Racist?

This is a quote, from my quote, that you quoted me on back in message 142, that I keep telling you to read. So obviously, I am talking about acting out those beliefs. As usual jar, you are just full of shit, and can't stand me.So tell me, you think that it is justification for a radical Muslim to hurt people since, he is acting on his beliefs? Like terrorism?You are still just a complete idiot, I don't miss you one bit. I hope God gives you a gift of comprehension one day. Why act smart, and talk dumb? The only reason why you are picking on my quotes, and taking them out of context is because you hate me. Something that should be against your religion and the beliefs the you have so profoundly professed here over the years.Keep in mind that I don't hate you, just do not agree with your intentional taking out of context of what I write.Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

Because jar acts like an idiot, and intentionally takes what I say out of context. He understands it. I am sure other people do too.You could just as easily go back and read it again, this time with an open mind, instead of being prejudice, and assume I am not a racist, instead of assuming I am one. Then it would make perfect sense.Maybe if I changed my name, and claimed to be a raging liberal, you guys would read my stuff differently.

Okay.So you agree that beliefs are not against they law?This actually is an important issue.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I read it 5 times now. I am in the same position as Jar.
What Islamic beliefs are illegal?
It is a simple question. How about a simple answer?
This persecution complex does not become you. Make you look and sound like an ass actually.

---

Facts don\'t lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

There used to be a Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Hall a few blocks from my house. Now it's a Sikh temple. (In case you don't know, the worst terrorist attack in the history of Canada was perpetrated by Sikhs.)I like to watch the kids playing cricket in the street in front of the temple. Only brown people and black people play cricket around here.If you don't see the connection, it's because there isn't one.

---

I rode off into the sunset, went all the way around the world and now I\'m back where I started.

Stereotyping all muslims (or any other group of people) is being racist/ethnist/etc, whether you act on it or not.

---

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Speaking of racism...New York Daily News - New York Daily Newshttp://www.kansascity.com/...ial-comments-cause-rift-in.htmlWhile it is true that they are trying to do damage control as we speak, my question is why is the tea party attracting so many racist wackos out there? Is it because their core philosophy appeals to racists?

So many? Out of many hundreds of thousands of people in Tea Parties, how many have been identified as "racists?"And is it possible that the other side sent some of those as plants?Anecdotal evidence is worth what you paid for it. Unfortunately, much of modern journalism is worth even less./rant

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hrm, you seem like the person to ask: I've been looking to get a new tinfoil hat. Where do you have yours made, Coyote?

As I have explained this many times already, racism went out of fashion long time ago. Today's racists will never identify themselves outright that they are racist.I attended a lecture by the KKK a couple years ago in northern Illinois. Right away, someone raised his hand and asked the guy giving the lecture whether he was racist or not. The guy denied being racist. Get it? Even the KKK won't admit they are racist.Just like homophobes will never identify themselves as homophobes. A few years ago, I attended a townhall meeting about gay marriage. This was back when Bush wanted that federal amendment banning gay marriage. A guy stood up and declared outright that "homosexuality causes teenage pregnancy". Of course when some people accused him as being a homophobe, he denied up and down that he was one.You can't identify a racist by asking him if he's a racist or not. Of course he'll deny it.But please, I'm not blind and deaf nor am I an idiot.Tell me those signs at tea party rallies don't bother you at all. Tell me the accusations of Obama being a secret muslim agent don't bother you at all. Tell me those confederate flags don't bother you at all. Tell me the anti-Obama ignorant sentiments at those townhall meetings a year ago don't bother you at all.If this really is about the budget and tax, we should have seen the formation of the tea party when Reagan was president when the deficit increased by 186% or when Bush was president when the deficit doubled. But instead, as soon as we got the first black president in history who happened to inherit the huge deficits from past republican presidents, all of the sudden we see the formation of a political party whose sole purpose is anti-Obama sentiment in the name of the budget and the deficits.Again, I'm not blind and deaf nor am I an idiot. Should I put my tinfoil hat on now?Added by edit.Ok, may be the jury is still out on the idiot part.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

jar quotes: You, my dear aquatically procliviated rodent, then say: Let's take a look at this...the sentence in question is: The issue is one of English usage. The problematical word is "they" in the phrase "they are against the law". To what does the word "they" refer to. In our esteemed riVeRraT's view, this is obviously meant to refer to those actions acted out. And very understandably so! However, it has been my experience that the preponderant portion of English users would - in this particular construct riVeRraT has chosen - apply the word "they" to the words "beliefs" from the phrase "hold those beliefs against them", as that is the closest part of speech applicable - note there are no commas to divide that clause from the other part. However, you could keep within the rules of English (that awful language) and concur with riVeRrat's intent, by skipping backwards, over the "and" and the two commas and attaching the reference to his intended target.Here is an easy way how riVeRrat's sentence should have appeared in the first place: riVeRrat continues later on with: For this I must disagree and lay the blame on you, riVeRrat, for originally making a poor sentence construction that will, in overwhelming preponderance, cause the average reader to misunderstand you. Hey, no biggie. It's just that stupid language, English, which nobody on this planet can use without making mistakes.Cheers, and welcome back. Welcome back all of us.And, of course, thank you Percy for undauntedly working late hours to get this wonderful place back on line.Edited by xongsmith, : No reason given.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Correct, it is a matter of determining who the 'They' refers to and I've been trying to get rat to clarify the issue.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I agree, please point out where I said otherwise.

It really is beyond me how you could not understand what I wrote.
1st off, I never said Islamic beliefs, I said radical Muslims. You know, the same ones that kill people, and declare jihad for what they believe in. Isn't killing people against the law?So, please tell me how I can tell the difference, because they all appear the same on the outside. I'll tell you what I do, as I would do for just about any person, race, or religion. I give them the benefit of the doubt, and treat the same as I treat every other human being, but be on the lookout for certain behaviors, or comments. I do not specifically do this for just Muslims, I would do it for everyone.So tell me, do you support letting people kill other people, because belief's are not against the law?You can believe what you want. But if you go around threatening people, saying that you would kill them because of your belief, then I have a problem with that. Like isn't this common sense?

This is an important point, but it is not as simple as it seems.Various groups of people do share beliefs, cultures, traditions etc. Must one ignore these when considering how to interact with a person who belongs to one such group? Is it, in some cases, even safe to ignore these shared attributes?As an example, would it be a good idea to invite a muslim to a pork dinner?I think that membership in a group increases the likelihood that they will possess the characteristic traditions etc of that group, even if it does not guarantee it.What I see is that identifiable groups complain that their identity is not being taken into account at some times, and at other times that it is. The difference being which complaint is to their benefit.One is either a part of the wider society, or not. The problem for well-meaning people is to tell which applies is in particular cases.