2 edits
-Removed-You seem to have twisted the facts about our discussion in an attempt to support some of the assertions you've made here. So let's start at the beginning and take this one step at a time. Let's look at what you ACTUALLY said in your first response to me:
"How is quoting Islamic law bigoted? Posters in this thread and countless other quote OT law, are they bigoted for doing so?"
I responded as follows:
"I never said or implied that 'quoting Islamic law [is] bigoted'. No idea how anyone could reasonably draw that conclusion based on my posts. Try reading my first two posts on page one and the articles at the links provided."
Your response began as follows:
"Well it does read that way."
The fact is that it doesn't "read that way". If you disagree, feel free to reference any and all of my posts and demonstrate where I said or implied that 'quoting Islamic law [is] bigoted'.
2 edits
-Removed-Once again:
"The fact is that it doesn't 'read that way'. If you disagree, feel free to reference any and all of my posts and demonstrate where I said or implied that 'quoting Islamic law [is] bigoted'."
EDIT: BTW, if you're looking to show that you are willing and able to have a rational discussion, you're going about it all wrong.
2 edits
-Removed-It seems you still can't bring yourself to make a simple admission and leave it at that. Instead you place a condition on the admission with the clause beginning with "if". So are you actually admitting that you were way off base with your original post and the subsequent assertion that it "does read that way"? Why play the game where you'll only make the admission "if" I explain something else? It's childish.
Listen, you keep trying to make things something they're not, just as you did in your first and second responses to me. You also misrepresented the discussion we had which I'm currently attempting to set right. Instead of simply allowing me to do so, you chime in with "I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to do as you seem clear in your own mind about it" as if I'm the one in the wrong here.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt's also clear as a bell you will never give your real opinion of Sharia law. All you want to do is bring up points of debate without really debating.
It seems you still can't bring yourself to make a simple admission and leave it at that. Instead you place a condition on the admission with the clause beginning with "if". So are you actually admitting that you were way off base with your original post and the subsequent assertion that it "does read that way"? Why play the game where you'll only make the ...[text shortened]... for you to do as you seem clear in your own mind about it" as if I'm the one in the wrong here.
-Removed-Once again:
"The fact is that it doesn't 'read that way'. If you disagree, feel free to reference any and all of my posts and demonstrate where I said or implied that 'quoting Islamic law [is] bigoted'."
Yet somehow the facts show that you misrepresented our discussion. Yet somehow you're the one who continues to refuse to demonstrate where I said or implied that 'quoting Islamic law [is] bigoted'.
Curious that.
.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSo just exactly what are you bitching about then?
Once again:
"The fact is that it doesn't 'read that way'. If you disagree, feel free to reference any and all of my posts and demonstrate where I said or implied that 'quoting Islamic law [is] bigoted'."
Yet somehow the facts show that you misrepresented our discussion. Yet somehow you're the one who continues to refuse to demonstrate where I said or implied that 'quoting Islamic law [is] bigoted'.
Curious that.
.
Originally posted by sonhouseAfter having repeatedly drawn illogical conclusions, seems you know that they are unwarranted and in order to avoid admitting that you did so, you post this? Classic.
It's also clear as a bell you will never give your real opinion of Sharia law. All you want to do is bring up points of debate without really debating.
Once again:
Didn't (or don't) you work in or around science/technology? Didn't part of your work entail reasonably drawing conclusions based on facts?
Following is your first response to me:
"So I gather you heartily approve of Sharia law and the points raised by GB are never carried out in the real world."
I responded as follows:
"No idea how anyone could reasonably draw those conclusions based on my posts. Try reading my first two posts on page one and the articles at the links provided."
Quite frankly, given your background, I expected that you would have checked the facts (my posts) and realized that you don't have the facts to support your conclusions.
Instead you responded with the following which also isn't supported by the facts (my posts):
"So are you saying the points raised by GB are false, that no one does that any more?"
If you disagree, please feel free to reference any and all of my posts to demonstrate how your conclusions are warranted. I wasn't surprised at the responses of divegeester and josephw and ultimately gave up on the idea of having a rational discussion with either of them. That said, I expected better of you given your background. But then, maybe I was thinking of someone else.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneNice deflection. You still haven't provided us with what your problem was with GB's post nor have you defined your own position on Sharia law.
After having repeatedly drawn illogical conclusions, seems you know that they are unwarranted and in order to avoid admitting that you did so, you post this? Classic.
Once again:Didn't (or don't) you work in or around science/technology? Didn't part of your work entail reasonably drawing conclusions based on facts?
Following is your first ...[text shortened]... ted better of you given your background. But then, maybe I was thinking of someone else.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseSeriously? Here you continue to deflect and accuse me of deflection. You're a real piece of work.
Nice deflection. You still haven't provided us with what your problem was with GB's post nor have you defined your own position on Sharia law.
What's more, your assertion that I "still haven't provided...what [my] problem was with GB's post[s]" is not true. If you bothered to read my posts, you'd know this fact.
Are you going to once again deflect rather address the following?
Didn't (or don't) you work in or around science/technology? Didn't part of your work entail reasonably drawing conclusions based on facts?
Following is your first response to me:
"So I gather you heartily approve of Sharia law and the points raised by GB are never carried out in the real world."
I responded as follows:
"No idea how anyone could reasonably draw those conclusions based on my posts. Try reading my first two posts on page one and the articles at the links provided."
Quite frankly, given your background, I expected that you would have checked the facts (my posts) and realized that you don't have the facts to support your conclusions.
Instead you responded with the following which also isn't supported by the facts (my posts):
"So are you saying the points raised by GB are false, that no one does that any more?"
If you disagree, please feel free to reference any and all of my posts to demonstrate how your conclusions are warranted. I wasn't surprised at the responses of divegeester and josephw and ultimately gave up on the idea of having a rational discussion with either of them. That said, I expected better of you given your background. But then, maybe I was thinking of someone else.