Comments for Public Square - Common Ground, Uncommon Debate - Bloggerheads

Comment on Did BP’s actions with regard to Deepwater Horizon constitute criminal negligence? by Tweets that mention Did BP’s actions with regard to Deepwater Horizon constitute criminal negligence? | Public Square - Common Ground, Uncommon Debate - Bloggerheads -- Topsy.com

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 14:42:03 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by PublicSquare.net and Emaun Kashfipour, Emaun Kashfipour. Emaun Kashfipour said: http://www.publicsquare.net/bloggerheads/2010/07/18/did-bps-actions-with-regard-to-deepwater-horizon-constitute-criminal-negligence/ [...]

Comment on Whose Ethics? Whose Point? by The Wilders Round-Up « Defend Geert Wilders

The Wilders Round-Up « Defend Geert Wilders — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 19:52:22 +0000

[...] PublicSquare.net – Whose Ethics? Whose Point? [...]

Comment on Ten Steps to An Ethics Train Wreck by OxAO

OxAO — Mon, 24 May 2010 22:17:54 +0000

This is basic math.

A sizable percentage is not one and it isn’t all but it is significant enough to be a movement especially when the movement is of thugs.

Your argument is starting to sound like a mother/son argument, society as being the mother and son as Islam.
Mother says to her son, “The more flaws you have son the more I will point them out.”

No religion is perfect no son is perfect thus they will all get reticulated. Unless you think somehow Islam is perfect then you would see eye-to-eye with the extremist or more likely in your case you are the protective brother saying “cut it out mom, can’t you see he is upset?”

For the record:
Islam is not a religion it is a Iqamat-ud-Deen or complete system of life from laws and type of government to how you think and behave. The religious part is only a part of what makes Islam.

Comment on Ten Steps to An Ethics Train Wreck by CaptCompliance

CaptCompliance — Mon, 24 May 2010 13:52:07 +0000

The First Amendment protects expressions of hate and bigotry, and I think that’s important to protect. It is revealing,but not in the least surprising, that a vocal supporter of EDMD would assert that Muslims deserve to be insulted, and cite statistics to suggest that most or all of them are “bad.” One religious bigot does not indict a movement, but I sense this strain the longer I exchange comments with most of the most vociferous “cartoonists.” They and you refuse to accord the entire religion any basic respect, and are proud of it. As I suspected from the beginning.

Comment on Ten Steps to An Ethics Train Wreck by OxAO

OxAO — Mon, 24 May 2010 00:50:03 +0000

Yes there are good muslims there is no doubt about that. Look at the Muslims in Yemen attempting to create a law stopping marriages of children as young as 5 yo to old men. I could kiss these good Muslims if it wouldn’t get them into trouble.
If it were only a small group why do these kind of laws exist and practiced?

Here are some statistics on how many is a ‘small number’ you are referring to:
http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_05.htm

Those figures went down from 50 to 800% after those countries other than Nigeria changed their policy on how polls are conducted in their country. Now the governments supply the names who the pollsters can poll.

http://pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=20&mode=table

yes, my mother taught be well what gangs of thugs are and how they operate did yours?
If you don’t believe they are a gang of thugs look up the term Kafir.
Arabic doesn’t have any other term for it, that is what you and I are called.

Comment on Ten Steps to An Ethics Train Wreck by CaptCompliance

CaptCompliance — Sun, 23 May 2010 22:09:49 +0000

Sure…huh? If that logic satisfies you, go ahead, be happy in your delusions. Offending one large group of people simply because a small number among them have done outrageous things can’t be defended logically, but it’s water under the bridge, so go ahead, feel that “spite is right.” It isn’t, but I’m not going to teach you what your mother couldn’t.

I would love to see the support for the contention that thanking someone on-line constitutes accepting him, her, or it as my god. This means that I have periodically accepted deities named “Goodness,” “Heaven,” “F—” and “Phil” through the years, and am a fickle worshipper. Of course, there is no support for the contention that inadvertent offense is the same thing as intentional offense.

Comment on Ten Steps to An Ethics Train Wreck by OxAO

OxAO — Sun, 23 May 2010 08:29:33 +0000

“Rhetoric used to avoid the issues is not.”

Good, I am glad you changed your mind. I was shocked for a while that anyone could avoid these threats and murders disguised as “cultural taboos” Now that you have changed your mind I can only assume now you understand this wasn’t about “shock humor.”

BTW – You may not be aware of this but you slammed Islam just as hard as if you drawn your own picture of Mohammad. By being a non-Muslim and claiming Allah as your god. Many of church’s were burned to the ground in Malaysia over exactly that reason and the Malaysian courts sided with Islam over this issue.

Comment on Ten Steps to An Ethics Train Wreck by CaptCompliance

CaptCompliance — Sat, 22 May 2010 16:20:55 +0000

Not sure what you mean. Rhetoric as a means of communication and argument is fine. Rhetoric used to avoid the issues is not. Long, involved screeds that cannot be effectively and tightly rebutted without hours of work undermine the value of the format. I view what Baron wrote as an example of this technique, which is right out of the Sixties Protest handbook. I thought it was obnoxious and dishonest then, and I still do. I admire the technique—it’s like rapping. But it is antithetical to fair debate.

Comment on Ten Steps to An Ethics Train Wreck by OxAO

OxAO — Sat, 22 May 2010 08:14:52 +0000

From About Us:
“Bloggerheads is the blog of PublicSquare.net. We invite bloggers on opposite sides of a timely controversial issue to debate each other for a specific time period.”

When did rhetoric get taken out of the debate?

Comment on When Lacking An Argument, Argue Semantics by LFPC

LFPC — Fri, 21 May 2010 21:17:03 +0000

BTW, there is an obvious analogy that I haven’t mentioned. A certain “card” that people usually draw. I won’t, because a certain “law” rightfully states that he who draws this card has lost the argument.

Let me just remind you that there are belief systems that you wouldn’t claim this respect and “maturity” for – belief systems that deserve to be ridiculed because they are inherently evil. Belief systems that historically have been subject to this very kind of crude, immature caricature – and rightfully so.

You cannot address this fact because you have made this an issue of taste and maturity (according to your own notions), and not about resisting evil and threats against our very freedom.