the difference between this and zimmerman is the lack of castle/syg laws. Nor would they apply to a barfight where a man lost his life over a Buddhist tattoo
Printable View
the difference between this and zimmerman is the lack of castle/syg laws. Nor would they apply to a barfight where a man lost his life over a Buddhist tattoo
With or without the castle law...either way the victim is screwed. What do the two victims have in common? Ethnicity? How do the two incidents differ? In the incident to which SYG applies the perp was initially excused without a second thought; if it weren't for the public outcry Zimmerman wouldn't even be standing before a judge.Quote:
Originally Posted by nonnonnon
Yes in some cases they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
Iran's president has repeated a remark from the former ayatollah that Israel should be "wiped out from the map,"
http://articles.cnn.com/2005-10-26/w...ld?_s=PM:WORLD
Obviously Iran does not comprise all Muslim sentiment, but I hear very little condimnation from brother Muslims.
The uncomfortable reality of the Middle East is that it has been home to ex-Nazis, Arab nazi sympathisers -and Jewish fascists -Avraham Stern, a supporter of Mussolini who once offered a trade-off with Hitler (send us Jews and we will fight the British on your behalf) being one stellar example and a man whose campaigns of murder did not spare Jews or Arabs or the British in Palestine in the 1940s. You name it, the Middle East has it, just like the USA, and they don't need to apologise for an idiot like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.Quote:
Originally Posted by mildcigar_2001
But the record shows his remark that 'Israel should be wiped out from the map' is a hoax as you would have known if you had bothered to do any research on it -even Israel's Dan Meridor has admitted Ahmadinejad never even used the word map in his speech and anyway was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini. And where is the largest Jewish community in the Middle East outside Israel?....er...in Iran.
You can read about the hoax here if you want to:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...7offthemap.htm
http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/04/19/...l-off-the-map/
I assume you were referring to the original usbject of the post. The swastica was not discovered until after the deceased was mortally wounded. The incident was reportedly started, when the deceased and three other friends verbally harassed Ms McDonald and other friends as they were passing on the street. It escalated, when McDonald was cut in the face, by the deceased person's friend. When McDonald approached the police, she was covered in blood, my assumption was was that the blood was from her own injury. Perhaps this version is not true. But we can only judge from the facts as were are given.Quote:
Originally Posted by nonnonnon
In the media, it has been inferred that Trayvonn was a 'thug', becuase he had some gold teeth, or the language from his Twitter account. I have not heard of any link between gold teeth and violent behavior. But the deceased in the Mcdonald incident was reported to have a history of violence. In the case of McDonald, the system wanted to immediately send her thru the formal legal process.
When asked whether "Muslims=Nazis," mildcigar confirms. This is the most ridiculously stupid argument yet. Mildcigar wishes to establish the moral superiority of Christianity over Islam with the claim: some "Muslims are Nazis;" yet when Nazi's really did walk the Earth they were allmost all Christian?! So here's the argument:Quote:
Yes in some cases they do.
Premise 1. Some Muslim's are Nazis.
Premise 2. Nazi's are morally inferior.
Premise 3. Almost all Nazis were (and are...after all you gotta count the white supremacists) Christian.
Conclusion: Islam is morally inferior to Christianity.
If there's a valid rule of inference that leads from these premises to the conclusion above, please inform us of it name, how it works and provide a reputable reference.
Oh Merthyr-ful God. No more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
It is a shame that your knowledge of History does not match your knowledge of rhetoric.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
It is not a definitive source, but for the purposes of this forum it will do (I'm tired and have to be up at at 5 a.m., so no in deepth research (from the Wikipedia article):
Nazi Attitudes towards Christianity
In a confidential message to the Gauleiter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia on June 9, 1941, Martin Bormann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, had declared that "National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable." He also declared that the Churches influence in the leadership of the people "must absolutely and finally be broken." Bormann believed Nazism was based on a "scientific" world-view, and was completely incompatible with Christianity.
Bormann stated:
When we [National Socialists] speak of belief in God, we do not mean, like the naive Christians and their spiritual exploiters, a man-like being sitting around somewhere in the universe. The force governed by natural law by which all these countless planets move in the universe, we call omnipotence or God. The assertion that this universal force can trouble itself about the destiny of each individual being, every smallest earthly bacillus, can be influenced by so-called prayers or other surprising things, depends upon a requisite dose of naivety or else upon shameless professional self-interest.
Other than being a contrarian, I doubt if you really believe Islam is superior to Christianity. I will cheerfully admit that the world has more than its fair share of F’d up Christians, but by almost any measure Islam is a religion stuck in the dark ages. Try exposing your contrarian opinions as a woman in Muslim country and see want happens (a beating or worse). I realize that perhaps because of your TS status you may feel marginalized from mainstream culture, but as bad as western civilization is Islam (particularly the Wahabi sect) is much worse. It makes no real sense just because you dislike me or my arguments, to willfully delude yourself as to the merits of Islam.
Granted I do not know you personally, but a good 50% of the time you make reasonable sense, but the other 50% of the time you veer out of your own lane and plunge headlong into oncoming traffic. You seem to see everything through a racial prism.
I know you believe I am a racist for criticizing other cultures, but nothing could be further from the truth. I am more than willing to criticize other cultures (but that springs from a general belief that western culture is superior). I don’t care what race a man is, but I do care how he acts. Hence in my criticism of Obama, I think him a knave because of his actions not because of his skin color. If it makes you feel any better I have a lower opinion of Clinton than Obama.
Mildcigar!!!
Really man??
http://images.cheezburger.com/comple...5b92ef7789.gif
A confidential letter espousing the aberrant (hence confidential) religious views of one Nazi goes no way toward undermining premise three. Almost all Nazis were Christians and almost all living Nazis are Christian. This of course doesn't justify a general condemnation of Christianity and by the same token the symmetric argument affords no general condemnation of Islam. Claiming Islam is morally inferior to Christianity because there are Muslims who believe the same reprehensible things some Christians believe is patently absurd.
You are right in guessing I do not hold Islam is morally superior to Christianity. Frankly I find the question to be ill formulated and a dangerous waste of time. Why do you find it so important to convince others whom you don't even know of the general moral inferiority of Islam? What does that even mean? What is your measure of moral superiority? What is your personal motivation for pushing this point on those who resist it? Do you hope to improve our general morality or just have us validate yours for you? Are you sure you aren't motivated by unfounded preconceptions?