x
Click to expand

didactus

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 20
Consoles Owned: Xbox 360
Video Games Played: CS:GO, AoE II, Dota 2, Dark Souls 2
X-box Gamertag: Jiraiyadude
Interests: Muay Thai, Physics, Books.
Date Signed Up:12/03/2012
Last Login:5/23/2015
Location:Lund Sweden
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#3549
Highest Content Rank:#5821
Highest Comment Rank:#1438
Content Thumbs: 111 total,  133 ,  22
Comment Thumbs: 6313 total,  7426 ,  1113
Content Level Progress: 80% (4/5)
Level 8 Content: New Here → Level 9 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 8% (8/100)
Level 254 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 255 Comments: Contaminated Win
Subscribers:0
Content Views:11371
Times Content Favorited:2 times
Total Comments Made:1585
FJ Points:5547
Git gud.


Funny Text/Links

latest user's comments

#28 - "Certain areas" Yeah the areas of the middle ea… 10 hours ago on Airport security 0
#26 - "Jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزية‎ ǧizyah IPA: [dʒiz…  [+] (3 new replies) 10 hours ago on Airport security 0
User avatar #29 - factual (10 hours ago) [-]
it's a fact
User avatar #27 - angelious (10 hours ago) [-]
Jizya tax was not paid by Muslims, who however paid zakat (alms) tax instead.[3]

and it was only in certain areas. not widespread.

and yes i thought you were making up facts again. after all i you have been doing it for the whole duration of this conversation.why should i suspect you suddenly change your habits...

you only sticked to that and ignored every actual argument i made. aka a fallacy fallacy.


" I bet that most/some of the scientists didn't actually believe in Allah. "


which we proved wrong. also the burden of proof lays within the one making the claim. not with the one who doubts it.


also try make up an argument without claiming "i made an argument and you haventh retorted it" every two seconds..ill read it the first thing when i open up my computer tomorrow. good night little fedora fledgeling.
User avatar #28 - didactus (10 hours ago) [-]
"Certain areas"
Yeah the areas of the middle east that were muslim at the time, ofcourse it wasn't imposed on land that the muslims didn't control.

I haven't made up one fact.
And you say fallacy fallacy as if it's a prayer.

"" I bet that most/some of the scientists didn't actually believe in Allah. "


which we proved wrong. also the burden of proof lays within the one making the claim. not with the one who doubts it."
No you didn't prove it wrong. You only showed a list of professing muslim scientists, and they were in the hundreds not the millions you spoke of, I also conceded that yes there were ofcourse muslim scientists, just not as wide spread as you would have us believe. Try proving that claim for a change.
"also try make up an argument without claiming "i made an argument and you haventh retorted it"

But you don't give me any examples?
It must mean that if you don't do it after me insisting upon it until you're forced to respond there must be no examples to give since you can't find one.

"good night little fedora fledgeling."
That's basically the definition of an Ad Hominem Ergo Decedo.
#24 - I've had the argument about muslim persecution before and lets…  [+] (5 new replies) 10 hours ago on Airport security 0
User avatar #25 - angelious (10 hours ago) [-]
source and or link to this?

or is this another one of you "I think this is how it was" facts?

outside of the time i pointed out you focussed on me calling you neckbeard?

and im glad you wont since im quite sure you dont even know what it means...atleast this way my head wont have to deal with more of your bs



"please show them to me then"


you mean prove your facts right? or show you where you think your own beliefs were facts?the latter i have pointed out since your first reply so i doubt its that one...
User avatar #26 - didactus (10 hours ago) [-]
"Jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزية‎ ǧizyah IPA: [dʒizja]; Ottoman Turkish: cizye) is a religiously required per capita tax on non-Muslims under Islamic law, levied by an Islamic state."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

Did you think I lied when I said I had had this argument about the tax before?
I spent good and well several hours debating it.

I responded to your comment on calling me a fedora wearer because it was an ergo decedo.

"you mean prove your facts right? or show you where you think your own beliefs were facts?the latter i have pointed out since your first reply so i doubt its that one..."

If you say I use anecdotal evidence, disprove it then instead of claiming it.
Every one of my "belief" which would be my assertions I have backed with facts. You however have not countered my factual statements, only disputed them and left them undiscredited.
So instead of saying "the latter i have pointed out since your first reply so i doubt its that one..." Tell me what you pointed out, and if you say fallacy fallacy I know for certain you need to brush up on your argumentative skills.
User avatar #29 - factual (10 hours ago) [-]
it's a fact
User avatar #27 - angelious (10 hours ago) [-]
Jizya tax was not paid by Muslims, who however paid zakat (alms) tax instead.[3]

and it was only in certain areas. not widespread.

and yes i thought you were making up facts again. after all i you have been doing it for the whole duration of this conversation.why should i suspect you suddenly change your habits...

you only sticked to that and ignored every actual argument i made. aka a fallacy fallacy.


" I bet that most/some of the scientists didn't actually believe in Allah. "


which we proved wrong. also the burden of proof lays within the one making the claim. not with the one who doubts it.


also try make up an argument without claiming "i made an argument and you haventh retorted it" every two seconds..ill read it the first thing when i open up my computer tomorrow. good night little fedora fledgeling.
User avatar #28 - didactus (10 hours ago) [-]
"Certain areas"
Yeah the areas of the middle east that were muslim at the time, ofcourse it wasn't imposed on land that the muslims didn't control.

I haven't made up one fact.
And you say fallacy fallacy as if it's a prayer.

"" I bet that most/some of the scientists didn't actually believe in Allah. "


which we proved wrong. also the burden of proof lays within the one making the claim. not with the one who doubts it."
No you didn't prove it wrong. You only showed a list of professing muslim scientists, and they were in the hundreds not the millions you spoke of, I also conceded that yes there were ofcourse muslim scientists, just not as wide spread as you would have us believe. Try proving that claim for a change.
"also try make up an argument without claiming "i made an argument and you haventh retorted it"

But you don't give me any examples?
It must mean that if you don't do it after me insisting upon it until you're forced to respond there must be no examples to give since you can't find one.

"good night little fedora fledgeling."
That's basically the definition of an Ad Hominem Ergo Decedo.
#22 - You're missing the point I'm making, I conceded that there whe…  [+] (7 new replies) 11 hours ago on Airport security 0
User avatar #23 - angelious (11 hours ago) [-]
fallacy fallacy. which i have pointed out to you so many times. the act of attacking a supposed fallacy,ignoring any actual argument and/or points made.for instance:

"earth is flat"
"no its not you idiot. earth is round"
"you called me stupid therefore your argument is invalid"



muslims society didnt have religious persecutions. people were free to practice their religion without fear of punishment or discrimination.not only that, but muslims actively acknowledged other religions. so that point is moot. and yet again you think that what you think is somehow a fact.
User avatar #24 - didactus (10 hours ago) [-]
I've had the argument about muslim persecution before and lets just say you were persecuted unless you paid a tax if you were a non-muslim. May not be persecution per se but it is definetly oppression.
And you still cling to fallacy fallacy yet you give no example of when I did it and I did in every instance of my post counter your arguments yet you cannot provide proof.
I will not enact the labor of describing what a strawman is since I doubt you would listen.
And you also assume I have made up facts and believe in them.
Please show them to me then. I doubt you can.
User avatar #25 - angelious (10 hours ago) [-]
source and or link to this?

or is this another one of you "I think this is how it was" facts?

outside of the time i pointed out you focussed on me calling you neckbeard?

and im glad you wont since im quite sure you dont even know what it means...atleast this way my head wont have to deal with more of your bs



"please show them to me then"


you mean prove your facts right? or show you where you think your own beliefs were facts?the latter i have pointed out since your first reply so i doubt its that one...
User avatar #26 - didactus (10 hours ago) [-]
"Jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزية‎ ǧizyah IPA: [dʒizja]; Ottoman Turkish: cizye) is a religiously required per capita tax on non-Muslims under Islamic law, levied by an Islamic state."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

Did you think I lied when I said I had had this argument about the tax before?
I spent good and well several hours debating it.

I responded to your comment on calling me a fedora wearer because it was an ergo decedo.

"you mean prove your facts right? or show you where you think your own beliefs were facts?the latter i have pointed out since your first reply so i doubt its that one..."

If you say I use anecdotal evidence, disprove it then instead of claiming it.
Every one of my "belief" which would be my assertions I have backed with facts. You however have not countered my factual statements, only disputed them and left them undiscredited.
So instead of saying "the latter i have pointed out since your first reply so i doubt its that one..." Tell me what you pointed out, and if you say fallacy fallacy I know for certain you need to brush up on your argumentative skills.
User avatar #29 - factual (10 hours ago) [-]
it's a fact
User avatar #27 - angelious (10 hours ago) [-]
Jizya tax was not paid by Muslims, who however paid zakat (alms) tax instead.[3]

and it was only in certain areas. not widespread.

and yes i thought you were making up facts again. after all i you have been doing it for the whole duration of this conversation.why should i suspect you suddenly change your habits...

you only sticked to that and ignored every actual argument i made. aka a fallacy fallacy.


" I bet that most/some of the scientists didn't actually believe in Allah. "


which we proved wrong. also the burden of proof lays within the one making the claim. not with the one who doubts it.


also try make up an argument without claiming "i made an argument and you haventh retorted it" every two seconds..ill read it the first thing when i open up my computer tomorrow. good night little fedora fledgeling.
User avatar #28 - didactus (10 hours ago) [-]
"Certain areas"
Yeah the areas of the middle east that were muslim at the time, ofcourse it wasn't imposed on land that the muslims didn't control.

I haven't made up one fact.
And you say fallacy fallacy as if it's a prayer.

"" I bet that most/some of the scientists didn't actually believe in Allah. "


which we proved wrong. also the burden of proof lays within the one making the claim. not with the one who doubts it."
No you didn't prove it wrong. You only showed a list of professing muslim scientists, and they were in the hundreds not the millions you spoke of, I also conceded that yes there were ofcourse muslim scientists, just not as wide spread as you would have us believe. Try proving that claim for a change.
"also try make up an argument without claiming "i made an argument and you haventh retorted it"

But you don't give me any examples?
It must mean that if you don't do it after me insisting upon it until you're forced to respond there must be no examples to give since you can't find one.

"good night little fedora fledgeling."
That's basically the definition of an Ad Hominem Ergo Decedo.
#20 - "the burden of proof lies with the fellow claiming "…  [+] (9 new replies) 11 hours ago on Airport security 0
User avatar #21 - angelious (11 hours ago) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists

one versus what? 100? and thats only wikipedia.


aand no. you didnt "defend" your argument anyway. you just ignored every argument i made and instead went all "WAAH YOU INSULTED ME SO YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID" thats not defending anything.


fallacy fallacy. twice in a row actually.

yes i insulted you because honestly your original argument sounded like straight out of cringe comp fedora edition. and also. unlike you. i didnt make the insult in your cause it was actually the focussing on the insult rather than an insult my core argument.
User avatar #22 - didactus (11 hours ago) [-]
You're missing the point I'm making, I conceded that there where muslim scientists. I just said there were probably more non believers than what is accounted for.
And I didn't use a fallacy fallacy once. I don't understand as to why you cling to it so hard?
Because it's false.
And as for the list, again I conceded that there were muslim scientists, I just said that it's possible that some / many of them were only professing so as to not get persecuted. I can't understand where you're getting this idea from that I said ALL because I never did, tell me when I said ALL or this argument is null and void.
And I did defend my argument, you give no example where I did not. You resorted to a rethorical answer rather than a concrete example.
User avatar #23 - angelious (11 hours ago) [-]
fallacy fallacy. which i have pointed out to you so many times. the act of attacking a supposed fallacy,ignoring any actual argument and/or points made.for instance:

"earth is flat"
"no its not you idiot. earth is round"
"you called me stupid therefore your argument is invalid"



muslims society didnt have religious persecutions. people were free to practice their religion without fear of punishment or discrimination.not only that, but muslims actively acknowledged other religions. so that point is moot. and yet again you think that what you think is somehow a fact.
User avatar #24 - didactus (10 hours ago) [-]
I've had the argument about muslim persecution before and lets just say you were persecuted unless you paid a tax if you were a non-muslim. May not be persecution per se but it is definetly oppression.
And you still cling to fallacy fallacy yet you give no example of when I did it and I did in every instance of my post counter your arguments yet you cannot provide proof.
I will not enact the labor of describing what a strawman is since I doubt you would listen.
And you also assume I have made up facts and believe in them.
Please show them to me then. I doubt you can.
User avatar #25 - angelious (10 hours ago) [-]
source and or link to this?

or is this another one of you "I think this is how it was" facts?

outside of the time i pointed out you focussed on me calling you neckbeard?

and im glad you wont since im quite sure you dont even know what it means...atleast this way my head wont have to deal with more of your bs



"please show them to me then"


you mean prove your facts right? or show you where you think your own beliefs were facts?the latter i have pointed out since your first reply so i doubt its that one...
User avatar #26 - didactus (10 hours ago) [-]
"Jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزية‎ ǧizyah IPA: [dʒizja]; Ottoman Turkish: cizye) is a religiously required per capita tax on non-Muslims under Islamic law, levied by an Islamic state."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

Did you think I lied when I said I had had this argument about the tax before?
I spent good and well several hours debating it.

I responded to your comment on calling me a fedora wearer because it was an ergo decedo.

"you mean prove your facts right? or show you where you think your own beliefs were facts?the latter i have pointed out since your first reply so i doubt its that one..."

If you say I use anecdotal evidence, disprove it then instead of claiming it.
Every one of my "belief" which would be my assertions I have backed with facts. You however have not countered my factual statements, only disputed them and left them undiscredited.
So instead of saying "the latter i have pointed out since your first reply so i doubt its that one..." Tell me what you pointed out, and if you say fallacy fallacy I know for certain you need to brush up on your argumentative skills.
User avatar #29 - factual (10 hours ago) [-]
it's a fact
User avatar #27 - angelious (10 hours ago) [-]
Jizya tax was not paid by Muslims, who however paid zakat (alms) tax instead.[3]

and it was only in certain areas. not widespread.

and yes i thought you were making up facts again. after all i you have been doing it for the whole duration of this conversation.why should i suspect you suddenly change your habits...

you only sticked to that and ignored every actual argument i made. aka a fallacy fallacy.


" I bet that most/some of the scientists didn't actually believe in Allah. "


which we proved wrong. also the burden of proof lays within the one making the claim. not with the one who doubts it.


also try make up an argument without claiming "i made an argument and you haventh retorted it" every two seconds..ill read it the first thing when i open up my computer tomorrow. good night little fedora fledgeling.
User avatar #28 - didactus (10 hours ago) [-]
"Certain areas"
Yeah the areas of the middle east that were muslim at the time, ofcourse it wasn't imposed on land that the muslims didn't control.

I haven't made up one fact.
And you say fallacy fallacy as if it's a prayer.

"" I bet that most/some of the scientists didn't actually believe in Allah. "


which we proved wrong. also the burden of proof lays within the one making the claim. not with the one who doubts it."
No you didn't prove it wrong. You only showed a list of professing muslim scientists, and they were in the hundreds not the millions you spoke of, I also conceded that yes there were ofcourse muslim scientists, just not as wide spread as you would have us believe. Try proving that claim for a change.
"also try make up an argument without claiming "i made an argument and you haventh retorted it"

But you don't give me any examples?
It must mean that if you don't do it after me insisting upon it until you're forced to respond there must be no examples to give since you can't find one.

"good night little fedora fledgeling."
That's basically the definition of an Ad Hominem Ergo Decedo.
#18 - You don't understand what a strawman is. And you bring no …  [+] (11 new replies) 11 hours ago on Airport security 0
User avatar #19 - angelious (11 hours ago) [-]
and you dont understand what a fallacy is.

the burden of proof lies with the fellow claiming "everything muslims and their culture did for science were actually done by people who secretly werent muslism because there is this one guy who wasnt muslim" not the fellow who says that muslims operating in muslim territory were most likely muslims and not just joking.


and you still continue with retorting by focussing on fallacies. wether or not these fallacies were true or not.


you gave flimsy example. no sources,no nothing. and you are claiming this one example proves that the millions of other cases of muslim scientist or doctors were the same.


says the guy who ran out of constructive points after his first reply >>
User avatar #20 - didactus (11 hours ago) [-]
"the burden of proof lies with the fellow claiming "everything muslims and their culture did for science were actually done by people who secretly werent muslism because there is this one guy who wasnt muslim" not the fellow who says that muslims operating in muslim territory were most likely muslims and not just joking."
But I didn't say all even ONCE I gave an example of Omar Khayyám because he is the most well known. And I'll quote his Rubaiyat later in the post to prove it.

"and you still continue with retorting by focussing on fallacies. wether or not these fallacies were true or not. "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubaiyat_of_Omar_Khayyam

"And do you think that unto such as you;
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew:
God gave the secret, and denied it me?--
Well, well, what matters it! Believe that, too.
(#85, p. 47)"

Indeed I did, why?
Because your counter arguments were all flawed so instead of bringing up new ones I defended my original statement against your strawman that said I had said ALL, but I never said ALL, you need to get this or you're just devolving further into idiocy.

"you gave flimsy example. no sources,no nothing. and you are claiming this one example proves that the millions of other cases of muslim scientist or doctors were the same."

My example wasn't flimsy, and I never said my example proves anything, it only implies that even scientists of the dark ages were not devoutly religious. I'm sure there were believing scientists and doctors, there's no denying it, but you're arguing from traditionalism which is inherently flawed.

"says the guy who ran out of constructive points after his first reply >>"

Ad Hominem and false.

Don't forget, you attacked me because you thought I was arguing ergo decedo when you used the Fedora gif.
User avatar #21 - angelious (11 hours ago) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists

one versus what? 100? and thats only wikipedia.


aand no. you didnt "defend" your argument anyway. you just ignored every argument i made and instead went all "WAAH YOU INSULTED ME SO YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID" thats not defending anything.


fallacy fallacy. twice in a row actually.

yes i insulted you because honestly your original argument sounded like straight out of cringe comp fedora edition. and also. unlike you. i didnt make the insult in your cause it was actually the focussing on the insult rather than an insult my core argument.
User avatar #22 - didactus (11 hours ago) [-]
You're missing the point I'm making, I conceded that there where muslim scientists. I just said there were probably more non believers than what is accounted for.
And I didn't use a fallacy fallacy once. I don't understand as to why you cling to it so hard?
Because it's false.
And as for the list, again I conceded that there were muslim scientists, I just said that it's possible that some / many of them were only professing so as to not get persecuted. I can't understand where you're getting this idea from that I said ALL because I never did, tell me when I said ALL or this argument is null and void.
And I did defend my argument, you give no example where I did not. You resorted to a rethorical answer rather than a concrete example.
User avatar #23 - angelious (11 hours ago) [-]
fallacy fallacy. which i have pointed out to you so many times. the act of attacking a supposed fallacy,ignoring any actual argument and/or points made.for instance:

"earth is flat"
"no its not you idiot. earth is round"
"you called me stupid therefore your argument is invalid"



muslims society didnt have religious persecutions. people were free to practice their religion without fear of punishment or discrimination.not only that, but muslims actively acknowledged other religions. so that point is moot. and yet again you think that what you think is somehow a fact.
User avatar #24 - didactus (10 hours ago) [-]
I've had the argument about muslim persecution before and lets just say you were persecuted unless you paid a tax if you were a non-muslim. May not be persecution per se but it is definetly oppression.
And you still cling to fallacy fallacy yet you give no example of when I did it and I did in every instance of my post counter your arguments yet you cannot provide proof.
I will not enact the labor of describing what a strawman is since I doubt you would listen.
And you also assume I have made up facts and believe in them.
Please show them to me then. I doubt you can.
User avatar #25 - angelious (10 hours ago) [-]
source and or link to this?

or is this another one of you "I think this is how it was" facts?

outside of the time i pointed out you focussed on me calling you neckbeard?

and im glad you wont since im quite sure you dont even know what it means...atleast this way my head wont have to deal with more of your bs



"please show them to me then"


you mean prove your facts right? or show you where you think your own beliefs were facts?the latter i have pointed out since your first reply so i doubt its that one...
User avatar #26 - didactus (10 hours ago) [-]
"Jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزية‎ ǧizyah IPA: [dʒizja]; Ottoman Turkish: cizye) is a religiously required per capita tax on non-Muslims under Islamic law, levied by an Islamic state."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

Did you think I lied when I said I had had this argument about the tax before?
I spent good and well several hours debating it.

I responded to your comment on calling me a fedora wearer because it was an ergo decedo.

"you mean prove your facts right? or show you where you think your own beliefs were facts?the latter i have pointed out since your first reply so i doubt its that one..."

If you say I use anecdotal evidence, disprove it then instead of claiming it.
Every one of my "belief" which would be my assertions I have backed with facts. You however have not countered my factual statements, only disputed them and left them undiscredited.
So instead of saying "the latter i have pointed out since your first reply so i doubt its that one..." Tell me what you pointed out, and if you say fallacy fallacy I know for certain you need to brush up on your argumentative skills.
User avatar #29 - factual (10 hours ago) [-]
it's a fact
User avatar #27 - angelious (10 hours ago) [-]
Jizya tax was not paid by Muslims, who however paid zakat (alms) tax instead.[3]

and it was only in certain areas. not widespread.

and yes i thought you were making up facts again. after all i you have been doing it for the whole duration of this conversation.why should i suspect you suddenly change your habits...

you only sticked to that and ignored every actual argument i made. aka a fallacy fallacy.


" I bet that most/some of the scientists didn't actually believe in Allah. "


which we proved wrong. also the burden of proof lays within the one making the claim. not with the one who doubts it.


also try make up an argument without claiming "i made an argument and you haventh retorted it" every two seconds..ill read it the first thing when i open up my computer tomorrow. good night little fedora fledgeling.
User avatar #28 - didactus (10 hours ago) [-]
"Certain areas"
Yeah the areas of the middle east that were muslim at the time, ofcourse it wasn't imposed on land that the muslims didn't control.

I haven't made up one fact.
And you say fallacy fallacy as if it's a prayer.

"" I bet that most/some of the scientists didn't actually believe in Allah. "


which we proved wrong. also the burden of proof lays within the one making the claim. not with the one who doubts it."
No you didn't prove it wrong. You only showed a list of professing muslim scientists, and they were in the hundreds not the millions you spoke of, I also conceded that yes there were ofcourse muslim scientists, just not as wide spread as you would have us believe. Try proving that claim for a change.
"also try make up an argument without claiming "i made an argument and you haventh retorted it"

But you don't give me any examples?
It must mean that if you don't do it after me insisting upon it until you're forced to respond there must be no examples to give since you can't find one.

"good night little fedora fledgeling."
That's basically the definition of an Ad Hominem Ergo Decedo.
#16 - "you answer to a supposed fallacy without actually focuss…  [+] (13 new replies) 12 hours ago on Airport security 0
User avatar #17 - angelious (11 hours ago) [-]
and then you failed to actually argue back on my arguments. you just took the insult i made in my argument and made it your whole retort.

"i didnt say that exactly so your point is moot"

such a compelling arguments you are doing...


and yeah neither did i. stop misrepresenting what i said. you are just further convincing me you cant strike together a coherent argument.
User avatar #18 - didactus (11 hours ago) [-]
You don't understand what a strawman is.
And you bring no counter to my argument, you don't even give an example.
And you have now gotten to the point where you are only throwing ad hominem.
If you didn't see that I actually gave concrete examples I want you to point out what I missed.
If you cannot, this argument is over because you have run out of constructive points.
User avatar #19 - angelious (11 hours ago) [-]
and you dont understand what a fallacy is.

the burden of proof lies with the fellow claiming "everything muslims and their culture did for science were actually done by people who secretly werent muslism because there is this one guy who wasnt muslim" not the fellow who says that muslims operating in muslim territory were most likely muslims and not just joking.


and you still continue with retorting by focussing on fallacies. wether or not these fallacies were true or not.


you gave flimsy example. no sources,no nothing. and you are claiming this one example proves that the millions of other cases of muslim scientist or doctors were the same.


says the guy who ran out of constructive points after his first reply >>
User avatar #20 - didactus (11 hours ago) [-]
"the burden of proof lies with the fellow claiming "everything muslims and their culture did for science were actually done by people who secretly werent muslism because there is this one guy who wasnt muslim" not the fellow who says that muslims operating in muslim territory were most likely muslims and not just joking."
But I didn't say all even ONCE I gave an example of Omar Khayyám because he is the most well known. And I'll quote his Rubaiyat later in the post to prove it.

"and you still continue with retorting by focussing on fallacies. wether or not these fallacies were true or not. "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubaiyat_of_Omar_Khayyam

"And do you think that unto such as you;
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew:
God gave the secret, and denied it me?--
Well, well, what matters it! Believe that, too.
(#85, p. 47)"

Indeed I did, why?
Because your counter arguments were all flawed so instead of bringing up new ones I defended my original statement against your strawman that said I had said ALL, but I never said ALL, you need to get this or you're just devolving further into idiocy.

"you gave flimsy example. no sources,no nothing. and you are claiming this one example proves that the millions of other cases of muslim scientist or doctors were the same."

My example wasn't flimsy, and I never said my example proves anything, it only implies that even scientists of the dark ages were not devoutly religious. I'm sure there were believing scientists and doctors, there's no denying it, but you're arguing from traditionalism which is inherently flawed.

"says the guy who ran out of constructive points after his first reply >>"

Ad Hominem and false.

Don't forget, you attacked me because you thought I was arguing ergo decedo when you used the Fedora gif.
User avatar #21 - angelious (11 hours ago) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists

one versus what? 100? and thats only wikipedia.


aand no. you didnt "defend" your argument anyway. you just ignored every argument i made and instead went all "WAAH YOU INSULTED ME SO YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID" thats not defending anything.


fallacy fallacy. twice in a row actually.

yes i insulted you because honestly your original argument sounded like straight out of cringe comp fedora edition. and also. unlike you. i didnt make the insult in your cause it was actually the focussing on the insult rather than an insult my core argument.
User avatar #22 - didactus (11 hours ago) [-]
You're missing the point I'm making, I conceded that there where muslim scientists. I just said there were probably more non believers than what is accounted for.
And I didn't use a fallacy fallacy once. I don't understand as to why you cling to it so hard?
Because it's false.
And as for the list, again I conceded that there were muslim scientists, I just said that it's possible that some / many of them were only professing so as to not get persecuted. I can't understand where you're getting this idea from that I said ALL because I never did, tell me when I said ALL or this argument is null and void.
And I did defend my argument, you give no example where I did not. You resorted to a rethorical answer rather than a concrete example.
User avatar #23 - angelious (11 hours ago) [-]
fallacy fallacy. which i have pointed out to you so many times. the act of attacking a supposed fallacy,ignoring any actual argument and/or points made.for instance:

"earth is flat"
"no its not you idiot. earth is round"
"you called me stupid therefore your argument is invalid"



muslims society didnt have religious persecutions. people were free to practice their religion without fear of punishment or discrimination.not only that, but muslims actively acknowledged other religions. so that point is moot. and yet again you think that what you think is somehow a fact.
User avatar #24 - didactus (10 hours ago) [-]
I've had the argument about muslim persecution before and lets just say you were persecuted unless you paid a tax if you were a non-muslim. May not be persecution per se but it is definetly oppression.
And you still cling to fallacy fallacy yet you give no example of when I did it and I did in every instance of my post counter your arguments yet you cannot provide proof.
I will not enact the labor of describing what a strawman is since I doubt you would listen.
And you also assume I have made up facts and believe in them.
Please show them to me then. I doubt you can.
User avatar #25 - angelious (10 hours ago) [-]
source and or link to this?

or is this another one of you "I think this is how it was" facts?

outside of the time i pointed out you focussed on me calling you neckbeard?

and im glad you wont since im quite sure you dont even know what it means...atleast this way my head wont have to deal with more of your bs



"please show them to me then"


you mean prove your facts right? or show you where you think your own beliefs were facts?the latter i have pointed out since your first reply so i doubt its that one...
User avatar #26 - didactus (10 hours ago) [-]
"Jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزية‎ ǧizyah IPA: [dʒizja]; Ottoman Turkish: cizye) is a religiously required per capita tax on non-Muslims under Islamic law, levied by an Islamic state."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

Did you think I lied when I said I had had this argument about the tax before?
I spent good and well several hours debating it.

I responded to your comment on calling me a fedora wearer because it was an ergo decedo.

"you mean prove your facts right? or show you where you think your own beliefs were facts?the latter i have pointed out since your first reply so i doubt its that one..."

If you say I use anecdotal evidence, disprove it then instead of claiming it.
Every one of my "belief" which would be my assertions I have backed with facts. You however have not countered my factual statements, only disputed them and left them undiscredited.
So instead of saying "the latter i have pointed out since your first reply so i doubt its that one..." Tell me what you pointed out, and if you say fallacy fallacy I know for certain you need to brush up on your argumentative skills.
User avatar #29 - factual (10 hours ago) [-]
it's a fact
User avatar #27 - angelious (10 hours ago) [-]
Jizya tax was not paid by Muslims, who however paid zakat (alms) tax instead.[3]

and it was only in certain areas. not widespread.

and yes i thought you were making up facts again. after all i you have been doing it for the whole duration of this conversation.why should i suspect you suddenly change your habits...

you only sticked to that and ignored every actual argument i made. aka a fallacy fallacy.


" I bet that most/some of the scientists didn't actually believe in Allah. "


which we proved wrong. also the burden of proof lays within the one making the claim. not with the one who doubts it.


also try make up an argument without claiming "i made an argument and you haventh retorted it" every two seconds..ill read it the first thing when i open up my computer tomorrow. good night little fedora fledgeling.
User avatar #28 - didactus (10 hours ago) [-]
"Certain areas"
Yeah the areas of the middle east that were muslim at the time, ofcourse it wasn't imposed on land that the muslims didn't control.

I haven't made up one fact.
And you say fallacy fallacy as if it's a prayer.

"" I bet that most/some of the scientists didn't actually believe in Allah. "


which we proved wrong. also the burden of proof lays within the one making the claim. not with the one who doubts it."
No you didn't prove it wrong. You only showed a list of professing muslim scientists, and they were in the hundreds not the millions you spoke of, I also conceded that yes there were ofcourse muslim scientists, just not as wide spread as you would have us believe. Try proving that claim for a change.
"also try make up an argument without claiming "i made an argument and you haventh retorted it"

But you don't give me any examples?
It must mean that if you don't do it after me insisting upon it until you're forced to respond there must be no examples to give since you can't find one.

"good night little fedora fledgeling."
That's basically the definition of an Ad Hominem Ergo Decedo.
#14 - Strawman, I did not say atheist, nor did I belittle the achiev…  [+] (15 new replies) 12 hours ago on Airport security 0
User avatar #15 - angelious (12 hours ago) [-]
fallacy fallacy. you answer to a supposed fallacy without actually focussing on the actual argument.

and yes you did. or otherwise i dont understand what you were trying to prove with saying he is only known as a warlord. second are you then indicating they were people of other religions in the muslim territory making technological advancements for them? no matter how i try interpret it. your comment remains stupid :/
User avatar #16 - didactus (12 hours ago) [-]
"you answer to a supposed fallacy without actually focussing on the actual argument. "

I did just point out the fallacy because a strawman is no argument against what the opponent says.

"otherwise i dont understand what you were trying to prove with saying he is only known as a warlord. second are you then indicating they were people of other religions in the muslim territory making technological advancements for them? no matter how i try interpret it"

I never said ONLY warlord, learn to read. It's just sad calling me stupid when you can't even read what I said.

I never said they belonged to any particular religion, I just implied that they had to keep their actual beliefs secret to avoid persecution.
Stop misrepresenting what I said, you're just further convincing me you can't string together a coherent argument.
User avatar #17 - angelious (11 hours ago) [-]
and then you failed to actually argue back on my arguments. you just took the insult i made in my argument and made it your whole retort.

"i didnt say that exactly so your point is moot"

such a compelling arguments you are doing...


and yeah neither did i. stop misrepresenting what i said. you are just further convincing me you cant strike together a coherent argument.
User avatar #18 - didactus (11 hours ago) [-]
You don't understand what a strawman is.
And you bring no counter to my argument, you don't even give an example.
And you have now gotten to the point where you are only throwing ad hominem.
If you didn't see that I actually gave concrete examples I want you to point out what I missed.
If you cannot, this argument is over because you have run out of constructive points.
User avatar #19 - angelious (11 hours ago) [-]
and you dont understand what a fallacy is.

the burden of proof lies with the fellow claiming "everything muslims and their culture did for science were actually done by people who secretly werent muslism because there is this one guy who wasnt muslim" not the fellow who says that muslims operating in muslim territory were most likely muslims and not just joking.


and you still continue with retorting by focussing on fallacies. wether or not these fallacies were true or not.


you gave flimsy example. no sources,no nothing. and you are claiming this one example proves that the millions of other cases of muslim scientist or doctors were the same.


says the guy who ran out of constructive points after his first reply >>
User avatar #20 - didactus (11 hours ago) [-]
"the burden of proof lies with the fellow claiming "everything muslims and their culture did for science were actually done by people who secretly werent muslism because there is this one guy who wasnt muslim" not the fellow who says that muslims operating in muslim territory were most likely muslims and not just joking."
But I didn't say all even ONCE I gave an example of Omar Khayyám because he is the most well known. And I'll quote his Rubaiyat later in the post to prove it.

"and you still continue with retorting by focussing on fallacies. wether or not these fallacies were true or not. "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubaiyat_of_Omar_Khayyam

"And do you think that unto such as you;
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew:
God gave the secret, and denied it me?--
Well, well, what matters it! Believe that, too.
(#85, p. 47)"

Indeed I did, why?
Because your counter arguments were all flawed so instead of bringing up new ones I defended my original statement against your strawman that said I had said ALL, but I never said ALL, you need to get this or you're just devolving further into idiocy.

"you gave flimsy example. no sources,no nothing. and you are claiming this one example proves that the millions of other cases of muslim scientist or doctors were the same."

My example wasn't flimsy, and I never said my example proves anything, it only implies that even scientists of the dark ages were not devoutly religious. I'm sure there were believing scientists and doctors, there's no denying it, but you're arguing from traditionalism which is inherently flawed.

"says the guy who ran out of constructive points after his first reply >>"

Ad Hominem and false.

Don't forget, you attacked me because you thought I was arguing ergo decedo when you used the Fedora gif.
User avatar #21 - angelious (11 hours ago) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists

one versus what? 100? and thats only wikipedia.


aand no. you didnt "defend" your argument anyway. you just ignored every argument i made and instead went all "WAAH YOU INSULTED ME SO YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID" thats not defending anything.


fallacy fallacy. twice in a row actually.

yes i insulted you because honestly your original argument sounded like straight out of cringe comp fedora edition. and also. unlike you. i didnt make the insult in your cause it was actually the focussing on the insult rather than an insult my core argument.
User avatar #22 - didactus (11 hours ago) [-]
You're missing the point I'm making, I conceded that there where muslim scientists. I just said there were probably more non believers than what is accounted for.
And I didn't use a fallacy fallacy once. I don't understand as to why you cling to it so hard?
Because it's false.
And as for the list, again I conceded that there were muslim scientists, I just said that it's possible that some / many of them were only professing so as to not get persecuted. I can't understand where you're getting this idea from that I said ALL because I never did, tell me when I said ALL or this argument is null and void.
And I did defend my argument, you give no example where I did not. You resorted to a rethorical answer rather than a concrete example.
User avatar #23 - angelious (11 hours ago) [-]
fallacy fallacy. which i have pointed out to you so many times. the act of attacking a supposed fallacy,ignoring any actual argument and/or points made.for instance:

"earth is flat"
"no its not you idiot. earth is round"
"you called me stupid therefore your argument is invalid"



muslims society didnt have religious persecutions. people were free to practice their religion without fear of punishment or discrimination.not only that, but muslims actively acknowledged other religions. so that point is moot. and yet again you think that what you think is somehow a fact.
User avatar #24 - didactus (10 hours ago) [-]
I've had the argument about muslim persecution before and lets just say you were persecuted unless you paid a tax if you were a non-muslim. May not be persecution per se but it is definetly oppression.
And you still cling to fallacy fallacy yet you give no example of when I did it and I did in every instance of my post counter your arguments yet you cannot provide proof.
I will not enact the labor of describing what a strawman is since I doubt you would listen.
And you also assume I have made up facts and believe in them.
Please show them to me then. I doubt you can.
User avatar #25 - angelious (10 hours ago) [-]
source and or link to this?

or is this another one of you "I think this is how it was" facts?

outside of the time i pointed out you focussed on me calling you neckbeard?

and im glad you wont since im quite sure you dont even know what it means...atleast this way my head wont have to deal with more of your bs



"please show them to me then"


you mean prove your facts right? or show you where you think your own beliefs were facts?the latter i have pointed out since your first reply so i doubt its that one...
User avatar #26 - didactus (10 hours ago) [-]
"Jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزية‎ ǧizyah IPA: [dʒizja]; Ottoman Turkish: cizye) is a religiously required per capita tax on non-Muslims under Islamic law, levied by an Islamic state."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

Did you think I lied when I said I had had this argument about the tax before?
I spent good and well several hours debating it.

I responded to your comment on calling me a fedora wearer because it was an ergo decedo.

"you mean prove your facts right? or show you where you think your own beliefs were facts?the latter i have pointed out since your first reply so i doubt its that one..."

If you say I use anecdotal evidence, disprove it then instead of claiming it.
Every one of my "belief" which would be my assertions I have backed with facts. You however have not countered my factual statements, only disputed them and left them undiscredited.
So instead of saying "the latter i have pointed out since your first reply so i doubt its that one..." Tell me what you pointed out, and if you say fallacy fallacy I know for certain you need to brush up on your argumentative skills.
User avatar #29 - factual (10 hours ago) [-]
it's a fact
User avatar #27 - angelious (10 hours ago) [-]
Jizya tax was not paid by Muslims, who however paid zakat (alms) tax instead.[3]

and it was only in certain areas. not widespread.

and yes i thought you were making up facts again. after all i you have been doing it for the whole duration of this conversation.why should i suspect you suddenly change your habits...

you only sticked to that and ignored every actual argument i made. aka a fallacy fallacy.


" I bet that most/some of the scientists didn't actually believe in Allah. "


which we proved wrong. also the burden of proof lays within the one making the claim. not with the one who doubts it.


also try make up an argument without claiming "i made an argument and you haventh retorted it" every two seconds..ill read it the first thing when i open up my computer tomorrow. good night little fedora fledgeling.
User avatar #28 - didactus (10 hours ago) [-]
"Certain areas"
Yeah the areas of the middle east that were muslim at the time, ofcourse it wasn't imposed on land that the muslims didn't control.

I haven't made up one fact.
And you say fallacy fallacy as if it's a prayer.

"" I bet that most/some of the scientists didn't actually believe in Allah. "


which we proved wrong. also the burden of proof lays within the one making the claim. not with the one who doubts it."
No you didn't prove it wrong. You only showed a list of professing muslim scientists, and they were in the hundreds not the millions you spoke of, I also conceded that yes there were ofcourse muslim scientists, just not as wide spread as you would have us believe. Try proving that claim for a change.
"also try make up an argument without claiming "i made an argument and you haventh retorted it"

But you don't give me any examples?
It must mean that if you don't do it after me insisting upon it until you're forced to respond there must be no examples to give since you can't find one.

"good night little fedora fledgeling."
That's basically the definition of an Ad Hominem Ergo Decedo.
#12 - I just gave you an example of one who lived under islamic rule…  [+] (17 new replies) 12 hours ago on Airport security 0
#13 - angelious (12 hours ago) [-]
and a wise man versed in arts of science poetry and medicine..


and you are basically making a claim that "the muslim culture isnt actually so good as history claims because I think that everybody in the muslim culture,and every achievement made by the muslim culture was done by an atheist"

User avatar #14 - didactus (12 hours ago) [-]
Strawman, I did not say atheist, nor did I belittle the achievements of Saladin, I just pointed out that he is most known for being a warlord.
The fact you respond with such a strawman aswell with a fedora gif shows the level of thought you used to respond with.
Not only did you assume the worst in me you stereotyped me based on such a vague statement of non belief.
Rethink what you just said.
User avatar #15 - angelious (12 hours ago) [-]
fallacy fallacy. you answer to a supposed fallacy without actually focussing on the actual argument.

and yes you did. or otherwise i dont understand what you were trying to prove with saying he is only known as a warlord. second are you then indicating they were people of other religions in the muslim territory making technological advancements for them? no matter how i try interpret it. your comment remains stupid :/
User avatar #16 - didactus (12 hours ago) [-]
"you answer to a supposed fallacy without actually focussing on the actual argument. "

I did just point out the fallacy because a strawman is no argument against what the opponent says.

"otherwise i dont understand what you were trying to prove with saying he is only known as a warlord. second are you then indicating they were people of other religions in the muslim territory making technological advancements for them? no matter how i try interpret it"

I never said ONLY warlord, learn to read. It's just sad calling me stupid when you can't even read what I said.

I never said they belonged to any particular religion, I just implied that they had to keep their actual beliefs secret to avoid persecution.
Stop misrepresenting what I said, you're just further convincing me you can't string together a coherent argument.
User avatar #17 - angelious (11 hours ago) [-]
and then you failed to actually argue back on my arguments. you just took the insult i made in my argument and made it your whole retort.

"i didnt say that exactly so your point is moot"

such a compelling arguments you are doing...


and yeah neither did i. stop misrepresenting what i said. you are just further convincing me you cant strike together a coherent argument.
User avatar #18 - didactus (11 hours ago) [-]
You don't understand what a strawman is.
And you bring no counter to my argument, you don't even give an example.
And you have now gotten to the point where you are only throwing ad hominem.
If you didn't see that I actually gave concrete examples I want you to point out what I missed.
If you cannot, this argument is over because you have run out of constructive points.
User avatar #19 - angelious (11 hours ago) [-]
and you dont understand what a fallacy is.

the burden of proof lies with the fellow claiming "everything muslims and their culture did for science were actually done by people who secretly werent muslism because there is this one guy who wasnt muslim" not the fellow who says that muslims operating in muslim territory were most likely muslims and not just joking.


and you still continue with retorting by focussing on fallacies. wether or not these fallacies were true or not.


you gave flimsy example. no sources,no nothing. and you are claiming this one example proves that the millions of other cases of muslim scientist or doctors were the same.


says the guy who ran out of constructive points after his first reply >>
User avatar #20 - didactus (11 hours ago) [-]
"the burden of proof lies with the fellow claiming "everything muslims and their culture did for science were actually done by people who secretly werent muslism because there is this one guy who wasnt muslim" not the fellow who says that muslims operating in muslim territory were most likely muslims and not just joking."
But I didn't say all even ONCE I gave an example of Omar Khayyám because he is the most well known. And I'll quote his Rubaiyat later in the post to prove it.

"and you still continue with retorting by focussing on fallacies. wether or not these fallacies were true or not. "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubaiyat_of_Omar_Khayyam

"And do you think that unto such as you;
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew:
God gave the secret, and denied it me?--
Well, well, what matters it! Believe that, too.
(#85, p. 47)"

Indeed I did, why?
Because your counter arguments were all flawed so instead of bringing up new ones I defended my original statement against your strawman that said I had said ALL, but I never said ALL, you need to get this or you're just devolving further into idiocy.

"you gave flimsy example. no sources,no nothing. and you are claiming this one example proves that the millions of other cases of muslim scientist or doctors were the same."

My example wasn't flimsy, and I never said my example proves anything, it only implies that even scientists of the dark ages were not devoutly religious. I'm sure there were believing scientists and doctors, there's no denying it, but you're arguing from traditionalism which is inherently flawed.

"says the guy who ran out of constructive points after his first reply >>"

Ad Hominem and false.

Don't forget, you attacked me because you thought I was arguing ergo decedo when you used the Fedora gif.
User avatar #21 - angelious (11 hours ago) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists

one versus what? 100? and thats only wikipedia.


aand no. you didnt "defend" your argument anyway. you just ignored every argument i made and instead went all "WAAH YOU INSULTED ME SO YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID" thats not defending anything.


fallacy fallacy. twice in a row actually.

yes i insulted you because honestly your original argument sounded like straight out of cringe comp fedora edition. and also. unlike you. i didnt make the insult in your cause it was actually the focussing on the insult rather than an insult my core argument.
User avatar #22 - didactus (11 hours ago) [-]
You're missing the point I'm making, I conceded that there where muslim scientists. I just said there were probably more non believers than what is accounted for.
And I didn't use a fallacy fallacy once. I don't understand as to why you cling to it so hard?
Because it's false.
And as for the list, again I conceded that there were muslim scientists, I just said that it's possible that some / many of them were only professing so as to not get persecuted. I can't understand where you're getting this idea from that I said ALL because I never did, tell me when I said ALL or this argument is null and void.
And I did defend my argument, you give no example where I did not. You resorted to a rethorical answer rather than a concrete example.
User avatar #23 - angelious (11 hours ago) [-]
fallacy fallacy. which i have pointed out to you so many times. the act of attacking a supposed fallacy,ignoring any actual argument and/or points made.for instance:

"earth is flat"
"no its not you idiot. earth is round"
"you called me stupid therefore your argument is invalid"



muslims society didnt have religious persecutions. people were free to practice their religion without fear of punishment or discrimination.not only that, but muslims actively acknowledged other religions. so that point is moot. and yet again you think that what you think is somehow a fact.
User avatar #24 - didactus (10 hours ago) [-]
I've had the argument about muslim persecution before and lets just say you were persecuted unless you paid a tax if you were a non-muslim. May not be persecution per se but it is definetly oppression.
And you still cling to fallacy fallacy yet you give no example of when I did it and I did in every instance of my post counter your arguments yet you cannot provide proof.
I will not enact the labor of describing what a strawman is since I doubt you would listen.
And you also assume I have made up facts and believe in them.
Please show them to me then. I doubt you can.
User avatar #25 - angelious (10 hours ago) [-]
source and or link to this?

or is this another one of you "I think this is how it was" facts?

outside of the time i pointed out you focussed on me calling you neckbeard?

and im glad you wont since im quite sure you dont even know what it means...atleast this way my head wont have to deal with more of your bs



"please show them to me then"


you mean prove your facts right? or show you where you think your own beliefs were facts?the latter i have pointed out since your first reply so i doubt its that one...
User avatar #26 - didactus (10 hours ago) [-]
"Jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزية‎ ǧizyah IPA: [dʒizja]; Ottoman Turkish: cizye) is a religiously required per capita tax on non-Muslims under Islamic law, levied by an Islamic state."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

Did you think I lied when I said I had had this argument about the tax before?
I spent good and well several hours debating it.

I responded to your comment on calling me a fedora wearer because it was an ergo decedo.

"you mean prove your facts right? or show you where you think your own beliefs were facts?the latter i have pointed out since your first reply so i doubt its that one..."

If you say I use anecdotal evidence, disprove it then instead of claiming it.
Every one of my "belief" which would be my assertions I have backed with facts. You however have not countered my factual statements, only disputed them and left them undiscredited.
So instead of saying "the latter i have pointed out since your first reply so i doubt its that one..." Tell me what you pointed out, and if you say fallacy fallacy I know for certain you need to brush up on your argumentative skills.
User avatar #29 - factual (10 hours ago) [-]
it's a fact
User avatar #27 - angelious (10 hours ago) [-]
Jizya tax was not paid by Muslims, who however paid zakat (alms) tax instead.[3]

and it was only in certain areas. not widespread.

and yes i thought you were making up facts again. after all i you have been doing it for the whole duration of this conversation.why should i suspect you suddenly change your habits...

you only sticked to that and ignored every actual argument i made. aka a fallacy fallacy.


" I bet that most/some of the scientists didn't actually believe in Allah. "


which we proved wrong. also the burden of proof lays within the one making the claim. not with the one who doubts it.


also try make up an argument without claiming "i made an argument and you haventh retorted it" every two seconds..ill read it the first thing when i open up my computer tomorrow. good night little fedora fledgeling.
User avatar #28 - didactus (10 hours ago) [-]
"Certain areas"
Yeah the areas of the middle east that were muslim at the time, ofcourse it wasn't imposed on land that the muslims didn't control.

I haven't made up one fact.
And you say fallacy fallacy as if it's a prayer.

"" I bet that most/some of the scientists didn't actually believe in Allah. "


which we proved wrong. also the burden of proof lays within the one making the claim. not with the one who doubts it."
No you didn't prove it wrong. You only showed a list of professing muslim scientists, and they were in the hundreds not the millions you spoke of, I also conceded that yes there were ofcourse muslim scientists, just not as wide spread as you would have us believe. Try proving that claim for a change.
"also try make up an argument without claiming "i made an argument and you haventh retorted it"

But you don't give me any examples?
It must mean that if you don't do it after me insisting upon it until you're forced to respond there must be no examples to give since you can't find one.

"good night little fedora fledgeling."
That's basically the definition of an Ad Hominem Ergo Decedo.
#115 - I think we both know that he referenced to the POTUS. Whe… 12 hours ago on Healthcare: Sanders vs Paul +6

user's friends

items

Total unique items point value: 2370 / Total items point value: 5720
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #1 - theluppijackal (11/14/2014) [-]
I'm responding here because it's become a ***********
@50
>And that's not to say everyone will go vegan overnight. Veganism will grow slowly.

We can say it won't happen if the world goes vegan because we can already measure the resources that will go into crops. the resources that go into meat is wildly inefficient. the resources that go into crops are provably, measurably, sustainable.

what's more, the crops we grow for cows and such are already wildly overgrown. we put resources into them. We will stop putting said resources in if we stop growing them.

@51
veganbodybuilding.com/
It's also provable we don't need supplement in a vegan diet. In fact it's been shown vegans get more than adequate protein intake. you can get everything you need from a vegan diet with moderate planning, as shown by lifelong vegans, vegan atheletes, so on and so forth. it's the opinion of many professional medical outlet that vegan diets are fine for all walks of life
in fact the conservative American Dietetic Association acknowledges "appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.
At most, we would need b12 pills but even then we don't need that if we grow the right crops.
User avatar #2 to #1 - didactus (11/14/2014) [-]
The highest protein source I found for non meat product was at 39% for soybeans, one of the most pesticide ridden crops in all the world, where they cut down trees in south america to grow more. And moreover infants can't live on vegan diets they need meat no matter how you put it, because they grow. Otherwise they become malnourished.
User avatar #3 to #2 - theluppijackal (11/14/2014) [-]
We deforest for soybean crops because we grow them to feed animals.
what's more, how much protein the crop has by itself is irrelevant. the question was can we have adequate vegan diets. and the answer is provably, yes. in fact many americans get too much protein.

what's more, what are you basing your idea that you can't feed infants vegan off of? A few articles about vegan parents that had malnourished kids? that's mere annecdote. I wouldn't say omnivorous diets malnourish infants because a few omnivore parents had malnourished kids.

There are ways to feed infants vegan. Again, with adequate planning, as you would need with an omnivore diet.
www.vrg.org/nutshell/kids.php
User avatar #4 to #3 - didactus (11/14/2014) [-]
I wasn't talking about the animal crop, I was talking about the crop humans eat has 39% protein. And judging by the article, it's mentioned that they should take soy formula.
www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/why-soy-formula-even-organic-is-so-dangerous-for-babies/
They NEED protein it's non debatable, they don't need a balanced diet, they need an increasing diet to sustain their growth.
And yes a simple case does not mean the whole group is the same. And that many people get too much protein, I won't argue that because it's true, I mentioned earlier about wanting to decrease the need on meat, which we should it's both a massive waste in the industry aswell as we eat too much, but we shouldn't eliminate it from our diets. Having non meat days is fine, I see no reason as to why you can't cut down on meat that way.
User avatar #6 to #4 - theluppijackal (11/14/2014) [-]
And the question of simply 'cutting down' on meat brings us back to the question of
1) can we justify hurting animals unnecessarily
[which many people agree and say no]
2) should we really continue to eat meat when it's currently contributing more to global warming than all forms of transportation combined?
User avatar #10 to #6 - didactus (11/14/2014) [-]
1) No, we can't justify it. but we can do it so that it doesn't feel unnecessary pain.
2) www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html, We can cut down by alot. But we shouldn't eliminate it.
User avatar #12 to #10 - theluppijackal (11/14/2014) [-]
it's impossible to kill an animal without it feeling pain. to suggest an animal doesn't value it's life is irrational. it's like suggesting an animal with eyes doesn't have an interest in seeing. Can we likewise suggest a human being with the mentality of a cow [or equivalent too] wouldn't be suffering if we killed it?

We should very much eliminate it. Switching to a vegan diet is actually more of an environmentally contribution than buying an smart car
User avatar #14 to #12 - didactus (11/14/2014) [-]
Animals suffer regardless if we stop eating meat or not and they will suffer a different pain if we choose to stop eating them. They will die neglected instead, does that shift the burden of responsibility to something else?, I stick with the idea we should make it more humane, but to suggest it's strictly bad to kill for meat is something many carnivores disagrees about.
User avatar #16 to #14 - theluppijackal (11/15/2014) [-]
Also, again thank you for actually partaking in a fruitful discussion rather than shutting your ears and screeching 'bacon'
that puts you head and shoulders above many people here.
User avatar #15 to #14 - theluppijackal (11/15/2014) [-]
Humans will suffer regardless of our own interference. Why shouldn't we still act to minimize human suffer?
Animals needn't suffer at our hands if we don't demand their meat, so why not seize demanding meat?

Also, again, carnivores are irrelevant. We don't refer to the lions in terms of any social or moral behavior. Humans are omnivores. Not carnivores.
User avatar #5 to #4 - theluppijackal (11/14/2014) [-]
I wasn't arguing they didn't need protein.
Again, it wasn't a question of how much protein it has, the question was can we have adequate vegan diets. and the answer is yes

I wasn't debating as to whether they needed protein. you said infants can't be vegan. i went out of my way to show otherwise.
It's not a question of the diet, it's a question of making sure the infant gets adequate nutrition, which they can with a vegan diet.
User avatar #7 to #5 - didactus (11/14/2014) [-]
The thing is, you can't exchange protein with more food, just because you can find other sources doesn't mean the baby can just take a larger amount of food. Yet alone process it. I never suggested you thought they didn't need protein, but vegan food doesn't give adequate nutrition for the amount a baby usually eats to satisfy it's needs.
User avatar #9 to #7 - theluppijackal (11/14/2014) [-]
Also, i need to go to work. I'm happy to respond to whatever you say when I get back.
this has been a lot more fruitful of a discussion than most and you seem mostly rational about this [which isn't a shot against you. I had the same mentality. i didn't want to give up my sushi]
User avatar #11 to #9 - didactus (11/14/2014) [-]
Fair enough.
User avatar #8 to #7 - theluppijackal (11/14/2014) [-]
Earlier you suggested
>They need an increasing diet to sustain their growth.
Unless I'm misreading what you're saying


Also, you seem to keep pressing that you simply can't have vegan infants.
www.veganhealth.org/articles/realveganchildren
User avatar #13 to #8 - didactus (11/14/2014) [-]
I did say that yes, but I fail to see how that corresponds to me telling you that you suggested protein was unnecessary.
 Friends (0)