Donald Trump warns of the Muslim Problem

[cronus]

It is clear to me that Islam today is a barbaric and backwards creed and we need to fight fire with fire. That is why I urge any Americans reading this to vote Trump. Not because he is politically correct but because he is not. And says what needs saying...in these dangerous times. He will change the conversation, turning a nation of bleating pathetic sheep into roaring lions....

[Rum]

I wish I thought you were being ironic, but sadly I know you aren't.

[cronus]

I wish I thought you were being ironic, but sadly I know you aren't.

No, I'm talking about America here.

[Collector1337]

Yep, just like Christianity only a little less old.

Comparing Christians to Muslims?

Please tell me you are not this stupid.

Yeah, I'm that stupid guy who reads history and knows what happened to Europe and the Middle East because Christianity a while back. Stupid me. Christians did plenty of killing of Christians until recently.

Incidentally the 'Institute' referred to in the above video is a one man show more or less. The guy was a physicist until he decided that there was a war between Merica and Islam and that he would make some money out of it.

You clearly don't know your history very well. Muslims with their Jihad were the aggressors, not Christians. The Crusades were in response to the countless invasions and taking of slaves done by Muslims. Christians were always on defense.

In addition to the video that was already posted in this thread, which clearly shows Muslims constantly attacking Europe and taking slaves, in Turkey, in Spain, in Portugal, in Italy, all over the Mediterranean, the Crusades were merely in response to the constant Muslim attacks, trying to rescue other Christians and free lands taken over by Muslims.

Watch this video by a fellow Atheist, Stefan Molyneux, an actual historian:

[Rum]

You change the terms of the discussion to suit your argument. The OP talked about Islam being a cancer and I suggested Christianity could also suit the same metaphor. There was no mention of who was fighting who. In the scale of these things I would guess far more people have dies in the name of Christ than the name of Mohammed, whoever they were fighting.

[piscator]

[Seth]

You change the terms of the discussion to suit your argument. The OP talked about Islam being a cancer and I suggested Christianity could also suit the same metaphor. There was no mention of who was fighting who. In the scale of these things I would guess far more people have dies in the name of Christ than the name of Mohammed, whoever they were fighting.

Really? On what evidence do you base this guess? And by "died" do you mean "were killed by Muslims because they are Christians" which is exactly what's going on right now to hundreds of thousands of Christians in the Middle east?

[Seth]

You forgot to mention that it's something you made up, and not a formal logical fallacy.

I never said it was a "formal logical fallacy." It's an INformal logical fallacy just like all of these informal logical fallacies.

The existence of an informal logical fallacy is fallacious logical reasoning on the part of the individual making the claim. Any statement can be evaluated for its logical strength or weakness and if logical errors are made, it's perfectly appropriate to label them with a useful identifying tag such as the one I coined, and such as the rather long list found at the reference cited above.

In order to defeat your argument being labeled as an informal logical fallacy you have to somehow successfully rebut the logical analysis (syllogismically perhaps) that demonstrates that your statement is not a logical fallacy.

Somebody "made up" all of the informal logical fallacies in the list cited, and it wasn't me. I just added a new one, the "Atheist's Fallacy" because the errors in logic present are always made by atheists.

[mistermack]

As far as I'm concerned, Islam is a pernicious, disgusting, evil, superstitious creed.

Just like Christianity.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

The Wayback Machine fallacy is exemplified by precisely what you stated. It's the fallacy of having to reach hundreds or thousands of years into the past to find some evil deed done in name of X as support for an argument that X is evil today.

The most frequent example of this is the Wayback Machine resort to the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades as justification for vilifying and insulting present-day Catholicism.

Simply incorrect, in the way that I, and many others here have used the historical facts of past christian atrocities. We have not used them to vilify current catholics

I didn't say you did, I said it's the most common example of the Wayback Machine fallacy when attempting, shall we say, moral relativism with present-day radical Islamic jihad.

(whose hierarchy doesn't need any more vilification than its appalling lack of response to abuse by priests)

Might have something to do with the appalling lack of actual verifiable evidence of such abuse. Approximately one percent of such claims have actually been substantiated, which is a tiny fraction of the substantiated and prosecuted incidents of sexual abuse by public school teachers and an even tinier fraction of the estimated 5 million instances of sexual abuse by public school teachers every single year.

Forest, trees.

Rather it has been used to show that Islam is not a unique example of a barbaric religion - in the past, christians did much the same evil in the name of their religion.

There you go with the Wayback Machine fallacy in an attempt to derogate Christianity by reaching back far into the past to create a false claim of moral equality to present day Muslim extremism.

Simply, in almost all ways, current christianity has been tamed by centuries of secular opposition to churchly rule - it no longer calls the shots.

And you think that this occurred against the intent of Christianity? You're an historical ignoramus. For one thing, it was the Catholic Church that preserved most of human learning through the Dark Ages, which information allowed the Renaissance to occur. The Catholic church provided government and organization during times in human history when no one else could do so. It kept humanity from utter barbarism in most of Europe for hundreds of years. Where it wasn't, and where Islam wasn't, barbarism ruled the world. This is in large part because whereas Islam is about the worship of and obedience to Allah without regard to the well-being of worshipers, and with the most horrific kind of punishments being executed by Muslims upon Muslims (and everyone else) for blaspheming or disobeying either Allah or Mohammed, Christianity is, and has always been about the salvation of the individual from sin through the sacrifice of Jesus by persuasion, not force or punishment. A "Christ-centered life" is about serving others and being an example, not judging others or punishing them for their perceived sins. "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Matthew 7:1

Islam has not been through such a comparable historical process - one rather hopes it will at some stage...

You're an historical ignoramus. "Secular" opposition has been trying to beat and whip Islam into civilized behavior for about 1400 years now. Have you ever heard of the Ottoman Empire?

Go learn something.

[Seth]

As far as I'm concerned, Islam is a pernicious, disgusting, evil, superstitious creed.

Just like Christianity.

Which makes you an ignorant bigot and says nothing probative about either religion.

[mistermack]

As far as I'm concerned, Islam is a pernicious, disgusting, evil, superstitious creed.

Just like Christianity.

Which makes you an ignorant bigot and says nothing probative about either religion.

In the opinion of a dumb cunt !!

[Collector1337]

See. Muslims are cancer, and always have been. They are literally trying to take over the world. Muslims are the new Nazis.



They even admit it out loud that they are taking over.

[pErvinalia]

You forgot to mention that it's something you made up, and not a formal logical fallacy.

I never said it was a "formal logical fallacy." It's an INformal logical fallacy just like all of these informal logical fallacies.

The existence of an informal logical fallacy is fallacious logical reasoning on the part of the individual making the claim. Any statement can be evaluated for its logical strength or weakness and if logical errors are made, it's perfectly appropriate to label them with a useful identifying tag such as the one I coined, and such as the rather long list found at the reference cited above.

In order to defeat your argument being labeled as an informal logical fallacy you have to somehow successfully rebut the logical analysis (syllogismically perhaps) that demonstrates that your statement is not a logical fallacy.

Somebody "made up" all of the informal logical fallacies in the list cited, and it wasn't me. I just added a new one, the "Atheist's Fallacy" because the errors in logic present are always made by atheists.

Made Up Fallacy fallacy.

[pErvinalia]

You forgot to mention that it's something you made up, and not a formal logical fallacy.

I never said it was a "formal logical fallacy." It's an INformal logical fallacy just like all of these informal logical fallacies.

The existence of an informal logical fallacy is fallacious logical reasoning on the part of the individual making the claim. Any statement can be evaluated for its logical strength or weakness and if logical errors are made, it's perfectly appropriate to label them with a useful identifying tag such as the one I coined, and such as the rather long list found at the reference cited above.

In order to defeat your argument being labeled as an informal logical fallacy you have to somehow successfully rebut the logical analysis (syllogismically perhaps) that demonstrates that your statement is not a logical fallacy.

Somebody "made up" all of the informal logical fallacies in the list cited, and it wasn't me. I just added a new one, the "Atheist's Fallacy" because the errors in logic present are always made by atheists.

Made Up Fallacy fallacy.