polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 16^th, 2019 at 12:57pm:


Have you ever met one of these "illogical Muslims"?

We are up to 26 pages in now, and you are still trying to BS your way out of this, when you could prove me wrong so easily, if I was wrong.

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2019 at 1:06pm:


FD why is it you feel so compelled to reply, yet say so little of worth?

You are wrong by default because your "logic" in the OP (which you now hillariously think somehow isn't logic) is such BS - as has been demonstrated ad-infinitum.

For example you can't even explain why some muslims can be "morally flexible" regarding what you consider a clear command in the Quran, but never ever regarding a matter of heresay about Muhammad - that isn't even part of Islamic doctrine. You've been ducking and weaving from this question for at least 2 pages now. I wonder why?

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2019 at 1:06pm:


I don't need to prove negatives FD.

You came up with the most utterly laughable claim that all muslims support genocide - without a shred of evidence except to quote what I said (and apparently thats good enough for what 1.5 billion other people think). The rest is based solely on laughable logic - that you now hillariously think is not logic.

As I keep saying, had you said "it makes sense for muslims to support genocide" or something along those lines, we wouldn't be up to 26 pages of you flailing around like an incoherent drunk, absurdly thinking you are right by default until I prove a negative.

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2019 at 4:27pm:


Nope. You didn't. You are confused about which of the many questions you haven't answered. The only part of my critique you "addressed" (using the term most generously), was the contention that not all muslims believe the genocide happened. And that amounted entirely to the completely inane kindergarten non-answer "because... gandalf". You have never addressed the glaring inconsistency of maintaining that muslims can have "moral flexibility" about chapter 9 which enables them to believe in a peaceful and tolerant Islam - but can never have any flexibility about a matter of hearsay about the prophet that is not even part of Islamic doctrine (unlike chapter 9). But if and when you do, I imagine it will be another inane "because... gandalf" retort.

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2019 at 4:27pm:


Your flailing around for 26 pages has been a classic case of the "argument from ignorance" or "argument from incredulity" fallacy. You cannot fathom how muslims could not support genocide, and you articulate this through the logic you present in the OP. You then conclude that because you see no evidence of muslims rejecting/renouncing genocide - or more accurately, because you cannot comprehend *HOW* muslims could possibly reject/renounce genocide, this means that therefore all muslims, every single man woman and child from all corners of the globe, must support it.

This is your premise, and you spend the next 26 pages acting out this logical fallacy - saying that it is true by default (thread title), and remains true until proven otherwise. This is what I mean by you demanding I 'prove a negative' -your contention that it is true until I disprove it - and that it is incumbent upon me to provide that 'disproof' before your claim can be considered false. Whereas in reality, the opposite is true. Without a shred of evidence that 1.5 billion people think like a mindless collective on this one point of hearsay, your claim in the thread title is wrong by default, until such time as you can provide evidence that this is they way "all muslims" (not 1, or 5, but 1.5 billion) think. Which you obviously can't.

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2019 at 10:05pm:


You have an interesting interpretation of "lengthy response" FD - you haven't written any response longer than 2 lines since I last asked you - which was reply# 364 if you really want to be pedantic about it. Was the answer "because all those muslims think like gandalf"? Is it ok if I call that the "mindless collective" argument?

Is your overall argument still "All muslims support genocide - until otherwise proven"? And are you still maintaining that is definitely not a "negative proof" argument?

No I was not wrong FD - you "considered" them by explaining that they do nothing but think exactly like gandalf - which is not really considering them at all (as real humans with agency). Its why I call it the "mindless collective" argument - or in other words a non-argument.

Do you still consider a two line quip a "lengthy response"? Or did you not actually mean the actual last time I asked you?

Its late FD, get some sleep and put some more thought into your posts tomorrow.

You don't have to reply just for the sake of replying - while saying nothing at all.

Try quoting full sentences FD if you are going to honestly depict what I actually say.

I'll give you a hint: when I say "considered" in inverted commas, its a bit of a giveaway that its not really "considering" at all. Or you could just quote the words in the sentence that you ommitted straight after - that literally say exactly that.

Oh look FD still swooping in for a "last word" reply that he hasn't thought about.