*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10847
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #60 on: September 23, 2015, 05:11:31 PM »
Bernie Sanders is a Jew.
His father's religious background doesn't affect his skin tone all that much. Being of Polish ancestry, if anything, makes him more white :^)
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Saddam Hussein


Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #62 on: November 28, 2015, 06:44:33 PM »


the most fucking ironic thing anyone has ever said in the history of ever at 0:30
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10847
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #63 on: November 28, 2015, 06:59:02 PM »
the most fucking ironic thing anyone has ever said in the history of ever at 0:30
Are you referring to the part where he asks people not to conflate peaceful PP opponents with violent crazies, or the part where he suggests that we shouldn't jump to conclusions while the bodies are still warm?

Or, to offer you a more open-ended question: What about his statement strikes you as ironic?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #64 on: November 28, 2015, 11:00:48 PM »
Or, to offer you a more open-ended question: What about his statement strikes you as ironic?

that there is no universe in which a republican would ever say anything so magnanimous about islam and its adherents
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #65 on: November 28, 2015, 11:13:29 PM »
wow all republicans think one thing and one thing only

Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #66 on: November 28, 2015, 11:57:18 PM »
wow all republicans think one thing and one thing only

the simplest way to get me to eat my hat would be to demonstrate a gop politician going on tv just hours into an islamist terror attack to explain how important it is not to assume that muslims support violence, even those with extreme disdain for the west.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 12:00:12 AM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #67 on: November 29, 2015, 12:02:46 AM »
So the point is, preconceived notions being wrong = irony?

Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #68 on: November 29, 2015, 12:20:03 AM »
hahahaha oh i get it now yes the point of my post was to say that the thing i am saying is wrong an dum hahaha ur so funny!

goddamn i hate it when people choose to argue via sarcasm.  either make an argument or demonstrate some evidence of me being wrong or something.  "hahaha don't you think u agree that ur wrong???" is uncompelling and only makes me less sympathetic to whatever reasonability underpins what you actually think.

for instance, i found an example of gw bush calling islam a religion of peace six days after 9/11.  something like that would be more persuasive to me than "lol but wouldn't you agree with me that ur so wrong??? hahaha got you with my sweet sarc."
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #69 on: November 29, 2015, 12:20:50 AM »
Why are you suddenly typing like you're on tumblr?

Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #70 on: November 29, 2015, 12:23:26 AM »
what's a tumblr?
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #71 on: November 29, 2015, 12:24:33 AM »
It's this website that I think you would really like.

Anyway, what was sarcastic about what I said? A republican said something that didn't fit your preconceived notion of what a republican is, and you labelled that as ironic. What exactly am I being wrong about?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10847
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #72 on: November 29, 2015, 12:41:59 AM »
Ah, the good ol' "not all Muslims follow the Koran" trope.

In one corner, you have an ideology whose ultimate authority (a book allegedly dictated word by word by Allah) decries the absolute necessity of killing people until said ideology has conquered the world. In the other corner, a bunch of people engaged in a legal battle over what they perceive to be a scandalous wrongdoing and a number of loosely-related wackos bringing their guns into the discussion.

One extremist group has the official and unmistakable approval of someone they can consider an authority (Allah). The other receives very little other than condemnation from what you're trying to pinpoint as their authority (Republicans).

One group rushes into buildings whilst yelling "Allahu ackbar" and puts out media releases making it abundantly clear that they're responsible, the other is hardly even an organised group, remains silent, and their motives need to be established after each case. Yeah, how dare people request that we wait for evidence before throwing around accusations...

What a shit analogy. This is a new low, even for you.

That said, I find your specific choice of words to be particularly entertaining. It's really surprising how precisely you described Dubya's response to 9/11. Were you intentionally setting yourself up for a "dayum those dumb lib'ruls" rant, or are you just very forgetful? [EDIT: Damn, you beat me to it]

Anyway, what was sarcastic about what I said? A republican said something that didn't fit your preconceived notion of what a republican is, and you labelled that as ironic. What exactly am I being wrong about?
If I understand correctly, he thinks it's ironic that Republicans defend themselves when accused of being terrorists by immediately denouncing crazy attackers, because they wouldn't rush to the same kind of defence if it was someone else that's on the receiving end of the accusation. He used Muslims as an example.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 01:02:38 AM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #73 on: November 29, 2015, 02:15:58 AM »
Ah, the good ol' "not all Muslims follow the Koran" trope.

In one corner, you have an ideology whose ultimate authority (a book allegedly dictated word by word by Allah) decries the absolute necessity of killing people until said ideology has conquered the world. In the other corner, a bunch of people engaged in a legal battle over what they perceive to be a scandalous wrongdoing and a number of loosely-related wackos bringing their guns into the discussion.

One extremist group has the official and unmistakable approval of someone they can consider an authority (Allah). The other receives very little other than condemnation from what you're trying to pinpoint as their authority (Republicans).

What a shit analogy.

this discussion probably can't go anywhere if you really believe that islam is an ideology of global domination because the koran says so.  it also can't go anywhere if you're unwilling to entertain the possibility that the decision to massacre an abortion clinic maybe intersects with christianity and the bible at some point.

whoops, i almost missed the best part: you're doing the ironic thing right here in this very paragraph.  you're saying that in one corner we have the most violent subset of islam, and in the other corner we have the total population of peaceful adherents and few wackos.  why does christianity get to count all of its peaceful adherents in its "corner," but islam's corner is only represented by the most violent folks you could pick out of the whole?

That said, I find your specific choice of words to be particularly entertaining. It's really surprising how precisely you described Dubya's response to 9/11. Were you intentionally setting yourself up for a "dayum those dumb lib'ruls" rant, or are you just very forgetful? [EDIT: Damn, you beat me to it]

no, but i'm willing to be wrong about things.  it's no big deal.  in this case we're all going a bit overboard since i figured it would obvious that i was being at least somewhat flippant in my assessment that it was literally the most ironic thing to ever happen in the history of everything.  it probably wasn't.  also, i agree that it's not true that literally every republican wants to murder every muslim alive today or whatever y'all are saying my argument is.  i sort of can't believe that i have to point that out, but here we are.

gw's nice comment notwithstanding, i'm not sure i'm going too far out on a limb when i say that gop rhetoric toward islam is overwhelmingly intolerant and negative.  it certainly doesn't delineate violent extremists from non-violent extremists like they're doing here with christians.  and other than gwb's comments after 9/11, i can't actually find any examples of republican candidates imploring their constituency to dissociate violent islamist extremists from the enormous and largely peaceful population in which they reside.  especially not literally just hours after an islamist terror attack.

Anyway, what was sarcastic about what I said? A republican said something that didn't fit your preconceived notion of what a republican is, and you labelled that as ironic. What exactly am I being wrong about?
If I understand correctly, he thinks it's ironic that Republicans defend themselves when accused of being terrorists by immediately denouncing crazy attackers, because they wouldn't rush to the same kind of defence if it was someone else that's on the receiving end of the accusation. He used Muslims as an example.

almost.  i'm comparing muslims with extremist views to christians with extremist views.  you're saying it like i'm comparing muslims to republicans.

here's what i'm saying: both christianity and islam have fundamentalist/extremist subsets.  religious fundamentalism/extremism does not necessitate belief in violence in either religion.  that extremism does not necessitate belief in violence in christianity is a delineation that i do not think he gop is generally willing to apply to islam, even though it's valid.  this, to me, is ironic; i would expect someone who makes that delineation once to make it in all cases.  it's the opposite of what i expect.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 02:31:11 AM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #74 on: November 29, 2015, 02:55:42 AM »
i just thought of a better way to explain what i mean, so i'm going to make it a separate post.

kinzinger is acting as a christian apologist.  i take him to be explaining that there are many christians who feel that abortion is evil and contrary to the will of god, just like the assailants, but they don't believe that violence is a morally justifiable means of defeating that evil.  in other words, he's cautioning us against assuming that people with religious and political beliefs identical to those of the terrorists also condone/accept/believe in terrorism and violence.  he's completely right on this point.

that's why i think it's ironic that the gop is absolutely unwilling to say similar things about islam.  gw was cool about saying that islam is a religion of peace, but that's not quite on point to what i find ironic.  i find it ironic that no gop candidate would ever make the delineation kinzinger did for christians.  i can't find any examples of a gop politician explaining that there is a fundamental difference between a muslim who believes for religious reasons that america is an evil and immoral force, and those who also advocate violence and terror as a means of responding to that evil.  i've never seen any gop rhetoric concede such a distinction; but, like the one kinzinger made for christians opposed to abortion, it's equally true.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 02:57:18 AM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #75 on: November 29, 2015, 03:12:25 AM »
So it's ironic because you're assuming Kinzinger would not say a particular thing, or you're conflating Kinzinger's views with GOP as a whole? I'm not expecting you to not use hyperbole, but I'm beginning to wonder whether you actually know what irony is.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10847
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #76 on: November 29, 2015, 04:08:15 AM »
this discussion probably can't go anywhere if you really believe that islam is an ideology of global domination because the koran says so.
If you'd like to propose an alternative standard for establishing what Islam is, you're welcome to try. But yeah, I doubt you'll be able to get anywhere there without making up a new Islam.

it also can't go anywhere if you're unwilling to entertain the possibility that the decision to massacre an abortion clinic maybe intersects with christianity and the bible at some point.
I'm happy to entertain the possibility. I'm not happy to assume it and take it for granted while the bodies are still warm. We're also discussing Republicans, not Christianity. Sure, they "intersect" to some extent, but the focus is important.

whoops, i almost missed the best part: you're doing the ironic thing right here in this very paragra ph.  you're saying that in one corner we have the most violent subset of islam, and in the other corner we have the total population of peaceful adherents and few wackos.  why does christianity get to count all of its peaceful adherents in its "corner," but islam's corner is only represented by the most violent folks you could pick out of the whole?
My correction on Christianity vs GOP still stands. I will take the liberty to assume that you'd make the same point anyway. If that's incorrect, ignore the rest of this paragraph. I will also apply a filter to your hyperbole ("Islam's corner is only represented by the most violent folks you could pick out of the whole" becomes "the attention given to mujahideen is undue and unfairly disadvantageous to peaceful self-identifying Muslims") to attempt to fish out some semi-reasonable point there.

To answer your question with the above revisions: The two are fundamentally different in their core tenets. The Koran is the final authority on the tenets of Islam. Conservatism doesn't really have an ultimate authority. One is a religion, and one that's (relative to other religions) not very open to interpretation, while the other is a political stance. The latter is much more flexible, while Islam is largely inseparable from the Koran.

no, but i'm willing to be wrong about things.  it's no big deal.
You're doing an extremely bad job of demonstrating that. Just look at your responses to Blanko.

]in this case we're all going a bit overboard since i figured it would obvious that i was being at least somewhat flippant in my assessment that it was literally the most ironic thing to ever happen in the history of everything.  it probably wasn't.
It was quite clear [to me] what you were trying to say. That said, I still think you're horribly wrong. There's nothing surprising, controversial, ironic, hypocritical or whatever going on here. As usual, liberals decided to turn a tragedy into their usual "lol Republicans are the biggest terrorist group in America xDDDD" shtick, and Republicans have to defend themselves. How is this ironic? If you think this kind of attempts at saving face are "ironic", then surely the same goes for the accusations?

also, i agree that it's not true that literally every republican wants to murder every muslim alive today or whatever y'all are saying my argument is.  i sort of can't believe that i have to point that out, but here we are.
I already said what my understanding of your argument is, and you agreed that I had it [kinda, sorta] right.

it certainly doesn't delineate violent extremists from non-violent extremists like they're doing here with christians.
At this point, it's clear that you're trying to conflate "Republicans", "Christians" and "Planned Parenthood opponents".

Justify this.


almost.  i'm comparing muslims with extremist views to christians with extremist views.  you're saying it like i'm comparing muslims to republicans.
Well, yes. You linked to a video of a Republican talking about Republicans. You're the only person who mentioned Christianity, and you only mentioned it this late in the discussion. You're making up the contents of a video and then calling your own fantasy ironic. That doesn't strengthen your argument, it weakens it.

here's what i'm saying: both christianity and islam have fundamentalist/extremist subsets.
The sizes and impacts of each subset are absolutely crucial here. Unsurprisingly, you chose to entirely omit that. Once we start seeing vigilante western Christian groups crashing into buildings in Saudi Arabia and blowing themselves up in Turkey trying to kill as many people as they can, I might start taking your point more seriously. Of course, that's never going to happen, because western culture does not rely on the Koran.

religious fundamentalism/extremism does not necessitate belief in violence in either religion.  that extremism does not necessitate belief in violence in christianity is a delineation that i do not think he gop is generally willing to apply to islam, even though it's valid.  this, to me, is ironic; i would expect someone who makes that delineation once to make it in all cases.  it's the opposite of what i expect.
Yeah, I suppose if you ignore a whole lot of reality, that kind of makes sense.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 04:15:23 AM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #77 on: November 29, 2015, 04:11:06 AM »
So it's ironic because you're assuming Kinzinger would not say a particular thing, or you're conflating Kinzinger's views with GOP as a whole? I'm not expecting you to not use hyperbole, but I'm beginning to wonder whether you actually know what irony is.

it's not possible for me to demonstrate in this thread that kinzinger doesn't believe something or didn't say something.  you, though, can demonstrate my error with a single quote.   since the gop is, by definition, a political party whose operational goal is to unify like-minded politicians into a single platform, i don't think it's super unreasonable to suppose that his view of islam is relatively aligned with gop rhetoric as a whole.

whatever he personally believes isn't what i find ironic.  i'm talking about gop rhetoric, not kinzinger's personal beliefs.

irony is often defined as the opposite of what's expected.  in one sense, it's not ironic at all for a gop lawmaker to defend the christian beliefs of his constituents.  to me, though, the irony is that a member of a group known for failing to delineate between violent and nonviolent islamists in the best case, and outright castigating those who suggest such a distinction in the worst case, is advocating for such a distinction when it involves a different religion.  it's ironic to me because i think the situations are nearly identical (and the differences superfluous).

in other words, all else equal, i would expect people who say, "many people share the underlying political/religious/social beliefs of this terrorist while also explicitly rejecting violence as justifiable or moral, and these two groups should not be conflated with one another" to advocate such a view regardless of the political/religious/social beliefs of the terrorist.  that the gop does not is the opposite of what i expect, so i find it ironic.

i'm seriously running out of ways to explain it.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10847
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #78 on: November 29, 2015, 04:18:45 AM »
kinzinger is acting as a christian apologist.
An argument from false premise is not particularly useful from a pragmatic standpoint, even if it can be technically valid.

in other words, all else equal, i would expect people who say, "many people share the underlying political/religious/social beliefs of this terrorist while also explicitly rejecting violence as justifiable or moral, and these two groups should not be conflated with one another" to advocate such a view regardless of the political/religious/social beliefs of the terrorist.  that the gop does not is the opposite of what i expect, so i find it ironic.
And why do you focus your flak on Republicans? Democrats do the same thing.

Christian no want bake gay cake? Bad.
Muslim no want handle pork? Good.

How very "ironic" that you would rant and rave about "delineation" or whatever you want to call it in one case, but not the other. Nice sarcasm, bro (◕‿◕✿)
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 04:21:33 AM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #79 on: November 29, 2015, 04:30:55 AM »
So it's ironic because you're assuming Kinzinger would not say a particular thing, or you're conflating Kinzinger's views with GOP as a whole? I'm not expecting you to not use hyperbole, but I'm beginning to wonder whether you actually know what irony is.

it's not possible for me to demonstrate in this thread that kinzinger doesn't believe something or didn't say something.  you, though, can demonstrate my error with a single quote.   since the gop is, by definition, a political party whose operational goal is to unify like-minded politicians into a single platform, i don't think it's super unreasonable to suppose that his view of islam is relatively aligned with gop rhetoric as a whole.

whatever he personally believes isn't what i find ironic.  i'm talking about gop rhetoric, not kinzinger's personal beliefs.

irony is often defined as the opposite of what's expected.  in one sense, it's not ironic at all for a gop lawmaker to defend the christian beliefs of his constituents.  to me, though, the irony is that a member of a group known for failing to delineate between violent and nonviolent islamists in the best case, and outright castigating those who suggest such a distinction in the worst case, is advocating for such a distinction when it involves a different religion.  it's ironic to me because i think the situations are nearly identical (and the differences superfluous).

in other words, all else equal, i would expect people who say, "many people share the underlying political/religious/social beliefs of this terrorist while also explicitly rejecting violence as justifiable or moral, and these two groups should not be conflated with one another" to advocate such a view regardless of the political/religious/social beliefs of the terrorist.  that the gop does not is the opposite of what i expect, so i find it ironic.

i'm seriously running out of ways to explain it.

So you are conflating Kinzinger's views with GOP's. Got it.

In any case, what you're describing is not irony. The term you're actually looking for is "double standard". The best thing you could have done is say "okay i didnt literally mean it and i cant believe i have to explain that", except in a context that's actually appropriate.