican, right?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

One Brow said...
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
Did Dawkins steal the presidency of atheism?

The great thing about skepticism is that we don't need heroes of our movement.

that is BS. I;ve dealing with atheists in argument for 20 years It;s obvious Dawkins is their hero. I think their New atheism is dying, it;s contracted a lot over the last five years so they may have lost their enthusiasm for him.

Legion of Logic said...

That would be quite the feat. I had no idea half the country consisted of Russian agents.

bmiller said...

Comrade. Shhhh, please!

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Blogger Legion of Logic said...
That would be quite the feat. I had no idea half the country consisted of Russian agents.

May 16, 2019 7:45 AM
Blogger bmiller said...
Comrade. Shhhh, please!

May 16, 2019 8:19 AM


I said "if" genius.

If I told you I believe all school children in the Us should be forced to lean Arabic numerals, and that churches should be force to allow homo sapiens to worship in them, you would be outraged.

One Brow said...

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
that is BS. I;ve dealing with atheists in argument for 20 years It;s obvious Dawkins is their hero.

Another great thing about skepticism is that I don't care whether other atheists engage in hero worship; I still know it is wrong.

One Brow said...

A comment by a skeptic on Dawkins bigotry I just say today:

Of course, I’m a heathen too, or, as I jokingly like to describe myself, about as lapsed a Catholic as you can be. I’m not defending religion, particularly fundamentalist religion. I’ve been refuting religion-inspired antiscience since at least 2004, including creationism and other forms of evolution denial. Dawkins’ hot take is wrong, though. It doesn’t just fail to tell the whole story. It leaves out so much that it does a disservice to so many Orthodox Jews whose prompt and enthusiastic cooperation with authorities in Michigan limited the spread of the measles outbreak. These Jews were motivated by their religion. So are the Orthodox Jewish nurses in Rockland County and Brooklyn on the ground fighting for the health of their communities. In other words, the situation is far more complicated than Dawkins’ easy anti-religion sloganeering would lead you to believe. Unless we understand this, we can’t make progress against the spread of antivax misinformation. Worse, it risks feeding the anti-Semitism that the measles outbreak among the Orthodox Jews has provoked and that several of them interviewed in various news stories complained about.

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2019/05/16/dawkins-vs-measles/

bmiller said...

@Joe,

If I told you I believe all school children in the Us should be forced to lean Arabic numerals, and that churches should be force to allow homo sapiens to worship in them, you would be outraged.

Well you're a known heterosexual and there's rumors your sister is a thesbian, So there!

Legion of Logic said...

I said "if" genius.

The question you asked didn't deserve a serious response. Self-reflection. Try it sometime.


If I told you I believe all school children in the Us should be forced to lean Arabic numerals, and that churches should be force to allow homo sapiens to worship in them, you would be outraged.

An ambassador for Christ, you truly are.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

One Brow said...
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
that is BS. I;ve dealing with atheists in argument for 20 years It;s obvious Dawkins is their hero.

Another great thing about skepticism is that I don't care whether other atheists engage in hero worship; I still know it is wrong.

Fair enough, good answer, one,

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Blogger bmiller said...
@Joe,

If I told you I believe all school children in the Us should be forced to lean Arabic numerals, and that churches should be force to allow homo sapiens to worship in them, you would be outraged.

Well you're a known heterosexual and there's rumors your sister is a thesbian, So there!

yea? well I hear you masticate at the table! ;-)

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

LL The muller report never denies Russian attempts to ruin the election. There's a ton of evidence they did intervene and still are. All of our intelligence agencies have said it, it;s not controversial,it;s proven; they were effective they may well have tipped the election for bone spurs.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

LL:The question you asked didn't deserve a serious response. Self-reflection. Try it sometime.

I have no reason to assume your unqualified support of democracy since you back someone who is actively seeking to destroy it. You don't say things to dispel the idea that you support it.


If I told you I believe all school children in the Us should be forced to lean Arabic numerals, and that churches should be force to allow homo sapiens to worship in them, you would be outraged.

An ambassador for Christ, you truly are.


that was just a joke,I saw a thingon Face book that 57% of Americans say it;s alarming that school choirden are being taught Arabic numerals. Bmiller saw it was a joke

Legion of Logic said...

The muller report never denies Russian attempts to ruin the election.

Neither have I. I am simply not alarmed if a Facebook lie is from Russia rather than America, since both are designed to do the same thing - influence the election based on lies. Americans on both sides do that on a daily basis. Short of Russia hacking polls and changing votes, which to my knowledge did not happen, I've not seen anything to indicate that Russia stole the election. I know many people who voted Trump, and none of their reasons are Russia.

I have no reason to assume your unqualified support of democracy since you back someone who is actively seeking to destroy it.

How so? Not cooperating with Democrat's endless open-end investigations? I wouldn't either.

Also, I didn't vote for Trump. Like Obama, I will defend him from what I think are serious but unfounded or exaggerated charges.

that was just a joke

Telling someone who disagrees with you politically that they are dumb, ignorant, brainwashed, bigoted, or some personalized combination of the four is not precisely uncommon with you, so it is hard to tell a joke along the same lines. But I will accept what you said as a joke.

That sounds similar to the bombing of Agrabah hoax.

bmiller said...

@Joe,

yea? well I hear you masticate at the table! ;-)

Who told you that? I'm going to chew him out :-)

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Me: The muller report never denies Russian attempts to ruin the election.

LL: Neither have I. I am simply not alarmed if a Facebook lie is from Russia rather than America, since both are designed to do the same thing - influence the election based on lies.

That's the kind of short sighted, defensive, denial oriented answer I've come to expect from Trumpies.


Americans on both sides do that on a daily basis. Short of Russia hacking polls and changing votes, which to my knowledge did not happen, I've not seen anything to indicate that Russia stole the election. I know many people who voted Trump, and none of their reasons are Russia.


how ridiculous, none of them said: "hey I'ma Russian trying to subvert the democratic process will you please change your vote? again the FBI. the CIA and all the intel orgs say you are wrong.

Me:I have no reason to assume your unqualified support of democracy since you back someone who is actively seeking to destroy it.

How so? Not cooperating with Democrat's endless open-end investigations? I wouldn't either.

why is it important to get snap answers to it all? Mu;;er is not a De he was probably a Trojan horse. Trump is a crook We have him so many ways, He;s totally subverted the regulatory process. None elected him specifically to destroy enforcement of every law with social content, that's what he;'s doing,so much for faithfully extincting the laws...it's important to get all the facts

Also, I didn't vote for Trump. Like Obama, I will defend him from what I think are serious but unfounded or exaggerated charges.

there aren't any, he's not getting enough criticism, his BS has been normalized,now, WE just accept it all because he's Trump this is what he does.

that was just a joke

Telling someone who disagrees with you politically that they are dumb, ignorant, brainwashed, bigoted, or some personalized combination of the four is not precisely uncommon with you, so it is hard to tell a joke along the same lines. But I will accept what you said as a joke.


You guys have told me that I'm crazy I'm way out I;'m super radical I'm a communist. That I cant understand things, none of you can sustain an argument from one assertion to the next,

"That sounds similar to the bombing of Agrabah hoax."

all your arguments are just statements of prejudice and snap judgement,

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

::P your caviler attitude tells me you appear totally uninformed about what's going on with Trump.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...


this was on FB. Republicans try to minimize the seriousness because it means the end of their reign.

Robert Reich
11 hrs ·
Senate Majority Leader McConnell is saying he will not allow any new election security measures to reach the Senate floor. Never mind that Russian attacks on the U.S. election system in 2016 were even more serious than reported at the time, according to new disclosures, and intelligence officials say they are bracing for more aggressive attacks from a wider array of foreign adversaries in 2020.

I worry that McConnell is practically inviting foreign governments to invade our elections because he believes they’ll help Trump’s reelection bid. I hope I’m wrong.
What do you think?


Legion of Logic said...

That's the kind of short sighted, defensive, denial oriented answer I've come to expect from Trumpies.

So because I don't display the same level of shrieking alarm over a lie found on a global internet, I'm a "short-sighted, defensive, detail-oriented Trumpie"? It's amazing what one can learn about oneself. And here I thought a prerequisite for being a "Trumpie" would be voting for Trump!

again the FBI. the CIA and all the intel orgs say you are wrong.

No they don't. I've not disagreed with anything they've said. I'm also not going to rend my garments and cast dust into the air because some Russian posted a lie on social media. Hacking our systems, yes that's a big problem that we should have been prepared for. Lies on Facebook? Yawn. It's people's responsibility to verify information regardless of its source.


Mu;;er is not a De he was probably a Trojan horse.

So there is a left-wing equivalent to Infowars.

You guys have told me that I'm crazy I'm way out I;'m super radical I'm a communist

I'm not "you guys". I answer only for myself. And I don't have a problem with you or Starhopper or Victor for being left-wing (not sure the converse is true), any more than I have a problem with Stardusty or One Brow not being Christian. I'm okay with people disagreeing with me. What I am not okay with is being called ignorant, stupid, brainwashed, bigoted, or dishonest simply for having an opinion or value hierarchy that differs from what progressives think. That will definitely lead to flippancy from me, at the very least.

When I'm called a "short-sighted Trumpie" simply because I am not freaking out over social media lies, I'm not inclined to treat that attitude with respect. It certainly deserves none.


all your arguments are just statements of prejudice and snap judgement


So much for joking, Ambassador.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

That's the kind of short sighted, defensive, denial oriented answer I've come to expect from Trumpies.

So because I don't display the same level of shrieking alarm over a lie found on a global internet, I'm a "short-sighted, defensive, detail-oriented Trumpie"?


what is it exactly you are calling a lie? I wont try to access why yo are a "short-sighted, defensive, detail-oriented Trumpie"


It's amazing what one can learn about oneself. And here I thought a prerequisite for being a "Trumpie" would be voting for Trump!

you seem to defend him

again the FBI. the CIA and all the intel orgs say you are wrong.

No they don't. I've not disagreed with anything they've said.

they sure as hell do you are probably mistaking Russian action for Trump collusion, Collusion with Trump has not been ruled on but the idea that Russia was active in our elections is a fact no one disputes.

I'm also not going to rend my garments and cast dust into the air because some Russian posted a lie on social media. Hacking our systems, yes that's a big problem that we should have been prepared for. Lies on Facebook? Yawn. It's people's responsibility to verify information regardless of its source.

what you dismiss as one little post is really thousands you don't care about that you probably don;t care. That is obviously not all they are doing,


Muller is not a Dem he was probably a Trojan horse.

So there is a left-wing equivalent to Infowars.

stay asleep little repibloican Im sure you don;'t give a damn about democracy anyway,

You guys have told me that I'm crazy I'm way out I;'m super radical I'm a communist

I'm not "you guys".

one of them


I answer only for myself. And I don't have a problem with you or Starhopper or Victor for being left-wing (not sure the converse is true),

You don;t know left wing from a hole in the ground you sure as hell don't know what I think about the left, you are one of those ultra conservatives who thinks anyone left Reagan is a "real leftist" radical.


any more than I have a problem with Stardusty or One Brow not being Christian. I'm okay with people disagreeing with me. What I am not okay with is being called ignorant, stupid, brainwashed, bigoted, or dishonest simply for having an opinion or value hierarchy that differs from what progressives think. That will definitely lead to flippancy from me, at the very least.

you were willing to label e with varicose fringe labels so I would not be taken seriously

When I'm called a "short-sighted Trumpie" simply because I am not freaking out over social media lies, I'm not inclined to treat that attitude with respect. It certainly deserves none.

Your attempt to reduce the problem to just one post on face book shows a desire to minimize rather than solve. That tells me you are not aware or hiking very deeply about the current state of western civilization or our society and the political challenges that face us. I am sorry to offend you but that is short sighted. reducing the problem to one post on face book is short sighted,


all your arguments are just statements of prejudice and snap judgement

So much for joking, Ambassador.


You didn't laugh at the joke,I;m not joking here. Maybe we shoud goon face book

May 17, 2019 5:33 AM

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/russian-election-hacking

Russians Hacked Voter Systems in 2 Florida Counties. But Which Ones?
Gov. Ron DeSantis said he was sworn to secrecy by the F.B.I. and cannot publicly reveal which Florida counties were hacked during the 2016 election.

By Patricia Mazzei


May 14, 2019

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/20/us/politics/russia-interference-election-trump-clinton.html
For two years, Americans have tried to absorb the details of the 2016 attack — hacked emails, social media fraud, suspected spies — and President Trump’s claims that it’s all a hoax. The Times explores what we know and what it means.
By SCOTT SHANE and MARK MAZZETTI
SEPT. 20, 2018


Russian attack is to underscore what we now know with certainty: The Russians carried out a landmark intervention that will be examined for decades to come. Acting on the personal animus of Mr. Putin, public and private instruments of Russian power moved with daring and skill to harness the currents of American politics. Well-connected Russians worked aggressively to recruit or influence people inside the Trump campaign.

To many Americans, the intervention seemed to be a surprise attack, a stealth cyberage Pearl Harbor, carried out by an inexplicably sinister Russia. For Mr. Putin, however, it was long-overdue payback,...And there is a plausible case that Mr. Putin succeeded in delivering the presidency to his admirer, Mr. Trump, though it cannot be proved or disproved. In an election with an extraordinarily close margin, the repeated disruption of the Clinton campaign by emails published on WikiLeaks and the anti-Clinton, pro-Trump messages shared with millions of voters by Russia could have made the difference, a possibility Mr. Trump flatly rejects.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

from that dangerous commie rag USA today

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/22/mueller-report-what-know-russian-election-interference/3538877002/

WASHINGTON – Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign spelled out in elaborate detail a sophisticated, Kremlin-led operation to sow division in the U.S. and upend the election by using cyberattacks and social media as weapons.

The Russian operation was so successful, experts warn, they’ll almost certainly try again.

“We’ve been focused on what has happened. We’ve focused almost nothing on how to prevent it in the future,” said Michael McFaul, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Russia under President Barack Obama.

“I think those are things we need to look at hard,” McFaul said. “Because time is short.”

Here are five things to know about Russian election interference and its impact:

‘A significant escalation’
Mueller’s 448-page report, released to Congress and the public on April 18 after a nearly two-year investigation, provided the most comprehensive description to date of Russia’s efforts to boost Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 presidential election.

bmiller said...

@Joe,

I don't think you'll convince many conservatives by linking to left-leaning publications when they can easily get the unbiased facts from HERE

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

B you actually just write off the NYT as "left leaning" it;s the nation most prestigious newspaper. Have you seen a list of the awards they've won for the quality of the misreporting?

Name one conservative daily that matches it in terms of award wining journalism?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

I also used USA today

bmiller said...

Yep, I wrote it.

NYT
USA Today

Also, biased journalists giving other biased journalists awards does not make them unbiased. Just means they are biased in the same direction.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

anyone who counts against your view is biased USA today is very conservative,

you claim you wrote the USA today? you agree with me

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

bmiller are you Tom Vaden or Michael Collins?

bmiller said...

@Joe,

Should have been:
Yep, I wrote it off.

anyone who counts against your view is biased USA today is very conservative

USA Today is rated as left-leaning according to the links I provided.

There are publications that are biased toward the right and there are others (the majority) biased toward the left. I read both. That way I get to see the stories that the right doesn't want you to see as well as the stories that the left doesn't want you to see.

You should try it sometime.

Legion of Logic said...

A lot of people have trouble admitting that something they agree with is biased, or at least they have trouble agreeing that said bias is problematic when it comes to judging truth.

StardustyPsyche said...

@Joe
"stay asleep little repibloican Im sure you don;'t give a damn about democracy anyway,"
You don't get taken seriously as a rational debater, nor do you attract much traffic to your web site with your diversionary links posted here, because, in part, you post so many hysterical shrieking internet psychobabble raving lunatic statements.

As soon as somebody disagrees with you then you start yelling about their lack of belief in democracy, or how they are just spouting the party line, or other similar crackpot bullshit.

GTFU

StardustyPsyche said...

Victor Reppert May 15, 2019 10:31 PM said...

"I am mainly thinking that after Dawkins, and after Trump, dialogue on the relevant issues got considerably worse."
Hmmm...Well, maybe, in some senses, but my first questions would regard correlation as opposed to causation.

And what do you mean by "worse"? Worse how and for who and why?

StardustyPsyche said...

@One May 16, 2019 5:12 AM
“Anti-French sentiment (Francophobia) is an extreme or irrational fear or contempt of France,”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francophobia
You don’t know what you are talking about. Francophobia is an irrational fear. Islamophobia would be an irrational fear, if fearing Islam were irrational, which it isn’t.

“Such is also Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Marxism, and pretty much every other belief system that has gained any sort of power in the world. There's no reason to single out Islam as being uniquely bad there.”
More PC liberal stupidity.
Christ as portrayed in scripture was the original hippy, peace, love, and pacifism. The more you read Christ the more you love your enemy.
Buddha in no way advocated violence.
Hindus are not going around killing in the name of Vishnu.
Marxism isn’t even a religion, but combating communism was also quite rational.

Muhammad was, by the accepted texts of Islam itself, a violent warlord, conquering lands, murdering, stealing, raping, enslaving, and subjugating. The more you follow his example, as a good Muslim is supposed to do, the more violent and dangerous you become. Hence Isis, Boko Haram, and other Islamist organizations that understand the texts clearly and accurately and therefore act upon them true to the instructions of Muhammad.

You don’t have even the slightest clue about what you are talking about. Your ignorance is appalling.

StardustyPsyche said...

Victor Reppert May 15, 2019 10:31 PM said...

"I am mainly thinking that after Dawkins, and after Trump, dialogue on the relevant issues got considerably worse."
I think Dawkins has added greatly to improving dialogue on issues relevant to religion in particular...

...especially on the subject of Islam. When so many liberal minded people were equating all religions and engaging in all sorts of rationalizations on the subject Dawkins was out front calling out the hypocrisy of the left on Islam.

But, the liberals just would not budge from their fantasy worldview, which left an opening for Trump who absolutely thumped Hillary with her silly refusal to even call it Islamic terrorism. That was such an easy target even Trump could not get it wrong.

That is about the only thing Trump has done right, to at least call Islamic terrorism for what it is, so at least in that one instance, Trump managed to improve the dialog. Just goes to show, even the most sick, diabolical, and destructive leaders occasionally get something right.

Trump, of course, has debased the national dialog terribly, for the most part, with his race baiting, undermining our criminal justice system, lies about who really pays for tariffs, and on and on and on.

Dawkins, however, has been pretty much right on just about everything he takes public positions on.

So, Victor, no, I cannot agree with the way you, in part, equate the two men.

Starhopper said...

I am the furthest thing from an apologist for Islam. I believe it to be fundamentally a perversion, not of Christianity, but of the worst of Christian heresies. I believe it to be a literal fulfilment of the prophecies of St. Paul in Galatians that there would be "another gospel" preached by someone who will have claimed to have heard it from an angel. It's worth noting that Paul concluded by saying "Let [the purveyor of such a gospel] be accursed!" The world would be a far better place today had Muhammad never lived.

That said... I can only speak of individual Muslims that I personally know - neighbors, people I meet in grocery stores and other shops, the man I've bought all my carpets from, and the woman who accompanied my younger daughter on a trip to West Africa - rather than the umma. And of those persons, I have only good to say. I know no Islamic terrorists, and no Muslim who wishes to kill me. They are Good People and make a valuable contribution to my community.

So, as little as I cared for George W. Bush (I still think he stole the 2000 election from Gore), he did the right thing after 9/11 by publically and ostentatiously attending services at a mosque and declaring that the terrorists were the antithesis of Islam. I wish our current president would do the same.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

There are publications that are biased toward the right and there are others (the majority) biased toward the left. I read both. That way I get to see the stories that the right doesn't want you to see as well as the stories that the left doesn't want you to see.

You should try it sometime.


that is the mark of a true ideologue; everything is against you there are no valid sources that disagree with you.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

As soon as somebody disagrees with you then you start yelling about their lack of belief in democracy, or how they are just spouting the party line, or other similar crackpot bullshit.

we are talking about how our election was subverted a foreign power, one that you right wingers sue to be really upset about, but now not bothered in the lest. Wy? Because you like the guy they put in charge. which says it all.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

USA Today is rated as left-leaning according to the links I provided.

Barry Goldwater would be left leaning according to those sources

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Stardust Psyche

But, the liberals just would not budge from their fantasy worldview, which left an opening for Trump who absolutely thumped Hillary with her silly refusal to even call it Islamic terrorism. That was such an easy target even Trump could not get it wrong.

Hillary won the popular vote you know, how easily we forget,

That is about the only thing Trump has done right, to at least call Islamic terrorism for what it is, so at least in that one instance, Trump managed to improve the dialog. Just goes to show, even the most sick, diabolical, and destructive leaders occasionally get something right.

Improved the dialogue? Not that I would disagree but we just got through shootng the hell out of Isis, kis the improvement you mean?

Trump, of course, has debased the national dialog terribly, for the most part, with his race baiting, undermining our criminal justice system, lies about who really pays for tariffs, and on and on and on.

at least you see he;s done some things wrong,i bet you vote for him

Legion of Logic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Starhopper said...

I believe that Peace in our Times is a reliable "left leaning" (whatever that means) publication.

Yes, it is unabashedly antiwar. That does not mean it can't still be reliable. Unless you're of the opinion that jingoistic pro-war publications have a monopoly on the truth.

And I believe that as a US Army veteran with decades of civilian service in the Dept. of Defense (the last 5 years at the highest civilian rank, and the manager of a billion dollar program), I have the expertise to judge such material as to its reliability.

Starhopper said...

By the way, Joe. I actually voted for Barry Goldwater. I am the only person I know who can (proudly) say that he voted for both Goldwater and McGovern.

Top that for non-partisanship!

StardustyPsyche said...

@Starho[[er
"declaring that the terrorists were the antithesis of Islam."
Only an ignorant fool, or liar, would make such a declaration.

Anybody who knows anything about the texts of Islam knows that Bin Laden, Isis, and Boko Haram are acting out the explicit instructions of Muhammad and emulating Muhammad.


" I wish our current president would do the same."
Calling Islamic terrorism just exactly that is about the only thing Trump has gotten right.

StardustyPsyche said...

Starhopper said...

" I am the furthest thing from an apologist for Islam."
You are an ignorant fool for Islam, I am not sure which is more contemptible, a criminal's accomplice or a criminal's bitch.

You are the Eva Braun of Islam.

StardustyPsyche said...

@Joe megacrock
"Hillary won the popular vote you know, how easily we forget,"
So did Gore, but with the concentration of superstitious ignoramuses in the small states that have disproportionate voting power winning a majority or a plurality isn't good enough for reason to win the day, Hillary also had to not speak of stupid things like Black Lives Matter and Islamophobia, but she did, so she lost, because she was stupid in a politically correct liberal sort of way.

"Improved the dialogue? Not that I would disagree but we just got through shootng the hell out of Isis, kis the improvement you mean?"
Trump did not improve our victory over Isis, Obama handed that to him on a silver platter. Trump called Islamic terrorism Islamic terrorism, about the only correct thing he has done in the past few years.

bmiller said...

Joe,

that is the mark of a true ideologue; everything is against you there are no valid sources that disagree with you.

Huh? Reading both sides makes me "a true ideologue"? Sheesh!

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

The limits of Science in the Search for God, part 1

I. A Global approach to knowledge enables us to understand the inadequacy of the scientifically based view that writes God out of the picture.
II. Understanding the need for the global approach to knowledge gives us the understanding of the link between ground of being and the divine.
III. Understanding these two points gives us the basic realization of the reality of God that frees us from the need to prove.



Since Laplace uttered those fateful words, “I have no need of that [God] hypothesis” God has been disassociated from science. Just why he uttered them is another matter but the upshot seems to be that those who find their hobby if not their profession in doubting the reality of the divine do so on the grounds that its not “officially backed” by science. The constant refrain of atheists heard around the net every single day “there’s no proof for YOUR God” echoes the call for scientific evidence as the only form of knowledge. The success of the “Back to God movement” in philosophy, stunning though it has been, nevertheless is tainted with the dismissal on the part of atheists, skeptics, and some agnostics that God arguments are not “scientific.” The God argument as a species is broadly criticized for not being science and for being philosophy. The point of this work is to demonstrate the notion that belief in God is rationally warranted, but that it need not be demonstrated with scientific rational. The purpose here is to forge a new apologetics.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

@Joe megacrock
"Hillary won the popular vote you know, how easily we forget,"
So did Gore, but with the concentration of superstitious ignoramuses in the small states that have disproportionate voting power winning a majority or a plurality isn't good enough for reason to win the day, Hillary also had to not speak of stupid things like Black Lives Matter and Islamophobia, but she did, so she lost, because she was stupid in a politically correct liberal sort of way.

circular reasoning. You want a system that represents the arbitrarily fictional entities called "States" while ignoring the choice of the people

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Starhopper said...
By the way, Joe. I actually voted for Barry Goldwater. I am the only person I know who can (proudly) say that he voted for both Goldwater and McGovern.

Top that for non-partisanship!

Did you know taht Godlwater and McGovern were real good friends? In the end i wound up admiring Goldwater. Still reject his political views.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

StardustyPsyche said...
Starhopper said...

" I am the furthest thing from an apologist for Islam."
You are an ignorant fool for Islam, I am not sure which is more contemptible, a criminal's accomplice or a criminal's bitch.

You are the Eva Braun of Islam.

funny you should mention Eva Braun...

Starhopper said...

Oh, and by the way, here and here are two examples of "right wing" publications that, although I do not always (or even often) agree with them, I consider to be quite reliable in their news coverage.

So yes, "reliability" is not the exclusive province of either political leaning.

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche said...
@One May 16, 2019 5:12 AM
“Anti-French sentiment (Francophobia) is an extreme or irrational fear or contempt of France,”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francophobia
You don’t know what you are talking about. Francophobia is an irrational fear.


I wonder what goes through the mind of the Islamophobe when, quoting a definition that they themselves provide, which says "fear or contempt", they entirely miss the part about "or contempt" and only see the part about fear.

Islamophobia would be an irrational fear, if fearing Islam were irrational, which it isn’t.

It's quite rational to be afraid of Muslims, Christians, Jews, atheists, Hindus, etc. depending on the circumstances. It's irrational to take all followers of a religious organization and say they are all dangerous.

Here's a quick one for you: in the US, over the past 10 years, have we had more terror killings by Christians or by Muslims?

More PC liberal stupidity.

When you have to resort to meaningless terms as a position in an argument, you have already lost.

Christ as portrayed in scripture was the original hippy, peace, love, and pacifism. The more you read Christ the more you love your enemy.'

You need to read your Bible better. Also, Jesus is not alive anymore.I was referring to Christians, not Jesus of Nazareth.

Buddha in no way advocated violence.

Buddha is long dead.

Hindus are not going around killing in the name of Vishnu.

Except, they are. It just doesn't cross your parochial threshold.

Marxism isn’t even a religion, but combating communism was also quite rational.

Since the term I used was "belief system", not being a religion is not really significant. Feel free to let me know when you come across some communism to battle in the real world.

Muhammad was, by the accepted texts ... true to the instructions of Muhammad.

I accept your position on how a good Muslim should behave with the same lack of authority that I accept the positions of Christians on what it means to be an atheist. Instead, I will accept the position of the Muslims I have worked with, pst and present, on what Islam means.

You don’t have even the slightest clue about what you are talking about. Your ignorance is appalling.

If I were you, I'd also hate being called out on my prejudice.

One Brow said...

Blogger bmiller said...
USA Today

You source is wrong. The only expaples they give of supposed left-bias are anti-Trump statements, and as I'm sure Legion of Logic can tell you, you can be right-leaning and anti-Trump.

By contrast, https://www.adfontesmedia.com/ puts USA Today squarely in the middle. As opposed to merely counting statements or looking at positions against Trump specifically, this source uses people with with a variety of opinions on the political spectrum to evaluate a variety of stories in context.

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

So yes, "reliability" is not the exclusive province of either political leaning.

that is the mark of a true ideologue; everything is against you there are no valid sources that disagree with you.! How dare you read both sides!

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche said...
Only an ignorant fool, or liar, would make such a declaration.

Only a self-righteous know-nothing would think he has the monopoly on a proper perspective.

Anybody who knows anything about the texts of Islam knows that Bin Laden, Isis, and Boko Haram are acting out the explicit instructions of Muhammad and emulating Muhammad.

Anybody who knows anything about humans and their belief systems know that humans take what they want from authoritative texts and reinterpret them to fit the world as they see it, not the other way around.

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche said...
... Hillary also had to not speak of stupid things like Black Lives Matter...

That you think the killing of so many black people by the police is something to be swept under the rug tells us so very, very much about your character.

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
" It's irrational to take all followers of a religious organization and say they are all dangerous."
Strawman. Who said that?

"have we had more terror killings by Christians or by Muslims?"
None that could be traced back to the teachings of Christ.
Thousands that are directly attributable to the teachings of Muhammad.

" Instead, I will accept the position of the Muslims I have worked with, pst and present, on what Islam means."
Then you are not much of a reader or thinker. Instead of studying the texts that Islamists cite when they commit acts of murder, rape, and enslavement you listen to a few anecdotes from your friends.

"If I were you, I'd also hate being called out on my prejudice"
Here are a few resources for you
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/\

Islam in their own words
https://clarionproject.org/islamic-state-isis-isil-propaganda-magazine-dabiq-50/

Here are just a couple places you can verify that Isis always gets it right on the tests of Islam
http://hadithcollection.com/
https://quran.com/

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
"Anybody who knows anything about humans and their belief systems know that humans take what they want from authoritative texts and reinterpret them to fit the world as they see it, not the other way around."
The violence is in the words and actions of Muhammad, but not in the words and actions of Christ.

The more you emulate Christ the more peaceful you are. The more you emulate Muhammad the more violent you are.

Texts matter, hence Ramadan Bombathon, and all the ongoing violence of Islamists.

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
"That you think the killing of so many black people by the police is something to be swept under the rug tells us so very, very much about your character"
The majority of the cases BLM yells about are police doing their job correctly to arrest violent and non-compliant criminals.

Michael Brown was a criminal who robbed a store, attacked a police officer through the window of the police car, tried to steal the officer's gun, ran from the police, and turned to attack the officer, and got shot down before he could carry out his attack.

Fortunately, a good officer was then able to go home to his family while a violent criminal lay dead in the streets, and justified riddance.

Michael Brown is the prototype BLM "victim", a thug, a criminal, a violent attacker who got stopped by the police.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Blogger StardustyPsyche said...
@One
"That you think the killing of so many black people by the police is something to be swept under the rug tells us so very, very much about your character"
The majority of the cases BLM yells about are police doing their job correctly to arrest violent and non-compliant criminals.

bull shit! You have no basis for such a stupid statement. We have to go case by case there are plenty of cases to justify a movement. None of the people the cops kill will get a second chance

Michael Brown was a criminal who robbed a store, attacked a police officer through the window of the police car, tried to steal the officer's gun, ran from the police, and turned to attack the officer, and got shot down before he could carry out his attack.

asserting he deserves death because he's a criminal,so where I come come from that is called prejudice.

Fortunately, a good officer was then able to go home to his family while a violent criminal lay dead in the streets, and justified riddance.

Michael Brown is the prototype BLM "victim", a thug, a criminal, a violent attacker who got stopped by the police.

extrapolating from one case to all of the, what coincidence they all happen to be black.

May 20, 2019 6:38 AM

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

The more you emulate Christ the more peaceful you are. The more you emulate Muhammad the more violent you are.

Like all those times Jesus told us to Judge people by the color of their skin, you don;t know Christ,. Jesus does not foster racism nor tough talking condoning violence,none of that is impressive its not Christ-like.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Blogger bmiller said...
Starhopper,

So yes, "reliability" is not the exclusive province of either political leaning.

that is the mark of a true ideologue; everything is against you there are no valid sources that disagree with you.! How dare you read both sides!


LOL,,, I like your humor

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

One Brow said...
StardustyPsyche said...
Only an ignorant fool, or liar, would make such a declaration.

hey One he knows it all,man, he has all the proper bigotry,

bmiller said...

@Joe,

LOL,,, I like your humor

I couldn't have done it without you ;-)

Starhopper said...

"Then you are not much of a reader or thinker. Instead of studying the texts that Islamists cite when they commit acts of murder, rape, and enslavement you listen to a few anecdotes from your friends." (emphasis added)

Stardusty,

You need to brush up on your Lewis (this is, after all, a blog about C.S. Lewis).

From That Hideous Strength, Chapter 4, "The Liquidation of Anachronisms" - page 85 in my paperback copy)):

"[H]is education had the curious effect of making things that he read or wrote more real to him than things he saw. Statistics about agricultural laborers were the substance; any real ditcher, ploughman, or farmer's boy, was the shadow."

Describes your attitude toward Muslims to a Tee. I'll take my "anecdotes" over your "studying the texts" any day.

Legion of Logic said...

in the US, over the past 10 years, have we had more terror killings by Christians or by Muslims?

Even assuming every attack by a Christian was primarily motivated by their religion, I doubt the ratio corresponds to the population ratio. Otherwise we would expect to see around seventy Christian attacks for every one Muslim attack.

I don't believe we see that.

StardustyPsyche said...

@Joe
"asserting he deserves death because he's a criminal,so where I come come from that is called prejudice."
He deserved death because he attacked an officer with deadly force and the officer acted in self defense.

Self defense of an honest citizen justifies deadly force against the attacking criminal.

Learn How To Think.

"extrapolating from one case to all of the, what coincidence they all happen to be black."
Case after case after case it is the same story. Black criminal is stopped by police using appropriate force, BLM screams racist police brutality. BLM is a distopian anti father, anti law enforcement radical hate group.

Just read their web site, study the cases they yell about, and listen to the black law enforcement officers who agree with me.

I respect law enforcement. You have a problem with that? TS.

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
"I'll take my "anecdotes" over your "studying the texts" any day."
I am sure you prefer your fantasies to reality, that is no surprise.

Use the links I sent you and you can begin a journey out of your little neighborhood and into the reality of the vast world of violence and destructive superstition that is Islam today, as it always has been since Muhammad first rampaged across Arabia raping and murdering and stealing and enslaving, as his emulators do to this day.

Starhopper said...

"a journey out of your little neighborhood and into the reality ... that is Islam today"

Um, I've traveled extensively (for work) in the Middle East, to Turkey, Kuwait, and Iraq. I've spent considerable time with Muslims from Pakistan, Iran, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, West Africa, and other places.

Have you, or do you just visit websites? Re-read that passage I cited from C.S. Lewis, and think about what it means.

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche said...
Strawman. Who said that?

It's the implication of your attacks on Islam as a religion.

None that could be traced back to the teachings of Christ.
Thousands that are directly attributable to the teachings of Muhammad.


I thank you for revealing your ignorance of the Bible.

Last I checked, teachinga don't make bombs. People make bombs.

Then you are not much of a reader or thinker.

If you are the standard, then I exceed it by quite a bit.

Instead of studying the texts that Islamists cite when they commit acts of murder, rape, and enslavement you listen to a few anecdotes from your friends.

You mean, like how you study the Bible texts quoted by Christian terrorists?

Here are a few resources for you

Been there, seen that. However, I don't need to feed my inner demon. You can have your confirmation bias to yourself.

The violence is in the words and actions of Muhammad, but not in the words and actions of Christ.

Again, your ignorance of the Bible is remarkable.

The more you emulate Christ the more peaceful you are. The more you emulate Muhammad the more violent you are.

The more you try to emphasize a small difference, the stupider you look.

Texts matter, hence Ramadan Bombathon, and all the ongoing violence of Islamists.

Religious texts only matter in that they are what people read into.

The majority of the cases BLM yells about are police doing their job correctly to arrest violent and non-compliant criminals.

You mean, like John Crawford, Tamar Rice, and Philando Castile?

Michael Brown was a criminal who robbed a store, attacked a police officer through the window of the police car, tried to steal the officer's gun, ran from the police, and turned to attack the officer, and got shot down before he could carry out his attack.

AS could be expected, you've got the timeline wrong. Brown was first shot after he turned but before he supposedly tried to attack the officer, by the officer's own testimony. We're supposed to believe a teen who was just shot decided to run at the cop shooting him.

Fortunately, a good officer was then able to go home to his family while a violent criminal lay dead in the streets, and justified riddance.

I don't have to wonder why you regularly get called a racist.

Michael Brown is the prototype BLM "victim", a thug, a criminal, a violent attacker who got stopped by the police.

Yes, I'm sure focusing on Brown allows you to forget the Crawfords, Rices, and Castiles of the world.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Blogger StardustyPsyche said...
@Joe
"asserting he deserves death because he's a criminal,so where I come come from that is called prejudice."

He deserved death because he attacked an officer with deadly force and the officer acted in self defense.

let's see you document that dumb ass. Asserting an accusation is not prof. just because that one guy did it doesn't mean all cussed people are guilty. you pull out a guilty one then assert they are all guilty this is not clever.

Self defense of an honest citizen justifies deadly force against the attacking criminal.

Learn How To Think.

grow a brain racist idiot,

"extrapolating from one case to all of the, what coincidence they all happen to be black."

Case after case after case it is the same story. Black criminal is stopped by police using appropriate force, BLM screams racist police brutality. BLM is a distopian anti father, anti law enforcement radical hate group.

more empty headed gum flapping your narrow minded assertions are not proof stupid

Just read their web site, study the cases they yell about, and listen to the black law enforcement officers who agree with me.

I have read them jackass that;show I know you are full of shit

I respect law enforcement. You have a problem with that? TS.

shouldn't you be starching your hood? Racists are always such sloppy thinkers, they can't understand the distinction between protecting the helpless and disrespecting. Obviously you don't respect law because the civil rights act is law .

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Blogger StardustyPsyche said...
@One
"I'll take my "anecdotes" over your "studying the texts" any day."
I am sure you prefer your fantasies to reality, that is no surprise.

Use the links I sent you and you can begin a journey out of your little neighborhood and into the reality of the vast world of violence and destructive superstition that is Islam today, as it always has been since Muhammad first rampaged across Arabia raping and murdering and stealing and enslaving, as his emulators do to this day.

well Stardust Psycho racist idiots always think they know all about the world mostly they are origination as you are you don't know shit from shinola,

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

About the Islamic issue. Do you know that hospitals and nursing homes are full of Africans? No American wants to wipe asses for a living so people flock over from Africa to do that while they train in nursing. I've met some pretty good people in that regard.

One girl I met is a Christian but she lived in a place in Africa where she was forced to learn the Koran, she knows the Bible and Koran equally well and she knows them well.She speaks highly of the average Muslim and says the idea that they are all terrorists is stupid. They areas slack in execution of those passages in the Koran as Christians are about stoning people.

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
"Um, I've traveled extensively (for work) in the Middle East, to Turkey, Kuwait, and Iraq. I've spent considerable time with Muslims from Pakistan, Iran, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, West Africa, and other places"
So, on business, Muslims do not lecture you on killing apostates, stoning adulterers, and throwing homosexuals from the roof.

From that you conclude, what, Muhammad did not practice and instruct these things?

Do you have any capacity for rational analysis or are you purely driven by anecdotes in your own little world of rose colored personal experiences?

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
"Last I checked, teachinga don't make bombs. People make bombs."
Then you checked stupidly. People follow teachings. Teachings matter because people act on teachings, and when Muhammad is the teacher actions are debauchery on a global scale.

"The violence is in the words and actions of Muhammad, but not in the words and actions of Christ.

Again, your ignorance of the Bible is remarkable."
Really, by all means, please do cite the violence of Christ.

Did Christ lead an army? Did Christ stone the adulterer?

Did Christ rape, murder, or steal at all?

Did Muhammad?

"Fortunately, a good officer was then able to go home to his family while a violent criminal lay dead in the streets, and justified riddance.

I don't have to wonder why you regularly get called a racist."
Indeed, support of an honest white police officer who protected society from a vicious black criminal is considered as racist by people who are stupid to the point of a kind of mental retardation, no wonder indeed.

StardustyPsyche said...

@Joe
"
He deserved death because he attacked an officer with deadly force and the officer acted in self defense.

let's see you document that dumb ass"
An enormous and detailed investigation documents that, dumb ass, look it up.

Starhopper said...

"Really, by all means, please do cite the violence of Christ."

As others have pointed out, what matters in these issues is often not what Christ said or did, but rather how He is interpreted by Christians.

My favorite example of this is how the knights of the late Middle Ages interpreted the line "all who take the sword will perish by the sword", not as a warning, but as a promise. They saw it as a Good Thing, telling them they would not die in bed (and thus in dishonor), but rather gloriously on the field of battle.

Colonialists have justified the forcible conversion of native populations with "And the master said to the servant, `Go out to the highways and hedges, and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled'" (Luke 14:23, emphasis added)

And don't get me started on how countless Christians have used the very Gospels to justify violent anti-Semitism.

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche said...
@One
...
Do you have any capacity for rational analysis or are you purely driven by anecdotes in your own little world of rose colored personal experiences?


I have sufficient capacity for rational analysis that I can tell the difference between the handles "Starhopper" and "One Brow", a capacity you apparently lack, since you have twine in a row addressed me while responding to him.

Don't worry, no one expects you to apologize.

Then you checked stupidly. People follow teachings. Teachings matter because people act on teachings, and when Muhammad is the teacher actions are debauchery on a global scale.

Again, you show a vast ignorance of human behavior. People follow teachers that appeal to them, and aspects of the teachings of an individual that appeal to them.

Did Christ lead an army?

He was arrested before he could form one.

Did Christ stone the adulterer?

Do you know the difference between a historical event and a tale so spurious that different early texts place it in different gospels?

Did Christ rape, murder, or steal at all?

He only had a few months before he was arrested. Never got the chance.

Did Muhammad?

Probably. Most soldiers did back then (and do today, in less professional armies).

Indeed, support of an honest white police officer who protected society from a vicious black criminal is considered as racist by people who are stupid to the point of a kind of mental retardation, no wonder indeed.

Were you referring to the man who shot Crawford, the man who shot Rice, or the man who shot Castile? Or, are you clinging to one example and drowning out all others, so as to preserve your fragile beliefs and hide inside your bubble?

StardustyPsyche said...

@Hopper
"My favorite example of this is how the knights of the late Middle Ages :"
Riiiiggghhttt
The middle ages, that's your best shot...

Islamic true believers of raping and enslaving and murdering homosexuals and apostates and adulterers right now because that is what Muhammad did and they are emulating Muhammad right now.

Get a grip on reality.

Just start with thereligionofpeace.com

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
"Or, are you clinging to one example and drowning out all others"
I cite millions of proper arrests and convictions of black people.

You cite 3 claimed wrongful instances.

That's about a million to one for law enforcement, hence, I support law enforcement, if you do not, KMA.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Blogger StardustyPsyche said...
@Joe
"
He deserved death because he attacked an officer with deadly force and the officer acted in self defense.

let's see you document that dumb ass"
An enormous and detailed investigation documents that, dumb ass, look it up.

that is not documentation Einstein

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche said...
I cite millions of proper arrests and convictions of black people.

I cite millions of improper and unfairly handled arrests and convictions of black people, to a much larger degree than white people, as has been studied and confirmed over and over.

I mean, for whatever metaphorical notion of "cite" you used there.

That's about a million to one for law enforcement, hence, I support law enforcement, if you do not, KMA.

It's fairly obvious you support anything that treats people of European descent better than people descended from other parts of the world.

StardustyPsyche said...

"SP Did Christ lead an army?

One He was arrested before he could form one."
So, that's a no.

"SP did Christ stone the adulterer?

One Do you know the difference between a historical event and a tale so spurious that different early texts place it in different gospels?"
So that's a no.

"SP Did Christ rape, murder, or steal at all?

One He only had a few months before he was arrested. Never got the chance."
So, that's a no.

"Did Muhammad?

Probably. Most soldiers did back then (and do today, in less professional armie"
So, that's a yes.

If you follow the example of Christ you do not take up weapons, rape, murder, or steal.

If you follow the example of Muhammad you arm yourself, rape, murder, enslave and steal.

Muslims who follow the example of Muhammad emulate his genocidal conquests, raping, enslaving, murdering, stealing, just a Muhammad did.

When asked for justification these Muslims correctly say they are just being good Muslims by doing the things their exemplary man did.

No such justification can be found in the stories of Christ because there is no account of Christ doing any of those things.

Ideas matter because people act on ideas, especially religious ideas, hence, the vicious debauchery of so much of Islam perpetrated by Muslims who correct cite that they are doing what Muhammad did, following his example of debauchery.

If you do not believe my to to thereligionofpeace.com.

Starhopper said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Starhopper said...

It has become abundantly clear that Stardusty is a racist bigot, captivated by extremist websites which serve to amplify his worst instincts.

Stardusty, this is my last comment to you. You don't need our comments. You need to seek professional help - badly. And please, lay off the white supremacist bullshit, and get off their sites before they encourage you to do something you will forever regret. I do not want to hear someday about someone named "Stardusty" shooting up a mosque, or worse.

Consider yourself ignored from here on out. Not only will I not converse with a hatemonger such as you, I will no longer even read whatever you post here. I may glance at an insect splattered on my windscreen, but I don't stare at it.

Legion of Logic said...

I'm always fascinated at charges of bigotry, for what they reveal about the accuser. For example, Stardusty believes that BLM overstates its case and often attacks justifiable shootings (which has happened, even if one can argue about the frequency). He also believes that Islam is a more dangerous religion than Christianity, and that Jesus did not teach violence while Muhammmad did. Whether he is factually right or wrong, for this he is called a racist bigot.

Yet on this very site, Starhopper, you say this about Christians who disagree with you politically:

I could go on for so many more examples, but it is abundantly clear that conservatism is antithetical to everything taught by Christ, in His words, in His life, and in the Church He has left to us.

and

To be, in the contemporary world, a right-winger, or even a "conservative" (which for decades (until 1985) I considered myself to be), is necessarily to deny major portions of the Gospels, or at the least to come up with Rube Goldbergian explanations of what Jesus "really" meant. Progressives do not have this difficulty.


Now obviously I don't think like a progressive, but I see no functional difference between looking down one's nose at Black Lives Matter as an organization and at Islam as a source of terrorism, and accusing all Christians who disagree with you politically of being compromised while you, of course, are not. Joe has repeatedly called us stupid, brainwashed, corrupt, ignorant, and other such pejoratives, and I've not seen you disagree with him. And for Protestants, you have an even lower opinion than a conservative Catholic, holding us responsible for world wars and no telling what other atrocities.

One thing is for sure - you have far more sympathy for Muslims who deny the Lord than you do your brothers and sisters in Christ who don't vote Democrat.

Same mentality, different target. I see no difference. Unless you can explain...?

Starhopper said...

"Unless you can explain...?"

Of course I can. The quotes you seem to have so lovingly preserved were posted by me prior to my withdrawal from online politics, were they not? How long ago was that? One year? Two? Whatever, it's been many, many months since I've posted anything even remotely partisan. I believe bmiller can back me up on this.

I don't make charges of bigotry lightly. I see a lot of it on the web. Not so much on this site, but it does raise its ugly head now and then. I will not name names, but there are one or two sometime purveyors of hate speech contributing to these conversations. But Stardusty is relentless and single-minded. All Muslims are murderers, or at the least inclined to be so. Most criminals are blacks, and deserve to be shot. He picks apart someone else's holy book to find every problematic verse, whilst ignoring how easily the Bible can be misinterpreted to justify the worst crimes. Even I have problems reading Joshua, for instance. I fully realize it's an ahistorical allegory, but still... But worst of all is his insistence that actual, flesh and blood individual Muslims, whom we can know on our streets, in our neighborhoods, and at our places of business, are of less account to him (and less real) than what he reads about Muslims on hate sites.

"I've not seen you disagree with [Joe]"

I don't consider his infantile rants as being worth a response. I did call him out on his inappropriate language once (or maybe even twice) some time ago, but nothing changed. So I wrote him off. As a rule, I don't like repeating myself.

Starhopper said...

I must clarify (and admit) that I DO have a low opinion of both Protestantism and of Islam, but NOT of Protestants or of Muslims. Shoot, I reguary help out at the Methodist church down the street from where I live. I even participated in their "Living Bethlehem" festival last Christmas (I was a Wise Man - even had a (cardboard) camel). As for Islam, I am on record as regarding it as a satanic and damnable heresy. But that doesn't stop me from recognizing that individual Muslims can be (and usually are) quite fine people.

Same thing goes double for Mormonism. That faith is a lunatic concoction of the craziest of crazy stuff, yet pound for pound the nicest people I know on this Earth of any faith are Mormons. I'd rather have Mormons for my next door neighbors than anyone else!

Starhopper said...

Typo. That should have been "regularly", not reguary. Guess I had a covfefe moment!

Legion of Logic said...

Thank you for the response. I'll re-read them a few times and digest it fully.

Well it does sound like you agree with the mentality that I strive (and sometimes fail) to hold - no matter how much I disagree with an idea, I treat the person holding it like a brother as much as possible. Love the sinner, hate the idea sort of logic. So again, thank you for the response.

When I read "covfefe" my brain plugged in "Kafkaesque" and I was very confused. Once I looked up "covfefe", I realized the replacement wasn't so inappropriate after all.

StardustyPsyche said...

Starhopper said...

" It has become abundantly clear that Stardusty is a racist bigot, "
Hilarious. You are incapable of using rational argument to counter mine so you just shriek "racist bigot" like a triggered little snowflake.

" Stardusty, this is my last comment to you."
Cry me a river.

" white supremacist bullshit,"
Ok, by all means, do quote any of my words that are "white supremacist".

" and get off their sites before they encourage you to do something you will forever regret. "
??? You mean thereligionofpeace.com? You are an idiot if you think that site advocates any such thing, but again, by all means, provide the quote and the link to prove me wrong.

"I do not want to hear someday about someone named "Stardusty" shooting up a mosque, or worse."
That's Muhammadan style, shooting people up for their religious beliefs, or sexuality.

" Not only will I not converse with a hatemonger such as you,"
Jesus said to love your enemy, Muhammad said god does not love the unbeliever. It is the true Muslim who kills the enemy, the true Christian who loves him.

"but I don't stare at it."
By all means, avert your vision, the truth of Islam is just too much for your ilk to bear.

StardustyPsyche said...

SH
"I don't make charges of bigotry lightly."
Hee hee hee. How much does a snowflake weigh?

"But Stardusty is relentless and single-minded. All Muslims are murderers, or at the least inclined to be so. Most criminals are blacks, and deserve to be shot"
Learn how to think. Those are your words, not mine. Projection much?

"Even I have problems reading Joshua, for instance"
Joshua wasn't Jesus, duh. The Jews were even worse than the Muslims, by far. The Jews slaughtered everybody except sometimes the virgin girls they kept for mass rape. That is how the Jews stole the land they still claim to this day by their insane fantasy of divine license to kill as god's chosen people, a kind of collective megalomania.

"But worst of all is his insistence that actual, flesh and blood individual Muslims, whom we can know on our streets, in our neighborhoods, and at our places of business, are of less account to him (and less real) than what he reads about Muslims on hate sites."
The marginal Muslims you meet are indeed of less account to the factual teachings of Muhammad than those who have diligently studied the example of Muhammad and are faithfully enacting a true emulation of the prophet, Isis, Boko Haram, Al Qeada.


Get your head out of the clouds, or your ass, or the sand...wherever, you are obviously off in some parallel universe of some sort.

Texts matter. Ideas matter. Examples matter. That is why Islam is by far the locus of religious debauchery today, unless you are a Muslim in Gaza or the West Bank, in which case the debauchery of Judaism is attacking the debauchery of Islam and winning the war.

StardustyPsyche said...

Starhopper said...

"I must clarify (and admit) that I DO have a low opinion of both Protestantism and of Islam, but NOT of Protestants or of Muslims"
So, surely you also have a low opinion of National Socialism but NOT of Nazis.

Learn How To Think

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche said...
One He was arrested before he could form one.
So, that's a no.

It's a "never got the chance to".

Do you know the difference between a historical event and a tale so spurious that different early texts place it in different gospels?
So that's a no.

It's a "there was no adulterer to stone".

So, that's a yes.

It's a Mohammed was just like any other guy of his time".

If you follow the example of Christ you do not take up weapons, rape, murder, or steal.

If you follow the example of Christ, you get yourself killed before you have the chance to rape, murder, and steal. He's a great example because he was careless/stupid?

Muslims who follow the example of Muhammad emulate his genocidal conquests, raping, enslaving, murdering, stealing, just a Muhammad did.

Much like Christians who follow the example of Constantine, or Jews who follow the example of Joshua.

When asked for justification these Muslims correctly say they are just being good Muslims by doing the things their exemplary man did.

Thank for for clearly saying you think it is correct that some Muslims murder other people, and that it makes people good.

I mean, as long as we are twisting each other's position, might a well go all out.

No such justification can be found in the stories of Christ because there is no account of Christ doing any of those things.

However, as has been pointed out already, we do have words by Christ calling for such actions.

Ideas matter because people act on ideas, especially religious ideas, hence, the vicious debauchery of so much of Islam perpetrated by Muslims who correct cite that they are doing what Muhammad did, following his example of debauchery.

Projection is such an interesting thing. I'm a person who decides what is right or wrong based on my own standards, and when I look at authorities, I look for those standards in what they say and evaluate them according. Therefore, I asssume Muslims do the same thing, for the most part.

On the other hand, you seem to envision Muslims as slavishly following doctrines, without evaluating what is worthwhile and what is to be discarded from their authoritative texts. From what I can tell, this is a reflection of your own style of information processing.

If you do not believe my to to thereligionofpeace.com.

Been there. Not impressed. However, that you would be says very much about you.

One Brow said...

Blogger Legion of Logic said...
I'm always fascinated at charges of bigotry, for what they reveal about the accuser. For example, Stardusty believes that BLM overstates its case and often attacks justifiable shootings (which has happened, even if one can argue about the frequency).

The specific quote is "The majority of the cases BLM yells about ...", without acknowledging the shooting or innocent people, the questionable police descriptions of these events, or noting that white people engaged in similar behaviors get talked down rather than shot. Of course, for StardustyPsyche, shooting such people is "justified riddance". What do think? Is shooting someone whose major crime was stealing a cigar and pushing a clerk justified riddance?

He also believes that Islam is a more dangerous religion than Christianity, and that Jesus did not teach violence while Muhammmad did. Whether he is factually right or wrong, ...

His whole position is that these facts matter.

...for this he is called a racist bigot.

I think claiming that Muslims can't decide right and wrong on their own, nor choose between the verses of the Korna that emphasize peace versus those that emphasize violence, is bigoted. I think referring to the death of black kids whose major crime was shoving a person, whiel ignoring that this means completely innocent black people also get shot, is bigoted. YMMV.

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
"If you follow the example of Christ, you get yourself killed before you have the chance to rape, murder, and steal. He's a great example because he was careless/stupid?"
That has to be the most convoluted exegesis of the new testament I have ever read.

Somehow, Christ was bent on rape, murder, and theft, except he never got a chance to do any of that as he went through the region with his band of followers, lecturing to crowds and gaining enough notoriety the draw the attention of the Romans to eventually kill him.

In all that he was somehow careless and stupid?

Do you know anything about the gospels at all?

"Much like Christians who follow the example of Constantine, or Jews who follow the example of Joshua.
"Indeed, if one takes individual men as examples and those men perpetrated war then one is led to acts of war.

Joshua did indeed lead the Jews to murder a whole people to steal their land and Joshua is indeed an example for modern Jews in what they call Judea and Samaria.

Fortunately for the rest of us the texts of the Jews only give license to genocide for the purpose of stealing a very small bit of land. The Quran and Hadith are not like that, they are expansive even to the point of seeking to conquer Rome.

"Projection is such an interesting thing. I'm a person who decides what is right or wrong based on my own standards, and when I look at authorities, I look for those standards in what they say and evaluate them according. Therefore, I asssume Muslims do the same thing, for the most part."
There is a key false assumption of yours. While it is true, thankfully, that most religious people take a buffet approach to their texts, a large minority do not.

For people who have their own strong sense of right and wrong they pick and choose what they want from their religion, and just turn a blind eye to all the rotten parts.

But a very large and very dangerous minority of human beings just are not like that. Such people are deeply convinced that god is real and that he really did cause to have written his true words, and that truth is waiting to be discovered in the texts, and so such people read the texts very carefully and obey the texts as they would obey the creator of the universe.

That is how millions of people think, read, and act.

The Torah then becomes a ticking time bomb for Jews to discover as license to use all sorts of deadly force to conquer the ancient lands of Israel.

The New Testament is politically the opposite, because there the texts call out for peace, love, and pacifism. However, there are the ticking time bombs of the subjugation of women, the condemnation of homosexuals, and the apocalyptic fantasies of fire and celestial condemnation.

The Quran and Hadith taken together are by far the worst for the world because they are a ticking time bomb of expansive conquest, enslavement, polygamy, child marriage, and death sentences for homosexuals, atheists, and apostates.

The true believers take all these texts very seriously as instruction manuals for their lives, which is why Islam is by far the most dangerous religion today.

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
"What do think? Is shooting someone whose major crime was stealing a cigar and pushing a clerk justified riddance?"
You obviously do not know the facts of the Michael Brown case, the prototypical BLM case.

Brown began his short crime spree with a violent theft, indeed. Then he attacked an officer through the open window of the police car, grabbed the officer's gun, and fortunately got shot in the hand and so fled his crime scene.

Then the officer did his duty in protecting society from such dangerous criminals by pursuing the violent felon to make the arrest. The officer did not shoot the criminal in the back, nor did Brown attempt to give up or surrender as lying bystanders claimed and then recanted, in fact, Brown turned, charged the officer who then backed up as Brown continued his charge and was justifiably shot down by a good officer doing all the right things in the line of duty.

"I think claiming that Muslims can't decide right and wrong on their own, nor choose between the verses of the Korna that emphasize peace versus those that emphasize violence, is bigoted."
Then you don't know how millions of religious people think.

In the West the buffet approach is typical, but even there a great many Christians read Jesus and the apostles word for word and do much to obey those words.

Muslims who do the things Isis, Boko Haram, and Al Qeada do are also true believers reading the texts and acting them out.

StardustyPsyche said...

@Legion
"When I read "covfefe" my brain plugged in "Kafkaesque" and I was very confused. Once I looked up "covfefe", I realized the replacement wasn't so inappropriate after all."
Don't sell yourself so short, I think you may well have been onto something here. Sometimes the subconscious can be a very insightful aspect of our intelligence.

Kafkaesque (comparative more Kafkaesque, superlative most Kafkaesque)
Marked by a senseless, disorienting, often menacing complexity.
Kafkaesque bureaucracies
Marked by surreal distortion and often a sense of impending danger.
In the manner of something written by Franz Kafka.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kafkaesque

Of course, "covfefe" was expressed by just such a character, senseless, disorienting, often with menacing complexity, marked by surreal distortion and impending danger.

I think the association between the two words was very much grounded in reality.

Legion of Logic said...

If you follow the example of Christ, you get yourself killed before you have the chance to rape, murder, and steal. He's a great example because he was careless/stupid?

Does this mean any Christian who dies without having raped, murdered, or stolen is careless or stupid?

Starhopper said...

Legion and One Brow,

Why do you continue to engage this tool? His comments are wearyingly repetitive, and so offensive that they sully the dignity of Victor's site. Basically, you can sum up Stardusty's weltanschauung as:

1. All Muslims are terrorists (or, if they're not, then they're bad Muslims) and are out to kill you.

2. All (or at least most) blacks are murderous criminals, who deserve to be killed.

3. Jews are even worse than Muslims, and the idea that they are God's Chosen People (despite being explicitly called such in Holy Scripture) is an "insane fantasy".

Do you honestly believe anything good will come from attempting to dialogue with such a "mind"?

Do not feed the troll!

StardustyPsyche said...

@Hopper
"1. All Muslims are terrorists (or, if they're not, then they're bad Muslims) and are out to kill you"
If a "bad" Muslim is one who fails to emulate Muhammad then Muslims who do not at least support Isis, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda or some organization of true followers of the example of the prophet are "bad". I actually prefer the the buffet style Muslim for practical reasons of self defense.

"2. All (or at least most) blacks are murderous criminals, who deserve to be killed."
Reading skills much? The prototype case of BLM fits that description, as do repeated other examples of BLM hate mongering.

"3. Jews are even worse than Muslims, and the idea that they are God's Chosen People (despite being explicitly called such in Holy Scripture) is an "insane fantasy"."
You actually got that one kind of close. The leaders of the ancient Jews were even worse then Mohammad, if you consider 100% genocide (except for the raped virgin girls) to be worse than limited genocide followed by economic and political subjugation. In that sense Muhammad was more sophisticated than the ancient Jews, preferring to kill the resisters and tax the submitting survivors. The Jews just killed them all (except sometimes those pretty little virgin girls).

Yes, believing a book that calls you God's Chosen People with divine license to slaughter to perpetrate land theft is an insane fantasy of a most egocentric and megalomaniac sort.

"Do you honestly believe anything good will come from attempting to dialogue with such a "mind"?"
For you the good will come, if it does, when you come out of your sheltered little world, take off your rose colored glasses, and see that every word I say is true.

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche said...
That has to be the most convoluted exegesis of the new testament I have ever read.

I thought we were discussing Jesus the man, not the New Testament.

Do you know anything about the gospels at all?

Enough to know they are not history. How about you?

Indeed, if one takes individual men as examples and those men perpetrated war then one is led to acts of war.

Indeed, men choose their examples, and take what they will of them.

But a very large and very dangerous minority of human beings just are not like that.

I keep forgetting you are too racist to realize all those people are just like you.

You obviously do not know the facts of the Michael Brown case, the prototypical BLM case.

I read over the police reports, the corner's report, etc. I know enough. You left out the part where Brown was shot before he supposedly charged the officer, according to the officer's own testimony (with no corroboration). I'm sure you are racist and stupid enough to think a teenager would charge into gunfire after being shot. I don't believe it.

I notice you still have not discussed Crawford, Rice, Castile, etc.

Then you don't know how millions of religious people think.

I know how you think.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
Does this mean any Christian who dies without having raped, murdered, or stolen is careless or stupid?

I don't subscribe to the logic of StardustyPsyche.

One Brow said...

Starhopper,

I will consider you point. I do hate to let hate go unopposed, but perhaps the amount of opposition has now been sufficient.

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
"I thought we were discussing Jesus the man, not the New Testament."
Uhm, the gospels tell the stories of Jesus, what are you even trying to say? You have a convoluted reading of the stories of Jesus in the NT, which is where we learn what Jesus supposedly did and said.

"Enough to know they are not history. How about you?"
I am not the one reading them to figure out how I should live my life. When a Christian reads the gospels to gain direction in his life he is told to love his enemy, and he finds a figure that never killed anybody, never raped anybody, stood between the crowd and the adulterer, never took up arms, never stole or conquered.

When a Muslim reads the Quran and the Hadith to figure out how to live and act he finds very much the opposite. The greatest man ever, the man who all men should emulate, stole, murdered, committed genocide, conquest, enslavement, rape, torture, subjugation, and carried out death sentences for homosexuals, apostates, and adulterers. So the Muslim who believes emulating Muhammad is the best way to live life will therefore enslave, rape, murder, conquer, and kill just like the texts say Muhammad did.

So, irrespective of if the texts are true, they tell polar opposite stories. For those who believe the stories are true they will be led by the texts to act in extremely different ways, the Christian toward peace and love, the Muslim toward violence and hate.

StardustyPsyche said...

(cont)
"I read over the police reports, the corner's report, etc. I know enough. You left out the part where Brown was shot before he supposedly charged the officer,"
Yes, in the hand while Brown was attacking the officer through the open window of the police car.

"he supposedly charged the officer, according to the officer's own testimony (with no corroboration)"
Everything the officer stated was corroborated by the physical evidence collected, the location of shell casings, blood evidence, entry versus exit wounds all establish the following facts:
Brown violently stole from the store.
Brown attacked the offer through the open window of the police car.
Brown attempted to steal the officer's gun and was shot in the hand in the car.
Brown fled and was chased but was not shot in the back.
Brown turned and moved toward the officer.
The officer was backing up as he fired.
Brown was shot in the front.

Here is a diagram of the crime scene in which a violent felon attacked a police officer and was shot in self defense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Brown_shooting_scene_diagram.svg

" I'm sure you are racist and stupid enough to think a teenager would charge into gunfire after being shot. I don't believe it."
Then you do not understand how violent and aggressive a man that age can be. Multiple investigations and extensive evidence all show conclusively that the officer acted in self defense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown

But, facts don't matter to a radical hate group like BLM, or the triggered snowflakes that seem to have some sort of collective guilt complex or fetishistic submission to black hate mongering against law enforcement.

"I notice you still have not discussed Crawford, Rice, Castile, etc. "
False, I included then in the million to one ratio.

But ok, Philando Castile, a guy who smoked dope in the car with a 5 year old, carries a gun, and is too stupid to freeze with his hands open in plain sight in the clear. The officer then, got scared and shot him, knowing he had a gun, observing his reckless behavior with the child, and his hinky behavior with his hands. The officer was acquitted but also fired, and for good reason, he clearly does not have the guts for the job and is prone to panic in a dangerous situation.

Tamir Rice was another kid with a gun who thought it was fun to point it at people in the public park. So, police got a call about a guy pointing a gun at people. When the police arrived they told the guy to show his hands, instead, Rice pulled out his gun so police shot him. It turns out the gun had the orange indicator removed and looked just like a real gun. The cops were not charged because investigations found the shooting was justified because the kid drew a realistic gun.

John Crawford was yet another guy with a gun. He thought it would be fun to wave it around in a store, the police were called, the police shot him, and the grand jury and the feds all declined to indict the officer.


Do you see a pattern here? Guys with guns get shot.


I have some tips for you on how to stay alive:
Do not wave a gun around in public.
If you have a gun in your possession and the police arrive show your open hands, freeze, and stay frozen for as long as it takes.
Even if you do not have a gun if you are stopped by the police show your hands and do absolutely nothing until instructed to do something, and verbally confirm what you are going to do before you do it.

"I know how you think."
Hilarious, another internet snowflake psychoanalysis.

Here are a few basics for you:
Millions of people read religious texts and try very hard to follow what is in the texts, which is why texts matter.
Police shoot guys who wave guns around, or attack them, or make moves that can be construed as going for a gun, so don't do those sorts of things.

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
" I'm sure you are racist and stupid enough to think a teenager would charge into gunfire after being shot. I don't believe it."
Oh, of course, only stupidity and racism could account for calling a violent criminal a violent criminal, because the sweet little boy was just a teenager, after all, undoubtedly shot down by a racist white cop.

Well, here is your sweet little teenage boy, committing the first of his string of violent crimes that day, stealing from a store by grabbing the merchandise, brazenly walking out, and when the store clerk goes to stop him, with Brown shoving the small man and then moving menacingly toward him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkOfqIXkBRE

By contrast here is a truly commendable young man, clearly thoughtful, intelligent, professional, credible, and articulate. Fortunately he is the one who survived, and a job very well done indeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVVmn14NnII

All of the physical evidence confirms Wilson's account completely. Most of the witnesses confirmed Wilson's account. The few witnesses who made up contradictory stories later recanted and admitted they lied.

But, BLM just keeps telling the lies, again and again and again, and gullible little suckers like you are so credulous that you go around calling people stupid racists for pointing out the thoroughly documented facts that Michael Brown was a violent criminal who attacked a police officer and that officer did his job with great fortitude and commendable professionalism.

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche said...
Uhm, the gospels tell the stories of Jesus, what are you even trying to say? You have a convoluted reading of the stories of Jesus in the NT, which is where we learn what Jesus supposedly did and said.

So, you're the kind of atheist that thinks the gospels are history?

I am not the one reading them to figure out how I should live my life. When a Christian reads the gospels to gain direction in his life he is told to love his enemy, and he finds a figure that never killed anybody, never raped anybody, stood between the crowd and the adulterer, never took up arms, never stole or conquered.

Right, because the first time he caused any sort of ruckus, he was captured and executed.

When a Muslim reads the Quran and the Hadith to figure out how to live and act he finds very much the opposite.

A man who, after trying to coexist peacefully failed, did not get himself killed.

Yes, in the hand while Brown was attacking the officer through the open window of the police car.

Then a second time, on the street, before he supposedly charged, according to the officer's testimony.

Everything the officer stated was corroborated by the physical evidence collected,

At best, the evidence did not contradict what the officer said. A couple of the entrance wounds were in odd places, considering the testimony, such as the inside of the arm.

We can go over the evidence in a lot more detail, I've done it before. However, I see little point. You want to focus on Brown so you can ignore the many cases of shooting that don't involve any sort of crime at all.

The protest following Brown was an eruption of long-felt angers and resentments, and Brown was a trigger for that. Your attempt to make him a singular event is ignorant at best.

Then you do not understand how violent and aggressive a man that age can be.

You ever see a person who was just shot? Do you know how much pain that causes?

But, facts don't matter to a radical hate group like BLM, or the triggered snowflakes that seem to have some sort of collective guilt complex or fetishistic submission to black hate mongering against law enforcement.

Sorry, but the only snowflake here is you. You need to trust the police over the opressed is rather pathetic.

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche said...

But ok, Philando Castile, a guy who smoked dope in the car with a 5 year old, carries a gun, and is too stupid to freeze with his hands open in plain sight in the clear. The officer then, got scared and shot him, knowing he had a gun, observing his reckless behavior with the child, and his hinky behavior with his hands. The officer was acquitted but also fired, and for good reason, he clearly does not have the guts for the job and is prone to panic in a dangerous situation.

He told the officer the gun was in the glove box, and the time between telling this to the officer and the shooting was less than 10 seconds.

Now, where's the white guy shot in similar circumstances.

Tamir Rice was another kid with a gun who thought it was fun to point it at people in the public park. So, police got a call about a guy pointing a gun at people. When the police arrived they told the guy to show his hands,

The guy? Rice was 12. Again, he had a couple of seconds to respond. Where are the 12-year-old white kids with toy guns shot down?

John Crawford was yet another guy with a gun. He thought it would be fun to wave it around in a store, the police were called, the police shot him, and the grand jury and the feds all declined to indict the officer.

He wasn't waving it around, he was carrying a toy gun available for purchase in that store. I notice here you didn't bother to claim that he was even warned, because you likely know he wasn't; he was just shot on sight. Where are the white store customers shot on sight?

Do you see a pattern here? Guys with guns get shot.

I see a pattern of black guys making no tghreatening moves getting shot. You're not very good at patterns, are you.

I have some tips for you on how to stay alive:
Do not wave a gun around in public.


Kids with toy guns can't wave them around? Customers trying to purchase guns aren't allowed to carry them? You go to impressive lengths to protect your fragile worldview.

Hilarious, another internet snowflake psychoanalysis.

I'm not the one inventing fantasy analysis to protect my world view.

Here are a few basics for you:
Millions of people read religious texts and try very hard to follow what is in the texts, which is why texts matter.


Here's another basic: those same millions read into the texts what they want to see in them, just like you.

Police shoot guys who wave guns around, or attack them, or make moves that can be construed as going for a gun, so don't do those sorts of things.

You left out the "black" part. You can find stories of police who talk down white people with guns on an almost daily basis.

But, BLM just keeps telling the lies, again and again and again, and gullible little suckers like you are so credulous that you go around calling people stupid racists for pointing out the thoroughly documented facts that Michael Brown was a violent criminal who attacked a police officer and that officer did his job with great fortitude and commendable professionalism.

You trust the police and not the oppressed people, and then call me a sucker. I'm starting to wonder if you are not engaging in parody.

Legion of Logic said...

Right, because the first time he caused any sort of ruckus, he was captured and executed.

Or, just maybe, he never did those things because he was opposed to doing them.

Unless you have evidence he was planning on going warlord...?

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
"So, you're the kind of atheist that thinks the gospels are history?"
I am the kind of atheist who thinks millions of people are motivated to act in accordance with what they read in the texts they believe are history.

What part of that don't you get?

"A man (Muhammad) who, after trying to coexist peacefully failed"
You are illiterate.

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
"The guy? Rice was 12"
12 year old guys with guns kill people.

"Kids with toy guns can't wave them around?"
No, and I taught my children to never take a toy gun in public, duh, obviously. Instilling fear is a technical assault, a crime, and it is likely to get you shot, obviously. If you don't know that you are an idiot.

"You trust the police and not the oppressed people"
Violent criminals like Michael Brown are the oppressors.

StardustyPsyche said...

@Legion
"Unless you have evidence he was planning on going warlord...?"
Well, yeah, I mean, Matthew 5:43-48, gots warlord all over it, right? That's just what every aspiring warlord whips up the rabble with, duh.

Now, that other guy, all he did was rob a few caravans, behead some Jews, torture some town elders, enslave and rape a bunch of women (they wuz pagan slutz anyways), kill some homos...you know, all that super peaceful kinda shit, not like that warlord wannabe Jesus who used the violence of moral shame and reason to halt the stoning as told in John 8:1-11, an obvious warlord wannabe move.

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche said...
I am the kind of atheist who thinks millions of people are motivated to act in accordance with what they read in the texts they believe are history.

What part of that don't you get?


The part where you ignore what people are actually like.

You are illiterate.

However, not wrong.

12 year old guys with guns kill people.

People who want to justify the killing of children call them guys instead of kids.

No, and I taught my children to never take a toy gun in public, duh, obviously.

Your kids never got to play cops and robbers? With the way you worship police, I'm surprised.

Instilling fear is a technical assault, a crime, and it is likely to get you shot, obviously. If you don't know that you are an idiot.

I've never been afraid of kids with toy guns. It's brave of you to admit you are.

Violent criminals like Michael Brown are the oppressors.

Wow, you really are afraid. No wonder you have to call other people snowflake.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
Or, just maybe, he never did those things because he was opposed to doing them.

We'll never really know, I suppose.

Unless you have evidence he was planning on going warlord...?

You mean, like throwing stuff all over the Temple and talking about how people will be needing swords in the future?

Legion of Logic said...

We'll never really know, I suppose.

But we can safely assume, given the lack of any reason to think otherwise.

You mean, like throwing stuff all over the Temple

Definitely the marker of the next Genghis Khan.


talking about how people will be needing swords in the future

Donald Trump is a saint if we cherry pick his words enough.

bmiller said...

I don't know Legion.

There have been many a warlord inspired by Christ.
Like this guy here!

Legion of Logic said...

Yep, assassinated before he could drink blood out of the skulls of his enemies. Humanity narrowly avoided a disaster there.

Starhopper said...

I'm finding this entire line of argument that the only reason Christ did not murder, pillage, and rape is that He did not get a chance to do so rather disturbing. The logical consequence of such a line of thought is that the only reason anyone is not a mass murderer (or worse) is lack of opportunity. This is not only contrary to my philosophy, it is against all empirical evidence. People are often heroically good, in the face of unbelievable obstacles.

Look no further than St. Maximilian Kolbe, who volunteered to take the place of a condemned man in a nazi death camp, going to certain death by starvation and thirst. He had every opportunity to avoid such a fate, but chose to suffer and die in the place of a man he didn't even know.

Think about Lenny Skutnik, who (although he did not die, fortunately) chose to leap into the freezing waters of the Potomac after a horrific plane crash to rescue 5 drowning passengers from certain death (and went back in for a 6th, who he could not find). He risked his life with every rescue, navigating the wreckage of a sinking aircraft to pull one person after another to the shore.

And consider the quiet heroism of people working year after year amongst the poor, the addicted, the illiterate, the just plain suffering. They could have easily chosen a life away from such circumstances, but they chose to work in the inner cities, Appalachia, the backwaters of Mississippi and Alabama, rather than relax in a cabin in the woods, or a suburban 4-bedroom colonial.

No, I do not believe that everyone (to include Jesus) is a monster just waiting for the opportunity to do evil.

bmiller said...

Yep, assassinated before he could drink blood out of the skulls of his enemies.

Yikes! Legion, you need to change the genre of movies you watch.

The logical consequence of such a line of thought is that the only reason anyone is not a mass murderer (or worse) is lack of opportunity.

Or maybe Mr Brow is letting his own thought process slip. Hmmmmm.

Legion of Logic said...

Yikes! Legion, you need to change the genre of movies you watch.

On the contrary, my imagination prepares me for monsters like Gandhi.

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
SPInstilling fear is a technical assault, a crime, and it is likely to get you shot, obviously. If you don't know that you are an idiot.

"I've never been afraid of kids with toy guns. It's brave of you to admit you are"
The people in the park were afraid, because the "toy" gun was a realistic replica with the orange indicator removed. People got scared because the gun looked real.

The cops shot him because the gun looked real.

If you let your kids go to the park to point realistic replica guns at people you are a criminal by facilitating the crimes of your children, further, you are quite possibly going to get them shot, just like the cops shot the kid in the park with the realistic gun.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
But we can safely assume, given the lack of any reason to think otherwise.

Looking at the activities of some of the other prophets in that same time period, there's no particular reason to assume Jesus was peaceful.

One Brow said...

Starhopper said...
I'm finding this entire line of argument that the only reason Christ did not murder, pillage, and rape is that He did not get a chance to do so rather disturbing.

Then I'll drop the discussion out of respect for you.

No, I do not believe that everyone (to include Jesus) is a monster just waiting for the opportunity to do evil.

I never intended to generate inferences that everyone is a monster.

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche said...
Instilling fear is a technical assault, a crime, and it is likely to get you shot, obviously.

Wow, you must be surrounded by criminals constantly, because I have met few people who come across more scared than you. Or, perhaps you're not actually a lawyer and are just talking from your rectum.

People got scared because the gun looked real.

Check again. The 911 caller said the gun was probably fake and that Rice looked like a kid. That doesn't sound very scared.

Starhopper said...

"Then I'll drop the discussion out of respect for you."

Oh, no call to do anything like that. By "disturbing" I meant I felt sorry for anyone (to include you) who thought like that. What a horrible worldview, imagining one's self to be surrounded by would be monsters, if only...

"I never intended to generate inferences that everyone is a monster."

I will cheerfully take you at your word that it was not your intent. But read carefully what you posted. The logical inference is nevertheless there that all men are would be monsters. It is inescapable from the reasoning that the only reason a good man did not rob, rape, and/or kill is lack of opportunity.


bmiller said...

I never intended to generate inferences that everyone is a monster.

Anyone else notice how fast he wanted to drop this topic once it was pointed out that he may have revealed his own personal inclinations?

I say we keep an eye on the Brow.

bmiller said...

😉

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
"Wow, you must be surrounded by criminals constantly,"
People who point realistic replica guns at other people are committing a crime if they do so in a way that makes the victim think the gun is real and thus instills fear in the victim, a real fear of being shot, which is a realistic fear because it looks like a real gun is being pointed.

That is the crime of assault.

Also, using a realistic replica gun to commit a robbery is, under the law, an armed robbery. The "toy gun" defense does not work.


" because I have met few people who come across more scared than you."
Have you ever walked through a public park and had a gun pointed at you in a threatening way? That happens, and when it happens that is a crime, and the police will possibly be called and if the person points the gun and then puts it back in his waistband and then when the police arrive he pulls it out of his waist band instead of showing his open hands the person will probably get shot by the police.

" Or, perhaps you're not actually a lawyer and are just talking from your rectum."
You seem to inhabit some gauzy universe of Mayberry where kids just play with guns and it is no big deal.

Fast forward to the 21st century where criminals commit crimes using realistic replica guns, and sometimes get shot by the police for that reason.

"Check again. The 911 caller said the gun was probably fake and that Rice looked like a kid. That doesn't sound very scared."
That was the caller, not necessarily the people who had the gun pointed at them.

Now, maybe having a gun pointed at you in a public park is just an every day ok thing for you. It is not ok under the law and anybody who does so is likely to get shot by the police if it looks like they are drawing a real gun, which is what yet another BLM criminal did.

One Brow said...

Starhopper said...
The logical inference is nevertheless there that all men are would be monsters. It is inescapable from the reasoning that the only reason a good man did not rob, rape, and/or kill is lack of opportunity.

I don't have any reason to think Jesus was a good man. He was (as a best guess) a man who thought himself a prophet, gathered some followers, went to the big city, and raised a ruckus to the extent that he got himself arrested. We don't know what would have happened if he had gotten some real power.

Now, I realize that's not the guy you have faith in, but that's the one I was commenting on. Men who think themselves prophets go on to do horrible things much more often than men who do not so consider themselves, AFAICT.

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche said...
People who ... does not work.

All irrelevant in the case of Rice.

Have you ever walked through a public park and had a gun pointed at you in a threatening way?

On a public street, sure. Though, this was a grown man, not a kid. I did have a kid threaten me in a classroom once, but I didn't take it very seriously.

You seem to inhabit some gauzy universe of Mayberry where kids just play with guns and it is no big deal.

Put in the word "toy" before guns and it was the childhood of just about every kid I grew up with in Davenport.

That was the caller, not necessarily the people who had the gun pointed at them.

So, now you have to make up scared people to justify your own fear and hatred.

bmiller said...

I did have a kid threaten me in a classroom once, but I didn't take it very seriously.

He was probably trying to explain to you what equivocation meant and finally reached his breaking point :-)

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
"SP-You seem to inhabit some gauzy universe of Mayberry where kids just play with guns and it is no big deal.

Put in the word "toy" before guns and it was the childhood of just about every kid I grew up with in Davenport."
Exactly my point.

Your boyhood Davenport Iowa is a very long way from modern central Cleveland Ohio. Cleveland has the 5th highest murder rate in the USA, and is therefore one of the most dangerous cities in America.

Grow up, Iowa boy, a realistic replica gun is not the "toy" of your gauzy childish memory, it is a crime device when used by armed robbers, armed rapists, and armed assailants.

Tamir Rice was an armed assailant, because under the law the use of a realistic replica gun is equivalent to the use of a gun actually capable of firing bullets.

That's why Tamir Rice got shot, because he pulled a realistic replica gun on the police.

But, just in case you think that is no big deal, fine, I will give you a little experiment you can try...

Go buy a realistic replica gun.
Go to a wooded public park in the central district of a high crime city.
Pull out your realistic replica gun and start pointing it a passers by in a threatening way.
Put the gun in your waist band.
When the police arrive and draw down on you and tell you to show your open hands do not obey that order, instead, pull out your realistic replica gun.

I suggest you file a notarized will prior to conducting this little social experiment.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
He was probably trying to explain to you what equivocation meant and finally reached his breaking point :-)

:)

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche said...
Grow up, Iowa boy,

Only after you develop a backbone, fear child.

Tamir Rice was an armed assailant,

I mean, this is just really pathetic. It's sad. Thank goodness bmiller is here to lighten the mood.

That's why Tamir Rice got shot, because he pulled a realistic replica gun on the police.

See, you can't even discuss this without loading the language. He "pulled realistic replica gun", not "tried to show the police his toy"? Seriously?

I wonder how you even manage to leave your house in the daytime, holding on to all that fear.

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
SP-Tamir Rice was an armed assailant,

"I mean, this is just really pathetic. It's sad"
It's the law. The use of a realistic replica gun in a crime is, under the law, an armed crime.

If you think that is pathetic I suggest you lobby your local government to have such laws removed.

"See, you can't even discuss this without loading the language. He "pulled realistic replica gun", not "tried to show the police his toy"? Seriously?"
Very seriously. The police shoot people who pull out realistic replica guns. That sounds pretty serious to me.

Seriously, people who pull out a gun that looks real instead of showing open hands get shot by the police.

Seriously, the "toy" gun defense does not excuse the use of a realistic replica gun in a crime, and the law considers their use as armed crimes, yes, seriously.

"I wonder how you even manage to leave your house in the daytime, holding on to all that fear."
You are brave indeed, so, by all means, do buy a realistic replica gun, point it at people in a park in a high crime area, and pull it out when the police arrive.

We will then see if your bravery can stop bullets.

One Brow said...

Blogger StardustyPsyche said...
It's the law. The use of a realistic replica gun in a crime is, under the law, an armed crime.

You can't admit that black people get shot more often simply for being black, you have to call a kid, playing by himself with a toy gun, a criminal. As I said, sad.

If you think that is pathetic I suggest you lobby your local government to have such laws removed.

The law is not what's pathetic here.

Very seriously. The police shoot people who pull out realistic replica guns. That sounds pretty serious to me.

The police shoot people who pull out cell phones, as long as they are black.

Seriously, people who pull out a gun that looks real instead of showing open hands get shot by the police.

Seriously, black kids with toys, who were reported as being a black kid with a toy by the 911 caller, get shot by police, and scared white people try to justify it because they can't deal with the truth.

Notice how you still have to load the language. You can't even bring yourself to refer to Rice as a child.

You are brave indeed, so, by all means, do buy a realistic replica gun, point it at people in a park in a high crime area, and pull it out when the police arrive.

1. I'm long past being a kid.
2. I'm white, so I'd probably be fine anyway.

We will then see if your bravery can stop bullets.

Wouldn't be any bullets to stop.

I think I am done with conversation now.

Starhopper said...

"I think I am done with [this] conversation now."

You are learning, Grasshopper.

StardustyPsyche said...

@One
"You can't admit that black people get shot more often simply for being black, you have to call a kid, playing by himself with a toy gun, a criminal. As I said, sad."
Pointing a realistic replica gun at passers by is not "playing by himself".
Tamir Rice was committing the crime of armed assault, that is the law.

"Seriously, black kids with toys,"
A realistic replica gun is not a "toy", Davenport child.
Such guns are banned as crime devices in Canada and the UK.
Such guns are treated as firing guns when used in the act of committing a crime here in the USA.
Pointing such a gun at passers by is criminal armed assault.

"You can't even bring yourself to refer to Rice as a child."
By tradition a 12 year old becomes responsible for his actions. At that age some boys are already killers.

You have the luxury of sitting back behind your computer looking through your gauzy Iowa boy glasses imagining 12 year olds are sweet boys who just like to play.

When a police officer rolls up on a young person who pulls a gun that officer must make a split second decision or he may very well be the one to die that day.

That is why law enforcement officers draw and shoot before the criminal has the chance to.

"1. I'm long past being a kid.
2. I'm white, so I'd probably be fine anyway."
Really? You think a white man can pull a gun on the police without being shot? You know nothing about who the police actually shoot.

So fine then, buy that realistic replica gun, point it a number of passers by in a threatening way in a wooded park in the central district of a high murder rate city, put it in your waist band, when the police arrive and tell you to show your open hands do not obey that order, instead, pull out your "toy" gun.

We will then see if your old white skin can stop bullets.

StardustyPsyche said...

@hopper
"You are learning, Grasshopper."
Sure, well, maybe you would care to explain why Black Lies Matter?