"THAT , I can agree with . ... now that it is corrected ."
All that negative energy for nothing. We agreed all along. We just didn't realize it. Rather than a snarky comment (Are you joking?) you could have just asked a clarifying question and I would have cleared the murkiness right up.
"More guesses then ! I am actually a student of comparative religions ...."
The reason I was guessing until now is because very little of what you said gave me any insight into your authority or expertise on the subject. Anyone can say 'Christians? Are you joking?' and most people in this forum who do say that sort of thing don't say it from your point of view. You don't have to cite your resume everytime you post, but you could say something that indicates you've given some serious thought to the subject.
"Dude - I also linked you to the wiki article as Saladin, where that name is clearly shown. "
Yes, but I almost didn't follow that up. Your initial post in this thread did nothing to pique my intellectual curiosity. It was snarky, combative, and contained a name I didn't recognize. I would have blown off everything you had to say on this subject except at the time I was feeling a little combative myself. So I decided to comat you right back. It wasn't because you piqued my interest intellectually. Saladin I would have recognized and may have responded to intellectually. Not necessarily though.
"I have no interest in trying to impress you "
If you're not impressing me, you're boring me, and we're both wasting our time. I was trying to convey the idea that responding to a claim of mine with a lone contrary example never convinces me to change my mind. In the future, you might have more luck with a different style of argument.
The reason I said you 'almost implied' is because by that point I knew you were responding to an argument I never made or at least never intended so I stopped following what should have been a non-argument. If I had intended to say that WW1 Muslims were incapable of chivalry, I would have rejected your Saladin argument on grounds of faulty logic. Saladin had no more influence on the WW1 Ottomans than those unchivalrous crusader knights you mentioned had on Lawrence.
By the way, is it your opinion that Bushido as it was practiced in Japan during WW2 contained provisions for the respectful treatment of POWs?
All that negative energy for nothing. We agreed all along. We just didn't realize it. Rather than a snarky comment (Are you joking?) you could have just asked a clarifying question and I would have cleared the murkiness right up.
"More guesses then ! I am actually a student of comparative religions ...."
The reason I was guessing until now is because very little of what you said gave me any insight into your authority or expertise on the subject. Anyone can say 'Christians? Are you joking?' and most people in this forum who do say that sort of thing don't say it from your point of view. You don't have to cite your resume everytime you post, but you could say something that indicates you've given some serious thought to the subject.
"Dude - I also linked you to the wiki article as Saladin, where that name is clearly shown. "
Yes, but I almost didn't follow that up. Your initial post in this thread did nothing to pique my intellectual curiosity. It was snarky, combative, and contained a name I didn't recognize. I would have blown off everything you had to say on this subject except at the time I was feeling a little combative myself. So I decided to comat you right back. It wasn't because you piqued my interest intellectually. Saladin I would have recognized and may have responded to intellectually. Not necessarily though.
"I have no interest in trying to impress you "
If you're not impressing me, you're boring me, and we're both wasting our time. I was trying to convey the idea that responding to a claim of mine with a lone contrary example never convinces me to change my mind. In the future, you might have more luck with a different style of argument.
The reason I said you 'almost implied' is because by that point I knew you were responding to an argument I never made or at least never intended so I stopped following what should have been a non-argument. If I had intended to say that WW1 Muslims were incapable of chivalry, I would have rejected your Saladin argument on grounds of faulty logic. Saladin had no more influence on the WW1 Ottomans than those unchivalrous crusader knights you mentioned had on Lawrence.
By the way, is it your opinion that Bushido as it was practiced in Japan during WW2 contained provisions for the respectful treatment of POWs?