So you don't believe there is something between nothing and destroying the planet? Glad you don't make policy.
The quotes seem to be historically accurate and based upon reality. They might be better in a political setting than a religious one where the message should be about imaginary Middle Eastern religious characters.
That (*)(*)(*)(*) matters to what you supposedly want to discuss. You're still using the term extremist. Find a minute to read that (*)(*)(*)(*). Don't avoid it because it's inconvenient to you, or at least then don't pretend you're interested in discussing things. Let me know.
No it doesn't. It's posturing and I don't really care for it I don't need to read your bull(*)(*)(*)(*). And I'm not going to. So give up on that. I'm using the common definition. There is no need to labor over this. Im not, I'm simply not wasting my time with pointless crap. Let you know what? I bore of your silliness.
Language matters to most of us even if it doesn't to you, you were wrong on several counts, I showed it, you couldn't and can't respond. Amidst that, you supposedly wanted a discussion with someone who doesn't agree that Islamist extremism is dangerous. Funny thing for someone who doesn't want to waste time, in a thread that was about separate groups coming together peacefully, where your bombastic language becomes an impediment to the process. Only posturing going on is by you.
That is why I used it properly. I used the most common definition of the words. So no. I did but I don't think your capable of defending your position so you carry on and play dumb like you don't understand English. Thus making this about nothing and blaming me for it. Plain common English is not bombastic, no is the way I'm using it. I think you deliberately cased this impediment because you can't defend your position.
1.That is not the 'most common' definition. It's the one you prefer. 2. I defended my case handily. You're the one lacking the attention span to have read it, or the integrity to admit you did read it and couldn't respond. Whatever your inability, my thrashing of your abuse of language is evident; it's still right there. 3. The way you're abusing the word extremist with such a watered down meaning, runs counter to it's common usage, meaning even if you don't mean to equate individuals with terrorists, you're still doing so, and it doesn't look unintentional in the slightest. And you failed to provide an example of it when you did so with the other terms. And you've failed to show any clear division between the term extremist and those other terms, looking very much like you have no idea where to draw that line, and then had the nerve to accuse me of trying to blur lines that don't seem to exist for you. You're a long ways lost on this 'minutae', and not because it's trivial but because it's clearly beyond you. And you're boring me at this point.
Pulled it straight from the lexicon sugar. No you haven't. You just have played word games. Nothing else. You mean the way the lexicon abuses it.
Well, you pulled it from somewhere. If you wish to call yours a lexicon, I'm fine with that. The problem being, that you didn't counter what I said about you selecting the use you prefer over others. You actually just confirmed that. You are the poster child for projection. You accused me previously of trying to trap you in a straw man, which is funny for two reasons. A straw man isn't for trapping people in, and a straw man is exactly what you used to insinuate yourself in this exchange with me through this thread. I had just commented to nuance the message of 'they're a threat, we need to stop them', and your response to that was to ask me if I didn't think Islamic radicals were a threat. That was back in post #22, if you need the reminder. You also accused me of posturing, which would be to 'behave in a way that is intended to impress or mislead others.' Interesting charge when all I've done is respond directly to you, while you do animated smileys and act like you're on some 'above it all' intellectual perch and being a smug prig all the while. Now one that you didn't accuse me of, was an appeal to or argument from authority, so good job there. Much appreciated. You do understand that this is what you did by saying you 'pulled it from the lexicon', right? You do understand that an authority in any case doesn't have to be a person specifically, correct? Now for the latest thing you did accuse me of, which was playing word games. Well, you really messed up this time. I wasn't playing word games. I was exposing yours. Takes this and cram it up your lexicon: Your use of the term extremist, which is just a person who holds extreme views, as opposed to the usage that is conflated with terrorists so often, allows you to label anyone you disagree with this label, and the label is based on your assessment of what is extreme, and not the merits of the actual view. This becomes more problematic when we take into account what you appear to believe constitutes an extreme view. And we'll go back to post #45, with your direct response to my saying that there is no such thingas an atheist extremist for a clue of what that is: Extreme to you is anything not middle of the road or perfectly centrist, and not by any appearance of objective standard, just by your say so, like your preferred meanings and usage of these highly charged terms, and what's the purpose? I guess I'll throw a second uninstigated accusation your way. You want the ability to label someone as an extremist, possibly hoping that it will be heard as a nefarious thing at the level of a terrorist, without having to commit yourself to an opinion, and without having to be accountable for that opinion. You want the ability to discredit individuals and groups with impunity and avoid having to avail yourself of being inordinately bombastic and inflammatory. You want the ability to demagogue at will and avoid fallout from it. You don't have my permission to do this in my presence or in my direction without it being pointed out. You, in doing this, are one of the great dividers of society. This cowardly and craven practice of painting with the broadest of brushes is dangerous at this point in history, and people need to be aware of it, to defend themselves from it, and to call people like you out on it. This is the real problem in trying to unite disparate groups against a common enemy; there needs to be a common enemy in the first place. Not one some (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) on the internet, under the cowardly auspices of anonymity, fabricates for their own whimsy. You are a part of the problem, not the solution. Try and defend yourself if you like, or do one of your condescending insults where you pretend to be above it all. Make sure you put an animated emoji so others will know what an academic powerhouse you are. I'm done humoring you. (*)(*)(*)(*) off.
You're right. I have no use for someone who utilizes weasel words. There's a large group of people here. Talk to one of them if they'll bother with you. Talking about talking isn't on topic either. Our exchange has run its course. You're interested in what I have to say? Read what I already wrote, or admit you read it already, and address what I said. Otherwise, we'll go our separate ways and that's that.
Has the notion crossed your mind that the one saying some third party is the enemy might also be the one that hangs you given the first opportunity?
