Am I a Bigot?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Stupidest thread ever. Islam is a leaderless religion. There is no membership, no baptism, and you don’t “belong” to a mosque. There are no elections. There is no governing council charged with overseeing it.

A person who says he’s muslim has no more responsibility over another person who says he’s muslim than a person who drives a ford has over other ford drivers. And it might sound crazy, but some muslims actually have things jobs and families, and can’t devote their lives to trying to convince you that they think killing people is bad.

If you can’t see this, it’s either because you are retarded, or you are going out of your way not to see it.

Which is it?

Agreed. But they do have a moral responsibility to leave a religion that declares
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

and

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

The morally responsible thing to do is to renounce a religion that calls for open-ended bloodshed of non-believers. [/quote]

Have you seen the old testament?

42

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Stupidest thread ever. Islam is a leaderless religion. There is no membership, no baptism, and you don’t “belong” to a mosque. There are no elections. There is no governing council charged with overseeing it.

A person who says he’s muslim has no more responsibility over another person who says he’s muslim than a person who drives a ford has over other ford drivers. And it might sound crazy, but some muslims actually have things jobs and families, and can’t devote their lives to trying to convince you that they think killing people is bad.

If you can’t see this, it’s either because you are retarded, or you are going out of your way not to see it.

Which is it?

Agreed. But they do have a moral responsibility to leave a religion that declares
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

and

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

The morally responsible thing to do is to renounce a religion that calls for open-ended bloodshed of non-believers.

Have you seen the old testament?[/quote]

I have. What does it have to do with Islam and where does it prescribe open-ended warfare against unbelievers as Islam does? Do we see Jews these days carrying out beheadings and suicide bombings?

43

[quote]lixy wrote:
Honestly, that you would associate me with criminals and require me to “preemptively denounce” anything that I have as much control over as yourself, is quite insulting.[/quote]

Wasn’t talking about you. You’ve been nothing but outspoken about such atrocities. But you are a minority. You may not like it but it’s true.

If you think otherwise, then please explain footage of an entire town celebrating 9/11?

44

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I have. What does it have to do with Islam and where does it prescribe open-ended warfare against unbelievers as Islam does?
[/quote]

Oh.

So it doesn’t say to, upon the enemy desisting, to stop warring against them immediately, even if it means accepting unfavourable peace conditions?

Or are you going out of your way to misrepresent the religion?

45

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Moreover, Islam is not a leaderless religion. There are schools of jurisprudence - 4 of them for the Sunnis, to be exact. But still, if Sheikh Tantawi of Al-Azhar University in Cairo says something, the entire Sunni world will listen, which is why the Pope and other religious leaders meet with him as a representative of Islam - because he is.[/quote]

Except he isn’t.

No mention of his authority anywhere in the Qur’an. Therefore, anyone who recognizes his “leadership” is a heretic.

On the other hand, their heresy isn’t my problem, any more than it’s yours.

46

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I have. What does it have to do with Islam and where does it prescribe open-ended warfare against unbelievers as Islam does?

Oh.

So it doesn’t say to, upon the enemy desisting, to stop warring against them immediately, even if it means accepting unfavourable peace conditions?

Or are you going out of your way to misrepresent the religion?[/quote]

You mean misrepresent your religion?

The terms are entirely those of the Muslims. You have three options:

  1. Convert
  2. Pay jizyah and accept dhimmitude
  3. Die

What are the reasons for warfare in the first place? That there is “unbelief” in Allah.

What did I misrepresent? So far you’ve demonstrated zero knowledge of Islam, meaning you’re either a taqiyya practicing Muslim or a useful idiot. I’m not sure which is worse.

47

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Moreover, Islam is not a leaderless religion. There are schools of jurisprudence - 4 of them for the Sunnis, to be exact. But still, if Sheikh Tantawi of Al-Azhar University in Cairo says something, the entire Sunni world will listen, which is why the Pope and other religious leaders meet with him as a representative of Islam - because he is.

Except he isn’t.

No mention of his authority anywhere in the Qur’an. Therefore, anyone who recognizes his “leadership” is a heretic.

On the other hand, their heresy isn’t my problem, any more than it’s yours.[/quote]

Do you know what Islamic jurisprudence even is?

There’s no mention of the “rightly guided” caliphs in the Qur’an either, but they’re still recognized and revered by Muslims.

48

[quote]Makavali wrote:
lixy wrote:
Honestly, that you would associate me with criminals and require me to “preemptively denounce” anything that I have as much control over as yourself, is quite insulting.

Wasn’t talking about you. You’ve been nothing but outspoken about such atrocities. But you are a minority. You may not like it but it’s true. [/quote]

Look, I have been to at least a half dozen majority-Muslim countries in my short life. I have spent a quarter of a century in one. I was there when 9/11 happened, and I was there when most other international terrorist acts happened. I have seen people shed tears for the victims.

It’s not that I don’t like it, but your claim is preposterous on so many levels. For starters, a group that’s over a billion large can’t possibly be expected to support random acts of violence on civilian targets. That don’t compute at all.

Gee…why would the Palestinians be mad at the US?

Let’s see, is it because Americans finance the bombs dropped on them, the tanks that raze their houses, the low-flying military airplanes that wakes them up at night, the bullets shot at kids throwing stones? Or maybe it is because the USA has used its veto a gazillion times to block every resolution critical of Israel? If I was living in an open air prison I might be mad at the US. Not enough to warrant celebrating the death of innocents, but mad nonetheless. I’ve read an interview with one of the Palestinians that appeared in that infamous footage saying she was offered cake to chant on camera, but that she had no idea it’d be shown in the US. And if I was living like a refugee, I’d certainly be willing to dance on tape for cake.

49

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Moreover, Islam is not a leaderless religion. There are schools of jurisprudence - 4 of them for the Sunnis, to be exact. But still, if Sheikh Tantawi of Al-Azhar University in Cairo says something, the entire Sunni world will listen, which is why the Pope and other religious leaders meet with him as a representative of Islam - because he is.

Except he isn’t.

No mention of his authority anywhere in the Qur’an. Therefore, anyone who recognizes his “leadership” is a heretic.

On the other hand, their heresy isn’t my problem, any more than it’s yours.[/quote]

Well said.

Tantawi is nothing more than a Zawahiri with a bit more followers. None of them is a prophet, and none has any direct channel to God (despite all their claims). When leaders become involved, religions turn into cults.

And I personally don’t know many (if any!) people who’d take Tantawi’s word on anything. The man is a pion of the dictator Mubarak.

But in the event some idiot gives a crap about what the man says, here’s a verbatim quote: “It’s not courage in any way to kill an innocent person, or to kill thousands of people, including men and women and children.” He added that “Killing innocent civilians is a horrific, hideous act that no religion can approve” and the Qur’an “specifically forbids the kinds of things the Taliban and al-Qaida are guilty of”.

http://www.usembassyjakarta.org/lawmaker.html

50

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

You mean misrepresent your religion?

The terms are entirely those of the Muslims. You have three options:

  1. Convert
  2. Pay jizyah and accept dhimmitude
  3. Die
    [/quote]

That’s one more option than Christians offered. The rapid conquests of Islam in the middle east and north africa in its early days was a direct result of the butchery of christians against their own (self-policing?). Islam offered more tolerance of their minute theological differences than their fellow christians. Fortunately the religion mellowed considerable once it lost grip over societies with the rise of secularism.

So what conclusion should I draw about christians while we’re making blanket characterizations?

51

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I have. What does it have to do with Islam and where does it prescribe open-ended warfare against unbelievers as Islam does?

Oh.

So it doesn’t say to, upon the enemy desisting, to stop warring against them immediately, even if it means accepting unfavourable peace conditions?

Or are you going out of your way to misrepresent the religion?

You mean misrepresent your religion?

The terms are entirely those of the Muslims. You have three options:

  1. Convert
  2. Pay jizyah and accept dhimmitude
  3. Die

What are the reasons for warfare in the first place? That there is “unbelief” in Allah.

The unbelievers declared open war against all muslims.

What did I misrepresent? So far you’ve demonstrated zero knowledge of Islam, meaning you’re either a taqiyya practicing Muslim or a useful idiot. I’m not sure which is worse.[/quote]

The Qur’an (Second Surah) says:

  1. Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. God does not love aggressors.

  2. And slay them wherever you find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the inviolable place of worship until they attack you there, but if they attack you there then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

  3. [i]But if they desist, then lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful.[/i]

  4. And fight with them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. [i]But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers.[/i]

Not persecuting muslims seems to be a pretty clear option #4.

52

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Moreover, Islam is not a leaderless religion. There are schools of jurisprudence - 4 of them for the Sunnis, to be exact. But still, if Sheikh Tantawi of Al-Azhar University in Cairo says something, the entire Sunni world will listen, which is why the Pope and other religious leaders meet with him as a representative of Islam - because he is.

Except he isn’t.

No mention of his authority anywhere in the Qur’an. Therefore, anyone who recognizes his “leadership” is a heretic.

On the other hand, their heresy isn’t my problem, any more than it’s yours.

Do you know what Islamic jurisprudence even is?

There’s no mention of the “rightly guided” caliphs in the Qur’an either, but they’re still recognized and revered by Muslims.
[/quote]

They are? I don’t recognize them, and I certainly don’t revere them. And again, I’ll say that anyone that does is heretical.

Fortunately, I don’t think an inquisition to weed out heresy is the answer, but it seems that you do.

53

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I have. What does it have to do with Islam and where does it prescribe open-ended warfare against unbelievers as Islam does?

Oh.

So it doesn’t say to, upon the enemy desisting, to stop warring against them immediately, even if it means accepting unfavourable peace conditions?

Or are you going out of your way to misrepresent the religion?

You mean misrepresent your religion?

The terms are entirely those of the Muslims. You have three options:

  1. Convert
  2. Pay jizyah and accept dhimmitude
  3. Die

What are the reasons for warfare in the first place? That there is “unbelief” in Allah.

The unbelievers declared open war against all muslims.

What did I misrepresent? So far you’ve demonstrated zero knowledge of Islam, meaning you’re either a taqiyya practicing Muslim or a useful idiot. I’m not sure which is worse.

The Qur’an (Second Surah) says:

  1. Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. God does not love aggressors.

  2. And slay them wherever you find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the inviolable place of worship until they attack you there, but if they attack you there then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

  3. [i]But if they desist, then lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful.[/i]

  4. And fight with them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. [i]But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers.[/i]

Not persecuting muslims seems to be a pretty clear option #4.[/quote]

Thank you for that standard Muslim lie.

Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that that verse has been abrogated by 9:1:
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=190&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0

The real key to these surahs is the Islamic definition defensive conflict.

What constitutes a defensive conflict? A clue to that comes in v. 193: “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.” Ibn Ishaq explains that this means that Muslims must fight against unbelievers “until God alone is worshipped.” Says Bulandshahri: “The worst of sins are Infidelity (Kufr) and Polytheism (shirk) which constitute rebellion against Allah, The Creator. To eradicate these, Muslims are required to wage war until there exists none of it in the world, and the only religion is that of Allah.” This conflict would be essentially defensive, against the aggressions of unbelief: if Muslims must fight until unbelief does not exist, the mere presence of unbelief constitutes sufficient aggression to allow for the beginning of hostilities. This is one of the foundations for the supremacist notion that Muslims must wage war against unbelievers until those unbelievers are either converted to Islam or subjugated under the rule of Islamic law, as 9:29 states explicitly. As the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, puts it: “I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.” Thus one may reasonably assume that if one does not accept him as a prophet, one’s blood and riches are not safe from those who read these words as the words of a messenger from the one true God.

So unbelief is a good enough reason for you Muslims to wage “defensive” jihad. What an enlightening religion it is - it can only be spread by the sword.

54

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Moreover, Islam is not a leaderless religion. There are schools of jurisprudence - 4 of them for the Sunnis, to be exact. But still, if Sheikh Tantawi of Al-Azhar University in Cairo says something, the entire Sunni world will listen, which is why the Pope and other religious leaders meet with him as a representative of Islam - because he is.

Except he isn’t.

No mention of his authority anywhere in the Qur’an. Therefore, anyone who recognizes his “leadership” is a heretic.

On the other hand, their heresy isn’t my problem, any more than it’s yours.

Do you know what Islamic jurisprudence even is?

There’s no mention of the “rightly guided” caliphs in the Qur’an either, but they’re still recognized and revered by Muslims.

They are? I don’t recognize them, and I certainly don’t revere them. And again, I’ll say that anyone that does is heretical.

Fortunately, I don’t think an inquisition to weed out heresy is the answer, but it seems that you do.[/quote]

Nevertheless, your religion has an consensus, and the consensus about jihad is one of warfare against unbelievers for their unbelief. The 'Umdat al-Salik defines lessor jihad as “warfare for the spread of religion.” Mohammed’s peaceful sayings are abrogated by his later Medinan sayings such as Surah 9, as you well know.

55

[quote]Makavali wrote:
lixy wrote:
Honestly, that you would associate me with criminals and require me to “preemptively denounce” anything that I have as much control over as yourself, is quite insulting.

Wasn’t talking about you. You’ve been nothing but outspoken about such atrocities. But you are a minority. You may not like it but it’s true.

If you think otherwise, then please explain footage of an entire town celebrating 9/11?[/quote]

Lixy has continually excused atrocities in Iraq and elsewhere.

Don’t be fooled.

56

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I have. What does it have to do with Islam and where does it prescribe open-ended warfare against unbelievers as Islam does?

Oh.

So it doesn’t say to, upon the enemy desisting, to stop warring against them immediately, even if it means accepting unfavourable peace conditions?

Or are you going out of your way to misrepresent the religion?

You mean misrepresent your religion?

The terms are entirely those of the Muslims. You have three options:

  1. Convert
  2. Pay jizyah and accept dhimmitude
  3. Die

What are the reasons for warfare in the first place? That there is “unbelief” in Allah.

The unbelievers declared open war against all muslims.

What did I misrepresent? So far you’ve demonstrated zero knowledge of Islam, meaning you’re either a taqiyya practicing Muslim or a useful idiot. I’m not sure which is worse.

The Qur’an (Second Surah) says:

  1. Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. God does not love aggressors.

  2. And slay them wherever you find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the inviolable place of worship until they attack you there, but if they attack you there then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

  3. [i]But if they desist, then lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful.[/i]

  4. And fight with them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. [i]But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers.[/i]

Not persecuting muslims seems to be a pretty clear option #4.

Thank you for that standard Muslim lie.

Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that that verse has been abrogated by 9:1:
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=190&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0

The real key to these surahs is the Islamic definition defensive conflict.

What constitutes a defensive conflict? A clue to that comes in v. 193: “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.” Ibn Ishaq explains that this means that Muslims must fight against unbelievers “until God alone is worshipped.” Says Bulandshahri: “The worst of sins are Infidelity (Kufr) and Polytheism (shirk) which constitute rebellion against Allah, The Creator. To eradicate these, Muslims are required to wage war until there exists none of it in the world, and the only religion is that of Allah.” This conflict would be essentially defensive, against the aggressions of unbelief: if Muslims must fight until unbelief does not exist, the mere presence of unbelief constitutes sufficient aggression to allow for the beginning of hostilities. This is one of the foundations for the supremacist notion that Muslims must wage war against unbelievers until those unbelievers are either converted to Islam or subjugated under the rule of Islamic law, as 9:29 states explicitly. As the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, puts it: “I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.” Thus one may reasonably assume that if one does not accept him as a prophet, one’s blood and riches are not safe from those who read these words as the words of a messenger from the one true God.

So unbelief is a good enough reason for you Muslims to wage “defensive” jihad. What an enlightening religion it is - it can only be spread by the sword.

[/quote]

So what you’re saying is if you take v. 193 out of context, and make wild assumptions about what it might mean, it might be interpretable in a way that condones what v 190 prohibits.

Also, I don’t care what “Ibn Ishaq” had to say about Islam any more than I care what my neighbour has to say about his favorite brand of potato chip. You can imagine, then, how I feel about someone else’s opinions about what Ibn Ishaq had to say (since none of his original works survive).

but thanks for demonstrating my point. Except for the occasional irrational hatred for the irish, there’s always some rationale to people’s bigotry, but it’s predicated on factually incorrect information, and errors in logic.

57

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I have. What does it have to do with Islam and where does it prescribe open-ended warfare against unbelievers as Islam does?

Oh.

So it doesn’t say to, upon the enemy desisting, to stop warring against them immediately, even if it means accepting unfavourable peace conditions?

Or are you going out of your way to misrepresent the religion?

You mean misrepresent your religion?

The terms are entirely those of the Muslims. You have three options:

  1. Convert
  2. Pay jizyah and accept dhimmitude
  3. Die

What are the reasons for warfare in the first place? That there is “unbelief” in Allah.

The unbelievers declared open war against all muslims.

What did I misrepresent? So far you’ve demonstrated zero knowledge of Islam, meaning you’re either a taqiyya practicing Muslim or a useful idiot. I’m not sure which is worse.

The Qur’an (Second Surah) says:

  1. Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. God does not love aggressors.

  2. And slay them wherever you find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the inviolable place of worship until they attack you there, but if they attack you there then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

  3. [i]But if they desist, then lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful.[/i]

  4. And fight with them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. [i]But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers.[/i]

Not persecuting muslims seems to be a pretty clear option #4.

Thank you for that standard Muslim lie.

Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that that verse has been abrogated by 9:1:
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=190&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0

The real key to these surahs is the Islamic definition defensive conflict.

What constitutes a defensive conflict? A clue to that comes in v. 193: “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.” Ibn Ishaq explains that this means that Muslims must fight against unbelievers “until God alone is worshipped.” Says Bulandshahri: “The worst of sins are Infidelity (Kufr) and Polytheism (shirk) which constitute rebellion against Allah, The Creator. To eradicate these, Muslims are required to wage war until there exists none of it in the world, and the only religion is that of Allah.” This conflict would be essentially defensive, against the aggressions of unbelief: if Muslims must fight until unbelief does not exist, the mere presence of unbelief constitutes sufficient aggression to allow for the beginning of hostilities. This is one of the foundations for the supremacist notion that Muslims must wage war against unbelievers until those unbelievers are either converted to Islam or subjugated under the rule of Islamic law, as 9:29 states explicitly. As the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, puts it: “I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.” Thus one may reasonably assume that if one does not accept him as a prophet, one’s blood and riches are not safe from those who read these words as the words of a messenger from the one true God.

So unbelief is a good enough reason for you Muslims to wage “defensive” jihad. What an enlightening religion it is - it can only be spread by the sword.

So what you’re saying is if you take v. 193 out of context, and make wild assumptions about what it might mean, it might be interpretable in a way that condones what v 190 prohibits.

Also, I don’t care what “Ibn Ishaq” had to say about Islam any more than I care what my neighbour has to say about his favorite brand of potato chip. You can imagine, then, how I feel about someone else’s opinions about what Ibn Ishaq had to say (since none of his original works survive).

but thanks for demonstrating my point. Except for the occasional irrational hatred for the irish, there’s always some rationale to people’s bigotry, but it’s predicated on factually incorrect information, and errors in logic.[/quote]

Unfortunately the “errors in logic” are being made by Muslims all over the world, hence the conflicts.

58

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
[…]

So what you’re saying is…
[/quote]

Read again, Alek. What he’s saying is that you are lying.

The dude is saying that you must be secretly agreeing with whatever interpretations he comes up with, and for some conspiratorial reasons, you are publicly defending a position which you do not hold.

It is impossible to get anything constructive out of a debate with such specimen. He can’t even assume good faith.

59

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Unfortunately the “errors in logic” are being made by Muslims all over the world, hence the conflicts.
[/quote]

stupidity is universal

60

[quote]lixy wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
[…]

So what you’re saying is…

Read again, Alek. What he’s saying is that you are lying.

The dude is saying that you must be secretly agreeing with whatever interpretations he comes up with, and for some conspiratorial reasons, you are publicly defending a position which you do not hold.

It is impossible to get anything constructive out of a debate with such specimen. He can’t even assume good faith.[/quote]

Oh, I have no interest in debating with him. I’m just using him to exemplify my point in the debate earlier in this thread. It’s fascinating the lengths he will go to to cling to his position, though.