OT - Fuck 'em all.
iceberg
funerals look like perfectly reasonable people. Muslims cannot be trusted.
Be they running down their own daughters in a so-called "honor killing" or
serving in the military, they're all the same. They hate us and everything
we stand for. The only reason a Muslim comes to this country is to make
money and/or support the Muslimification ( yeah I made it up) of the US and
the establishment of a Sharia based society (read as inhumane, dark age
society.)
We are orchestrating our own destruction by continuing to allow Muslim
immigration. By 2050 the new Latino majority will be in deep shit.
Iceberg
mozark
alive.
If this same Major had come back with, say, 1,000 Iraqi kills to his
"credit", no doubt you'd wave your little yellow panties as he drove
past you.
Meaning: dead Texas GIs are more valuable than all the dead children,
mothers, and other innocents across the Middle East and Central Asia.
You're an atavistic, sub-human, Amurikan robot. A piece of shit.
PeterL
The alleged shooter was born in the US.
Gary Collard
> Muslims make those Baptists from Kansas that protest at servicemen's
> funerals look like perfectly reasonable people. Muslims cannot be
> trusted. Be they running down their own daughters in a so-called "honor
> killing" or serving in the military, they're all the same.
Disagree here.
> They hate us
> and everything we stand for.
Certainly true of the fanatics. There are no legitimate grievances, no
root causes, they just hate us because we are.
> The only reason a Muslim comes to this
> country is to make money and/or support the Muslimification ( yeah I
> made it up) of the US and the establishment of a Sharia based society
> (read as inhumane, dark age society.)
That is true of the jihadists, who seek Sharia and may succeed sooner
rather than later in...
> We are orchestrating our own destruction by continuing to allow Muslim
> immigration. By 2050 the new Latino majority will be in deep shit.
...not the US but Europe. The sheer demographics of declining Euro
birthrates and unchecked immigration (with no associated low birthrates
among the immigrants), in addition to the societal decline brought about
by the welfare state model of governance, makes it all but inevitable
that there will be one or more countries in Europe under sharia by that
date. Or civil war(s) that will make the mild stuff in Iraq and
Afghanistan look like child's play.
France could see sharia in my lifetime, and I'm in my 40's, not that
bloody young.
--
Gary Collard
SABR-L Moderator
gmcollard at yahoo dot com
http://twitter.com/LakerGMC
http://sarcastipundit.blogspot.com/
"If Obama�s skin was any thinner, he�d have a reservoir tip on
the top of his head." -- Thorley Winston
bozak
> Muslims make those Baptists from Kansas that protest at servicemen's
> funerals look like perfectly reasonable people. Muslims cannot be trusted.
Main Entry: Mus�lim
Pronunciation: \'m?z-l?m, 'mu?s-, 'mu?z-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Arabic muslim, literally, one who submits (to God)
Date: circa 1615
1 : an adherent of Islam
*************************************************************************************
ie follower of a book religion, which is basically no different than
christianity...
> Be they running down their own daughters in a so-called "honor killing" or
> serving in the military, they're all the same.
wow... just fucking wow...
> They hate us and everything
> we stand for. The only reason a Muslim comes to this country is to make
> money and/or support the Muslimification ( yeah I made it up) of the US and
> the establishment of a Sharia based society (read as inhumane, dark age
> society.)
and to think i thought it was because we talk about how capitalism is
so great... you dont see christianity as some dark aged shit???
>
> We are orchestrating our own destruction by continuing to allow Muslim
> immigration. By 2050 the new Latino majority will be in deep shit.
amazing that you are the same person that talks about the necks where
you live...
amazing...
>
> Iceberg
who knew you had a vision of people this ugly... ive seen the same thing
you wrote hundreds of times, but instead of muslims it said niggers or
mexicans...
my how time flies...
bozak
today while doodling in class i wrote on a napkin "the american media
is the top MINDFUCKER in all the world"... this kid next to me read it
and said i totally agree with you, thats why i only watch fox news...
my instructor asked me did i want to explain to the rest of the class
what i thought was so funny...
i declined, i was already having a bad enough day... :-)
mayner
At least you got a laugh out of it. That's better than a lot of folks
these days.
Carry on...
mayner
Ya know, you can take just about everyone of your comments here and
apply them to the religeous right here in the good 'ol USA.
Do you agree Gary?
$Bill
>
> ...not the US but Europe. The sheer demographics of declining Euro
> birthrates and unchecked immigration (with no associated low birthrates
> among the immigrants), in addition to the societal decline brought about
> by the welfare state model of governance, makes it all but inevitable
> that there will be one or more countries in Europe under sharia by that
> date. Or civil war(s) that will make the mild stuff in Iraq and
> Afghanistan look like child's play.
>
> France could see sharia in my lifetime, and I'm in my 40's, not that
> bloody young.
Our only hope someday will be the Mongolian hoards taking out the
fanatical muslims to save our bacon. :)
Terraholm
The christians literally missed that opportunity.
iceberg
"mozark" <swoo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44023234-f863-4209...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
I have never supported the war. I believe we should withdraw all troops from
the Middle East. I believe W should - along with his whole crew - be tried
for war crimes. However Iraquis and Afghans will continue to kill each other
at an alarming rate, just as they did before W's war. I have sympathy for
women and children and other innocents killed by American troops.
Having said that - religion - all religion - is the biggest curse mankind
has ever faced. Most of these religions no longer however teach that anyone
who does not believe in them should be killed. If you look at England and
see what is happening there, well just wait.
I really enjoy your bi-polar posts.
Iceberg
iceberg
>
> Ya know, you can take just about everyone of your comments here and
> apply them to the religeous right here in the good 'ol USA.
>
> Do you agree Gary?
>
I do, except most of the religous right in the USA isn't - yet - at the
point where they want to kill anyone who has different views. With 70
million different denominations, cults and splinter groups it'll be some
battle when they start. "Who do I shoot first?'
All religion is evil.
Iceberg
Chainsaw
Hey, speaking of which, where are all the Muslim hotties? Peel away
the hijab, maybe shave some legs and armpits (and arms and moustaches),
slap on a little black mini and some FMP's, maybe a little makeup,
and PRESTO. Bangin' hot Muslim muff. No houri ever looked this good.
--
Renewable Energy = Homeland Security
Jabba
This is seriously one of the ugliest things I've read on this group.
Hundreds of millions of Muslims go about their lives without thinking
about any of this and your stupid ignorant rant is completely insane.
--
jabba
citizen of the empire
bozak
>> Ya know, you can take just about everyone of your comments here and
>> apply them to the religeous right here in the good 'ol USA.
>>
>> Do you agree Gary?
>>
>
> I do, except most of the religous right in the USA isn't - yet - at the
> point where they want to kill anyone who has different views.
sure they dont...
$Bill
Most of the religions are fine in concept (even though they're based
on invalid belief in the supernatural that must have been inherited
from the cavemen) - it's the gullible and oftentimes evil people that
practice the religions (and their inconsistent interpretations by
every Tom, Dick and Allah) that comprise the evil in religion. There
will always be a few people out there that deserve to be separated
from their fellow believers - Mother Teresa, Ghandi, etc - but the
balance is so lopsided these days to the nasty side.
$Bill
>
> Hey, speaking of which, where are all the Muslim hotties? Peel away
> the hijab, maybe shave some legs and armpits (and arms and moustaches),
> slap on a little black mini and some FMP's, maybe a little makeup,
> and PRESTO. Bangin' hot Muslim muff. No houri ever looked this good.
Gotta be some of the ugliest humans on the face of the planet in
the middle east - they wear those rags for a reason - their husbands
don't want anyone to see how ugly their arranged for wives are.
$Bill
> On Nov 5, 3:42 pm, "iceberg" <rhan...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Muslims make those Baptists from Kansas that protest at servicemen's
>> funerals look like perfectly reasonable people. Muslims cannot be trusted.
>> Be they running down their own daughters in a so-called "honor killing" or
>> serving in the military, they're all the same. They hate us and everything
>> we stand for. The only reason a Muslim comes to this country is to make
>> money and/or support the Muslimification ( yeah I made it up) of the US and
>> the establishment of a Sharia based society (read as inhumane, dark age
>> society.)
>>
>> We are orchestrating our own destruction by continuing to allow Muslim
>> immigration. By 2050 the new Latino majority will be in deep shit.
>>
>> Iceberg
>
> This is seriously one of the ugliest things I've read on this group.
But true - check out some of the articles on muslim infiltration in Europe
and what it will mean in a few years when they have majorities increasing
all over the region.
Chim Chim
>> This is seriously one of the ugliest things I've read on this group.
>
> But true - check out some of the articles on muslim infiltration in Europe
> and what it will mean in a few years when they have majorities increasing
> all over the region.
As clearly explained in, Mark Steyn's book "America Alone"
bozak
yes sir ladies and gentlemen bigot bill back in rare form...
yo bill, youre late for your klan meeting... :-)
Jabba
> Jabba wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 3:42 pm, "iceberg" <rhan...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> Muslims make those Baptists from Kansas that protest at servicemen's
> >> funerals look like perfectly reasonable people. Muslims cannot be trusted.
> >> Be they running down their own daughters in a so-called "honor killing" or
> >> serving in the military, they're all the same. They hate us and everything
> >> we stand for. The only reason a Muslim comes to this country is to make
> >> money and/or support the Muslimification ( yeah I made it up) of the US and
> >> the establishment of a Sharia based society (read as inhumane, dark age
> >> society.)
>
> >> We are orchestrating our own destruction by continuing to allow Muslim
> >> immigration. By 2050 the new Latino majority will be in deep shit.
>
> >> Iceberg
>
> > This is seriously one of the ugliest things I've read on this group.
>
> But true - check out some of the articles on muslim infiltration in Europe
> and what it will mean in a few years when they have majorities increasing
> all over the region.
Yes, democracy is terrible. It will be horrible when "those people"
are in a majority. Seriously? Being Muslim DOES NOT EQUAL BEING
ANTIDEMOCRATIC, A TERRORIST OR BAD NEIGHBOR.
mayner
>
>>
>> Ya know, you can take just about everyone of your comments here and
>> apply them to the religeous right here in the good 'ol USA.
>>
>> Do you agree Gary?
>>
>
>I do, except most of the religous right in the USA isn't - yet - at the
>point where they want to kill anyone who has different views.
Ask any Doctor that is willing to perform abortions or just about any,
out of the closet gay person that lives outside a big city and get
back to me on that, will you?
With 70
>million different denominations, cults and splinter groups it'll be some
>battle when they start. "Who do I shoot first?'
>
>All religion is evil.
I'm thinking you gotta be a religeoso to believe in good and evil,
angel-devil, whatever...
I choose neither.
>
>Iceberg
mozark
> the middle east - they wear those rags for a reason - their husbands
> don't want anyone to see how ugly their arranged for wives are.
Arising from the Dollar Bill sewer, we have reality:
http://almostnot.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/still-from-abbas-kiarosta-001.jpg
http://shahrzaad.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/hijab2.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_HHmxt93IQso/SfpBMc3je0I/AAAAAAAAAVA/1vknTNx80Wc/s400/Shiva+Mahboobi.jpg
http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/6894/519et.jpg
http://silencedmajority.blogs.com/.a/6a00d834520b4b69e2011571315ff2970b-800wi
http://www.iranian.com/main/files/singlepage_images/CANADA.jpg
Now let's see a picture of your wife, Bill.
Chainsaw
Muslim hotties! I knew they were out there somewhere.
WBC
Most if not all religions most definitely _do_ teach that anyone who
does not believe their way should and will be killed. They each teach
that its respective theology is the only path to salvation and its
adherents the only ones worthy of continuing to live, which equates with
condemning all who don't share its beliefs to eventual destruction.
Most, though, unlike Islamic extremists who sanction and orchestrate the
_immediate_ slaughter of "infidels," are content to embrace subtler
forms of metaphorical murder while awaiting God's ultimate judgment
---pseudo-Christian cells being the most notable example.
So what is it that's happening in England?
Wanda
___________________________
Team of the Decade
Los Angeles Lakers
2000 2001 2002 2009
____________________________
WBC
You may be exposing more about your manly self than you realize
or intend with this. Sounds angry and scared and broken-hearted inside
DollarBill. Feel better. 8^-
Wanda
--
WBC
Fixed.
RMJon23
> � � � � Most if not all religions most definitely _do_ teach that anyone who
> does not believe their way should and will be killed. They each teach
> that its respective theology is the only path to salvation and its
> adherents the only ones worthy of continuing to live, which equates with
> condemning all who don't share its beliefs to eventual destruction.
> Most, though, unlike Islamic extremists who sanction and orchestrate the
> _immediate_ slaughter of "infidels," are content to embrace subtler
> forms of metaphorical murder while awaiting God's ultimate judgment
> ---pseudo-Christian cells being the most notable example.
>
> � � � � So what is it that's happening in England?
>
> � � � � Wanda
> ___________________________
Umm...Tibetan Buddhism on Line 1...
$Bill
>
> Most if not all religions most definitely _do_ teach that anyone who
> does not believe their way should and will be killed.
While I agree with the sentiment, I think the word 'most' is a bit
far-fetched. Evil people that adopt religion are the scariest
groups around - suddenly they don't mind dieing for their evil
actions since they're now god's will.
$Bill
>
> I'm thinking you gotta be a religeoso to believe in good and evil,
> angel-devil, whatever...
I'm anti religious and DO believe in good and evil (not angel/devil).
There are downright evil people out there and a very few super good
people (that don't balance out the evil BTW).
$Bill
Muslim (religion) isn't the difference - it's genetics. You'll
notice I never said muslim. And slapping a few links into a post
that shows (who knows what actual genetics) a few exceptions to
the rule doesn't change a thing - there's some really yugly people
in them there parts.
$Bill
> $Bill wrote:
>> Chainsaw wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey, speaking of which, where are all the Muslim hotties? Peel away
>>> the hijab, maybe shave some legs and armpits (and arms and moustaches),
>>> slap on a little black mini and some FMP's, maybe a little makeup,
>>> and PRESTO. Bangin' hot Muslim muff. No houri ever looked this good.
>>
>> Gotta be some of the ugliest humans on the face of the planet in
>> the middle east - they wear those rags for a reason - their husbands
>> don't want anyone to see how ugly their arranged for wives are.
>
> You may be exposing more about your manly self than you realize
> or intend with this. Sounds angry and scared and broken-hearted inside
> DollarBill. Feel better. 8^-
You've obviously not watched any middle east documentaries. ;)
$Bill
It also doesn't mean the opposite.
Terraholm
They are atheists.
"There is no almighty God in Buddhism. There is no one to hand out
rewards or punishments on a supposedly Judgement Day. Buddhism is
strictly not a religion in the context of being a faith and worship
owing allegiance to a supernatural being."
$Bill
calling pygmies short. :)
PPS: I never claimed to be Brad Pitt-like myself - like
none of us have ever been called ugly.
WBC
Evil people that adopt religion. A point worthy of pondering. I usually
automatically think in terms of the evil that religious dogma causes,
which I do strongly contend. But I need to consider the angle of evil
people adopting religion. Thanks for the seed. =^)
Wanda
--
WBC
> $Bill wrote:
>> WBC wrote:
>>>
>>> Most if not all religions most definitely _do_ teach that anyone who
>>> does not believe their way should and will be killed.
>>
>> While I agree with the sentiment, I think the word 'most' is a bit
>> far-fetched. Evil people that adopt religion are the scariest
>> groups around - suddenly they don't mind dieing for their evil
>> actions since they're now god's will.
>
> Evil people that adopt religion. A point worthy of pondering. I usually
> automatically think in terms of the evil that religious dogma causes,
> which I do strongly contend.
> But I need to consider the angle of evil
> people adopting religion. \
I should've more accurately stated that I need to broaden my thinking
of this point beyond having already long ago placed high-profile types
like GWBaboon and Sarah Palin in that category. It's an interesting
point to consider with regard to the average sick savage seeking a
like-minded spiritual fellowship.
Wanda
Swillabrew
As opposed to Missouri, Kentucky & the snack aisle of every Wal-Mart in
America?
Billo, there are attractive & unattractive individuals all over & the Middle
East has its share of beauties. Don't go getting all Glenn Becked out on us
now. : )
Go Blazers !
Swillabrew
> $Bill wrote:
>> Muslim (religion) isn't the difference - it's genetics. You'll
>> notice I never said muslim. And slapping a few links into a post
>> that shows (who knows what actual genetics) a few exceptions to
>> the rule doesn't change a thing - there's some really yugly people
>> in them there parts.
>
> As opposed to Missouri, Kentucky & the snack aisle of every Wal-Mart
> in America?
>
> Billo, there are attractive & unattractive individuals all over & the
> Middle East has its share of beauties. Don't go getting all Glenn
> Becked out on us now. : )
>
OK, I googled Middle East Beauties & got this right off the bat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU3H1HZ3wqA
I suppose they could all be airbrushed SoCal chicks, but I don't think so.
Go Blazers !
$Bill
>
> As opposed to Missouri, Kentucky & the snack aisle of every Wal-Mart in
> America?
A close inbred second place on the first two.
> Billo, there are attractive & unattractive individuals all over & the Middle
> East has its share of beauties. Don't go getting all Glenn Becked out on us
> now. : )
Geez - take an average then - watch a documentary - those veils have a reason. :)
$Bill
>
> OK, I googled Middle East Beauties & got this right off the bat:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU3H1HZ3wqA
>
> I suppose they could all be airbrushed SoCal chicks, but I don't think so.
Quit it with the exceptions - there's exceptions to every rule and
there's a lot of European blood mixed in there to generate the stuff
you see on youtube. Some of the prettiest women in the world are 3rd
world babes screwed by some European missionary. I'm talking the run
of the mill, on the street, average, purebred, local yugliness here.
Johnny
Dear $Bill,
I have no interest in the subject matter itself of this dispute, but
my nature as a somewhat pedantic pedagogue constrains me to remind you
that there is a difference between examples and exceptions, and that
your premise assuming that Swill's examples are exceptions runs afoul of
the logical fallacy of petitio principii ("assuming the initial point")
commonly known as begging the question, in which the proposition to be
proved is assumed in the premise.
Swill offered specific examples of the type of beauty whose
existence you dispute. If you want to argue exceptio probat regulam in
casibus non exceptis ("The exception confirms the rule in the cases not
excepted"), commonly known in its proverb form "the exception proves the
rule" (i.e., by specifically excluding cases where the rule doesn't
apply, you make the rule stronger for cases still governed by it) you
must first prove that the examples in this particular case are in fact
exceptions.
Your attempt to argue that the examples are exceptions by leaping
from your original way too general premise in the first place to the
argument that Swill's examples are exceptions because they result from
what you consider European beauty being introduced into the bloodlines
of some of the individual ugliness that you are asserting as a rule is
ethnocentric bigotry that is so contemptible as to deserve no further
comment beyond calling it what it is, utter ignorance.
You're welcome,
=Johnny
P.S. When you are in a hole, stop digging. =J.
$Bill
>
> Dear $Bill,
>
> I have no interest in the subject matter itself of this dispute, but
> my nature as a somewhat pedantic pedagogue constrains me to remind you
> that there is a difference between examples and exceptions, and that
> your premise assuming that Swill's examples are exceptions runs afoul of
> the logical fallacy of petitio principii ("assuming the initial point")
> commonly known as begging the question, in which the proposition to be
> proved is assumed in the premise.
>
> Swill offered specific examples of the type of beauty whose existence
> you dispute.
Whoa there - I did not dispute the existence, only commented on the rarity
of same.
> If you want to argue exceptio probat regulam in casibus non
> exceptis ("The exception confirms the rule in the cases not excepted"),
> commonly known in its proverb form "the exception proves the rule"
> (i.e., by specifically excluding cases where the rule doesn't apply, you
> make the rule stronger for cases still governed by it) you must first
> prove that the examples in this particular case are in fact exceptions.
>
> Your attempt to argue that the examples are exceptions by leaping
> from your original way too general premise in the first place to the
> argument that Swill's examples are exceptions because they result from
> what you consider European beauty being introduced into the bloodlines
> of some of the individual ugliness that you are asserting as a rule is
> ethnocentric bigotry that is so contemptible as to deserve no further
> comment beyond calling it what it is, utter ignorance.
Well, I appreciate your argument, but it's slightly askew from hitting on my
original premise. All I intended to say was that women from the particular
regions in question were to a large extent downright ugly from an American or
European and, I can only guess, possibly Asian perspective. Now I admit
as pointed out by Swiller that we have our own share of inbred yuglies here
in the land of beauty and plenty, but the percentage IMO of the total pop
is much smaller than the areas in question in the middle east (of course
that could change real quick if we don't control immigration :).
There is no way that I can prove my assertion any more than anyone can
disprove it, but I've seen enough film of those areas that I can certainly
form my own opinion and it comes out YUGLY to the max. I assume that
my viewpoint is skewed to the european concept of beauty as you may
have touched on and I have to assume that there's always the distinct
possibility that people from that same region might find me and my
fellow citizens of european/american heritage to be equally as yugly in
their minds as I find them, but that's just the way it goes - more power
to em.
What I don't see is how you go from not knowing yourself who/what bloodlines
those pictures are from to proclaiming it utter ignorance is a bit of a blind
leap - at least as much of a leap as my original assumption/assertion to
the other side. Lastly, you chose to make a serious reply to a pretty much
tongue-in-cheek thread - just take it for what it is - just a simple opinion
or observation to get a little reaction not create a war. I preferred the
Swiller's response which was more in line with the intent.
mayner
wrote:
You don't get out much I guess. Actually, I think you've spent too
much time on the 'net and perusing skin mags and such.
There are beautiful women in every culture, in every part of the
world.
Sometimes you remind me of one of those retired on Medicare goobers
they show on FOX news all the time, screaming about the government
getting out of their health care. ;-)
Forest - Trees comes to mind.
mayner
>$Bill wrote:
>> Swillabrew wrote:
>>>
<snip>
>
>You're welcome,
>
>=Johnny
>
>P.S. When you are in a hole, stop digging. =J.
>
>
Yeah! What he said! ;-)
$Bill
>
> You don't get out much I guess. Actually, I think you've spent too
> much time on the 'net and perusing skin mags and such.
Sorry, watching mid-eastern documentaries on the history channel.
> There are beautiful women in every culture, in every part of the
> world.
What the hell is the matter with you guys that keep using exceptions
when I'm talking averages ? Of course there are beautiful women in
any culture - I'm sure there's a fox in the ozarks somewhere too.
And oftentimes those beautiful women are not always representative
since they can be multi-racial, immigrants, etc. - who's to know ?
Johnny
> Johnny wrote:
>>
>> Dear $Bill,
>>
>> I have no interest in the subject matter itself of this dispute,
>> but my nature as a somewhat pedantic pedagogue constrains me to
>> remind you that there is a difference between examples and
>> exceptions, and that your premise assuming that Swill's examples are
>> exceptions runs afoul of the logical fallacy of petitio principii
>> ("assuming the initial point") commonly known as begging the
>> question, in which the proposition to be proved is assumed in the
>> premise.
>>
>> Swill offered specific examples of the type of beauty whose
>> existence you dispute.
>
> Whoa there - I did not dispute the existence, only commented on the
> rarity
> of same.
>
you snipped (So as not to have to meet your own words coming back at
you, perhaps?), in order to defend your initial hasty
overgeneralization, you, I repeat, YOU, used the word "rule" and called
Swill's examples "exceptions." So I pointed out the logical fallacies of
using a premise as proof (above) and using the rule/exception logic
without first proving the premise upon which that logic rests (below):
>> If you want to argue exceptio probat regulam in casibus
>> non exceptis ("The exception confirms the rule in the cases not
>> excepted"), commonly known in its proverb form "the exception proves
>> the rule" (i.e., by specifically excluding cases where the rule
>> doesn't apply, you make the rule stronger for cases still governed by
>> it) you must first prove that the examples in this particular case
>> are in fact exceptions.
>>
>> Your attempt to argue that the examples are exceptions by leaping
>> from your original way too general premise in the first place to the
>> argument that Swill's examples are exceptions because they result
>> from what you consider European beauty being introduced into the
>> bloodlines of some of the individual ugliness that you are asserting
>> as a rule is ethnocentric bigotry that is so contemptible as to
>> deserve no further comment beyond calling it what it is, utter
>> ignorance.
>
> Well, I appreciate your argument, but it's slightly askew from hitting
> on my
> original premise. All I intended to say was that women from the
> particular
> regions in question were to a large extent downright ugly from an
> American or
> European and, I can only guess, possibly Asian perspective.
your use of logical fallacy to support anything said, intended or not.
You resorted to the argument that Swill's examples of Middle Eastern
feminine beauty, were actually exceptions created by "European
missionaries" (your choice of words, not mine) having sexual intercourse
with women in "third world" (again your choice of words) countries. I
let the "third world" arguably mischaracterization go because that is a
different issue, but I would not let your Eurocentric bigotry pass
without commenting on its ignorance.
> Now I admit
> as pointed out by Swiller that we have our own share of inbred yuglies
> here
> in the land of beauty and plenty, but the percentage IMO of the total pop
> is much smaller than the areas in question in the middle east (of course
> that could change real quick if we don't control immigration :).
>
black and white overgeneralization, but I decided not to let you get
away with that without pointing out the logical fallacies you slipped
into to try to salvage something from the ethnocentrically induced
logical fallacy of your original premise known as hasty or faulty
generalization. By the way, your parenthetical remark in the paragraph
immediately above reveals a despicable socio-political motive for
insulting Middle Eastern women in the first place, notwithstanding the
silly-ass smiley in an attempt to disarm criticism of your obvious intent.
> There is no way that I can prove my assertion any more than anyone can
> disprove it, but I've seen enough film of those areas that I can
> certainly
> form my own opinion and it comes out YUGLY to the max. I assume that
> my viewpoint is skewed to the european concept of beauty as you may
> have touched on and I have to assume that there's always the distinct
> possibility that people from that same region might find me and my
> fellow citizens of european/american heritage to be equally as yugly in
> their minds as I find them, but that's just the way it goes - more power
> to em.
>
opinion rather than a scientifically demonstrable fact, don't risk your
credibility or the validity of your opinions by resorting to the use of
logical fallacies to try to turn it into a fact. State it as opinion
rather than a fact and walk away from trying to prove it with logic tricks.
And that wishy-washy nonsense that you "assume that your viewpoint
is skewed" as I "may have touched on" (No assumption necessary and I
didn't touch on it; I outright directly challenged your Eurocentric
skewing.), and then trying to justify your false generalization by
arguing that the people whose women you were insulting "might" feel the
same way about European women, is a resort to the ridiculous "But,
Mommy, all the other kids think that way about me" defense.
> What I don't see is how you go from not knowing yourself who/what
> bloodlines
> those pictures are from to proclaiming it utter ignorance is a bit of
> a blind
> leap - at least as much of a leap as my original assumption/assertion to
> the other side.
I repeat, the "bloodlines" assertion was your, I repeat, YOUR,
original argument so can that transparent trick of trying to turn your
mistake back on me. Ethnocentric bigotry, like most if not all bigotry,
is the vile child of utter ignorance. If you don't think it is, the
proof is in your very opinion that it isn't.
> Lastly, you chose to make a serious reply to a pretty much
> tongue-in-cheek thread - just take it for what it is - just a simple
> opinion
> or observation to get a little reaction not create a war. I preferred
> the
> Swiller's response which was more in line with the intent.
>
>
No, that "I was only kidding to get a little reaction" boat won't
float either. I didn't argue with you about your ethnocentric and
largely unsupportable opinion. I challenged your underhanded resort to
logical fallacies to "prove" that your opinion was a fact. The only
comment I made about your ethnocentric bigotry is the only comment such
a contemptible opinion deserves, and I here repeat it by again calling
it what it is, utter ignorance. I consider that inarguable, but if you
want to try to argue the contrary, go ahead, the proof of it will be in
your very argument.
Why don't you just say, "I made a mistake by painting with too broad
of a brush and I'll try not to do that again," and move on?
Stop digging,
=Johnny
$Bill
>
> Whoa, yourself. In the part of this thread to which I responded and
> you snipped (So as not to have to meet your own words coming back at
> you, perhaps?), in order to defend your initial hasty
> overgeneralization, you, I repeat, YOU, used the word "rule" and called
> Swill's examples "exceptions."
Well, maybe that means something different to you than me - as a general
rule means lots to me not all. But then again, you're the grammar expert.
And yes, it was intended to be a generalization.
> So I pointed out the logical fallacies of
> using a premise as proof (above) and using the rule/exception logic
> without first proving the premise upon which that logic rests (below):
> Yes, I noticed your attempt to back off a bit from your initial black
> and white overgeneralization,
Not backing off - it was intended to be a black/white generalization.
> but I decided not to let you get away with
> that without pointing out the logical fallacies you slipped into to try
> to salvage something from the ethnocentrically induced logical fallacy
> of your original premise known as hasty or faulty generalization. By
> the way, your parenthetical remark in the paragraph immediately above
> reveals a despicable socio-political motive for insulting Middle Eastern
> women in the first place, notwithstanding the silly-ass smiley in an
> attempt to disarm criticism of your obvious intent.
I was hoping my intent was obvious - silly as s smiley apart.
> If you cannot prove an assertion that is actually an inductive
> opinion rather than a scientifically demonstrable fact, don't risk your
> credibility or the validity of your opinions by resorting to the use of
> logical fallacies to try to turn it into a fact. State it as opinion
> rather than a fact and walk away from trying to prove it with logic tricks.
Not trying to prove anything - just stating an opinion.
> And that wishy-washy nonsense that you "assume that your viewpoint is
> skewed" as I "may have touched on" (No assumption necessary and I didn't
> touch on it; I outright directly challenged your Eurocentric skewing.),
I don't know what your challenging, I admitted to the generalization.
> and then trying to justify your false generalization by arguing that the
> people whose women you were insulting "might" feel the same way about
> European women, is a resort to the ridiculous "But, Mommy, all the other
> kids think that way about me" defense.
They probably do or a bunch of them wouldn't be trying to eliminate us.
> I repeat, the "bloodlines" assertion was your, I repeat, YOUR,
> original argument so can that transparent trick of trying to turn your
> mistake back on me. Ethnocentric bigotry, like most if not all bigotry,
> is the vile child of utter ignorance. If you don't think it is, the
> proof is in your very opinion that it isn't.
Well, inbreeding is inbreeding - no matter where it happens.
> No, that "I was only kidding to get a little reaction" boat won't
> float either. I didn't argue with you about your ethnocentric and
> largely unsupportable opinion. I challenged your underhanded resort to
> logical fallacies to "prove" that your opinion was a fact. The only
> comment I made about your ethnocentric bigotry is the only comment such
> a contemptible opinion deserves, and I here repeat it by again calling
> it what it is, utter ignorance. I consider that inarguable, but if you
> want to try to argue the contrary, go ahead, the proof of it will be in
> your very argument.
I'm not trying to prove anything - just stating an opinion.
> Why don't you just say, "I made a mistake by painting with too broad
> of a brush and I'll try not to do that again," and move on?
No chance - I attempted that wide brush on purpose.
> Stop digging,
I could say the same - don't argue for the sake of arguing.