Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3456
  • Joined

Posts posted by hpslugga

  1. 25 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

    I'm not merely picking nits over a turn of phrase; it is a false statement that often gets repeated and one that many people believe to be true.  It should not be used because it is misleading and is the source for misconceptions. 

    One can give arguments & evidence for the non-existence of a non-existent entity.  If I were to claim that there was a person named Jose Sanchez who was a founding father of the United States, could historians give arguments that such a person did not exist?  Of course they could.  Even within this subject (the fringe mythicist theory) arguments and evidence are presented by the mythicists for the non-existence of Jesus.  These (very poor) arguments are presented as evidence for the non-existence of a presumed non-existent entity.

    No serious person disputes that it’s possible to disprove something.

    What people infer when they invoke the phrase “proof of a negative,” and this should have been obvious to you, is that it’s fallacious to try and shift the burden of proof to the person arguing in the negative. Yeah, a person can disprove a negative, but in a debate, they are not required to. 

    So in your Jose Sanchez analogy, is it possible for historians to literally prove you wrong? Of course. Are they required to? No; it is you who is required to prove that such a founder existed. Since you can’t actually do it, no one is going to take you seriously. It’s not like if you trotted out such nonsense that people would run away from historians they admired because they chose to ignore you.

    Or to put it another way, this is precisely why a defendant in a criminal case is not required to prove his innocence. Does that mean that the defense can’t try? No. If they’ve exculpatory evidence, they’ll present it (to the extent the lawyer in question is worth a shit). But they’re not required to, and you as a juror are forbidden under the law to hold that against the defense.

    Disproving a negative is permissible.

    Demanding a person to do so is not.

    • Like 2
  2. 1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

    OK. And I get it. But I thought we were talking about religion. You can make the argument that statism is like a religion, but for the purposes of this discussion, I think it is something different, albeit more destructive.

    Being loyal to the English language, it's a religion. It's not one that has shrines where the community congregates and prays to once a week, but it is "a particular system of faith and worship," the faith (which is a belief that's held without/in spite of evidence) being the belief that society is best off with power concentrated into a few select hands in order to manage the social and economic affairs of all peoples.

  3. I'm not sure what the original point of the "genie" comment was, then. My introduction of statism into the discussion was to show that comparing Christianity and Islam in terms of violence and destruction, with as much hyperbole as either side uses, is as useful as arguing over whether Tony Jacklin or Matt Kuchar were the greatest golfers of all time.

  4. 32 minutes ago, Foosters said:

    I just want to hear how sharia law gets implemented in this country. Walk me through the legislative process in which sharia law is codified. Please.

    There's this guy named Jack.

    Jack is this poor boy who lives with his widowed mother and a cow on this farm that the US government subsidizes to not to grow crops. Jack hears these voices in his head. One is from this guy that was President of the US 30-odd years ago. The rest of them are these guys who preach this doctrine known as "prosperity gospel." In those preachments, they teach Jack that you have to "sew your seed" into the earth and the bigger the seed, the bigger the return. He also listens to the old President when he says that tax breaks for those big seed guys will help the world prosper as a result of their own prosperity trickling down to them.

    Conflating the two messages as if they were a continuous, single one, Jack goes to the market. On the way, he encounters this 72 year old guy who says he's selling "magic beans." Skeptical, Jack says he's not sure. The 72 year old then Trumps up this story about how the beans are "terrific" and assures him with the age-old, battle-tested, ironclad form of evidence known as "believe me." Jack then trades his one cow to the man and takes the beans.

    Jack goes home and he plants the beans, but he lives in Flint, Michigan and waters them with the shit that they have (instead of pure water as he was told by the salesman) and BAM, Sharia Law in the US is born!!!

    35 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    Something tells me that genie isn't going back in the bottle.

    Care to be less cryptic?

  5. 23 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    I'll bite. 

    Well let’s just start with the grand champion of all time: statism.

    You show me an Abrahamic faith that could even begin to compete with that and I’ll show you pink grass.

  6. Again, Christianity and Islam are minor leaguers when it comes to religious destructiveness. This discussion is pointless, which is what one must expect when onboard starts spamming it with his feeble trolling.

  7. 23 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    Yeah, and when we have an entire region of the world and its gov'ts living by the rules of Christian fanatics preaching Old Testament fire and brimstone christianity, we can talk. 

     

    Such a discussion would have 0 moral value whatsoever. That's what people like you don't get.

  8. Again, why are we comparing Christianity to Islam (or vice versa) on the issue of violence when there's a religion that's done far more damage to the world in that arena than the 3 Abrahamic religions combined could ever hope to in their wettest fucking dreams?

    • Like 1
  9. 37 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

    Well since you know so much about Sharia and islam...you know that its not really something that lines up with Western values or freedoms...and in any Islamic countries it's not exactly 'voluntary'.  

    You'll probably want to do some more Sharia research.  Here's a few fun aspects of Sharia. 

    Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped. - That'll be super popular.  😂

    Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives. - Why wouldn't someone who supports this be right at home with a bunch of pussy hat wearing feminists???  🙄

    Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed. - That's not going to be a problem for leftist progressives.  In a group that wants people fired or kicked out of college for using the wrong 'preferred pronouns' 😂  Keep your eyes up kids...we're in a Sharia neighborhood where gays mysteriously fly off buildings.  

    Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death. - Sure to be a leftist fan favorite here on Surly! 

    Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself. - That won't be a problem...I'm sure people of this mindset will totally not try to enforce that.  

    Islam orders apostates to be killed. - Great news...if you want to leave...we've got to kill ya.  

    The left's hatred of Christianity & their shortsighted 'enemy of my enemy' policy has lead them into defending something entirely contradictory to any of their beliefs. 

    Heck...you just did. 

    02-early_years.jpg

    • Like 1
  10. 23 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

    Yet no one complains about others advocating everyone in America live under Christian Law.

    In fact, some actually believe that we already do. There are people, even in high profile positions in the media (Glen Beck), who believe that the Constitution was "divinely inspired" and "based on the Ten Commandments."

  11. 28 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

    Linda Sarsour is one of the main leaders of the Women's March group.  She's pro-sharia law...and just a really vile woman...but the left embraces her. 

    Kinda like Farrakhan 
     

     

    You're asserting as fact something that is not evidently true. In other words, you're lying.

    The women's march attracted approximately 1% of the population to participate. Louis Farrakhan has even less support than that (the NOI claims to have a membership base of around 50,000 at most). Incidentally, that march and the NOI isn't even 100% supportive of those fucking people.

    You're beyond naive if you think "the left," which is just a clunky phrase that you use to label anything you don't like, is limited to those who "embrace" these people. Like I said, the shit you're spewing here is regurgitations of fantasies derived straight from the Land of Make Believe and Pretend, and you're sitting there patting yourself on the back as if you've been making good points. You're not making any good points, and you are absolutely wrong about absolutely everything that you've asserted here, which is par for the course.

     

  12. 39 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

    Calling our WWII soldiers 'antifa' is fucked up.    

    In your tiny mind. What's "fucked up" is your sniveling whataboutism that, if logic were fuel, couldn't power a flea's motorcycle around a drop of rain

  13. 2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

    You mean the guy who refused to answer if he had planted evidence and who perjured himself?  That guy?

    Beat me to it. To compare Strzok to fucking Fuhrman, a guy who was caught gleefully bragging on tape how he "framed/beat up niggers," gloated about some pretty horrific incidents on his record, including a few dozen claims of brutality, is just flat out dishonest. I'm not even going to say "intellectually dishonest," it's just flat out fucking lying.

×
×
  • Create New...