|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 16 2015 12:02 IgnE wrote:
Anyone who uses the phrase "No True Scotsman" is a bumbling parrot.
Trump is the man. I hope he gets the nomination.
lol wtf. What is so wrong with what I said? It just reminds me of how people keep insisting ISIS aren't Muslim. "No, Islam is all about peace, these dudes aren't Muslim" is just ridiculous because it is attempting to enforce strict definitions.
|
On December 16 2015 12:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2015 12:02 IgnE wrote:
Anyone who uses the phrase "No True Scotsman" is a bumbling parrot.
Trump is the man. I hope he gets the nomination. lol wtf. What is so wrong with what I said? It just reminds me of how people keep insisting ISIS aren't Muslim. "No, Islam is all about peace, these dudes aren't Muslim" is just ridiculous because it is attempting to enforce strict definitions.
No, that's not what people are saying.
They're saying that the definition of a caliphate is a state universally supported by all Muslims. Historically and in the faith itself. If anything you're making the no true scotsman argument by saying ISIS is a caliphate since you're saying everyone who doesn't support it isn't a real Muslim.
I love that they're asking Rand so many questions but why on earth are they asking Rand so many questions?
|
Jesus, punch the Russians in the nose. Wow.
Christie is going to take the country to war. Lol.
|
dang, paul just went in on christie
|
Ben Carson asking for a moment of silence was even more fake than Donald Trump's hair.
|
Rofl, Paul is great at using current events against the other people there.
|
Why does Jeb keep mentioning "the shows," is this something Trump said?
|
On December 16 2015 12:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2015 12:09 Mohdoo wrote:On December 16 2015 12:02 IgnE wrote:
Anyone who uses the phrase "No True Scotsman" is a bumbling parrot.
Trump is the man. I hope he gets the nomination. lol wtf. What is so wrong with what I said? It just reminds me of how people keep insisting ISIS aren't Muslim. "No, Islam is all about peace, these dudes aren't Muslim" is just ridiculous because it is attempting to enforce strict definitions. No, that's not what people are saying. They're saying that the definition of a caliphate is a state universally supported by all Muslims. Historically and in the faith itself. If anything you're making the no true scotsman argument by saying ISIS is a caliphate since you're saying everyone who doesn't support it isn't a real Muslim.
So that would mean it would have to be 100%? Was there ever a caliphate? I can't imagine there was ever a time when every single person who identified as Muslim universally supported a single government. So then what, 99%? My point is that it feels like another misguided attempt to allow Islam to save face and not admit that ISIS' interpretation of Islam is significant and needs to be accepted as another interpretation. We don't get anywhere by just writing ISIS off as loons. It doesn't help us better understand what may contribute to organizations like ISIS. And while it is convenient to blame it all on Western imperialism, I think it is intellectually dishonest when people pretend Islamic faith does not even slightly lend itself to some of the things we see ISIS do.
I'm not saying ISIS represents 100% of Muslims. I am saying that defining caliphate to be something that never has and never will exist is not constructive.
|
Bush has definitely improved over the last few debate performances. If he'd started off this good in the first he might've been the frontrunner at this point.
EDIT: Aaaaaand Trump kicks him in the crotch the only way Trump can.
|
Bush has one hell of a non-answer there.
|
On December 16 2015 12:16 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2015 12:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 16 2015 12:09 Mohdoo wrote:On December 16 2015 12:02 IgnE wrote:
Anyone who uses the phrase "No True Scotsman" is a bumbling parrot.
Trump is the man. I hope he gets the nomination. lol wtf. What is so wrong with what I said? It just reminds me of how people keep insisting ISIS aren't Muslim. "No, Islam is all about peace, these dudes aren't Muslim" is just ridiculous because it is attempting to enforce strict definitions. No, that's not what people are saying. They're saying that the definition of a caliphate is a state universally supported by all Muslims. Historically and in the faith itself. If anything you're making the no true scotsman argument by saying ISIS is a caliphate since you're saying everyone who doesn't support it isn't a real Muslim. So that would mean it would have to be 100%? Was there ever a caliphate? I can't imagine there was ever a time when every single person who identified as Muslim universally supported a single government. So then what, 99%? My point is that it feels like another misguided attempt to allow Islam to save face and not admit that ISIS' interpretation of Islam is significant and needs to be accepted as another interpretation. We don't get anywhere by just writing ISIS off as loons. It doesn't help us better understand what may contribute to organizations like ISIS. And while it is convenient to blame it all on Western imperialism, I think it is intellectually dishonest when people pretend Islamic faith does not even slightly lend itself to some of the things we see ISIS do. I'm not saying ISIS represents 100% of Muslims. I am saying that defining caliphate to be something that never has and never will exist is not constructive.
Well for the first two in order to be a Muslim you had to be in the Caliphate. This is not the PC movement trying to create a new definition, it's the actual definition of the thing defined by Muhammad. Call it a radical Islamic dictatorship, because that's what it is.
|
I don't understand why Bush picked a fight there.
|
Trump just wrecking Jeb. Real strong Jeb.
|
Who is still supporting Bush? How is he 3%
|
On December 16 2015 12:19 IgnE wrote:
Trump just wrecking Jeb. Real strong Jeb.
Yeah, totally unnecessary, too. Trump's point was actually about fairness to the other candidates.
|
On December 16 2015 12:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2015 12:16 Mohdoo wrote:On December 16 2015 12:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 16 2015 12:09 Mohdoo wrote:On December 16 2015 12:02 IgnE wrote:
Anyone who uses the phrase "No True Scotsman" is a bumbling parrot.
Trump is the man. I hope he gets the nomination. lol wtf. What is so wrong with what I said? It just reminds me of how people keep insisting ISIS aren't Muslim. "No, Islam is all about peace, these dudes aren't Muslim" is just ridiculous because it is attempting to enforce strict definitions. No, that's not what people are saying. They're saying that the definition of a caliphate is a state universally supported by all Muslims. Historically and in the faith itself. If anything you're making the no true scotsman argument by saying ISIS is a caliphate since you're saying everyone who doesn't support it isn't a real Muslim. So that would mean it would have to be 100%? Was there ever a caliphate? I can't imagine there was ever a time when every single person who identified as Muslim universally supported a single government. So then what, 99%? My point is that it feels like another misguided attempt to allow Islam to save face and not admit that ISIS' interpretation of Islam is significant and needs to be accepted as another interpretation. We don't get anywhere by just writing ISIS off as loons. It doesn't help us better understand what may contribute to organizations like ISIS. And while it is convenient to blame it all on Western imperialism, I think it is intellectually dishonest when people pretend Islamic faith does not even slightly lend itself to some of the things we see ISIS do. I'm not saying ISIS represents 100% of Muslims. I am saying that defining caliphate to be something that never has and never will exist is not constructive. Well for the first two in order to be a Muslim you had to be in the Caliphate. This is not the PC movement trying to create a new definition, it's the actual definition of the thing defined by Muhammad. Call it a radical Islamic dictatorship, because that's what it is.
How about after the first 2? Not legitimate? What is the use in saying those were not caliphates? What is being protected by keeping ISIS from being labeled a caliphate?
|
"You can't insult your way to the presidency."
"Well it's working."
Is that really desirable, Mr. Trump?
On December 16 2015 12:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2015 12:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 16 2015 12:16 Mohdoo wrote:On December 16 2015 12:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 16 2015 12:09 Mohdoo wrote:On December 16 2015 12:02 IgnE wrote:
Anyone who uses the phrase "No True Scotsman" is a bumbling parrot.
Trump is the man. I hope he gets the nomination. lol wtf. What is so wrong with what I said? It just reminds me of how people keep insisting ISIS aren't Muslim. "No, Islam is all about peace, these dudes aren't Muslim" is just ridiculous because it is attempting to enforce strict definitions. No, that's not what people are saying. They're saying that the definition of a caliphate is a state universally supported by all Muslims. Historically and in the faith itself. If anything you're making the no true scotsman argument by saying ISIS is a caliphate since you're saying everyone who doesn't support it isn't a real Muslim. So that would mean it would have to be 100%? Was there ever a caliphate? I can't imagine there was ever a time when every single person who identified as Muslim universally supported a single government. So then what, 99%? My point is that it feels like another misguided attempt to allow Islam to save face and not admit that ISIS' interpretation of Islam is significant and needs to be accepted as another interpretation. We don't get anywhere by just writing ISIS off as loons. It doesn't help us better understand what may contribute to organizations like ISIS. And while it is convenient to blame it all on Western imperialism, I think it is intellectually dishonest when people pretend Islamic faith does not even slightly lend itself to some of the things we see ISIS do. I'm not saying ISIS represents 100% of Muslims. I am saying that defining caliphate to be something that never has and never will exist is not constructive. Well for the first two in order to be a Muslim you had to be in the Caliphate. This is not the PC movement trying to create a new definition, it's the actual definition of the thing defined by Muhammad. Call it a radical Islamic dictatorship, because that's what it is. How about after the first 2? Not legitimate? What is the use in saying those were not caliphates? What is being protected by keeping ISIS from being labeled a caliphate?
The only thing being protected is not implying they have the support of all Muslims, PART OF THE DEFINITION OF A CALIPHATE. You're the one changing the definition. Not anyone else. A caliphate is not just a country ruled by Sharia law.
|
yeah the caliphate represented all muslims back in its day, calling isis THE caliphate is agreeing with isis that they represent all muslims.
|
On another note, Cruz and Rubio appear to absolutely LOATHE each other. Almost as much as Rand and Trump.
Aren't there constant terror attacks in Israel regardless of their wall?
|
I suspect that the fact checkers are going to have a field day with Rubio after this debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
