Quote:
Originally posted by pony_trekker
You didn't follow the argument. Let me dumb it down.
Point 1. Ismam is bad for women. Currently.
Question by AG? Where did you read that ?
Response: Koran.
AG: Well the bible says bad things about a lot of things (that aren't currently practiced)
|
Unlike the socks who take your side on this one, you're a smart and funny poster, and I like you. However, you have consistently been unable to say anything productive, incisive, or funny about Islam. You're out of your element on this one topic --- the only one I have yet seen that did not have me either stroking my chin thoughtfully or laughing with agreement or amusement. Not that I expect you to have a sense of humor about it. I just expected more than, well, this. Okay, I'll stop with the Bilmore act for now.
What actually happened in this argument is that you pointed to a Qur'anic verse to support the view that the followers of that book,
of whatever degree of radicalism or fundamentalism would be better nuked. Well, warm up the stockpile --- it's going to be a long nuclear winter. Judeo-Christian civilization is built around a book of equal or greater brutality. Mind you, I don't disagree that the measure of the book is what is done in response to it, and Christianity and Judaism eventually abandoned the mindset embodied in the Hebrew Scriptures, but jeez, you'd figure a litigator would realize that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and taking snippets of the book is a very poor way to judge the people who think it's sacred. Or to decide who gets nuked.
