by <tga>

What does this mean? It is supposed to be an attack and a boast at the same time.

The intent is to say "You don't have a viewpoint that is permissible in the debate. You are just wrong. On top of that, you will lose too!"

That's what is meant by this phrase WSOH

You know who else was on the WSOH? Native Americans when European settlers arrived in the New World.

They were practically wiped out, and the survivors were resettled on reservations.

There's your "proof" that racism exists.

It's just a political tool and nothing more. All the libs have is, "you have to do x because if you don't then racism"

My suggestion would be to put your argument, to your sister, in deductive form with true premises. Once you do that, any statement she makes that does not refute or attempt to refute a premise is by definition irrelevant. That will take all her bullets away, take her into the deep waters.

Actually, that was on my agenda. But it was a busy weekend - not much time to get past stating our respective arguments.

Mine is of course that Islam exports terrorism.

She didn't really have anything beyond "it's wrong" both erroneously and morally.

Her point to bolster the "erroneous" part is that a court struck down Trump's travel ban.

But really, I suspect all that needs to be done is for Congress to pass legislation empowering the president to ban Muslims.

I also polled everyone on theism. Mom's an agnostic, my brother is a theist. My sister asked about agnosticism/atheism, which one is which, and identified as agnostic.

The irony is that no feminist would agree with and support the culture that Islam maintains in countries where it is the official religion.

Atheism is the proposition, "God does not exit".

“I Killed Them All.” The Life Of One Of America’s Bloodiest Hitmen - BuzzFeed News

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicagar...

Jared Taylor and Paul Kersey remember the remarkable life and work of Tom Wolfe, who wrote novels to “document contemporary society” and saw through the sham and futility of “diversity.” They also discuss the astonishing contrast between the hostility to “whiteness” on college campuses and the alleged trauma of being a black college student. They examine the latest fashion of criticizing whites who call the police on suspicious blacks, and discuss Heather Mac Donald’s latest master work, Canadian residential schools, and Spike Lee’s latest movie, BlacKKKlansman.>

I argue that Islam is not compatible with western values>

You're right - it isn't. Islam produces @#$%hole countries and inhibits man's progress in various areas of learning.

The problem with your argument, though, is that "trouble assimilating" has been used before. And people think that, because America is in a great position right now, then the incompatibility argument is specious.

Exporting terrorism, however, is stark and pointing out this truism highlights the mortal danger that Muslims pose (intentionally) to Westerners.

Also, I think you are talking up to your audience. But in most cases, we are arguing with clueless idiots, and so your argument is too subtle for them, I fear.

Yes, but I'm not talking about trouble assimilating. I'm talking about Islam and Western values + the constitution. As a document with a stated political ideology, on paper, Islam is not compatible with the constitution. It transcends assimilation. Assimilation relates to how people act whereas Islam vs the constitution relates to the incongruence of the values themselves, apart from people.

<Also, I think you are talking up to your audience. But in most cases, we are arguing with clueless idiots, and so your argument is too subtle for them, I fear.>

Perhaps, but none the less I think its an easy and powerful argument to make. It puts Islam where it ought to be, in politics, rather than the off limits space of religious tolerance.

<Look at <Bureaucrat>. He lives in terror of making a rational argument. He thinks racism is a matter of his opinion! People like this are unbelievably stupid, and won't grasp the "incompatibility" argument until it is too late for their culture and country.>

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...

What document has this "stated political ideology"? Is it the Qur'an?

Here is a link to a post where I made this argument. There are a few comprehensive posts where I’ve made this argument, but I’m short on time at the moment so I’ll just share this one.

What surprised me was that <AI>, your interlocutor, had nothing but a website supporting his assertions that Muslims would obey the law of the land.

When you asked him to quote Qur'an or Hadith, all he had was an injunction to obey the commandments.

Yet one of the commandments is to kill those who turn away from Islam!

You cleaned his clock, and he tried to cover that up by smugly proclaiming you had no argument.

And a few short months later, he cracked and fell apart. Had to leave altogether.

Spot the Typo!>

Level 2:

<criticizes the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument>