My argument is that you are unbalanced. You see everything through ideological blinkers which make it impossible to see anything except black and white.
You search frantically around for cases of Muslim rape trials to post whist bemoaning the fact that Muslims get a pass on prosecution.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Montegriffo wrote: Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:33 am
My argument is that you are unbalanced. You see everything through ideological blinkers which make it impossible to see anything except black and white.
You search frantically around for cases of Muslim rape trials to post whist bemoaning the fact that Muslims get a pass on prosecution.
That's actually called the ad hominem fallacy. Still not an argument.
Thing is, I can post as many arguments as I like but StA will just talk over them with his "all Muslims are radical" narrative then fall back on falsely accusing me of shouting "racist" then for added irony I get accused of having no argument.
The argument is that one group of people openly inciting hatred towards another can only lead to division and has no place in a decent society.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.