You wouldn't happen to be a rather peculiar species of bird, would you? You're making all these nested straw men.
Okay... tell me how I should interpret what you said. You're implying that islam is just as bad as Christianity again (you do this often.)
I'm sorry, there's no evidence to back up your claim. None. Tons of world-event evidence to prove the opposite. *shrug*
My bad for assuming you know how to use google. Here you go: source.
In the second section I measured L2 against the AAPOR (2005) and argued that there had been
a number of violations of principles of professional responsibilities in dealing with respondents
and in standards for minimal disclosure. In particular, there is evidence of inadequacies
in L2s informed consent processes and that respondents were endangered and their privacy
was breached. The L2 authors have refused to disclose important information including the
exact wordings of the questions that were asked, a definitive data-entry form, their full sample
design and data matching anonymised interviewer IDs to households.
In the third section, and also to some extent in the second, I presented evidence of data
fabrication and falsification that includes:
It's actually hard to tell if you're really this thick or having a laugh, but the statement above this makes me want to give you some benefit of the doubt.
You gave the example of a banana because you think it's representative of how other words work, that you can also look up the picture of them in a dictionary to match the thing in the real world. I actually wrote half of an exposition explaining how language actually works in some nuance, but then realized that instead of making this even more confusing for you let's instead roll with that trite outlook on words.
Imagine that you're a wannabe leader trying to build some support, so in essence followers to rally around some cause. Generally it's easiest to get dumb people to mindlessly follow causes, and because they're dumb the cause can't be very complicated.
So what you do is take some characteristic of prospective followers, let's say white/western/christian, which naturally provides a contrasting dichotomy to some other group. Notice that dichotomy also works in reverse, aka vice versa. Then you propagate that said others are the worstest people of all time, and put pictures of them in dictionaries with all the bad words that can be associated. For example, one side might use terrorist, the other infidel and so on. It all has little to do with the complex reality, but remember the simpler the better.
That way to get their pea brains to click however you want, whenever the others do anything uppity/untoward, just point to the dictionary and watch the lemmings get all angry with you conveniently there to tell them what to do.
Before you get all angry at me for whatever reason, please note I'm just the messenger explaining how the leadership-peabrain interaction works.
Okay... tell me how I should interpret what you said. You're implying that islam is just as bad as Christianity again (you do this often.)
I'm sorry, there's no evidence to back up your claim. None. Tons of world-event evidence to prove the opposite. *shrug*
He is saying that in the past, Christianity was as bad as Islam. That is 100% correct to say. He has not claimed that Christianity is currently as bad as Islam. He might fell that way, but he did not say it. You cannot jump on people for things they did not say. Reading into peoples comments and getting out an assumed meaning is SJW shit. If you believe he feels that they are currently equal, then simply ask.
Point taken, which is why I replied with the big-letter stuff and asked him to clarify it for me. I got the usual mockery in response. *shrug*
Let's face it, a LOT of sjw's think Christianity today is violent and worse than islam. Facts just don't bear that out. They also don't bear out ever being "as bad" as islam, though it's had some dark moments to be sure.
If you even think "crusades", you need to watch the animated battle map:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo
As for Islam being as bad as Christianity in the past, that is very much true. One of the big reasons that Islam is so bad is because of Abrahamic laws that guided Christianity. The big difference is that the Islamic world was wrecked by a dude from Asia and a stronger growing west coming out of the dark ages. Much of the same fucked up ideas are inherent to both, its just that most Christians ignore those parts.
There's also the fact that Christianity is older than Islam. It's got, what, 700 more years under it's belt than Islam? When Christianity was the same age as Islam is today...Well, we had the dark ages.
True, but you cannot compare the ages like that. Its not like Christianity caused the dark ages. I would bet that a lot of Christianity's past comes from being popular during that time. At the time the west was coming out of the dark ages, the Arab world was getting buttfucked by Khan. Islam might look very different had they remained the cultural center before Khan. We will never know.
Did Christianity usher in the dark ages? The term dark ages has not been defined by the questioner but it commonly refers to the cultural and economic deterioration that occurred in Western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. There are normally two aspects to what might be termed the Christianity guilt thesis; firstly that Christianity was a significant contributing factor to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire and secondly that the new religion was hostile to classical learning and did not foster and preserve enough of it as the empire collapsed.
The first theory has an illustrious pedigree as it was promoted by Edward Gibbon in chapter 39 of his Magnus Opus The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Gibbon speculated that the introduction, or at least the abuse of Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire. His view was that Christianity broke the ideological unity of the Empire and hindered the states ability to win support. Financial and human resources were diverted from vital material ends and discontent was fostered, thus undermining imperial legitimacy.
I simply asked you to back up your statements. I am not going to look for the sources of your claims.
I'm going to assume that you did not look at the criticism of those studies, because if you had, you would not likely have used that as the source to defend your claims.
Here is the conclusion of a paper done on the Lancet studies. You can find this on page 38 of the paper here.
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/surveys.course/Spagat2010.pdf
This is why I asked you to provide your source. Turns out, your source is shit.
Its okay to admit you are wrong. But, lets move on I guess.
First flaw. The cause can be complicated, its the marketing that cannot. The civil rights movement was very complex and the ideas it championed were not simple, but, the way it was expressed to the nation was that people should have equal rights. The way to get people on board is branding. The complexity of the movement is not usually important. This does not seem central to your point, but I did not want to let this pass as it is wrong.
Let me start here by saying that you used dichotomy to reinforce the idea of contrast, but it was misused. I see this often, but you should know that dichotomy means dividing or contrasting two different or opposing things. In your comment above, there would be more than 2 groups, so all you should have said was contrasting, and not included dichotomy.
That said, you are touching on a valid point of tribalism and or ingroup outgroup preference. I have no doubt that people use terms like terrorists to cover actions of a group they dislike, but in a more socially accepted way. I have seen people call out anything an Arab person does criminally as terrorism, and they do so as a way to be biased in a more accepted way. That does not mean that all activity labeled terrorism is actually a veiled racist/bigoted/xenophobic attack on a group. Sometimes, calling things like 9/11 or 7/7 terrorism is not anything more than the correct label.
You seem to have a problem with the terms used because you carry implicit meanings behind those terms. Your filter on my words are the problem here, not the actual words.
While I have no doubt people will use terrorism for their agenda (Trump) I do not think its the norm. I would not call what happened in Paris last year was uppity or simply untoward as that would take away the real impact of the event. Murder and torture should not be made out to be simply inconvenient.
Why would you think I would get mad? Have I shown to you anger before this, or do you think me disagreeing with you is anger?
Point taken, which is why I replied with the big-letter stuff and asked him to clarify it for me. I got the usual mockery in response. *shrug*
Let's face it, a LOT of sjw's think Christianity today is violent and worse than islam. Facts just don't bear that out. They also don't bear out ever being "as bad" as islam, though it's had some dark moments to be sure.
If you even think "crusades", you need to watch the animated battle map:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo
Third, if you're going to pretend to be some kind of scholar with someone else in the future, contrast the ranking/expertise of the Lancet in an epidemiological study with the "Defence and Peace Economics" before mouthing off.