Lancet Study and Body Counts

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Christ said when someone slaps you on the face turn the other cheek, not use common sense and react violently. [/quote]

Don’t confuse instinct with common sense.

That’s one tiny nutshell.

I’d say that Christianity is essentially about the after-life while Islam makes it more viable. You see, original Christianity (or Judaism for that matter) is all about asceticism. Islam, as described in the Quran, tends to harmonize earthly needs with the religious and spiritual.

You see, in Islam, you’re not even allowed to engage in activities or ingest things that may harm you. Let alone passively let others do harm to your body.

I don’t know about your religious convictions GKhan, but do you turn the other cheek when somebody slaps you?

SO how do you rationalize your penchant for young girls?

Are you saying raping a teenager is not harmful?

[quote]Chushin wrote:
A quote from this link:

“This is about a quarter of the figure given in a disputed Lancet article”

I think I know someone who has often referenced this article… [/quote]

Lancet’s was about the cost of the invasion in general. Meaning that the sick refugees who died were counted. A person who fell from malnutrition made the list too.

Lancet remains the only peer-reviewed study to date.

This WHO figure of 151,000 is about people who died violently.

151,000 Iraqis suffered a violent death because the US invaded their land. Play it down if you must, rationalize it by bringing up your ex-ally Saddam, but I will not get caught in this we-don’t-do-body-counts-but-others-are-wrong.

In 2006, Bush himself quoted a 50,000 figure. Nuff’ said.

[quote]lixy meant:

I don’t care that it was completely proven false.

I don’t care that it was a politically motivated load of crap full of lies.

I still believe it.[/quote]

Nuff’ said.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
lixy meant:

I don’t care that it was completely proven false.

I don’t care that it was a politically motivated load of crap full of lies.

I still believe it.

Nuff’ said.

[/quote]

Ahh, the Thunderbolt school of debating.

He is far better though.

See, your strawman must only be subtly different than the original argument and yet have a deadly weakness.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
One thing: this says assist your brother and sister “Muslim” it does not tell you what to do if the person oppressing you is a non-muslim.

You got it wrong. It’s about what to do when “your brother and sister” are oppressing others.

When they’re oppressing you, common sense applies.

Fair enough, I thought it was more profound than it was.

Christ said when someone slaps you on the face turn the other cheek, not use common sense and react violently.

There’s the difference between the religions in a nutshell.[/quote]

You are probably misinterpreting what turning the other cheek means.

" Jesus clarifies his meaning by three brief examples. “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Why the right cheek? How does one strike another on the right cheek anyway? Try it. A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek Of the opponent. To strike the right cheek with the fist would require using the left hand, but. in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. As the Dead Sea Scrolls specify, even to gesture with the left hand at Qumran carried the penalty of ten days’ penance. The only way one could strike the right cheek with the right hand would be with the back of the hand.

What we are dealing with here is unmistakably an insult, not a fistfight. The intention is not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not strike a peer in this way, and, if one did, the fine was exorbitant (four zuz was the fine for a blow to a peer with a fist, 400 zuz for backhanding him; but to an underling, no penalty whatever). A backhand slap was the normal way of admonishing inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans; Jews.

We have here a set of unequal relations, in each of which retaliation would be suicidal. The only normal response would be cowering submission. It is important to ask who Jesus’ audience is. In every case, his listeners are not those who strike, initiate lawsuits, or impose forced labor. Rather, Jesus is speaking to their victims, people who have been subjected to these very indignities. They have been forced to stifle their inner outrage at the dehumanizing treatment meted out to them by the hierarchical system of caste and class, race and gender, age and status, and by the guardians of imperial occupation.
Advertisement

Why then does Jesus counsel these already humiliated people to turn the other cheek? Because this action robs the oppressor of power to humiliate them. The person who turns the other cheek is saying, in effect, “Try again. Your first blow failed to achieve its intended effect. I deny you the power to humiliate me. I am a human being just like you. Your status (gender, race, age, wealth) does not alter that. You cannot demean me.” Such a response would create enormous difficulties for the striker. Purely logistically, how can he now hit the other cheek? He cannot backhand it with his right hand. If he hits with a fist, he makes himself an equal, acknowledging the other as a peer. But the whole point of the back of the hand is to reinforce the caste system and its institutionalized inequality."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_3_29/ai_n11838798/pg_2

[quote]orion wrote:

Ahh, the Thunderbolt school of debating.

He is far better though.

See, your strawman must only be subtly different than the original argument and yet have a deadly weakness.[/quote]

This was not a straw man fallacy.

[quote]orion wrote:

Ahh, the Thunderbolt school of debating.

He is far better though.

See, your strawman must only be subtly different than the original argument and yet have a deadly weakness.[/quote]

Quick - someone kiss Orion’s boo-boo.

Somewhere along the lines, I hurt his feelers.

[quote]The Mage wrote:

See, your strawman must only be subtly different than the original argument and yet have a deadly weakness.

This was not a straw man fallacy. [/quote]

By ordinary logic as you and I know it, true - but Orion and Lixy have a different definition, tucked away in Lixy’s secret tome, and, by God, they simply won’t be encumbered by this whole logic thing, no matter what anyone says.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Christ said when someone slaps you on the face turn the other cheek, not use common sense and react violently.

Don’t confuse instinct with common sense.

There’s the difference between the religions in a nutshell.

That’s one tiny nutshell.

I’d say that Christianity is essentially about the after-life while Islam makes it more viable. You see, original Christianity (or Judaism for that matter) is all about asceticism. Islam, as described in the Quran, tends to harmonize earthly needs with the religious and spiritual.

You see, in Islam, you’re not even allowed to engage in activities or ingest things that may harm you. Let alone passively let others do harm to your body.

I don’t know about your religious convictions GKhan, but do you turn the other cheek when somebody slaps you?[/quote]

Interesting points, though my religious convictions are noboody’s business.

Anyhow, I actually agree with something you wrote believe it or not. I think you touched on a problem with Christianity today. People are obsessed with the concept “Jesus died for you.”

If people concerned themselves more with how Jesus LIVED than how he died, the world would be better off.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
orion wrote:

Ahh, the Thunderbolt school of debating.

He is far better though.

See, your strawman must only be subtly different than the original argument and yet have a deadly weakness.

This was not a straw man fallacy. [/quote]

In essence it was.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The Mage wrote:

See, your strawman must only be subtly different than the original argument and yet have a deadly weakness.

This was not a straw man fallacy.

By ordinary logic as you and I know it, true - but Orion and Lixy have a different definition, tucked away in Lixy’s secret tome, and, by God, they simply won’t be encumbered by this whole logic thing, no matter what anyone says.

[/quote]

That must be like the crystal castle where you keep your reasons for denigrating all those mind washed Paulites that disagree with you on Lincoln and the civil war even though Judge Napolitano, and that is were they get it from, knows the history of your constitution and the civil war far better than you.

Or maybe it is in the at the end of the rainbow where you store your ability to say you were wrong even if it has been proven to you beyond any doubt by citing the fucking words of the law, several court findings and by the shining light on the way to Damascus itself.

Or, in other words, your inability to reason or to admit when your wrong makes it kind of hard to accept your “ordinary” logic which is nothing but mental, debris washed up on your mental shore, never analyzed, never questioned, never put together to form a coherent view of things.

Kind of a MSM programmed Joe Average on a slightly higher level with words that are a little bigger.

[quote]orion wrote:

In essence it was.[/quote]

It was not, in essence, or any other country.

Do you even know what a straw man fallacy is?

Overt piece of sarcasm, yes. Straw man? No.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
orion wrote:

In essence it was.

It was not, in essence, or any other country.

Do you even know what a straw man fallacy is?

Overt piece of sarcasm, yes. Straw man? No.[/quote]

Misrepresenting the opponents opinion in order to be able to attack it.

Be it with sarcasm or actual arguments.

[quote]orion wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
The Mage wrote:

See, your strawman must only be subtly different than the original argument and yet have a deadly weakness.

This was not a straw man fallacy.

By ordinary logic as you and I know it, true - but Orion and Lixy have a different definition, tucked away in Lixy’s secret tome, and, by God, they simply won’t be encumbered by this whole logic thing, no matter what anyone says.

That must be like the crystal castle where you keep your reasons for denigrating all those mind washed Paulites that disagree with you on Lincoln and the civil war even though Judge Napolitano, and that is were they get it from, knows the history of your constitution and the civil war far better than you.

Or maybe it is in the at the end of the rainbow where you store your ability to say you were wrong even if it has been proven to you beyond any doubt by citing the fucking words of the law, several court findings and by the shining light on the way to Damascus itself.

Or, in other words, your inability to reason or to admit when your wrong makes it kind of hard to accept your “ordinary” logic which is nothing but mental, debris washed up on your mental shore, never analyzed, never questioned, never put together to form a coherent view of things.

Kind of a MSM programmed Joe Average on a slightly higher level with words that are a little bigger.

[/quote]
Thunderbolt, Mage,

There is a simple rule in psychiatry: insanity should not be an infectious disease.

There is no reasoning with a lunatic; and you may risk catching his habits. These loonies–and on this subject, at least, Orion is among them–cannot acknowledge warehouses of original material, libraries of books and histories and easily verifiable facts because it all does not fit their preconceived lunacy. Instead, their source of Belief–and it is belief, not history or fact–is a nest of squirrels in Auburn, Alabama, headed by Ron Paul and his amanuensis Lew Rockwell, and supported by one Judge Napolitano.

Anyone reading Napolitano’s bio might be impressed; I am certain he makes a good legal commentator for FOX and he wanted to be Ron Paul’s vice president. (Aha. See wiki, once more.) But his contentions fly in the face of every legitimate historian over the last one hundred forty years. At least Paul or Rockwell or diLorenzo found one jurist as an anchor; may we ask how many legitimate consitutional scholars and jurists would consider him a laughable pariah.

There is no point in discussing Looney Orion’s theories on the Civil War and the Constitution. He has been shown the truth and is blind to it, blinder than Paul on the road to Damascus. He will never see the light, because he has caught the madness, the madness that rejects categorically fact, convention and legitimacy . The Looney gnashes his teeth and rejects verifiable reality because Paulism, or Rockwellism, or whatever aberation of “Libertarianism” religious fanatacism–cannot stand the simplest challenge of the truth.

No, Orion, do not bother to respond. I will not respond to you because your ideas in this matter or so strange, so wrong, that they are beneath further discussion. You understand very little of what little you read in this matter, and your sources are false and corrupt. You do not know the first thing about which you write. To persist flagrantly in error is just too embarrassing. Have some mercy, for the sake of whatever demented notions in which you believe!

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Thunderbolt, Mage,

There is a simple rule in psychiatry: insanity should not be an infectious disease.

There is no reasoning with a lunatic; and you may risk catching his habits. These loonies–and on this subject, at least, Orion is among them–cannot acknowledge warehouses of original material, libraries of books and histories and easily verifiable facts because it all does not fit their preconceived lunacy. Instead, their source of Belief–and it is belief, not history or fact–is a nest of squirrels in Auburn, Alabama, headed by Ron Paul and his amanuensis Lew Rockwell, and supported by one Judge Napolitano.

Anyone reading Napolitano’s bio might be impressed; I am certain he makes a good legal commentator for FOX and he wanted to be Ron Paul’s vice president. (Aha. See wiki, once more.) But his contentions fly in the face of every legitimate historian over the last one hundred forty years. At least Paul or Rockwell or diLorenzo found one jurist as an anchor; may we ask how many legitimate consitutional scholars and jurists would consider him a laughable pariah.

There is no point in discussing Looney Orion’s theories on the Civil War and the Constitution. He has been shown the truth and is blind to it, blinder than Paul on the road to Damascus. He will never see the light, because he has caught the madness, the madness that rejects categorically fact, convention and legitimacy . The Looney gnashes his teeth and rejects verifiable reality because Paulism, or Rockwellism, or whatever aberation of “Libertarianism” religious fanatacism–cannot the simplest challenge of the truth.

No, Orion, do not bother to respond. I will not respond to you because your ideas in this matter or so strange, so wrong, that they are beneath further discussion. You understand very little of what little you read in this matter, and your sources are false and corrupt. You do not know the first thing about which you write. To persist flagrantly in error is just too embarrassing. Have some mercy, for the sake of whatever demented notions in which you believe!
[/quote]

Back to pop-psychology?

So soon?

Oh no there was an appeal to authority in there too!

All legitimate historians agree with you and those who don´t are not legitimate.

Excellent!

And underwhelming to say the least.

[quote]orion wrote:

Misrepresenting the opponents opinion in order to be able to attack it.

Be it with sarcasm or actual arguments.[/quote]

And what did I misrepresent? Are you saying he does not believe the Lancet study?

I knew I was going to have to explain this to you. The straw man fallacy is a little more then what you are trying to define it as.

It involves misrepresenting, and therefore creating an argument for the other side. And then attacking that new argument as if it is what the other person said.

A great example is when I said I supported the action against Iraq, and lixy started arguing against me supporting rape. Where were you then?

Now what argument did I make up for lixy? Nothing. There was no new argument created. lixy believes the lancet study.

The purpose of the straw man is to make it seem as if you are arguing against the persons position, but are not. When did I do this? The straw man is used in a kind of covert way, while what I did was admittedly blatant.

The funny thing is it was also really a blatant joke, that you apparently did not get, more then an argument.

[quote]orion wrote:

That must be like the crystal castle where you keep your reasons for denigrating all those mind washed Paulites that disagree with you on Lincoln and the civil war even though Judge Napolitano, and that is were they get it from, knows the history of your constitution and the civil war far better than you.[/quote]

Yawn.

There is little to respond to in this childish tantrum, save for the plain “appeal to authority” fallacy w/r/t Napolitano.

On the exact same principle, Paul Krugman - eminent economist from Princeton who is essentially a European Social Democrat on economics and writes for the NY Times - knows “economics and the history of American political economy” far better than you, therefore your Austrian economics must be toast, and he is right and you must yield to his opinion on the matter…solely because of his public resume. As such, I never want to hear you try and defend laissez-faire economics again - his public resume is better than yours, so you necessarily are wrong in the matter.

Next time you mention the advantages of a freer private economy, I will post an article by Krugman, and by your own set of rules, you lose.

Just stupid.

This is no fun when you are this dumb. It takes the sport out of it.