Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Sassan K. on June 30, 2011 at 12:31pm

I think I confused you with another poster. I didn't mean to call you a self-hating masochist; I apologize. I meant that to 2-3 other posters and I confused you with them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on June 30, 2011 at 1:31pm

You are like a parody of yourself.  I enjoy it, though.  It's amusing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ryan E. Hoffman on June 30, 2011 at 11:45am

Mark, all good points. I guess my problem is with the attitude. You can argue and fight to defend the position, but I've seen at least five or six ad hominems in the brief time I've been on this discussion thread. I havent even looked through them all yet, because frankly, his responses have been so virulent. I think a good debate has a give and take on both sides and each come out having learned a little more, and the spirit of the argument is in play. 

 

So, perhaps I should modify clause two to clarify the conflicting feelings I have regarding this discussion: 

 

1) Sassan's desire to win a debate trumps any care for civility or self-reflection. That is a trait I do not wish to have. etc, etc.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sassan K. on June 30, 2011 at 11:48am

I am not here to make friends. :) I am here to discuss issues; particularly issues of such vital importance as of this one.

And Ryan, when one claims that the Muslims don't take the Quran and Hadith seriously; and that Islamic oppression is due to western culture, there is no alternative than to attack such individuals positions and naivety ferociously.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ryan E. Hoffman on June 30, 2011 at 11:56am

Well, one of those two things is true, and it's not the part about discussing the issues. 

 

It seems as though you are here to verbally slam anyone who doesn't agree with you and then declare yourself the victor of a discussion (for which I didn't know a victor was possible) repeatedly only to come back and slam them over and over again. This is not limited to this discussion. I have noticed this behavior over several threads. It's become a trend. Forget about making friends, I don't even care to have discussions with you. I posted what I posted as a heads up that if your behavior continues, you'll find yourself posting to an empty thread sooner rather than later. It's not worth my time to continue this any further. Take my two cents or leave it, I don't care.

 

"there is no alternative to attack such individuals positions and naivety ferociously."

Aaaaand I rest my case. Can we make the three o'clock tea time, your honor?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on June 30, 2011 at 1:27pm

Ryan, have you joined the long list of people on T|A that Sassan has labeled as "naive" yet?   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ryan E. Hoffman on June 30, 2011 at 11:46am

And yes, Jared does share a large burden of the responsibility for walking into a verbal battle guns blazing without knowing the foundations of what he's talking about.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mo Trauen on June 30, 2011 at 5:38pm

I don't know of any democracy that doesn't reserve certain issues from the vicissitudes of the mob--such as religious freedom.  You sound like an American Fundie defending theocracy in the U.S.

Permalink Reply by Sassan K. on July 1, 2011 at 6:29am

If muslims become a majority, and that majority collectively votes in the West for the introduction of sharia principles in law, then that's democracy isn't it?   Don't you support democracy?

So, when I say you are a self-hating masochist I mean it. You would even allow the possibility of Shariah?? Do you even know what Shariah is?? IT is law based on "Allah's principles" and therefore there would be no more democracy. That democratic movement and revolution in Iran in 1979' worked quite well for freedom and democracy, didn't it??

Permalink Reply by Nolan Warner on July 1, 2011 at 11:03am

Jared you asked who had voted for a theocracy: Iran is one and if you want to be loose about the term Nigeria, Vatican City, and Tibet (if you accept the Dalai Lama as head of state).  Israel kind of qualifies since the state is founded on a religion but it is a very diluted form athough it is very tough to see anyone besides a Jew being elected to higher office (first to admit I am not up on the Jewish constitution).

Permalink Reply by Sassan K. on July 1, 2011 at 4:50pm

Jared, I think he is referring to 1979' Iranian revolution and the vote immediately afterwards for the Islamic Republic.

Permalink Reply by Nolan Warner on July 1, 2011 at 5:32pm

Yup that is right.  After the overthrow of the Shah the electorate overwhelming voted for an theocracy.  As far as rigged elections go..religion does not have to be involved George Bush springs to mind LOL.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 16
• 17
• 18
• 19
• 20
• …
• 29
• Next ›
• Page