Originally posted by Modesty: ... and not knowing every penny they give to starbucks supports Israeli army to murder more palestinian muslims. Can you substantiate this claim?

^^It sure was Belle. Originally posted by Valenteenah: I. Am. Not. Ugly! Ugly is term of endearment... perhaps you've grown blase of it. Throw the old dog a bone and see if it's true you can teach an old dog a new trick.

Preedy, You don't need advice as much as you need something else.

Ah! the bittersweat ointment that is reality in KSA. On one hand you have victims of circumstance -- the young men seen the video. Reared in sexually repressive soceity that shuns everything pertaining to normal and healthy displays of sexuality. No release vents, no social lubricants... Ineluctably resulting in sexual acting out, very akin to what we see in this video. Sexual repression and acting out is one of the strongest supported correlations. The other victims showed in this video are the girls. Harrased even though -- it appears from the video at least -- to have done nothing to provoke to be treated like that.

We can do one better. Career Women = miscreants

Urgent Plea to SOLers!!! Can someone volunteer to tutor Yo-Yo-ma on how to use the UBB code? It's becoming exceeding difficult to follow what he says and that as you'll all agree is a mammoth loss to all. So, all the in-house philanthropist and do-gooders, step forward please.

Exclusive Premisses Alias: Two Negative Premisses Type: Syllogistic Fallacy Form: Any form of categorical syllogism with two negative premisses. Example Counter-Example No moslems are christians. No jews are moslems. Therefore, no jews are christians. No reptiles are mammals. No dogs are reptiles. Therefore, no dogs are mammals. Venn diagram Venn Diagram: This diagram represents both the Example and Counter-Example, which it shows to be invalid, since the area with the question mark is not shown to be empty. Syllogistic Rule Violated: At least one premiss of a valid categorical syllogism is affirmative. Source: Robert Audi (General Editor), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995, p. 272.

I can see the damn thing... it must have failed the riffraff test.

Baah! Here is my team of 2006. Gk - Petr Chec - no competition 2 - Zambrotta (LB) - ditto 3 - Sagnol (RB)- (Ashley Cole stinks) 4 - Terry - co comp 5 - Fabio Cannavaro - ditto 6 - Makalele - ditto 7 - M. Ballack 8 - Essien 9 - Theirry Henry 10 - A. Schevchenko 11 - Ronaldinho subs Messi Lampard D. Drogba LUCA TONI Buffon Carvalho

Begging the Question Alias: * Circular Argument * Circulus in Probando * Petitio Principii * Vicious Circle Etymology: The phrase "begging the question", or "petitio principii" in Latin, refers to the "question" in a formal debate—that is, the issue being debated. In such a debate, one side may ask the other side to concede certain points in order to speed up the proceedings. To "beg" the question is to ask that the very point at issue be conceded, which is of course illegitimate. Type: Informal Fallacy Form: Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premisses, or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premiss of one of the earlier arguments in the chain. More generally, an argument begs the question when it assumes any controversial point not conceded by the other side. Example: To cast abortion as a solely private moral question,…is to lose touch with common sense: How human beings treat one another is practically the definition of a public moral matter. Of course, there are many private aspects of human relations, but the question whether one human being should be allowed fatally to harm another is not one of them. Abortion is an inescapably public matter. Source: Helen M. Alvaré, The Abortion Controversy, Greenhaven, 1995, p. 23. Analysis Exposition: Unlike most informal fallacies, Begging the Question is a validating form of argument. Moreover, if the premisses of an instance of Begging the Question happen to be true, then the argument is sound. What is wrong, then, with Begging the Question? First of all, not all circular reasoning is fallacious. Suppose, for instance, that we argue that a number of propositions, p1, p2,…, pn are equivalent by arguing as follows (where "p => q" means that p implies q): p1 => p2 => … => pn => p1 Then we have clearly argued in a circle, but this is a standard form of argument in mathematics to show that a set of propositions are all equivalent to each other. So, when is it fallacious to argue in a circle? For an argument to have any epistemological or dialectical force, it must start from premisses already known or believed by its audience, and proceed to infer a conclusion not known or believed. This, of course, rules out the worst cases of Begging the Question, when the conclusion is the very same proposition as the premiss, since one cannot both believe and not believe the same thing. Any viciously circular argument is one which attempts to infer a conclusion based ultimately upon that conclusion itself. Such arguments can never advance our knowledge. Exposure: The phrase "begs the question" has come to be used to mean "raises the question" or "suggests the question", as in "that begs the question" followed by the question supposedly begged. The following headlines are examples: * Warm Weather Begs the Question: To Water or Not to Water Yard Plants * Latest Internet Fracas Begs the Question: Who's Driving the Internet Bus? * Hot Holiday Begs Big Question: Can the Party Continue? This is a confusing usage which is apparently based upon a literal misreading of the phrase "begs the question". It should be avoided, and must be distinguished from its use to refer to the fallacy. Subfallacies: * Question-Begging Analogy * Loaded Words Source: S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (Fifth Edition) (St. Martin's, 1994), pp. 144-149 Resources: * Julian Baggini, "Begging the Question", Bad Moves, 7/13/2004 * Robert Todd Carroll, "Begging the Question", Skeptic's Dictionary * Douglas N. Walton, "The Essential Ingredients of the Fallacy of Begging the Question", in Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, edited by Hans V. Hanson and Robert C. Pinto (Penn State Press, 1995), pp. 229-239 Acknowledgements: Thanks to Christopher Mork for a criticism which led me to revise the Form and add the Etymology. The M.C. Escher art print is available from AllPosters. Analysis of the Example: This argument begs the question because it assumes that abortion involves one human being fatally harming another. However, those who argue that abortion is a private matter reject this very premiss. In contrast, they believe that only one human being is involved in abortion—the woman—and it is, therefore, her private decision.

Originally posted by Legend of Zu: I have alreay mentioned you need to weight them! What's the point? And please explain what weighting them means. Again wrong...the Judaism in this data has reversed in growth i.e. negative (shrunk). you will admit that Judaism is second largest religion in the States According to the Stats I provided, yes. Not all negative percentage growth tranlates into losing followers. That depends on the overall rate of growth of the populatin at large. I am not sure if my PC is able to calculate that but you will expect 000' [if not millions] years before the smaller outgrows the bigger! At last! A complete concession of your entire arguement by agreeing that at some point if both scenarios remain on the same trajectory, the one growing 200% will take over the other. Which is only possible if the 200% one is growing faster than the 20% one. As I've been saying all along. What exactly is your disagreement then? Well.. SB I dunno how Islam is fourth? even I ignore the statistical gaffes, how did you end up saying Hinduism is third while it grew by 539K and Islam is fourth with +577K Upsy-daisy! Islam is ahead of Hinduism but Islam is still 4th according to the link I provided. Non-religious/secular, which is listed as religion, is largest. Since I earlier relinquished this category as valid (for arguendo), I'll drop it again and move Islam up to 3rd.

Originally posted by Khalaf: That means ur 27? Look walaalshiis a woman should get marriered early why? Cause yall have an expiration date! No hard feelings but its the reality. U may have lots of choices now keep saying uff to every brother….then bam u are in your 30s…still no man…and u will become a charity case…take any dude that wants u! May God have clemency on any woman who shares a life with you! Originally posted by Pierre-Faarax: When will men respect a woman for her brains rather than her looks? Why should they ever? It's the price they have to pay for Eve's original sin. Poor souls are doomed to male subservience. I'm sorry but they garner no sympathy from me.

Originally posted by Legend of Zu: No Sxb..Percentage are only impartial if the numbers are close enough... Then, how do you decide fastest growing religion? Because if you recall, that question is what spawned this protracted discussion. According to Northerner, Islam is fastest growing religion in the West. I countered that at least in the case of States, the stats show otherwise. In the process of repudiating Northerner, I used percent growth. Reason being, percent growth convey the true rate of growth or the speed at which a religion is adding new members. A large religion will always add more followers so long as it experiences net positive growth than a small religion by virtue of having larger members. This, regardless of how fast the smaller religion is growing. It's like 2 cars at race track one having considerable head start than the other and asserting the one ahead is moving faster by mere virtue of being ahead of the second (I know this is crappy analogy but I hope it drives home the arguement I'm trying to marshal). I google searched fastest growing and got Googlepedia of returns. All the returns I checked addressing rates of growth for many things use percent growth. Hmmm, wonder why that is 100 fastest growing tech companies 100 fastest growing US counties Fastest growing cities For example if 5 becomes 15 = 200% growth 1 Billion = 1.2 Billion = 20% now you can't compare the two, can you? No, I can't compare. No one ever attempted to do such thing. But let me ask you this: if both cases maintain their current growth rates (200% and 20% respectively), and all other things being equal, will there ever be a time when both will have equal numbers? Therefore the Only religion that grew more than Islam is Buddism... well...You above statement was not entirely correct (in statistical terms) If you used the Stats I provided, you'll find Islam is 4th after the following: Christianity, Budhism and Hinduism. From 1990 to 2001 -Christianity increased by 7 million from 151,225,000 to 159,030,000 -Budhism increased by a whopping 600k from 401,000 to 1,082,000 -Hinduism increased by 500k from 227,000 to 766,000. source

I think many of you are missing the undercurrent of trepidation surging through modesty as she ponders the question whether or not the prophet (Scw) was arab. If memory serves me right, not too long ago she claimed to have direct and inviolable propinquity to Arabs and hence by extention to the prophet Mohammed himself. Now comes the unwelcome word that arabs might not be what she always thought they were. Rather something all too different, all too pale, too fond of pork chops and other all too grating lifestyles... the poor thing is in precarious position; staring at the abyss; her whole world is sent topsy-turvy. Bear with her ya'all.

Originally posted by ThePoint: Percentage increases are of little consequence since a tiny cult religion can double or triple with the addition of a few converts. Precisely! That's how religions grow from 0 adherents to millions -- by doubling, tripling, quadrupling their initial numbers. Conversely, if a religion of millions doubles or triples it's initial numbers, it adds millions of new followers. As you can see, percent increase is completely impartial (as it cuts both ways) data that only tells us how fast a religion is growing in set time period. I'm afraid this topic is too esoteric for some. If you lack the appreciation and discriminatory aptness to analysis statistical data, you'll be running in circles like a dog chasing it's own tail. Can we really arrive at reliable numbers for adherents added if the current number of adherents is so widely disputed? For determining if Islam is fastest growing faith in the US, the ARIS survey more than suffices. The other numbers only give us snapshot of demographics, only one time shot of muslim numbers. Not enough to calculate rate growth.

Originally posted by ThePoint: ^Source - http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_numb.htm - You will also notice that the numbers you are arguing about are at the very low end of the estimates - which casts serious doubt on any firm reliance on them. You're missing the point, The Point. The 1990-2001 ARIS survey is the most reliable and comprehensive survey we got. And the point was never about how muslims are in the States but whether or not Islam was fastest growing. For that we need the rates of growth of other religions for comparison. THis is why the ARIS survey is so handy in this debate, it has stats for almost every major religion.

Originally posted by Valenteenah: There is only one right place for a man: beneath a woman. Xaraam caleyk! what a perversion of God's finest creation.

Originally posted by RendezVous: 4. Why should Ayaan Hirsi/Wafa & some feminist pretend to know more than other muslim women, when invited for a serious Islamic talk..refuse??or give reasons Who/what the heck is Wafa? In the case of A. Hirsi, the reason she's reluctant is perhaps due a fear of her life. You do know that some muslims wanna kill her, right? 6. Why muslims lag behind in technology when their predecessors were resourceful and hardworking people...??? Ignorance. Also, they aint limber minded enough to accomodate modern science and all the facts it churns up, some percieved as incongruent with their faith. 7. Why the world is fond of "distorting" Islamic theology while everyone is free to "study", research on Islam..why just listen to what the media and non-Muslims say..why non-muslims speak for Islam... This is pure myth. The world got more important issues to occupy with it's time than distort Islam. You don't really think very hard, do you? ..Can I post some more laterz..... No you may not. You said enough.

Originally posted by Northerner: US Census 2001 Click on 69 A more reliable source i think How is it more reliable, it's the same damn survey I provided. Maybe you need catarct surgery to correct your vision but can anyone spot the difference between these 2 allegedly disparate sources: my source Click on 69. North's supposedly more reliable source The exact same survey, the most comprehensive one we can get our hands on. Beats me why he'd say they're different... well, I kinda have a hunch but lets see what else he has to say. Christianity 105% increase Judaism 90% increase Islam 209% increase Buddism 269% increase Muslims Increased by 703,000 in number Buddists Increased by 681,000 in number As we've seen, you relied on the same source I used. Thus, there's no way short of using fudge math you could've come up with numbers you have above. Judiasm lost followers, not grow by 90%. Islam grew by 577k not 703k. You deliberately made up these numbers to agree with your starting premise. Auspiciously, now is the time to comment on your repeated and unacceptable flagrant breach of scholarly integrity. You deliberately presented false data in this thread not once, not twice but thrice. This renders you unworthy adversary since you only care about scoring points and not getting to the bottom of truth. If you were interested in finding out whether Islam was fastest growing religion in the US, you wouldn't be so disingenuous. No point in continuing this any further.

Originally posted by Northerner: Secularism/irreligious does not bare any increase as the people are simply not practicing. How does that have a bearing on the figures? They do because they're part of the survey. But lets for agruements sake drop them from the list, that means Islam moves up one slot to 4th. Not second. Here are the facts: From 1990 to 2001 -Christianity increased by 7 million from 151,225,000 to 159,030,000 -Budhism increased by a whopping 600k from 401,000 to 1,082,000 -Hinduism increased by 500k from 227,000 to 766,000. source As i said the increases in Buddism i believe is due to to the high immigration of the late nineties (the doctors/nurses/taxi drivers). This would be true for Islam as well. Tens of thousands of Somali muslims moved to the US in the 90s. Shouldn't they count too? When you use numbers Islam is second to Buddism (due to more Immigrants) and not 5th when you disrgard secularism/irreligious as they are not seperate religions but rather people simply not practicing their faiths. You're using wrong numbers here pal. They're not from any source I gave. Your getting boring SB, your clinging onto lifelines now Small minds tend to get bored easily.

Originally posted by Northerner: An increase of some 500,000+ is more meaningful than100%+ increases in other religions but with only 60,000+ increases in number. It all depends what you use them for. A 100% increase tells us that whatever is being measured doubled it's numbers, triple it's numbers by increasing 200%. Hence why you are pushing for it and hence why Islam is the fasting growing ‘religion’ being 'embraced' in numbers rather than due to a huge increase in immigration during the late 90s. I'm not pushing for anything. In fact, in my last post I dropped the percentage figures and used raw numbers instead. You're still wrong by saying Islam is fastest growing religion in America. Secular/non-religious, Budhism and Christianity are all ahead of it relying strictly on raw numbers. Secular and ‘irreligious’ are not religions and thus is not used when commenting upon religious trends. Only you would think secularism and ‘irreligious’ are religions. First, the survey classifies this category as Secular/non-religious, not irreligious. My fault. And yes, secular/non-religious is considered religion. They're secular Christians, jews, muslims, Hindus etc. You don't get to define what people consider themselves. An increase of hundreds can mean a 200% increase whereas an increase in the hundred thousands is only 50% Exactly! Percentages tell us growth with respect to initial size. So a population that grew 200%, increased by multiple of 3. Looks like you sticking to your percentages argument, I cant blame as pride is something you seem enjoy having. Ok, I've shown using sheer numbers, Islam isn't fastest growing religion. It's only 5th. Even your phoney sheer numbers stats you presented show Budhism ahead of Islam. So what exactly have you shown hitherto other than you don't know shid from shinola? Sheer numbers or percentages, you can't present a single reliable data showing Islam is fastest growing religion in the US. And that, my friend, has been your perennial achilles heel in this entire debate. Oblivious to you, very obvious to everyone else.

Originally posted by Libaax-Sankataabte: Kola Boof Says Osama bin Laden Loved Whitney Houston.. Blames Bobby Brown - 2:56 p.m.

Originally posted by Northerner: How do you define an increase? We were talking about growth rate so we can get to the bottom of whether your claim that Islam is fastest growing religion in the West has any merit to it. Now your obfuscating things by quibbling over the definition of increase, which was never a subject of this discussion. Growth rates are generally presented as percentage of increase. I selected the US as an example to refute your claim. Prominently because we have impartial data we can use to settle this debate. Now, you're quite right in that there is more than one way to show the growth of a religion: raw numbers (or integers) and percentage increase. Since you haven't challenged my post where I showed Islam is 8th or 9th fastest growing religion in the US percentage wise, I'm assuming you accept it's validity. With that out of the way, I'll now show even when we rely on the raw numbers, in the case of the States, Islam still lags behind it terms of growth. In fact, non-religious or secular are by far the fastest growing -- adding 1.4 million new adherents a year. For example, secular/irreligious numbered 13,116,000 in 1990. In 2001, their ranks swelled to 27,539,000. That's a 110% increase or 14,423,000 in raw numbers (1.4 million/year). Conversely, in the same time period Islam grew from mere 527,000 to 1,104,000. Again, it's percentage is nearly identical to secular/irreligious with 109% increase. But added only 577,000 or 57k/year. Intrestingly, Budhism comes ahead of Islam if we go by raw numbers with 681000 new comers in the same time period. Going by percentage increases is a manipulation of the truth Mr babbler. You don't know what you're talking about. There's no manipulation involved; percentage increase convey different meaning from raw number increases. It would be really interesting to see today's picture as these figures are pre-2000. Get a reliable stats and we'll go over them. Till then, we just do by with what we got. which I believe is predominantly due to an increase in white/black ‘Americans’ embracing Islam together with a fewer number in immigrants. It's mainly due to immigration. Now, if my notion is incorrect (and i'm quiet sure it is correct) why would this be overlooked by the sources i posted earlier? Why are they not using your stats? Are you going to tell me those media quotes are due to a pro-Islam view? Like I said earlier, you're bird-brained about this whole subject. We first got some hints of your unlettered status in this subject when you posted some off-topic posts talking about Christianity being false or some shid alike. That was a real head-turner alright... I mean, what is Christianity's untenability as a doctrine doing in a debate about whether Islam is fastest growing religion in the West? Not to leave out, there's your penchant for ad hominem attacks on your sparring partners anytime you feel the heat around the corner. Now, you want to us to take quotes from hodgepodge of news outlets as authoritative source in place of real stats? Really, your benighted status in this subject leaves you unprepared and at a disadvantage. Come back when your erudition is fastest growing in the subject (pun fully intended).

Originally posted by LayZieGirl: especially Socod, choke on it awoowe, and nice try about the confirmation, now I know where all that hostility was coming from, you were so eagered for a sneak peak...(I dislike indirect folks) [/i] You got me Awoowe, I want sneak peak. Hopefully, you'll come to your senses and indulge this old man.

Originally posted by Northerner: What is it with you and anything involving Islam and Muslims? What is it to you? Why should it matter at all? Be honest with us, if you were winning this sub-debate, would you have asked the same question? I think nooooooooot! You're quibbling. Its one thing being anti-islam/muslims but its another when its all based on 'what i heard' scenario. To call me anti-Islam/muslim is to call me a bigot, which is a slur. I'll let it slip this time, taking into consideration your fragile state of mind. But I gotta ask, why did you seek me out and respond to one of my posts? You made a specious claim, I've taken you to task and you reply to the evidence and arguements I presented with puerile antics and slurs. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen! I will conclude our little discusion and shall waste no more time such petulant and inconsistant 'babbling'. Blah, blah, blah... run away!