lemme go ahead and call this mans argument what it actually is: sophistry.

^right on.

I get the sentiment. But implying pacifism causes evil is just dumb.

Absolutely,...another unfortunate demonstration that the world is insanely malformed.

What little truth contained is grotesquely distorted and morphed into atrocities guised as reasoned conclusions supported by jingoistic evocations.

Insane, in that both sides of this and all such disagreements exhibit this fallacious bent, the extant jingoism notwithstanding.
>> ^enoch:

lemme go ahead and call this mans argument what it actually is: sophistry.

Godwin's Law
Pacifism brings about War
Countless twisting of facts to provide a talking point

...this is what conservatives actually believe?

THIS IS WHAT CONSERVATIVES ACTUALLY BELIEVE
>> ^Tymbrwulf:

Godwin's Law
Pacifism brings about War
Countless twisting of facts to provide a talking point
...this is what conservatives actually believe?

There is no sophistry here. None.

Whittle laid out the argument perfectly, starting with historical precedents and touching on the long list of conflicts caused by muslims right up till today. Add to the timeline the noncoincident fading of Europe.

No honest seeker looking to replace Western Civilization with something better would choose defective and brutal islam, with its backa$$wards sharia law and failure to produce anything of material or intellectual value.

If there's anything Whittle said that's patently false, do tell.

wow...this is complete bullshit.
first of all, the first world war, like the 2nd, was a war of economics, with countries with dwindling imperial empires jockying for position in a new world shaped by oil. The US entered both wars as wars of opportunity. Countries act or fail to act out of sheer self-interest... Period. It is not a question of tolerance and passivity. and entering a war is rarely, rarely, rarely a question that is actually posed to or controlled by the people. The decision is made by the government, then the PR campaign begins to get the working poor to fight it.

and, most importantly, the passivity and tolerance that can be held at fault is the passivity and tolerance of the populace of imperialist nations, that allow governments of the elite to systematically destroy civil rights while enrich themselves, sending the poor to fight wars of economic opportunity, meanwhile controlling sheep-like citizens through propaganda... (yes, I'm talking about the US, but it can be applied broadly).

You can tell he's conservative by his gray hair.

>> ^quantumushroom:

There is no sophistry here. None.
Whittle laid out the argument perfectly, starting with historical precedents and touching on the long list of conflicts caused by muslims right up till today. Add to the timeline the noncoincident fading of Europe.
No honest seeker looking to replace Western Civilization with something better would choose defective and brutal islam, with its backa$$wards sharia law and failure to produce anything of material or intellectual value.
If there's anything Whittle said that's patently false, do tell.


then you have no idea the meaning of sophistry:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophistry
the argument does not have to be based in lies..in fact..an argument based in sophism tends be true but it is a cleverly disguised manipulation.many times avoiding certain pertinent facts or cherry picking others to promote a particular ideology.

mr whittles argument would make sense to someone not armed with historical knowledge or someone bursting with nationalistic pride and therefore easily manipulated to adopt mr whittles argument believing it a sound argument.

until they meet me that is.

dont be so quick to swallow the words of others QM.
while mr whittle does make some salient points his argument is pure sophism.
because he totally IGNORES massive amounts of historical data and instead speaks to the most fearful and easily swayed and i find that deplorable.

http://www.dailynebraskan.com/opinion/hale-religious-tolerance-is-still-a-long-way-off-1.2346824

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

Seriously? He even says the words "Al Qaeda put all its chips into Iraq." Wtf?

Our president that embargo japan and tried to get us more involved in WW2 was "liberal"...not "conservative". There are so many over generalizations and factual errors here it is embarrassing. And trying to compare the actions of nations to the actions of religions is a farce. Historically speaking, war mongering is the start of more wars than pacifism. Rome was always attacking barbarian tribes preeminently so they wouldn't become a problem later...only for them to become a major problem later because of all the blood spilled. It later slaughtered hundreds of thousands of "Christian", only to later become a Christian nation...that then slaughtered other religions.

Violence begets violence, not the other way around. Sure, being passive sometimes enables some jerk off to get some footing and make his mark. But that is far better than everyone being a violent jerk off. A war every now and again against the embedded strongman, imo, is much better than constant war. Moreover, this is all just conjecture on the way nations work...religions are a different, far more fragmented. Off the top of my head I can name 30 different Christian denominations. I only know 2 main Muslim ones, but I am sure they have just as much deviation as Christians on the different Fatwas they hold to.

Edit: Also, what the fuck is his point? Violence is the answer? While sometimes it is the only option left on the table, it certainly isn't an answer, when the cause your trying to cure IS VIOLENCE (YOU FREAKING MORON). While there are situations were mutual threats of violence keep violence at bay (cold war), it still FREAKING SUCKS TO LIVE IN THE FREAKING COLD WAR (YOU FREAKING MORON). The REAL brave person does what MLK does and lay down in the street and let them kick you, or do what Jesus did and let the Crucify you. If you want the world to change, then you have to change yourself first. This guy prescribes the sickness to fight the sickness (you freaking moron).