Originally posted by royalchickenTalking with you about anything is an argument, not to mention a royal pain. I quit....goodby.....no more.......you're just wasting everyone's time.
Actually, you have yet to make any arguments in any posts on any forums I have seen.
To clarify what I mean by this, how do you define 'argument'?
Originally posted by Dodger11It's much better to argue with black people right Dodger? They are much easier because they are so dumb. Wasn't that what you said?
Talking with you about anything is an argument, not to mention a royal pain. I quit....goodby.....no more.......you're just wasting everyone's time.
Originally posted by Dodger11Interesting. So you're suggesting that if a discussion involves me then it is an argument? Does the converse hold?
Talking with you about anything is an argument, not to mention a royal pain. I quit....goodby.....no more.......you're just wasting everyone's time.
Side question: What's the Latin for the inference rule embodied by the following syllogism?
"If a conversation includes RC, it is an argument. This conversation involves RC. Therefore it is an argument."
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThere is no such link. The article I quote reflects the opinion of the article's author (Richard Ingram, himself referring to an article by Patrick Cockburn) about Sistani's outlook and its likely implication. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that statements by Sistani himself were being reported.
Please provide a link saying that Sistani believes that chess playing WILL be banned by the government of Iraq. The link that was provided (and others notably the article on MSN "What Sistani wants"😉 say that Sistani objects to c ...[text shortened]... anti-Islam hysteria that seems so prevalent among many Westerners.
However, given that (a) Sistani is likely to loom large in Iraq's post-election political scene, and (b) he condemns chess as "absolutely forbidden", chess players there might well have to push pawns behind closed doors.
I don't think that regarding the banning of chess on moral or religious ground as ridiculous is symptomatic of anti-Islamic hysteria (even if the thread as a whole is). Rather, it's symptomatic of sanity.
1 edit
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI would also find the banning of chess on religious grounds as ridiculous. However, you are jumping to the assumption that just because Sistani believes that chess is forbidden under Islam, that he would insist that such a ban be included in the fundamental law of Iraq. While it is true that Sistani is an Islamic Fundamentalist and believes that Iraq should be governed by Islamic principles, to say that he necessarily believes that every tenet of Islam MUST be incorporated into the criminal law of Iraq is simply unjustified and, in my view, borders on hysteria. My example of fortune telling being a capital crime is on point; we have our own Christian Fundamentalists here who exercise political power, but as of yet, their has been no call to ban astrology columns (at least no "serious" ones).
There is no such link. The article I quote reflects the opinion of the article's author (Richard Ingram, himself referring to an article by Patrick Cockburn) about Sistani's outlook and its likely implication. I'm sorry if I gave th ...[text shortened]... if the thread as a whole is). Rather, it's symptomatic of sanity.
I again stand by my statement that to conclude from the extremely limited evidence at hand that Sistani "will" ban chess in Iraq is unwarranted. And the fervor with which it was adopted by our most vocal resident racist and hatemonger shows why jumping to conclusions in such matters is a dangerous thing given the prevalence of hatred against all things Islam held by a depressing number of Westerners.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's just en example of things that should give supporters of topplling the Baathist government pause to rethink that support. Just who and what do they think Saddam was repressing?
I would also find the banning of chess on religious grounds as ridiculous. However, you are jumping to the assumption that just because Sistani believes that chess is forbidden under Islam, that he would insist that such a ban be included in the fundamental law of Iraq. While it is true that Sistani is an Islamic Fundamentalist and believes that Ir ...[text shortened]... ven the prevalence of hatred against all things Islam held by a depressing number of Westerners.
Originally posted by royalchickenpetitio principii ?
Interesting. So you're suggesting that if a discussion involves me then it is an argument? Does the converse hold?
Side question: What's the Latin for the inference rule embodied by the following syllogism?
"If a conversation includes RC, it is an argument. This conversation involves RC. Therefore it is an argument."
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not jumping to any conclusions. I'm reporting the opinion of a columnist. Given the history of Islamic regimes, however, the possibility does arise that chess may be banned in Iraq. It depends on how secular the resulting state will be, and how much power the Shias will have, which is difficult to predict right now, at least for me, but it seems they'll be getting a large piece of the political pie. If an Islamic state, it will definitely consist of many things of which I disapprove (as it would if it were any sort of fundamentalist state, such as Christian one), even if a relative moderate like Sistani leads it. I don't think my disapproval constitutes irrational Islamophobia.
I would also find the banning of chess on religious grounds as ridiculous. However, you are jumping to the assumption that just because Sistani believes that chess is forbidden under Islam, that he would insist that such a ban be included in the fundamental law of Iraq. While it is true that Sistani is an Islamic Fundamentalist and believes that Ir ...[text shortened]... ven the prevalence of hatred against all things Islam held by a depressing number of Westerners.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI suggest you re-read your first two posts in this thread, which clearly indicated your agreement with the author of the article that chess "will" be banned in Iraq. You are still jumping to the conclusion that just because Sistani believes that chess violates Islam that he will insist that chess be banned in Iraq. There is simply insufficient evidence to reach that conclusion so the wholehearted argeement that it is a certainty that this is Sistani's personal position is irrational.
I'm not jumping to any conclusions. I'm reporting the opinion of a columnist. Given the history of Islamic regimes, however, the possibility does arise that chess may be banned in Iraq. It depends on how secular the resulting state will be, and how much power the Shias will have, which is difficult to predict right now, at least for me, but it seems t ...[text shortened]... derate like Sistani leads it. I don't think my disapproval constitutes irrational Islamophobia.