Christians Stoned by Muslims in Michigan

[jonbhorton]

You could argue ni**er transcends race, but you'd be wrong. Its use might, but the term itself is most definitely race related and still seen as such. Islam, however, does transcend race and has never been race related.

Let's not put too broad a point on it in a lame attempt to sidestep any bad analogies.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/XXXX

You stand corrected.  Now quit being a jackass trying to defend the other one.

Since that link leads to "this word not found in the dictionary" and the XXXX seems to be the forum way of censoring certain words, I must assume you meant "the n word".

1
usually offensive; see usage paragraph below : a black person
2
usually offensive; see usage paragraph below : a member of any dark-skinned race
3
: a member of a socially disadvantaged class of persons <it's time for somebody to lead all of America's n******s … all the people who feel left out of the political process — Ron Dellums>

Of the 3 definitions, the top 2 depend on racial categorization. The 3rd is an extremely underused definition, and depends, again, on the history of its racial use in its sociological morphing. The etymology of the word even indicates racial origin.

Ergo, this is a word which, though it can be used in this broad sense, is definitely a racial word. Muslim is not. It never has been. This is why it's imperative to specify Arab-Muslim if one means that, Indonesian-Muslim, etc.

Further, Rap music is, as we see quite plainly, transcendent of race as the majority of purchasers are white youth. The RIAA puts out ~66% of rap purchases are by whites. http://www.rapcoalition.org/political_economy_of_music.htm

BUT, in terms of situations such as this, this IS typical Muslim behavior.

I stand, but not corrected.

[Beware_the_Ides]

You could argue ni**er transcends race, but you'd be wrong. Its use might, but the term itself is most definitely race related and still seen as such. Islam, however, does transcend race and has never been race related.

Let's not put too broad a point on it in a lame attempt to sidestep any bad analogies.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/XXXX

You stand corrected.  Now quit being a jackass trying to defend the other one.

Since that link leads to "this word not found in the dictionary" and the XXXX seems to be the forum way of censoring certain words, I must assume you meant "the n word".

1
usually offensive; see usage paragraph below : a black person
2
usually offensive; see usage paragraph below : a member of any dark-skinned race
3
: a member of a socially disadvantaged class of persons <it's time for somebody to lead all of America's n******s … all the people who feel left out of the political process — Ron Dellums>

Of the 3 definitions, the top 2 depend on racial categorization. The 3rd is an extremely underused definition, and depends, again, on the history of its racial use in its sociological morphing. The etymology of the word even indicates racial origin.

Ergo, this is a word which, though it can be used in this broad sense, is definitely a racial word. Muslim is not. It never has been. This is why it's imperative to specify Arab-Muslim if one means that, Indonesian-Muslim, etc.

Further, Rap music is, as we see quite plainly, transcendent of race as the majority of purchasers are white youth. The RIAA puts out ~66% of rap purchases are by whites. http://www.rapcoalition.org/political_economy_of_music.htm

BUT, in terms of situations such as this, this IS typical Muslim behavior.

I stand, but not corrected.

I must assume your apology did not apply to your discourse on this thread.  With clear evidence (i.e two-thirds of the definition) that the term transcends race, you remain obstinate in your ignorance.  Did you, perchance, scroll down to read some of the comments regarding that word, which further support the term's transcendence of race?

None of that really matters though because it doesn't change the fact that the statement made was offensive and in poor taste.  Why do you even bother to engage in arguing over a reply directed to another person's post?   And, of all positions to defend, why that one?

The predominance of the twenty-something smug pricks who pontificate from their ivory towers on this forum has caused me to visit with much less frequency.  Mea culpa for responding to Walty's statement with an equally offensive statement.  It's quite telling how you highbrow intellectuals suddenly feign bewilderment when someone calls you out on an asinine statement and then gang up on anyone who dares to point out the offense.  In the end, it really tells me that you feign the highbrow intellectualism.  If I were someone who came across this forum while considering conversion, such people would steer me in the opposite direction.  So congratulate yourselves for winning the most ignoble of arguments and enjoy your forum.  Assholes.

[jonbhorton]

You could argue ni**er transcends race, but you'd be wrong. Its use might, but the term itself is most definitely race related and still seen as such. Islam, however, does transcend race and has never been race related.

Let's not put too broad a point on it in a lame attempt to sidestep any bad analogies.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/XXXX

You stand corrected.  Now quit being a jackass trying to defend the other one.

Since that link leads to "this word not found in the dictionary" and the XXXX seems to be the forum way of censoring certain words, I must assume you meant "the n word".

1
usually offensive; see usage paragraph below : a black person
2
usually offensive; see usage paragraph below : a member of any dark-skinned race
3
: a member of a socially disadvantaged class of persons <it's time for somebody to lead all of America's n******s … all the people who feel left out of the political process — Ron Dellums>

Of the 3 definitions, the top 2 depend on racial categorization. The 3rd is an extremely underused definition, and depends, again, on the history of its racial use in its sociological morphing. The etymology of the word even indicates racial origin.

Ergo, this is a word which, though it can be used in this broad sense, is definitely a racial word. Muslim is not. It never has been. This is why it's imperative to specify Arab-Muslim if one means that, Indonesian-Muslim, etc.

Further, Rap music is, as we see quite plainly, transcendent of race as the majority of purchasers are white youth. The RIAA puts out ~66% of rap purchases are by whites. http://www.rapcoalition.org/political_economy_of_music.htm

BUT, in terms of situations such as this, this IS typical Muslim behavior.

I stand, but not corrected.

I must assume your apology did not apply to your discourse on this thread.  With clear evidence (i.e two-thirds of the definition) that the term transcends race, you remain obstinate in your ignorance.  Did you, perchance, scroll down to read some of the comments regarding that word, which further support the term's transcendence of race?

None of that really matters though because it doesn't change the fact that the statement made was offensive and in poor taste.  Why do you even bother to engage in arguing over a reply directed to another person's post?   And, of all positions to defend, why that one?

The predominance of the twenty-something smug pricks who pontificate from their ivory towers on this forum has caused me to visit with much less frequency.  Mea culpa for responding to Walty's statement with an equally offensive statement.  It's quite telling how you highbrow intellectuals suddenly feign bewilderment when someone calls you out on an asinine statement and then gang up on anyone who dares to point out the offense.  In the end, it really tells me that you feign the highbrow intellectualism.  If I were someone who came across this forum while considering conversion, such people would steer me in the opposite direction.  So congratulate yourselves for winning the most ignoble of arguments and enjoy your forum.  Assholes.

Where do you get the term is defined 2/3rds transcending race when only one term definition of three does that (1/3) and even counts on its racial foundation to have the definition it has in that more obtuse manner?

I haven't spoken with vitriol to you in this thread. I could, but I won't.

Why are you getting hot over what amounts to nothing? Were you that attached to your own smart ass comment to Walty that now I'm the bad guy for pointing out it fails?

I just pointed out my own failure in another thread where I had previously said my nights and weekends are as exciting as watching aluminum foil biodegrade. I didn't really think anything of it until someone praised it as great imagery. For some reason, I read it and thought "but... it doesn't biodegrade". So I went back and realized I said it. Then I went and brought attention to the fact that I'd totally biffed that imagery.

I have no problem being wrong if it's definably provable.

Sheesh. If you don't like being taken to task for taking someone else to task, don't take someone to task. Seems pretty easy to me.

As for me, I can take it like I give it and even raise the bar. Spent 6 years combat arms, we got rough with the insults. I assure you, there's virtually nothing to offend me in terms of attacks on me.

As for my apology, I obviously made that after the posts in this thread or any other. I recall at no time making a vitriolic response after my apology. So, obviously the apology would extend to anything in this thread. After that thread's starting, I don't recall posting anything mean.

If you were so offended, the thread was a good place to say it, since you saw it.

The only apology I'm giving you, since you're obviously a bit of a lightweight in the give vs take category, thus rendering you a bit of a joke in your giving (since our giving of vitriol should be less than our taking), is I'm sorry you called everyone assholes.

Tell me, when someone says "ni&&ers and their rap music", do you think they really mean someone other than blacks? No, they don't. If they meant hispanics, they'd use a different epithet. If Indians, different epithet.

And why of all the comments, yours? Because Walty was right.

[Beardly]

Hold on!  Wait!  The Christians are holding a celebration and the Muslims are throwing rocks . . .  How are the Christians creating the disturbance?!?!?!?!

Did you actually watch the video? The Muslims (Arabs, in actuality, but most Arabs are Muslims) were holding the celebration. The "Christians" went to "evangelize." The Muslims got pissed because they saw very clearly what these Zionists were trying to do: make a scene, and elicit the sort of reaction you and others here are: abhorrence at the actions of these Muslims. In reality, though, these Christians, though I am ashamed to call them that, should have left. They were there to piss people off, in order that they might paint a picture of the violent Muslim, nothing more. And while the actions of these Muslims in response were wrong, they are understandable. I could imagine doing so if some other group--fundamentalist protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc--pulled this sh** at a Catholic gathering of some sort. What these Zionists did is not understandable. It is manifestly stupid and provocative.

[per_passionem_eius]

Hold on!  Wait!  The Christians are holding a celebration and the Muslims are throwing rocks . . .  How are the Christians creating the disturbance?!?!?!?!

Did you actually watch the video? The Muslims (Arabs, in actuality, but most Arabs are Muslims) were holding the celebration. The "Christians" went to "evangelize." The Muslims got pissed because they saw very clearly what these Zionists were trying to do: make a scene, and elicit the sort of reaction you and others here are: abhorrence at the actions of these Muslims. In reality, though, these Christians, though I am ashamed to call them that, should have left. They were there to piss people off, in order that they might paint a picture of the violent Muslim, nothing more. And while the actions of these Muslims in response were wrong, they are understandable. I could imagine doing so if some other group--fundamentalist protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc--pulled this sh** at a Catholic gathering of some sort. What these Zionists did is not understandable. It is manifestly stupid and provocative.

That's what I thought too, but I wondered if I missed something, since no one else seemed to notice.

Real Christians don't use megaphones!

[10th_Crusader]

If they did that to me, I would have thrown back bacon bits - that would clear them out. 

[Beardly]

If they did that to me, I would have thrown back bacon bits - that would clear them out. 

No. That would get the sh** beat out of you. Probably by twelve year olds.

[Dellery]

 At the end of the video, what appears to be the Protestant (vile perverter of the Gospels) in charge, mocks devotion to our Blessed Mother.

[Antonius Josephus]

Even if the Protestants were being disturbing to the Muslims, the Muslims chose to become violent. Typical Muslim modus operandi, and we can be sure that your average quasi-social democrat American wouldn't have the spine to say one word against this.

[Edgecrusher]

I guess praying for their souls is out of the question?

In all my encounters with people from other religions I have actually had more respectful conversations about religion with muslims even given the history between muslims and Catholics. Anyone else I have spoken to that was protestant, atheist, agnostic, jewish etc. has usually ended up hurling insults at me even after they were the ones that initiated the conversation on the topic to begin with. In a debate with a muslim about religion I actually ended becoming friends with them even though we disagree with each other. I will forever refuse to use the actions of a few to label an entire group as acting the same if only for the fact that it ends up turning into absolute hatred for an entire group because a few acted like jerks. I thought being Catholic was about understanding how the world is and praying for those in need of Christ and a complete hatred of sin but not sinners. I can understand being outraged by the way people act but forcibly removing people from their homes and hoping the kill each other is a bit harsh. My problem with this country is that there is no such thing as equality or equal rights which at one point there was for about a decade. Now there are groups of people who have more rights than other groups and now all the different people living in this country have different rights depending on their race, gender or religion. Shamone!