patrick.net

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.

YesYNot says

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.

At last, we agree. In the comment that you linked, I quoted you verbatim, and used accurate math. I did the same in this thread. Quoting verbatim and using accurate math are indeed typical of me. Have a nice day.

curious2 says

At last, we agree

Good. You said I had a chronic pattern of linking sources that contradict my statements. But the link that you provided went to your post. Nowhere in your linked post did you link to me linking any sources at all. So, again, your, your link is dishonest bullshit.

YesYNot says

You said I had a chronic pattern of linking sources that contradict my statements. But the link that you provided went to your post. Nowhere in your linked post did you link to me linking any sources at all.

Maybe the Internet doesn't work where you are, or maybe you're lying yet again. I clicked on the links and found this, and this, among others. Perhaps I should explain: for the links to work, you have to click on them. Use your mouse or trackball to position the cursor on the link, and then click. If you don't have a working mouse or trackball, you might try using the Alt key and then the Tab key on your keyboard. Enjoy!

Normally, I don't respond all that much to your wild ass assertions that I'm a liar, but it's really fucking ridiculous.

Thanks for bringing up this thread, which IMO was pretty fucking funny. You probably never noticed the humor intended by poking fun of the argument about Hillary and Parkinsons by concocting an equally silly argument about Trump with some sort of venereal disease brain rot. I'll thank you again for fixing a typo that I made making the calculations. Note that I'm willing to acknowledge my errors.

Quigley says

curious2 says

YesYNot proves daily that people can be persuaded by identity and emotion to oppose their own self-interest, and to ignore evidence and reason,

This is preeminently true. Identifying as a Democrat, especially as part of ones social group, can cause one to espouse ideas and beliefs that contradict ones self interest to an incredible degree!

It's not just true of political parties and religion. It's all we are, with everything: an empty shell that espouses a lot of ideas from our tribe(s), and rationalize that's it's "who we are". And indeed this is who we are.

YesYNot says

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.

To me, that sounds like this:

Yeah, I'm willing to go along with a policy of accepting animals with rabies and don't think it is so bad. This is not spreading rabies. It is allowing rabies to diffuse into a space where it was previously not. In fact, if these 65K animals became less rabid, as is probably the case (because American animals with rabies tend to have longer latency periods than elsewhere), it would result in less rabies, not more.

YesYNot says

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?

Fine, just for you! Feel good now? I didn't bother earlier because I loathe discussions about theology and hand waving mythologies. Apparently you have a fetish for those, which is a mystery to me since none of those questions really matter! But still...
1)There's no Christian hell, at least none specified or described in the Bible. Dante notwithstanding.
2)according to the Bible and Christianity there is an enemy called the devil or Satan (enemy in Arab), but he is inferior to God and isn't given power to change God's decisions. He can only work to undermine Humans decisions because they have free will.
3) the Book of Revelations is closed to definite interpretation. It was almost not included in the Bible. Anyone who claims to understand this book or to be able to apply its story to current or past events is a charlatan. I'd think of it as a book of metaphors and dreams.

Happy?

rando says

these 65K

[whom we must all pay to import, while simultaneously paying to deport others who are at least equally deserving and probably more valuable]

FTFY.

Methinks the issue might have to do with the prospect of fee-paying graduate students and cheap postdocs, and rent-paying tenants, as Rin and Lashkar have described and even YesYNot has alluded to. Even if they're terribly stinky for a whole month every year, they get lots of Saudi and NATO government funding, plus "refugee" (aka hijrah) "charity", so they can pay tuition, work cheap, and prop up rents!

YesYNot says

Normally, I don't respond all that much...

Risible and easily disproved by your own comments in this thread and elsewhere. Also, I don't merely "assert," as you do; I prove, with links.

curious2 says

Risible and easily disproved by your own comments in this thread and elsewhere. Also, I don't merely "assert," as you do; I prove, with links.

The definition of proof is very hard for you to understand, huh? Same with the definition of lying.

For someone as smug as you, I would expect a better grasp of the English language

curious2 says

Risible and easily disproved

Twice I've been annoyed by you enough to get personal in return. That's a low percentage of the times you've make unfounded accusations.

joeyjojojunior says

The definition of proof is very hard for you to understand, huh?

Not really, no. You can read a fair definition yourself if you like. If someone says he doesn't usually do something, but linking his comment history shows that it abounds with examples, then his assertion is disproved. As for lying, the pattern establishes that.

Quigley says

Happy?

Yeah. That's an interesting take on Christianity. I wonder how prevalent that view is today and how prevalent it was over the history of the religion.

rando says

To me, that sounds like this:

Well I don't know about the latency period of rabies in America is, but if it were lower due to a lower population of infectable animals, that might make sense. Considering the expected lifetime of an animal with rabies, the disease could go away on its own with a low enough population.

YesYNot says

I wonder how prevalent that view is today

According to Pew 70% of American Christians believed in Hell and 85% believed in Heaven as of 2015 For some reason, 3% of atheists believed in hell too. Weird. Jehova's Witness are the only sect that they surveyed who mostly didn't believe in hell.
Meanwhile, only 20% of Jews believed in Hell.

According to Gallup as of 2004, 92% of Christians who attend church weekly believe in Hell and 83% of Republicans believe in Hell.
Also, 70% believed in the Devil as of 2004/

YesYNot says

Meanwhile, only 20% of Jews believed in Hell.

I had a semester of theology at Notre Dame (requirement) and remember the teacher telling us that heaven and hell were not Jewish concepts, but only weakly retrofitted later, and never really caught on.

Jews originally believed that God simply wanted them to follow certain rules and would give them long life, wealth, and children if they only followed the rules exactly. The afterlife was not a big consideration.

curious2 says

but linking his comment history shows that it abounds with examples, then his assertion is disproved

"abounds"? If it actually did "abound", then you might have a point.

curious2 says

As for lying, the pattern establishes that

The pattern is you arguing for awhile with another poster then eventually calling the other poster a liar with no basis. You've been called out on it several times by several different posters but it obviously doesn't stop you. This is just the latest example. And linking back to one of your previous posts for "proof" as if you calling someone liar two hours ago proves that he is a liar.

joeyjojojunior says

with no basis

Basis, again and again, including in this thread. I might also add the repeated gaslighting pretending lies had been intended as jokes, including in this thread, only after failing repeatedly to defend the accuracy of lies that became somehow only subsequently and retroactively intended as jokes.