patrick.net

YesYNot says

Quigley says

That's religion, not faith. You can tell by the way you're not allowed to stop believing in it upon pain of beheading.

At least Muslims have an excuse. They participate for fear of being beheaded in real life. Christians participate for fear of an imaginary hell with an imaginary Satan monster and the wrath of God when their ever loving Christ comes back. You can't make this shit up!

Stop making excuses for Islam.
Muslims that don't believe in Islam pretend to still believe. Christians that don't believe in Christianity don't have to pretend.

Strategist says

Stop making excuses for Islam.

That wasn't an excuse for Islam. That was an excuse for 'Muslims' in Islamic countries who go along with the religion instead of denouncing it, sticking their neck out, and waiting for the sword.

Christians don't have such an excuse, and according to Pew, 70% of them don't really believe their religion anyway. Stop making excuses for 'Christians,' who pretend when they don't have to.

YesYNot says

At least Muslims have an excuse. They participate for fear of being beheaded in real life. Christians participate for fear of an imaginary hell with an imaginary Satan monster and the wrath of God when their ever loving Christ comes back. You can't make this shit up!

Well obviously you did make it up because that's NOT the Christian faith. Might be bits of Catholicism in your summary, but not the basis of Christian faith.
Christians believe that Jesus sacrifice provided a way for imperfect people to relate and be restored to a perfect God. Faith isn't accomplished by good works but by accepting Jesus and acceptance of His salvation. And naughty actions don't invalidate it, sending one to Hell, but may lessen your eternal reward.

Being faithful to God's commandments and promises is its own reward. They are like a primer for school children designed to keep the child safe and ensure a good path for his/her life. Breaking them comes with natural consequences, just as leaping from a cliff (without any precautions) comes with its own natural consequences.
The Hindus call this Karma.

Quigley says

Well obviously you did make it up because that's NOT the Christian faith.

Are you saying that my Christian relatives think that I'll go to heaven even if I think that their God and Jesus figures are make believe and that I have zero faith in their religion?

I could have sworn that I listened to a southern baptist minister go on about the Jews burning in hell for 20 minutes one unfortunate Sunday morning.

Religion of peace and tolerance...

YesYNot says

Are you saying that my Christian relatives think

I really don't care what your relatives think or what a two-bit minister ranted about one Sunday as you recall it. There's a lot of competing sects out there with a lot of nutty ideas. I really can't blame you for being confused.
I just told you what Christianity actually is. Do with that as you may.

It's a global cult. Where it dominates, that's what it does.
Imagine if Scientology was doing, even outside the US.

errc says

Better question is why aren't the Trumpcucks holding his feet to the fire on Saudi Arabia?

Simple. Saudi Arabia has the Press (who bury Saudi stories on the back pages), Academia, and pretty much the entire Political Class from lobbyists to most congresspeople. To open that box is a bridge too far.

Could you imagine if Putin locked somebody up - never mind the death penalty - for an Atheist? The Press would be foaming at the mouth and demanding military action to boot.

There is no mandate in Christianity for Christians to go on Jesushad and convert people to Jesus by the sword, or even strong encouragement with the promise of afterlife rewards. Not so in Islam.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Could you imagine if Putin locked somebody up - never mind the death penalty - for an Atheist? The Press would be foaming at the mouth and demanding military action to boot.

they would immediately impose sanctions. When it comes to the Saudis, we immediately kiss their rotten butts.

"Could you imagine if Putin locked somebody up - never mind the death penalty - for an Atheist? The Press would be foaming at the mouth and demanding military action to boot."

Are you kidding? We do nothing when he kills reporters, why would we do something when he kills an atheist?

Sovereign nation with sovereign laws,don't like it,don't live there.
They have the right to believe in an imaginary figure just many Americans.

Quigley says

I just told you what Christianity actually is.

No. You didn't say much about the three concepts that I brought up.
1) Is there a hell? Will people who do not accept Jesus as their savior go there?
2) Is the devil real?
3) Does the book of revelations mean that Jesus may come back at any time, and if you are not yet a believer, you will burn in hell?

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Could you imagine if Putin locked somebody up - never mind the death penalty - for an Atheist? The Press would be foaming at the mouth and demanding military action to boot.

According to the press, Putin has murdered plenty of journalists - as many as 34. They have not demanded military action, yet, though. Sorry.

HEY YOU says

Sovereign nation with sovereign laws,don't like it,don't live there.
They have the right to believe in an imaginary figure just many Americans.

The problem is that they are influencing our laws and our leaders with their money, and they are exporting an insanely violent ideology across the world, and even into America.

HEY YOU says

Sovereign nation with sovereign laws,don't like it,don't live there.

They have the right to believe in an imaginary figure just many Americans.

Try drawing a Mohammad cartoon in public in America. Now tell me which sovereign nations laws are enforced.

YesYNot says

According to the press, Putin has murdered plenty of journalists - as many as 34. They have not demanded military action, yet, though. Sorry.

... by assigning every murdered Journalist - including those running stories on the Russian mob - to Putin as suspect #1.

This is actually evidence in favor of the Media spreading propaganda.

I particularly liked the WaPo story that acted like the Politskaya case was still open, when a Mafia hitman and ex-cop was convicted, confessed ratted out his Mafia employers for a lighter sentence, and they were found to have fled the country the moment he was arrested. It's pure coincidence she had written several pieces about that Family in the months before her execution.

The WaPo absolutely neglected to mention ANY of this. This is why it's propaganda.

A strong leader like Putin doesn't want strong Mafia operations competing with his authority. You may have noticed how under Yeltsin, local government officials were assassinated regularly for not playing along, and now this doesn't happen anymore.

YesYNot says

According to the press, Putin has murdered plenty of journalists - as many as 34.

Yet again, your link contradicts your comment. Quoting from YOUR LINK:

"Trump is right that no one has proven Putin to have ordered assassinations of dissidents.
***
34 journalists have been murdered in Russia since 2000.
***
Just one case over the past 15 years was fully adjudicated...The murders of two other Novaya Gazeta reporters resulted in partial justice.
***
As for the other assassinations of journalists during his reign, experts say Putin isn’t directly responsible for any of them." [emphasis added]

You seem really to have a chronic pattern of linking sources that contradict your comments.

Meanwhile, the absolute monarchy in KSA executes apostates as a matter of Islamic law. They are proud of it.

curious2 says

Meanwhile, the absolute monarchy in KSA executes apostates as a matter of law. They are proud of it.

And when the Monarchy tries to tamp it down to avoid international criticism, like Pakistan, by merely imprisoning them indefinitely, it's the Religious Police and Authorities that scream and shout and call for Quran-required blood of the apostates.

The secret to Saudi Arabian Monarch's behavior is the 1979 Mecca Attacks. The participants were members of some of the most powerful families, demanding an end to Western Influence and more Islamic Purity, it took weeks to defeat them in running armed battles. One of the responses by Saudi Arabia was to increase the severity of Shar'ia law afterwards. Understand what happened there and you understand why Saudi Arabia does what it does.

How did the 1979 attacks change Saudi behavior?

rando says

How did the 1979 attacks change Saudi behavior?

Predictably, the ruling Saudis doubled down on their pre-existing beliefs that had been previously described by Winston Churchill. I'll quote Wikipedia, because the links there are to books that I can't link directly:

"Following the attack, the Saudi state implemented a stricter enforcement of Islamic code...Saudi King Khaled however, did not react to the upheaval by cracking down on religious puritans in general, but by giving the ulama and religious conservatives more power over the next decade. He is thought to have believed that "the solution to the religious upheaval was simple - more religion." First, photographs of women in newspapers were banned, then women on television. Cinemas and music shops were shut down. School curriculum was changed to provide many more hours of religious studies, eliminating classes on subjects like non-Islamic history. Gender segregation was extended "to the humblest coffee shop". The religious police became more assertive."

I've been reading Scott Adams lately, and learning to heed his advice that identity and emotion persuade more powerfully than evidence and reason. The Saudis identify as Muslims enforcing Islam, and feel good about empowering and spreading Islam. YesYNot has been hypnotized to feel good about spreading Islam for different identitarian reasons. The Saudis' actions overlap with their own self-interest, but YesYNot proves daily that people can be persuaded by identity and emotion to oppose their own self-interest, and to ignore evidence and reason, even lying outright to enable people who believe in killing them.

Yes, identity is central to everything. The ego has just one mission: to preserve itself.

That cannot be changed, but what can be changed is the definition of the ego, what it includes and what it excludes.

When you join a religion, you adopt it as part of yourself. Any threat to the religion is attacked as a threat to yourself.

The Koran not only effectively takes over the ego, it also inculcates a very deep resentment of all non-Muslims, who after all have the choice to join, but reject it. They fail to submit, literally.

And so all non-Muslims seem like a threat to the self which must be exterminated. That tone came from Mohammed himself, and his resentment of being rejected by the Jews as a legitimate prophet.

rando says

The Koran not only effectively takes over the ego, it also inculcates a very deep resentment of all non-Muslims, who after all have the choice to join, but reject it. They fail to submit, literally.

And so all non-Muslims seem like a threat to the self which must be exterminated. That tone came from Mohammed himself, and his resentment of being rejected by the Jews as a legitimate prophet.

Wow! Excellent analysis!

curious2 says

You seem really to have a chronic pattern of linking sources that contradict your comments.

It doesn't contradict my comment at all. Some in the press have said that Putin kills Journalists. According to the link, the count is as many as 34. The link states that there is no proof that Putin has killed journalists. But it does state that the press has accused him of it. It also states that an unusual number of journalists have been murdered in Russia. Take it as statistical evidence that someone is having them killed, and that is why the press has repeatedly accused him of it.
If you want to contradict what I sad, you will have to explain why the link states that Joe Scarborough calls him a murderer, and Trump does not deny it. Trump only defended Putin a couple of days later after consulting with others.

"I’m confused," Scarborough pressed. "You obviously condemn Vladimir Putin killing journalists and political opponents, right?"

"Oh sure, absolutely," Trump conceded.

A few days later, Trump defended Putin again, to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. "You're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, at least in our country. It has not been proven that he's killed reporters."

All of this is completely consistent with what I actually said. You have offered absolutely no evidence to show that I'm wrong. Note that I never said that Putin actually did kill the journalists, because that is irrelevant to my original point. I'm not sure if you are smart enough to understand that, because you don't address my main point in your vitriolic post of accusation piled on top of previously made and previously repeated accusation.

If you want to claim that the press do not think that Putin kills journalists, you will have to address this article, in which they mention

"Bill O'Reilly's characterization of Russian President Vladimir Putin as a "killer."

You will also have to address the Scarborough transcript
HOST JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well, I mean, also is a person who kills journalists, political opponents and ...

WILLIE GEIST: Invades countries.

SCARBOROUGH: ... and invades countries, obviously that would be a concern, would it not?

TRUMP: He's running his country, and at least he's a leader, unlike what we have in this country.

SCARBOROUGH: But, again: He kills journalists that don't agree with him.

TRUMP: Well, I think that our country does plenty of killing, too, Joe.

Here's a link to an activist talking about being poisoned twice and mentioning activists and independent journalists being murdered:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/05/02/dozens-russian-deaths-cast-suspicion-vladimir-putin/100480734/
Here's another story discussing the suspicious deaths in Russia:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/03/23/here-are-ten-critics-of-vladimir-putin-who-died-violently-or-in-suspicious-ways/?utm_term=.b52ebe4ab5d8
These stories are all over the place.

Are you claiming that journalists don't think that Putin has killed journalists? Are you claiming that the link doesn't say as many as 34?

Hey, @Yesynot here boy!
waves a red herring
Fetch!

YesYNot says

Are you claiming that journalists don't think that Putin has killed journalists? Are you claiming that the link doesn't say as many as 34?

I quoted YOUR LINK. You said "According to the press..." Your link said, "Trump is right that no one has proven Putin to have ordered assassinations of dissidents." Different journalists may think different things, and I don't presume to speak for entire categories of people (unlike you). I quote people. Your link said that in 17 years, in all of Russia, 34 journalists had been killed; that's two per year on average. Your link said also that in America, two journalists had been killed in 2016. Do you blame Obama for killing them? Would you condemn Obama killing them, or would you give him a pass because he's a Democrat? If you believed actually that "the press" said what you said, then that would mean you were looking at only some subset of extremely partisan press; in fact, you linked an article that contradicted your assertion, so you were simply lying again.

curious2 says

YesYNot has been hypnotized to feel good about spreading Islam for different identitarian reasons.

You keep spewing this bullshit without backing it up. I'm not spreading Islam and wouldn't feel good about it if I were. I've written numerous times that all religion is bullshit, and that Islam is in the dark ages. What's the matter with you today? Did the cat shit in your cereal this morning? It's pretty pathetic to just write off the other side's arguments as being based on identity, but do what you have to.

YesYNot says

without backing it up. I'm not spreading Islam and wouldn't feel good about it if I were.

You said just yesterday you were "willing" and that we must all pay to do it. Either your memory is completely gone or you're lying yet again.

curious2 says

and linked a press article that contradicted your assertion

The link covered the statement 'as many as 34'. Obviously, when I say, 'According to the press' I am referring to many in the press. Not every single one. To pretend I meant everyone is dishonest bullshit and par for your posts. The fact is that Bill OReilly had the most popular show in TV for years. The other guy's pretty popular too.

curious2 says

that contradicted your assertion

How?
curious2 says

Your link said also that in America, two journalists had been killed in 2016. Do you blame Obama for killing them?

The article said that

For comparison, in the same time period, two journalists were murdered in China, while three were killed in the United States (including the on-air deaths of two television reporters in Virginia this year).

You are cherry picking 2016, because you are being a dishonest ___, and want 3 to be statistically in the same ballpark as 34.

curious2 says

Would you condemn Obama killing them, or would you give him a pass because he's a Democrat?

This question doesn't make any sense, because (1) I never accused Putin of anything. I merely observed that very popular people in the press have accused him, and they haven't called for a war like our friend with the big titted avatar said they would do and (2) you cherry picked the years, so even if I had blamed Putin, it still wouldn't make sense.

curious2 says

If you believed actually that "the press" said what you said, then that would mean you were looking at only some subset of extremely partisan press

Are you going to apply the same standard every time someone generalizes what 'the press' says on PatNet. Better get busy. It's gonna be a long mother fucking night if that is your plan.

curious2 says

You said just yesterday you were "willing" and that we must all pay to do it.

Yeah, I'm willing to go along with a policy of accepting Muslims and don't think it is so bad. This is not spreading Islam. It is allowing Islam to diffuse into a space where it was previously not. In fact, if these 65K people became less religious, as is probably the case (because American Muslims tend to be less religious than Muslims elsewhere), it would result in less Islam, not more. So in fact, you are lying or just not smart enough to realize that what you are saying is not correct.

YesYNot says

very popular people in the press

Now you're already backpedaling, while denying having lied before. Compare the subset you describe in this comment to the set you claimed originally. Even in this comment, you're referring to a subset of a subset, i.e. you might cherry-pick some few among "very popular people in the press" claiming what you claimed. The fact remains that your original link said the opposite.

YesYNot says

every time someone

The only person who can even come close to your record of posting links that don't say what you claim is tovbot, and his links tend to be completely unrelated with excerpts in gibberish. Those are different issues compared to outright lying.

In any event, this thread is not about you, nor me. It's about Saudi Arabia doing as a matter of law what Islam says to do. You tried to make it about President Putin, in your habitual way of trying to say other people are almost as bad the Muslims you insist on importing at our expense, and you failed as usual.

curious2 says

Now you're already backpedaling,

Bullshit.
Here's what I was responding too.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Could you imagine if Putin locked somebody up - never mind the death penalty - for an Atheist? The Press would be foaming at the mouth and demanding military action to boot.

Lashkar generalized about the press, so I responded with a generalization about the press. You jump down my throat for a generalization about how 'the press' would react, when I was responding to a generalization about how 'the press' would react. curious2 says

fact remains that YOUR OWN LINK said the opposite.

My own link said that there was no proof that Putin killed the journalists, and I never claimed that there was. My use of that article was just to cite the number 34, as in 'as many as 34'. That number is in the linked article. Any other claim about what you might think that I got from the article is bullshit. If you want to argue about something else in my post, then do your own research.

curious2 says

The only person who can even come close to your record of posting links that don't say what you claim is tovbot,

You yourself are more guilty. You claim that I said x, y, z, and as proof you link to your own post that mischaracterizes what I posted, because you are dishonest. This is a terrible practice. If you want to claim that I said something and provide a link, you should link to my post, not your crappy fucked up summary of it. When I claim that Trump said something, I'll link to what he said, not what some 3rd party says that he said, because I'm not a dishonest _____.

YesYNot says

According to the press, Putin has....

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Could you imagine if...The Press would be....

YesYNot says

Lashkar generalized about the press, so I responded with a generalization about the press.

You are now attempting to equate what you claimed was an existing accusation of past murders, which you misattributed to "the press", with an expressly imaginary ("imagine") and conditional ("would") conjecture. If you don't see a difference between those things, then something is wrong. Either you are lying again, or you have some defect that prevents you from seeing the difference between serious allegations and expressly imaginary, conditional conjecture.

Quigley says

Hey, @Yesynot here boy!

waves a red herring

You won't answer this post.YesYNot says

No. You didn't say much about the three concepts that I brought up.

1) Is there a hell? Will people who do not accept Jesus as their savior go there?

2) Is the devil real?

3) Does the book of revelations mean that Jesus may come back at any time, and if you are not yet a believer, you will burn in hell?

Why not?

It's interesting that you cannot even have a conversation about it. You probably know that your argument is illogical but is just true somehow in your mind, and that is good enough for you. That's fine, I guess, if you are OK with it.

curious2 says

You are now attempting to equate what you claimed was an existing accusation of past murders, which you misattributed to "the press", with an expressly imaginary ("imagine") and conditional ("would") conjecture. If you don't see a difference between those things, then something is wrong.

Wow, you finally want to discuss the meaning of the original post that you went off the rails on. Lashkar said that the press would call for us to invade Russia if they thought that Putin killed an atheist. I pointed out that several people in the press have been saying that Putin kills people, and those people 'the press' are not calling for us to invade Russia. Therefore, Lashkar's speculation was not correct. WTF is dishonest about this? The biggest stretch is the fact that many in the press have accused Putin of killing journalists, activists, and political opponents, and not atheists. So, my comment doesn't really address Lashkar's speculation on killing an atheist.
But you didn't have any complaint about that. You didn't like the fact that my linked article didn't quite match up literally with a part of the sentence that the link didn't apply to. You offer that up of all things as evidence of me being a liar and an identitarian. Weird.

YesYNot says

as proof you link to your own post that...

quotes you verbatim.

FTFY.

curious2 says

You seem really to have a chronic pattern of linking sources that contradict your comments.

How about this one. This is your typical behavior.