Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
The argument was resolved - by logic that you were unable to counter. Shall we return to that dilemma as expressed by Popper? This was not an issue of whether the glass is half full or half empty. It was an issue of whether to sacrifice yourself in order to leave the other the freedom to destroy freedom, and not hinder him - since that would be limiting "freedom". That simple. In other words, it was whether or not to commit suicide.
|
Thanks. That's the best laugh I've had all week. Your selective memory is a wonderful thing.
I entered that argument with a simple contention: that unless some existing law was broken the muslims had a right to build a mosque anywhere the zoning commission said they could. You turned it into a diatribe on Islam in general, using Popper to prove points that had nothing to do with that thread. Basically you shifted the argument to your pet point, started in on my "absolutism", and when I explained that my statement wasn't a stopping, but a starting point, went into pages-long diatribes about how I wanted to hand over everything we hold dear to the great-evil-of-our-time.
First, you never proved that Islam is going to destroy us all. Second, you never noticed the times I agreed with you, but continued to railroad the discussion into what you wanted, not what was. Third, and most important, you never once discussed the thread topic, which was whether they should be allowed to build that mosque.
So yes, you won. You proved absolutely that you are a master at changing the topic to what you want it to be, creating a straw-man argument that you can then destroy and claim victory, and carefully not mentioning the original topic.
That sounds just like your new sig.