[TteFAboB]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Last autumn...I approached one of them...I said he sounded hypocritical

My compliments to you, sir. That's the idea. These people must not be allowed to feel welcome nor comfortable. I pitty that active voices like you are spread thin all over Germany, even if the majority of the Germans oppose in silence events as despicable as the caricatural diabolic circus you've described.

**************************

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

BTW, you can watch the video here.

Self-entitled Apostles? Mormons and some Protestants aside, this is heresy. The first guy, dressed in blue with a white cap, he laughs when the jihadist starts talking, is he one of "them"? Of the group of the Apostles? Or was he a "moderate"? If he was a moderate that's pathetic. The young-Ahmadinejad look-a-like then goes on and talks so kindly and softly I'm almost convinced he's afraid of the other guy or doesn't have enough faith in his own words. I don't believe anything he says, I need to see more conviction, if you show weakness in your own speech, why would I ever conceive putting strong trust in you or your words? "Oh, ladies and gentlemen, or should I say, boys and girls, this man is very naughty, sorry....but he's so bad, really, sorry, I didn't meant to offend you..... he's really evil, no, not at all, sorry, sorry I'll go back to my seat now like the good boy that I am....mommy!." Granted, the lawyer point was a good one.

Anyway, "Can I speak?"?! Do you think that's how you deal with a jihadist buffoon? You've shown respect! You must not respect him at all! He is using your tolerance in his favour you freaking idiot! He doesn't show respect for other people's right to live, to exist, and you're going to demand him to abide by the rules of a formal debate? Had it not been for the police this guy would've chopped your head off already! You don't say "can" I speak pleeeeease. You demand:

Silence imbelice, I will speak now. I've had enough of your insolence.

If he doesn't silence, you speak louder. Untill he either behaves and lets you speak, runs away from the debate or interrupts it.

Not that I don't recognize the attempt to answer the radicals. That's commendable, as long as it is honest and sincere, unlike some proeminent figures who are just playing a game of make-believe to pretend that the radicals are harmless and under control, like Tariq Ramadan.

I do recognize it. I applaud the effort to corner the radicals, congratulations to those who oppose them. My sympathies to the son of Ahmadinejad here, so long as he's being honest. The problem is that he's not up to par with the Apostle of Jihad.

Now, the art of rhetoric being available for the enforcing either of truth or falsehood, who will dare to say that truth in the person of its defenders is to take its stand unarmed against falsehood? For example, that those who are trying to persuade men of what is false are to know how to introduce their subject, so as to put the hearer into a friendly, or attentive, or teachable frame of mind, while the defenders of the truth shall be ignorant of that art? That the former are to tell their falsehoods briefly, clearly, and plausibly, while the latter shall tell the truth in such a way that it is tedious to listen to, hard to understand, and, in fine, not easy to believe it? That the former are to oppose the to melt, to enliven, and to rouse them, while the latter shall in defence of the truth be sluggish, and frigid, and somnolent? Who is such a fool as to think this wisdom? Since, then, the faculty of eloquence is available for both sides, and is of very great service in the enforcing either of wrong or right, why do not good men study to engage it on the side of truth, when bad men use it to obtain the triumph of wicked and worthless causes, and to further injustice and error?

(...) If, however, the hearers require to be roused rather than instructed, in order that they may be diligent to do what they already know, and to bring their feelings into harmony with the truths they admit, greater vigor of speech is needed. Here entreaties and reproaches, exhortations and upbraidings, and all the other means of rousing the emotions, are necessary.

Muslims... If you intend to succeed Christianity you better do your homework or else let somebody more qualified do the talking. It doesn't matter what Mr. Jihad BELIEVES in, he can believe in gnomes, tooth-fairies and alien anal probes. A battle of beliefs, he believes that, you believe this, leads nowhere nor does it prove him wrong. He must be DEMORALIZED before the public, he must leave the debate ASHAMED and silent and nervous. You must make it absolutely clear that this is heresy and nothing else, if somebody wants to follow him and if they believe in 7, 14 or 21 virgins then they must also believe in hell because that's where they're headed to if they continue to follow this man. Religious speakers and debaters of any denomination, including non-denominational, learn:

(...) we must beware of the man who abounds in eloquent nonsense, and so much the more if the hearer is pleased with what is not worth listening to, and thinks that because the speaker is eloquent what he says must be true. And this opinion is held even by those who think that the art of rhetoric should be taught; for they confess that "though wisdom without eloquence is of little service to states, yet eloquence without wisdom is frequently a positive injury, and is of service never."(1) If, then, the men who teach the principles of eloquence have been forced by truth to confess this in the very books which treat of eloquence, though they were ignorant of the true, that is, the heavenly wisdom which comes down from the Father of Lights, how much more ought we to feel it who are the sons and the ministers of this higher wisdom ! Now a man speaks with more or less wisdom just as he has made more or less progress in the knowledge of Scripture; I do not mean by reading them much and committing them to memory, but by understanding them aright and carefully searching into their meaning. For there are those who read and yet neglect them; they read to remember the words, but are careless about knowing the meaning. It is plain we must set far above these the men who are not so retentive of the words, but see with the eyes of the heart into the heart of Scripture. Better than either of these, however, is the man who, when he wishes, can repeat the words, and at the same time correctly apprehends their meaning.

Granted, we've only seen a little part of the debate. I am simply assuming that the rest of it is on the same level.