More or less; you seem to have hit all the high points. Although I might suggest that you're a little slow on the uptake, or decidedly "reluctant" to address that argument, since I've been saying that, more or less, for the last hundred posts or so.jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, here's a rough outline of what I see you saying.
The Quran promotes the worst kinds of violence, which makes it a danger to society. Furthermore, anyone who calls himself a Muslim is implicitly endorsing the Quran, which makes him a danger to society, unless he repudiates the Quran.
You see evidence for all that in reports of what people have done in the name of Islam, and in opinion polls.
To remedy those problems, you're proposing to remove the influence of the Quran, and of people who endorse it, by not allowing Muslims into the country, by banning Islam, and by deporting Muslims who don't repudiate the Quran.
Is that right?
Not that I can see at the moment - apart, maybe, from the fact that I don't see that you've really ever addressed the central element of my "thesis", although it is also one that many others (Rizvi, Sultan, Rahman, Hirsi Ali, et. al.) have supported. For example:jimhabegger wrote:Am I missing anything?
But since it seems relevant, you also asked in a recent post:
It's less a question of you actually lying, as far as I can see, than that you are, apparently, intellectually dishonest and egregriously evasive. You make a great summary of my position, but seem remarkably reluctant, being charitable, to actually address the substance of it. I was hopeful that your "I haven't seen anyone taking [The Muslim Threat] seriously enough" might have led to you doing so, but you then abandoned the field without ever really doing that. Not at all impressive or commendable, but which underlines my point.jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, it looks to me like you think I've been lying about some things. If that isn't what you think, please let me know.