From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Wed Feb 06 2002 - 23:01:55 MST
On 6 Feb 2002 at 14:07, athe nonrex wrote:
>
> [athenonrex]
> 1) the reason that islamic people are doing this is because they are in islamic countries. if they were christian contries, we would blame the christians.
>
> 2)i did not imply that the menonites do or did blow shit up, but i used a literary term called an "analogy" you should look it up some time.
>
> [joedees]
> But in fact Christians are NOT doing this in the contemporary world;
> Muslims are.
> You used what is commonly referred to as a bad analogy; it is bad
> because the analogue does not map onto the referent.
> Your argument is simply erroneous.
>
> [athenonrex]
> i said analogy when i ment another word, but i was trying to multi task, something i have failed to master when it comes to complex thoughts. what i was doing with comparing the mennonites to the islamic fundies was decimating the arguement that muslim fundies have a disposition aginst
technology, with the exeption of destroying the "infedels." that was a bad aguement you made, because you sited the fact that the majority of muslim countries are technologically inferior.
>
But far from your purported 'decmation', you failed to even address the point. The
Mennonites are anti-technology all around; the Muslims are pro-technology when it
provides more efficient ways to kill infidels.
>
> and i am not disputing that the muslims are the ones doing this, and the christians are not. what i am disputing is your position that and given religion, in the same situation witht the dictorial leaders and the starving, poor, dying citizens, would or at the least could produce the same
effect. of course, there are a handful of religions that it would be more of a nusance the rouse the darkerside of, buddism for example.
>
Many Central African and Central American are both poorer and ruled by despots, but
you don't see THEM fomenting jihad against the 'great satan.' It is difficult to think of a
poor and despot-ruled islamic nation that is NOT doing this.
>
> my arguement is not "simply erroneus," you are just, i believe anyway, too blinded with the ameican tunnel vision syndrome to see beyond the edges of confined sight. large, superfulus, extravagant words are what the speach writers of polititians use to misdirect the masses from the truth. words
like "erroneus," "contemporary," and "analogue." words that are painfully "educated" to produce several effects among the listener: to make the man seem educated,for one, to hide the truth with polysylabic words that are esoteric in nature, when a monosylabic word will suffice. in other words, to
use longs, decietful words, when short, truthful ones will work just as well.
>
Anti-intellectualism would indeed seem to suit your limitations. I use the words I use
because they best fit the double exigency I demand of my posts; precision and
concision.
>
> your move.
>
Why don't you do everyone a favor and wrap your text? failing to do so makes it tedious
to read, and even more tedious to answer.
> _____________________________________________________________
> --->Get your free email @godisdead.com
> Made possible by Fade to Black Comedy Magazine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:42 MDT