The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[The Batlord]

Youre just ad homineming him. Wheres your counter argument?

How do I argue with someone being emotional and reactionary? Prejudice isn't a logical position. The logical arguments have been put to him many times in the past and he's brushed them off seemingly without a second thought. Criticizing Islam and religion is one thing but demonizing a whole group of people the way OH does is a leap off a logical cliff that precludes reason and all I can really be arsed to do is try to point out the root of his bad logic. He supports genocide against Muslims in Myanmar ffs.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

That argument is based entirely on limited human resources. I've already expressed that if we had limitless time and resources we should help them too, but since we don't priorities are mandatory, and junkies are low on the list. You just add in your own take because you dont like my rational.

*rationale

And I don't remember where that conversation took place but after much cross examination about why you felt the way you do by at least myself and Frown, probably elph too, it was pretty obvious you held disdain that wasn't entirely based in cold reason.

[DwnWthVwls]

*rationale*!!!

So how is that different than the position you guys are taking with Catholics exactly? That's the question I was expecting you to answer.

My disdain is definitely real but I dont see what that has to do with my argument. Junkies are pieces of shit, but if we have the resources to help them we should. My emotions about them as people is not reflected in my reasoning because I separate the bias.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

So how is that different than the position you guys are taking with Catholics exactly? That's the question I was expecting you to answer.

I already told you. The Pope is infallible, the Pope runs the Vatican, several Popes haven't made any noticeable effort to purge pedophiles and those who have enabled them over the years, and since Catholics are supposed to believe that their Pope is infallible then either they're bad Catholics who don't pay attention to the Pope or they stick their fingers in their ears and pretend all is well. Either way Catholics continue to at least tacitly support a regime that enables pedophiles and since the nature of Catholicism is to consider the actions (or non-actions) of the Pope to be infallible then they are tacitly supporting pedophiles, which by association supports pedophilia. No matter how much Catholics realize this it doesn't make it not true.

This is different with Muslims because they do not have an infallible, central authority who dictates what they do and do not believe so they are not inherently responsible for the actions of Islamic terrorists.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

My emotions about them as people is not reflected in my reasoning because I separate the bias.

Nobody separates bias. Not completely. That's not how people work and you are not a computer.

[DwnWthVwls]

Then point out the bias in my argument, lol.

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

*rationale*!!!

So how is that different than the position you guys are taking with Catholics exactly? That's the question I was expecting you to answer.

My disdain is definitely real but I dont see what that has to do with my argument. Junkies are pieces of shit, but if we have the resources to help them we should. My emotions about them as people is not reflected in my reasoning because I separate the bias.

lol

He’s got your bitch asses pinned to a wall. You can argue I’m full of **** for hating on Muslims but when it’s Catholics you did the same ****ing thing. You are so busted it’s hilarious

[OccultHawk]

This is different with Muslims because they do not have an infallible, central authority who dictates what they do and do not believe so they are not inherently responsible for the actions of Islamic terrorists.

lol you know damn well they got ayatollahs and imans and bin ladens and Saudi princes and assads and saddams

plus it’s a ticky tack excuse just like dwv predicted

just admit he called it

[Frownland]

That silly gotcha would make a lot more sense if anyone here was maligning Christianity for the actions committed under Catholicism.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Then point out the bias in my argument, lol.

I'm not pointing out your bias in this specific instance about Catholicism. I'm pointing out that you have a bias in another discussion. I thought you were asking in general.

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

lol

He’s got your bitch asses pinned to a wall. You can argue I’m full of **** for hating on Muslims but when it’s Catholics you did the same ****ing thing. You are so busted it’s hilarious

I've already explained it several times, dip****.

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

lol you know damn well they got ayatollahs and imans and bin ladens and Saudi princes and assads and saddams

plus it’s a ticky tack excuse just like dwv predicted

just admit he called it

If a Muslim actively adheres to a specific Islamic religious leader who supports terrorism then yes they are responsible for supporting terrorism, but if they do not then they are not responsible for it. This is basic logic. What do you choose to not understand?

And Assad and Saddam are/were not religious leaders. How much of a prejudiced ignoramus do you have to be to make that connection? Are Christians responsible in a religious sense for the actions of Barrack Obama?