You responded to exactly 1 of the 29 quotes. I'd call that negligible.

At least you're honest now in this point (that you're only here for trolling) and yes, your "correction of misinformation" is not only non-existent but would always be debatable too, believe it or not.

If you're not here for debate then what are you here for? Looking at your posts, it seems you're here because of hurt ego, unable to let go and getting nothing out of it other than frustration.
I'm using this thread to improve on organizing and verbalizing my opinions, expressing them more concisely. I have a tendency to be too lengthy and I need to really work on that to improve efficiency. I still write walls and they're still too long. It would be better if you were a verbal sparring partner instead of a simple static punching bag that provides little more than a reflective surface. It's still training though, otherwise I wouldn't get anything out of it. But I'm getting less and less out of it with you because you make me repeat myself over and over, so I'm not getting any new challenges. Now you're going to call me a racist again because I compared you to a bag which contains sand.

If you didn't effectively neutralize his arguments and he brings the same points again, the fault lies with you, not him.
I looked up the quotes (plus cross referenced various sources and translations) as I didn't know them all so I learned something from that.

Big time logical fallacy here on your part. My point was that I did not make any racist attacks in this thread nor have I seen anyone else making any racist attacks in this thread.

If a dark skinned Muslim in France gets attacked and the motive of the perpetrator is proven to be racially driven, then it is a racist attack. If he just gets mugged, it's robbery and not racism. If he gets mugged because he is dark skinned, then it's both a robbery and a racist attack. If the victim gets attacked for being a Muslim, then it is a hate crime. If the victim gets attacked for being dark skinned -and- for being a Muslim, then it is both a racist attack and a hate crime. All racist attacks are hate crimes but not all hate crimes are racist attacks.
If you would claim that an attack on a brown Muslim (for being a Muslim) is automatically not only a hate crime but a racist attack and on the other hand don't equally lament racist attacks on white Muslims (for being Muslims) then you're being racist towards white Muslims. Just saying, since you're playing up racism as being a big part of your cherished "Islamophobia"

A nonsensical, illogical and ultimately powerless term, Pat Condell nicely explains why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfJ6FpabknY

A couple quotes from the video:

"Muslims who find that their religion is viewed negatively should have the good grace to stop skulking behind this slanderous word"

"and every time we hear the word Islamophobia, the divide gets wider and the mistrust grows."

"that word is just so discredited and so provably statistically false that anyone still using it with a straight face merely shows the depth of their own dishonsty and their absolute contempt for the intelligence of everyone else"

Your posts alone are sufficient reason to recognize brainwashing and defective education, the Pakistan tag just allows me to be fair enough and shift the burden of responsibility away from you and towards government and society at large. But now that you're a grownup with access to the internet and the opportunity to engage with people who have different ideas, the circumstances that would have excused you (or any of us in your shoes) as a child no longer apply, hence I can't take it easy on you. If I would, it would be racism of lower expectations.

Your wish is understandable, but the way you're going about it is not working, mainly because your replies are too disconnected from the statements you're trying to correct.
Since you have displayed the logic capacity of a punching bag, of course you're not going to logic anyone out of being a racist. And considering the fact that the racists you are supposedly fighting in this thread are imaginary, it is a pointless occupation indeed.
Anyway, here's an tounge-in-cheek instructional video on how to be a "racist", very relevant to this thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY_DqzLGpCk

Here's a most important detail you missed in your argument:
The maximum punishment for blasphemy under the English laws ranged from one year to 10 years in jail, with or without a fine. No mention of life in prison or even death sentences there. That was later on added by Islamists using religious interpretations as justification. Which makes current blasphemy laws in Pakistan an Islamist thing, regardless of who first codified earlier laws.

And that's not even taking into account all the extrajudicial blasphemy related vigilante murders by unofficial Sharia courts and individual civilians in Pakistan which I guarantee you have nothing to do with any English laws but very much to do with superstition (aka religion) and/or personal vendettas using religion as a pretext to kill. Which, unfortunately, makes it a religious issue in both cases whether you like it or not.
In order to prevent religion from being a pretext - at least for state sanctioned punishments, state and religion need to be separated as much as possible, ideally 100%. That would take care of part of the problem but you would still have all the vigilante violence and societal suppression using religion as justification.

Who and what to blame to what exact amount is complicated but religion is the one common factor in the equation any way you look at it, therefor it makes no sense to categorically defend religion by sabotaging any necessary debate with deflections and get all worked up and throw around with claims of racism. It's entirely counter productive, and it's exactly what you are doing.

Oh really, where? Post a link if you're trying to "quote" people like that. It's not a successful distraction attempt otherwise.

A link is necessary so one can see exactly how you're twisting things around this time, might be quite educational.

As I've repeated over and over, my initial response in this discussion was to correct some misinformation. Currently I'm here because every time someone quotes me, a little red "1" shows up next to my ACCOUNT button.

That's very nice, I'm sure it'll be a useful skill.
I've absolutely no interest in being your "sparring partner".

Actually, I did. He says I only responded to one, but then why did he copy that one as well in his response here? As I said in my initial response to his list, they are almost all misquoted, out of context, mangled or not even talking about what he says. I also mentioned when he initially posted that list that I'm sorry, but I'm not going to write out the explanations of why 30 references do not say what he claims they say on a gaming forum. Nobody is going to read them, and he'll just ignore my response, and post the same list the next time he wants to spout nonsense. Instead, I disproved the first reference (showing his source at the very least has horrible scholarship), and invited him to look up the rest in their full context instead of copy-pasting from some anti-islam website.

I'm sorry, are you following the thread of the conversation? I quoted you saying 'An important "detail" many people seem to miss. Because "racism" just sounds good, convenient word to throw around :)' in response to klumpen saying "Islam is not a race!" and gave a list of racist attacks that had religious motivation. Do you understand now?

So when Klumpen said that "me and my brethren (my brethren? who?) are dishonourable", how was he referrin to Islam? Was he negatively viewing my religion, or making a judgement on me (and my brethren) based on it?

Do you know what an analogy is? Perhaps you should look it up. It is also often used in these "debate" things you want to beef up on, as a way to provide a common example outside of the bounds of the debate topic itself. In case it isn't clear to you, I wasn't claiming you said black people commit more crimes. I was providing an analogy of how our discussion was going.

Since he doesn't want to have a red one in his top bar: Oh nice, it's this again. I already wrote, that I gathered those quotes myself and that I've read many holy scriptures of various religions, including the Quran and don't see those quotations any less bad in context (including the one he relativised), but it's so much easier to just blame some imaginary racism, imaginary anti-islam-site or "islamophobia".
"Phobia" would mean that I fear Islam while in reality I just despise the massive fascism, orders for taxes for and violence against gays/atheists/whatever-else-theists and misogyny in it. I never used the word "brethren", I wrote "brothers in faith".
The fact that he is ignoring everything else in the post and is focusing on the one thing I removed to not give him more fuel, is telling. It's only a fight against the dumb non-believers as it seems since he already mentioned, that he has no intent to debate anything.
And yes, I think believing and standing behind what is written in the Quran and evasively avoiding to speak out against people that actually do the really evil stuff ordered in there for real is indeed without honour imho and "brothers in faith" does neither include all muslims nor does it exclude all the rest although followers of the Quran are of course the current topic here, it initially wasn't the topic of the thread.

If there was a religion called "Uhkonism" with a holy scripture that gives orders like the ones I quoted to its believers, it would surely be critisized and most likely forbidden like many other sects in the long run.
All I'm doing is treating everyone and everything equally and for that I'm called a racist while it isn't even related to any race-stuff, actually, brighter muslims usually get even more flak because they usually did not grow early into all this while the darker ones are a bit excused, this is racism.
I still don't get this whole white/brown differentiation, I seriously can't tell someone with a naturally bright hue that visited a solarium from someone in the middle east and couldn't care less.

I think what he is trying to say is that he doesn't want to discuss with us, at all.

I mean, here's two non-Muslims refusing to be racists, that's just so unheard of. How dare we!

The topic is perfectly examplified. Now I'm going back to my radical nap.

Nice to see that some people are able to free themselves from radicalism, reminds me of Maajid Nawaz.

Although I'm vegan, all of my friends (with one exception) are not and most not even vegetarian.
Must have something to do with all but two vegans I know being dogmatic, completely intolerant, misandric/sexist, radical-left people who never get tired of shaming, mobbing and harrassing others when anonymous or in their pack.
I do not know one single person that calls itself "left" that has any friend with even central / liberal politic stances (only short term in order to convert them which is successful quite often), not to mention that they'd most likely never have a person with mostly non-radical conservative views as a friend, while surprisingly enough most conservative people seem to get along very well with what I'd call liberals / centrists if I had to use such generalizing terms.

Radicalism is easy to spot and it's everywhere.

Hmm... My humble (and single) contribution to this topic..

As a Christian believer and follower, my God command me to "hate evil" and "hold on to good", ie to charity, compassion, mercy, etc...

The hate of evil is the mandatory start of genuine goodness, of holiness.

I hate evil.

There is my stance and attitude.

My hate of evil, does not mean I hate "evil doers".

Equatting my hate of evil actions to some sort of "phobia", or to hating a certain "group of people" is the usual "evil strategy" employed by usually "unrepentent sinners" to turn the focus, trying to turn the table of shame and guilt, on the messenger worth, in order to dismiss the message... Or if done inadvertently, a far too common wrong assumption about what I, as a member of "others" may, or may not "think", "believe", taking offense where nothing is actually done for it.

It is a twisted and wrong judgment upon my actual behavior aimed at being compassionate, hating evil for myself, within myself as a human person and diligently setting the exemple of what is God will for me, to adopt and live a "Christ-like rigtheousness" toward, and for other sinners... Basically, all of us, all the time. It is a commitment and a true "life-style" to please God and not "men", "humans", "sinners".

So, there. Summary, "Hate the sin, love the sinner."

Assumptions are bad and the start of this, physical and verbal violence...

"Holiness before God is our goal -- not acceptance by sinners." ... Amen.

Interesting study mentioned here. Seems rather appropriate for the thread. I believe the same can be said for many of the participants in the GG vs Anti-GG debate....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/22/american-politics-sports_n_7111738.html?utm_hp_ref=world&ir=WorldPost

Sad news again regarding radicalism

in North Korea:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32716749

reminds me of this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/kim-jonguns-executed-uncle-jang-song-thaek-stripped-naked-fed-to-120-dogs-as-officials-watched-9037109.html

--------------------------------

and the usual:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/12/bangladeshi-secular-blogger-ananta-bijoy-das-hacked-to-death-in-third-fatal-attack-this-year/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32701001

and

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/04/prophet-mohammed-cartoon-shootings-texas/26858741/

+1 for bringing attention to this most vicious attack on human life and on freedom of speech.

(and +1 to the police of Garland Texas for preventing more victims)

I was already wondering why no one here deemed this incident worthy of mentioning, almost posted about it in this thread but then I remembered that there aren't any people on this forum willing (and/or capable) of debating the issue properly (properly = ceding to the more rational argument), plus many care too much about their precious self image and don't want to defend anything if it's connected to a person like Pam Geller, fearing that they would turn into "racists" (one of the most frequently misused words of the decade) if they should by any chance agree with her on anything - forgetting that Pam Geller is completely irrelevant in the equation of the core issue at hand.


Here the common arguments:

"It's not freedom of speech to ridicule religious figures"

But yes, it is. That's exactly what freedom of speech is for because religion is an idea and all ideas can be criticized and even ridiculed. There are to be no exceptions for overly self-conscious religious groups.

"But...but it's just right-wing bigot propaganda!"

Nope, it isn't. Such a claim tries to build on correlation of opinion and abuse it as circumstantial evidence, doesn't count as an argument.
Anyway, Charlie Hebdo publishes Muhammad cartoons and it's very clearly a left wing magazine - left wing as in left wing with an actual backbone, an alien concept to most leftists I have met.
So one can neutralize the circumstantial evidence argument that it's all right-wing propaganda because if there are both left and right wing people doing the same thing, it can obviously not be a thing that is exclusively one wing or the other.
(and that's why I wrote above that Pam Geller is irrelevant here)

"But...but...Islamophobia! Combo break Islamophooooobia"

Illogical term. A phobia is an irrational fear. There's nothing irrational about being critical of Islam, especially since Islam (just like all religions) is itself based on completely irrational premises.

"These caricatures are just singling out Muslims and making it socially acceptable to bag on them, it's not helpful!"

If you see a caricature of Muhammad as singling out Muslims then you're projecting. Making caricatures of Muhammad means that you're not making any exceptions for Islam and treat it the same way as one treats anything or anyone else that takes itself so seriously. That is the opposite of singling out.
If someone extrapolates from a Muhammad cartoon that all Muslims are bad then such a conclusion is the fault of the person making the conclusion, not the cartoonist's fault. Unless the cartoon has a caption that says "all Muslims are bad" but in the reported cases that resulted in violent (including lethal) reactions that wasn't the case.

"But...it's racist. Racist racist racist!"

Please uninstall Racistmaker 2000, it's a malware program.

Al-Assad is fighting against ISIS but Obama wants him dead, because he doesn't sell oil in dollars like Gaddafi?
Radical capitalism?

Is it allahu akbar time again in France right now?
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1899107-paris-terror-attack-bomb-explosion-after-france-germany-match-shooting-at-locations/
http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2015/11/13/paris-attack-france-germany-match
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34814203

BTW: Already a few months ago already, but there seemed to be quite a "party" at Ramadan this year since there were some happenings like this simultaniously:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3140304/Decapitated-body-Islamist-flag-industrial-estate-France.html