POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[Rooged]

if you don't actually follow islam then i assume you probably don't know much about it - so try listening to this interview with Dr. Reza Aslan, a scholar of religions

[Ad Bot]

[HellHound]

if you don't actually follow islam then i assume you probably don't know much about it - so try listening to this interview with Dr. Reza Aslan, a scholar of religions

sry bud, no fake news here.

[Wesley Williams]

why? so that all someone has to do to stop a protest is throw some bricks?

That seems quite a bit more minor. Ignoring storefronts being destroyed, garbage being set on fire, smoke bombs being set off, fireworks being launched, and Molotov roostertails being thrown doesn't sit well with me. When watching the footage of these "protests" it always looks like a battle between the police and the protesters, with each group making a wall and a no-man's zone of a hundred feet in between them. I know if I was out protesting, I would say "alright guys, let's obey the police and go back. They're doing their job to protect the streets." I wouldn't egg on people setting cops on fire and throwing bricks at them. Not to mention fighting and screaming at the police doesn't help make a point, it just makes your group look like a bunch of anti-government richards.

But this is just me venting my own personal convictions. Liberals might be much more accepting of violence, I dunno.

[Red Spy]

Wait is Reza Aslan the guy who said everyone else is a bigot so he doesn't have to argue with them

Edit: Yeah that's him

[Tactical Nuke]

have you ever done any actual like
research into islam

or are you just saying this bc you heard it on breitbart

now here's how the conversation's gonna go

someone's gonna link quotes from the Qur'an
someone will then say "but violent Christians!!!1!11!!!" followed by someone asking for sources from the Bible, which the other person will provide none
then someone will say "but the crusades!!!1!11!!!!" and bring down the IQ of everyone in the discussion in the process

ready go

[Red Spy]

then someone will say "but the crusades!!!1!11!!!!" and bring down the IQ of everyone in the discussion in the process

Is that why my post quality has dipped in the last few months

[SeventhSandwich]

Biased doesn't mean incorrect. Just means biased. I guess I'll wait for a reputable source like CNN or MSNBC to report on the disturbing amount of muslims that are perfectly fine with Jihadism, even if they themselves don't engage in it.

CNN and MSNBC are not primary sources and neither is 'jihad watch'. My beef with this website is that it does the same thing as all the other radical ideology sites - it barrages you with a really long list of links (many of which actually reference the same primary sources), in attempt to convince stupid people that they're right without actually showing them any evidence whatsoever. It's the same strategy as those "100 Proofs for Flat Earth" videos. If your argument is actually correct, then you only really need one proof.

Pew Research Forum is a very reputable source, and I trust their polling methods. But what 'jihad watch' won't tell you is that there were problems with the way questions were phrased on their big Muslim ideological survey - issues which Pew Research Forum actually brought up in their own report. Lots of Muslims only believe that sharia law applies to people who choose to be Muslim and follow it.

someone will then say "but violent Christians!!!1!11!!!" followed by someone asking for sources from the Bible, which the other person will provide none

I mean, even if the Bible doesn't condone violence, you're still being a stuffter for generalizing Muslims yet refusing to recognize all of the radical Christian terrorist organizations in Africa that routinely slaughter people 'in the name of God'.

[otto-san]

But this is just me venting my own personal convictions. Liberals might be much more accepting of violence, I dunno.

no, liberals are really just more likely to be sympathetic with what people are actually protesting rn. it has nothing to do with violence. the reason people are defending protesters isn't because they want to defend violence, it's because they want to defend people who just want to exercise their free speech and assembly rights to stand up for something they feel strongly about. you're essentially insisting that most, if not all these protesters are simply standing idly by, accepting or supporting violent protest, and that, in turn, is highly dismissive to the efforts of the people there who really just want change. or more precisely, they want to validate the efforts that people are making to start a conversation about topics they care about, because people are using the violence to dismiss those efforts, and that's a huge bummer

now here's how the conversation's gonna go

someone's gonna link quotes from the Qur'an
someone will then say "but violent Christians!!!1!11!!!" followed by someone asking for sources from the Bible, which the other person will provide none
then someone will say "but the crusades!!!1!11!!!!" and bring down the IQ of everyone in the discussion in the process

ready go

probably, tho from the other side, it just looks like prejudiced people trying to rationalize their biases, as human beings do, trying to validate the patterns we're convinced exist

[Poliwhirl]

now here's how the conversation's gonna go

someone's gonna link quotes from the Qur'an
someone will then say "but violent Christians!!!1!11!!!" followed by someone asking for sources from the Bible, which the other person will provide none
then someone will say "but the crusades!!!1!11!!!!" and bring down the IQ of everyone in the discussion in the process

ready go

the only difference between the stuffty argument of "muslims are bad because the quran says this" and pulling examples of actual violent christians / christian terrorists is that, without fail, one of you goons will find away to excuse the actions of the christians or find some workaround to say "that's not REALLY christianity"

I mean, even if the Bible doesn't condone violence, you're still being a stuffter for generalizing Muslims yet refusing to recognize all of the radical Christian terrorist organizations in Africa that routinely slaughter people 'in the name of God'.

the old testament was hella violent, though.

[SeventhSandwich]

the old testament was hella violent, though.

Yeah but Christianity 'had a reformation' and ignores that part - even though evangelical conservatives have no problem leafing back to Leviticus when they want to deprive gays of basic human rights.

[Red Spy]

the old testament was hella violent, though.

iirc It's the one time in human history Jews were violent

[Foxscotch]

someone will then say "but violent Christians!!!1!11!!!" followed by someone asking for sources from the Bible, which the other person will provide none

"anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death." Leviticus 24:16

"If a man or woman living among you ... contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky ... take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death." Deuteronomy 17:2-5

"If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin...
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death." Deuteronomy 22:13-21

[Tactical Nuke]

-snip-

you are literally the first person to do this

[Poliwhirl]

you are literally the first person to do this

??? i've literally done this before

why do you assume it's never happened just because you haven't seen it?

[otto-san]

you are literally the first person to do this

no he's not, people just dismiss it because it's old testament and reformation and western civilization or w/e there is to wave it away with

people who are biased against anything most likely aren't looking for people to change their minds regardless so it's a moot point