How to hide incriminating evidence

What would be the point of denying your false claims?

I have no reason to believe that would change your point of view.

Continue drinking that poison and hoping someone else dies...best of luck with that approach.

Quote from traderNik:

: )

At least you didn't attempt to deny any of what I posted. That's refreshingly honest of you. Maybe you subconsciously take a different approach to the truth when you're posting as O777?
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
What would be the point of denying your false claims?
More...
False? You mean to say you don't agree that right-leaning Islamists have a right to their belief that those who do not accept Allah as the one God and accept the rule of Sharia law are infidels and that infidels can righteously be punished by the believers?? You don't agree that someone who says it's okay to stone a 16 year-old girl to death for flirting with a young man cannot be morally censured as long as his belief is a part of his culture??

Funny, that's what you have said here!!

The point I am making here is not really to you, but to those who seek to understand your position re: respecting the 'rights' of others. I am merely pointing out that in your view, anyone who claims a cultural imperative to act can be defended by citing that imperative, and that you believe it is wrong to say that we can judge as immoral an act carried out as a result of that imperative, simply because we do not share it.

I do not believe this post is unnecessarily argumentative; in fact, I believe it is very important for those who seek to understand your views.
 
You make a lot of false claims.

Now, if you want to continue taking that poison and wait for someone else to die...good luck with that.

Quote from traderNik:

False? You mean to say you don't agree that right-leaning Islamists have a right to their belief that those who do not accept Allah as the one God and accept the rule of Sharia law are infidels and that infidels can righteously be punished by the believers?? You don't agree that someone who says it's okay to stone a 16 year-old girl to death for flirting with a young man cannot be morally censured??


Funny, that's what you have said here!!

The point I am making here is not really to you, but to thsoe who seek to understand your position re: respecting the 'rights' of others. I am merely pointing out that in your view, anyone who claims a cultural imperative to act can be defended by citing that imperative, and that you believe it is wrong to say that we can judge as immoral an act carried out as a result of that imperative, simply because we do not share it.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
You make a lot of false claims.
More...
Which part of what I wrote above is false?

Once again, I am not trying to be unnecessarily argumentative. This thread is about your belief that terrorists should be given due process. I am trying to shed some light on that belief, by citing what you have said in the past about your feelings regarding the moral defensibility of their positions.
 
Most all of it.

Live in present time, or take that poison and wait for someone else to die...whatever you like.

Quote from traderNik:

Which part of what I wrote above is false?
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Most all of it.
More...
Okay, lets's take it one at a time. Is it false that you believe the stoning death of a 16 year-old girl for 'crimes against chastity' (flirting with a young man) cannot be morally censured - that is, do you believe it's wrong to say that such an execution is morally indefensible?

Once again, the answer speaks directly to the subject of this thread. The respondents here can't understand how you are giving so much respect to those who have openly vowed to kill us. I am trying to show them that in my view, it is not surprising at all, given what I know about your beliefs.
 
I don't think Americans like being judged by radical extremist Muslims in the middle east on the platform of their belief systems, and I don't support their judging our belief systems. It is none of their business what we do here in America as long as it doesn't impact them directly in their lives.

So why would I think it is right to judge their belief systems in the same manner?

Golden rule...

We focus on fixing our problems and making ourselves a better country full of better human beings first and foremost...let's rid ourselves of our own corruption first and defect of moral character before we take their inventory...

After that, perhaps we can focus in on what is wrong in other parts of the world.

Being "better than them" is not the same as focusing all of our efforts to be the very best we can be to ourselves and our fellow Americans...



Quote from traderNik:

Okay, lets's take it one at a time. Is it false that you believe the stoning death of a 16 year-old girl for 'crimes against chastity' (flirting with a young man) cannot be morally censured - that is, do you believe it's wrong to say that such an execution is morally indefensible?

Once again, the answer speaks directly to the subject of this thread.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
So why would I think it is right to judge their belief systems in the same manner?

Golden rule...

We focus on fixing our problems and making ourselves a better country full of better human beings first and foremost..
More...
I assume you believe that anyone who is a teacher doesn't deserve the respect that we accord another who does what the teacher teaches.

At any rate, in my opinion (and in my opinion only) that was an evasion of the question. The question was - do you believe it is morally reprehensible to stone to death a 16 year-old girl because she was flirting with a young man?

I'll drop it, because I made my point. You're a moral relativist and you believe, like most radical leftists do, that any motley crew of slobbering animals who call themselves a 'group' can claim moral rectitude in whatever they dream up as their 'belief system' and that furthermore, we here in the West must legislate ourselves in such a manner as to respect their 'beliefs' even though they are anathema to the vast majority. This is Robert Hughes' 'special interest group of one' idea.

This mindset on your part informs your comments on how terrorists who have sworn to murder me should be dealt with when they give it a shot. That is my only point.
 
I have no desire to try and change your opinion, that would not be a logical process...

If you want to continue to drink poison and wait for someone else to die...good luck with that.

The answer to your question is that it is illegal in America to stone a 16 year old girl to death.

I don't make the laws in other countries, and I don't want other countries judging our laws...

Golden rule.

I am not going to play your game, period.

You can drink some more poison if you like and keep waiting for someone else to die....

Quote from traderNik:

I assume you believe that anyone who is a teacher doesn't deserve the respect that we accord another who does what the teacher teaches.

At any rate, in my opinion (and in my opinion only) that was an evasion of the question. The question was - do you believe it is morally reprehensible to stone to death a 16 year-old girl because she was flirting with a young man?

I'll drop it, because I made my point. You're a moral relativist and you believe, like most radical leftists do, that any motley crew of slobbering animals who call themselves a 'group' can claim moral rectitude in whatever they dream up as their 'belief system' and that furthermore, we here in the West must legislate ourselves in such a manner as to respect their 'beliefs' even though they are anathema to the vast majority. This is Robert Hughes' 'special interest group of one' idea.

This mindset on your part informs your comments on how terrorists who have sworn to murder me should be dealt with when they give it a shot. That is my only point.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top