The Regressive Left and Islam -- What is happening here?

[NYcarbineer]

And directly to the Regressive Leftists here: I'm certainly not, nor do I ever, expect a straight, clear and honest answer from you on this. What I expect from you is the standard deflection, derision, personal insults and name-calling. I know that's what we'll get, it's an easy prediction. This thread is specifically about your behaviors, not about Islam. I'm just curious about this, and perhaps some other responses will shed some light or provide some clues.
.

You aren't the arbiter of what is or isn't deflection. You call anything 'deflection' that you can't come up with an intelligent response to.

Accuse me of something specific, and cite your evidence for the accusation, and then we'll go from there.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You can shove it right in their face, and they still won't see it.

Their dogmatic ideology blinds them. You can't communicate with people like that.
.

They are the Flat Earthers of the left.

I read "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer when I was still a teen, and I would suggest they read it as well if not for the fact it would all fly so far over their thick little heads.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Additionally, you make this statement:

"And directly to the Regressive Leftists here: I'm certainly not, nor do I ever, expect a straight, clear and honest answer from you on this."

Name the posters you're referring to, and cite evidence to support your claim that they deserve that label.

Based on your charges, I'm not one of them.

You.

You've deflected from the point this entire thread.

But I honestly, sincerely and truly believe that you don't see it.

Hardcore partisan ideologues are absolutely fascinating.
.

No, I'm one of the few on topic. Your yelling out 'deflection!' at every turn is just your own version of deflecting.

Let's start with the first item in your thread. Why did you bring up the mayor of London?

 

[LoneLaugher]

"Meanwhile, a group of people - the Regressive Left (as honest liberal Bill Maher refers to them), a group all too happy to attack the misdeeds of another religion (Christianity, obviously) in absolutely every possible way, at absolutely every opportunity, are bending over backwards to be defensive and so very tolerant of the first religion. A religion, by the way, that treats women and gays as lesser objects, among other behaviors that the Regressive Leftists loathe.

Exactly what is happening here?"

Please cite examples of someone here attacking misdeeds of Christians while not attacking the misdeeds of Muslims.

You cannot.

 

[Mac1958]

And directly to the Regressive Leftists here: I'm certainly not, nor do I ever, expect a straight, clear and honest answer from you on this. What I expect from you is the standard deflection, derision, personal insults and name-calling. I know that's what we'll get, it's an easy prediction. This thread is specifically about your behaviors, not about Islam. I'm just curious about this, and perhaps some other responses will shed some light or provide some clues.
.

You aren't the arbiter of what is or isn't deflection. You call anything 'deflection' that you can't come up with an intelligent response to.

Accuse me of something specific, and cite your evidence for the accusation, and then we'll go from there.

You have made my point for me, over and over and over.

I have been pointing it out all along in this thread, over and over and over.

You have behaved precisely as I predicted in the OP, over and over and over.

You don't see it. You simply don't have the capacity to see what you're doing.

This is so tedious.
.

 

[Mac1958]

You can shove it right in their face, and they still won't see it.

Their dogmatic ideology blinds them. You can't communicate with people like that.
.

They are the Flat Earthers of the left.

I read "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer when I was still a teen, and I would suggest they read it as well if not for the fact it would all fly so far over their thick little heads.

They keep humping my leg, too.

Tell me something: Do you think I'm right that they really don't see how they're proving my point? I think their perceptions are so distorted that they're being honest when they make their denials.

Or are they just lying?
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And directly to the Regressive Leftists here: I'm certainly not, nor do I ever, expect a straight, clear and honest answer from you on this. What I expect from you is the standard deflection, derision, personal insults and name-calling. I know that's what we'll get, it's an easy prediction. This thread is specifically about your behaviors, not about Islam. I'm just curious about this, and perhaps some other responses will shed some light or provide some clues.
.

You aren't the arbiter of what is or isn't deflection. You call anything 'deflection' that you can't come up with an intelligent response to.

Accuse me of something specific, and cite your evidence for the accusation, and then we'll go from there.

You have made my point for me, over and over and over.

I have been pointing it out all along in this thread, over and over and over.

You have behaved precisely as I predicted in the OP, over and over and over.

You don't see it. You simply don't have the capacity to see what you're doing.

This is so tedious.
.

Again, no specific accusation.

This is where I began:

The Regressive Left and Islam -- What is happening here?

What am I deflecting from?

 

[LoneLaugher]

"Is this just a petulant, knee-jerk reaction against Christianity and conservatives, is it that simple? Are they willing to be so very tolerant of one specific religion just to be contrarian against certain other people they hate?"

Please cite examples of someone here being against Christianity but for Islam.

You cannot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can shove it right in their face, and they still won't see it.

Their dogmatic ideology blinds them. You can't communicate with people like that.
.

They are the Flat Earthers of the left.

I read "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer when I was still a teen, and I would suggest they read it as well if not for the fact it would all fly so far over their thick little heads.

They keep humping my leg, too.

Tell me something: Do you think I'm right that they really don't see how they're proving my point? I think their perceptions are so distorted that they're being honest when they make their denials.

Or are they just lying?
.

You sound EXACTLY like PoliticalChic with that. I didn't realize she was your mentor.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is so fascinating to watch, and election of London's new mayor is shedding even more light on it.

Members of one specific religion - a religion with a current record of extreme violence, intimidation and terror - are telling us precisely what they're going to do, and they're doing it. It's expansion is clear and rapid and undeniable. We're watching it happen in real time, particularly across Europe. This isn't a partisan or religious opinion, it is a clear fact, based on observation.

Meanwhile, a group of people - the Regressive Left (as honest liberal Bill Maher refers to them), a group all too happy to attack the misdeeds of another religion (Christianity, obviously) in absolutely every possible way, at absolutely every opportunity, are bending over backwards to be defensive and so very tolerant of the first religion. A religion, by the way, that treats women and gays as lesser objects, among other behaviors that the Regressive Leftists loathe.

Exactly what is happening here?

Is this just a petulant, knee-jerk reaction against Christianity and conservatives, is it that simple? Are they willing to be so very tolerant of one specific religion just to be contrarian against certain other people they hate?

Or could it be more? Is this behavior related to the payback tactics that we're seeing with race and wealth? Or perhaps do they harbor certain affinities for the religion to which they won't openly admit?

And directly to the Regressive Leftists here: I'm certainly not, nor do I ever, expect a straight, clear and honest answer from you on this. What I expect from you is the standard deflection, derision, personal insults and name-calling. I know that's what we'll get, it's an easy prediction. This thread is specifically about your behaviors, not about Islam. I'm just curious about this, and perhaps some other responses will shed some light or provide some clues.
.

This fails as both a straw man fallacy and hasty generalization fallacy.

And telling you that your thread premise has failed is not deflection, derision, engaging in personal insults, or name-calling.

Straw Man Fallacy – the OP contrives a lie about his opponent in an effort to misrepresent his opponent’s position on a given issue, then attacks the lie contrived (straw man) claiming ‘victory.’

In the case of this thread’s failed premise, you’ve contrived the lie that ‘liberals’ are ‘hostile’ to Christianity while not exhibiting that same hostility toward Islam, a religion you incorrectly believe warrants such hostility. Your failed attempt to misrepresent ‘liberals’ as being ‘inconsistent’ and applying a ‘double standard’ is devoid of facts and objective evidence in support, hence the fallacy.

Hasty Generalization Fallacy – using the actions or statements of a small, non-representative minority of a given class of persons, the OP incorrectly infers that the actions of that minority are ‘representative’ of the whole, and attacks an entire class of persons based on the actions of the minority.

In the case of this thread’s failed premise, you’ve incorrectly inferred that the statements or actions of some ‘liberals’ are ‘representative’ of all ‘liberals,’ when in fact that’s not the case.’

You’ve also incorrectly inferred that the actions of a minority of terrorists and extremists who happen to be Muslim are ‘representative’ of all Islam, when in fact that’s also not the case.

So what exactly is happening here is your thread premise has failed as a fallacy, the premise is devoid of logic, reason, and merit.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

]

What do you want to debate me on?

You do not debate. You simply make stupid, ignorant statements as if the fact you have said them creates some sort of fait accompli.

 

[Mac1958]

This is so fascinating to watch, and election of London's new mayor is shedding even more light on it.

Members of one specific religion - a religion with a current record of extreme violence, intimidation and terror - are telling us precisely what they're going to do, and they're doing it. It's expansion is clear and rapid and undeniable. We're watching it happen in real time, particularly across Europe. This isn't a partisan or religious opinion, it is a clear fact, based on observation.

Meanwhile, a group of people - the Regressive Left (as honest liberal Bill Maher refers to them), a group all too happy to attack the misdeeds of another religion (Christianity, obviously) in absolutely every possible way, at absolutely every opportunity, are bending over backwards to be defensive and so very tolerant of the first religion. A religion, by the way, that treats women and gays as lesser objects, among other behaviors that the Regressive Leftists loathe.

Exactly what is happening here?

Is this just a petulant, knee-jerk reaction against Christianity and conservatives, is it that simple? Are they willing to be so very tolerant of one specific religion just to be contrarian against certain other people they hate?

Or could it be more? Is this behavior related to the payback tactics that we're seeing with race and wealth? Or perhaps do they harbor certain affinities for the religion to which they won't openly admit?

And directly to the Regressive Leftists here: I'm certainly not, nor do I ever, expect a straight, clear and honest answer from you on this. What I expect from you is the standard deflection, derision, personal insults and name-calling. I know that's what we'll get, it's an easy prediction. This thread is specifically about your behaviors, not about Islam. I'm just curious about this, and perhaps some other responses will shed some light or provide some clues.
.

This fails as both a straw man fallacy and hasty generalization fallacy.

And telling you that your thread premise has failed is not deflection, derision, engaging in personal insults, or name-calling.

Straw Man Fallacy – the OP contrives a lie about his opponent in an effort to misrepresent his opponent’s position on a given issue, then attacks the lie contrived (straw man) claiming ‘victory.’

In the case of this thread’s failed premise, you’ve contrived the lie that ‘liberals’ are ‘hostile’ to Christianity while not exhibiting that same hostility toward Islam, a religion you incorrectly believe warrants such hostility. Your failed attempt to misrepresent ‘liberals’ as being ‘inconsistent’ and applying a ‘double standard’ is devoid of facts and objective evidence in support, hence the fallacy.

Hasty Generalization Fallacy – using the actions or statements of a small, non-representative minority of a given class of persons, the OP incorrectly infers that the actions of that minority are ‘representative’ of the whole, and attacks an entire class of persons based on the actions of the minority.

In the case of this thread’s failed premise, you’ve incorrectly inferred that the statements or actions of some ‘liberals’ are ‘representative’ of all ‘liberals,’ when in fact that’s not the case.’

You’ve also incorrectly inferred that the actions of a minority of terrorists and extremists who happen to be Muslim are ‘representative’ of all Islam, when in fact that’s also not the case.

So what exactly is happening here is your thread premise has failed as a fallacy, the premise is devoid of logic, reason, and merit.

As predicted in the OP.

Gawd I'm good.
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

"Or could it be more? Is this behavior related to the payback tactics that we're seeing with race and wealth? Or perhaps do they harbor certain affinities for the religion to which they won't openly admit?"

Any posts you can cite to back up either of those two wild swings?

 

[Tehon]

And directly to the Regressive Leftists here: I'm certainly not, nor do I ever, expect a straight, clear and honest answer from you on this. What I expect from you is the standard deflection, derision, personal insults and name-calling. I know that's what we'll get, it's an easy prediction. This thread is specifically about your behaviors, not about Islam. I'm just curious about this, and perhaps some other responses will shed some light or provide some clues.
.

You aren't the arbiter of what is or isn't deflection. You call anything 'deflection' that you can't come up with an intelligent response to.

Accuse me of something specific, and cite your evidence for the accusation, and then we'll go from there.

You have made my point for me, over and over and over.

I have been pointing it out all along in this thread, over and over and over.

You have behaved precisely as I predicted in the OP, over and over and over.

You don't see it. You simply don't have the capacity to see what you're doing.

This is so tedious.
.

Well as long as we are taking credit for predictions, I might as well throw out my observation for credit.
Post #2

I think I summed up your thread pretty accurately.

 

[Mac1958]

I make a point, and the Regressive Lefties jump in to prove it for me.

How do they not see this?

 

[Mac1958]

What do you want to debate me on?

You do not debate. You simply make stupid, ignorant statements as if the fact you have said them creates some sort of fait accompli.

I've gotten what I wanted from the thread - a few interesting theories about the motivations behind the behaviors of the Regressive Left, and a few Regressive Lefties kind enough to illustrate my point for me.

The rest is noise.
.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Is this just a petulant, knee-jerk reaction against Christianity and conservatives, is it that simple? Are they willing to be so very tolerant of one specific religion just to be contrarian against certain other people they hate?"

Please cite examples of someone here being against Christianity but for Islam.

You cannot.

In fact, the notion of being ‘for’ or ‘against’ any religion is ridiculous idiocy.

One can be critical of the actions of adherents of a given faith without condemning the entire religion.

This is the mistake made by those with an unwarranted hostility toward Islam: they attack Islam in its entirety based on the actions of the non-representative few.

And likewise the nonsense about ‘attacking’ Christianity: one can be critical of the actions and statements of Christians as individuals where such criticism is not to ‘attack’ Christianity.

 

[Norman]

UK statbulance is here:

• UK Muslim survey: 76% of prominent Muslims ‘strongly’ support Jihad
• UK: Muslims fill 44% of high security prisons, out of a 5% Muslim population
• UK: Medial poll show that 1.5 million British Muslims see themselves as supporters of ISIS
• UK study reveals Immigrants from outside EU take £100 Billion more in benefits than they paid back in taxes

And let's not forget Rotherham, which could win an Oscar in movie form, if Hollywood wasn't full on regressive:
Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You stated that 76% of prominent Muslims "strongly" support Jihad.

Wonder why?


1- In 1925 the Zionists invaded Palestine determined to murder and /or disappear the natives by any means necessary;

2- In 1949 US President Harry S. Truman made 1.5 Muslims foreigners in their own land when he declared that Palestine belonged to the Zionists

3- In 1990 the US and UK invaded Iraq under false pretenses and remained there for 18 years - thousands were murdered and maimed

4- In 2011 the US invaded Syria, completely destroying that Country and forcing Syrians to become international refugees.

5- The Bush administration threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the stone age" after the September 11 attacks if the country did not cooperate with America's war on Afghanistan,

Nevertheless the Muslims are supposed to grin and bear it. They are NOT supposed to let these historical facts make them bitter and extremists.

Glad you agree... Do you also think that given the fact it's smart to import them to our countries?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Islam is a totalitarian political ideology with a veneer of religiosity, while calling for its adherents to wage perpetual war against all that is not Islam until only Islam remains. It comes with it's own political system that treats women as second-class citizens by very design of law, does not allow for freedom of belief, persecutes gay people and does not allow for a separation of religion and politic. The new Mayor of London called any Muslims who do not share these designs "Uncle Toms" so as to make it clear what he was all about.

In this thread, we are seeing exactly what Mac predicted -- low functioning leftists defending what hey do not know simply because they have been trained to do so. Rejecting totalitarianism is not a "phobia" despite the trained parrots insisting it is.

 

[Kondor3]

London, the historic capital of England, and the British Empire, governed by a Moor?

The ghosts of every Englishman (with any balls, anyway, because they've obviously exhausted their supply in our present age) of the past 1000 years are rolling over in their graves.

England (GB, UK, whatever) has just about run its course.

But, even a thousand-year run has to end, sometime.

Death by Multiculturalism (a.k.a. Cultural Suicide)

The Orcs have finally overrun Minas Tirith.

Weak, pathetic fools.