Throughout history the Jews never proselytized by the sword.
No, but they took land by slaying enemies, man woman and child and without that opportunity.
The Muslims, OTOH, have open commands to murder unbelievers and apostates.
Either you or most of Islam doesn't understand something about Islam, because that's just not how it has worked under actual Islamic control outside of a sliver of rabid and largely rejected extremists. I'm going to bet against you on that.
You don't have to mention that muslims do most of the dieing when muslims are out killing.
That almost sounds reasonable, but then it really sounds like stepping over a point because it's not aligned with the picture you mean to paint. Again, Muslims are largely opposing the fanatics you seem determined to paint as the rule. But the opposition by Islam to them speaks against your efforts.
That doesn't prove your point. It only shows that muslims have an easier time getting to apostates than unbelievers.
A point utterly undone by the absence of those efforts within any of the nations opposing ISIS.
But you seem to be OK with the way muslims of which you speak here treated Jews and Christians. We'll return to that in a moment.
You can keep saying that but it only makes you look silly. Nothing in what I wrote says that about the historical treatment.
Sorry, but I'm going to continue to use hyperbole as a literary form.
Hyperbole to make your point is reasonable. To mischaracterize someone else's position is simply dishonest, past a point. If you find that rhetorically acceptable I can't stop you, but I'll be obliged to stop the conversation and point out that what you just said isn't an honest reflection of what I actually wrote. Seems a silly way to waste time you keep insisting you're short on, but that's people for you.
If you tell me Stalinist Russia was a good place, I'll respond by confirming your position with "sure, it was a workers paradise."
That would be an inaccurate stretch, but more than a great stone's throw from taking this:
"Islam once controlled a great deal of southern Europe and the Christians and Jews living there were not killed or converted."
And claiming I equated it with a "paradise". 
lain:
The first is a questionable exaggeration. The second is distorted to the point of bearing no rational relationship. That or you have a grotesque definition of what constitutes a paradise.
And now we get to connect the dots. Part of being second class means the second class person is censored. It was worse than that, but censoring was just one of the perks muslims get for treating others as second class.
What particularly do you find in the difference between Christian and Muslim that most offends you? With me its the inherent contempt and the inequality before the law. Contrary to your best efforts, I'm not defending or complimenting the Moors. I'm simply noting that when they were in control of a great number of Jews and Christians they didn't convert them or kill them. That as with most Muslims most places over most of history, your representation of what Islam has to be and how it has to behave is contradicted by the actual. That was my only point in using this example as a rebuttal.
And here you are OK with censorship since you are here defending them.
Neither statement is true, but it's part of the problem with ungrounded rhetoric. At some point it will lead you into a position at odds with any factual support.
I'd love to explain away all the exceptions you are about to mention
Sorry, but that's like the guy who tells you his uncle can beat your uncle, but his uncle moved to Boise.
, but I'm only going to preempt them with a wise saying that one should never trust a man that cannot discuss a topic in generalities - he's trying to cheat you.
I'd say a man who only argues in generalities and will not grapple with the plain facts lacks faith in his principles in application.
I wrote:
I don't really. I'd say that every right winger is a conservative, but not every conservative is a right winger.
Not at all. The right wing tends toward a set of beliefs. If one had to put it into a single line, it would be that right wingers believe in absolutes. Believing in absolutes generally tends to result in said set of beliefs. Conservatives simply want to conserve. Sometimes leftists want things to stay the same - they are then conservatives. Sometimes right wingers want things to change - they are not conservatives then.
See, to my mind you just decided to write your own dictionary. That's not the popular usage, so while I'm sure you can define a thing until it fits you it's no way to communicate between parties.
- a : an adherent or advocate of political conservatismb capitalized : a member or supporter of a conservative political party
- 2a : one who adheres to traditional methods or viewsb : a cautious or discreet person
Now within the expression of conservative philosophy are a number of camps.
In expressing what is meant by the popular phrase Right Wing, Merriam sets out: "
the part of a political group that consists of people who support conservative or traditional ideas and policies : the part of a political group that belongs to or supports the Right"
Or, conservative and Right Wing are largely interchangeable terms, though distinctions between moderate and right wing conservatives tend to be made relating to a hard line on application of their general principles.
Of course, if you want to say that right wingers want to conserve a particular time in history that offered freedom to all citizens (let's call that Eden), then you can technically say that all right wingers are conservatives. But the context of our discussion was where the KKK came from. In that case it was leftists who were trying to preserve slavery.
Conservatives resist progressive changes, side typically with institutions and in the preservation of prevailing traditions. The social order of the day was founded in slavery. The Klan rapidly became the face of preserving as much of that defeated institution and the social order it fed. Progressive notions defeated slavery, abolishing the status quo that had been affirmed by the last word in Constitutional interpretation, the S. Ct.
There is more than one reason to vote poorly other than stupidity. If one sees voting to sacrifice thriving in order to survive, that would be smart.
Then the alternative offered by the opposing side, conservatives, would have to be demonstrably worse or we're right back to stupidity. Either way you have a problem. But mostly you have a problem because you say Democrats hate blacks and that is rationally unsupportable for the reasons given prior.
FDR hated non-whites not because he was a product of this time, but because he was a leftist.
Rather, as with most men of his age, he was by our lights a racist. To ascribe racism to an intellectual foundation is a serious mistake. Racism isn't founded in reason or philosophy, though it can be upended by both.
It's a natural consequence of leftist thinking. If murder is OK, certainly shutting people up because one doesn't like what one is hearing need not be mentioned. .
Let's revisit a less sanitized version, what you actually wrote that I responded to strongly:
...since leftist love murdering babies before they are born, they will love censorship, too.
To deny it would be to leave reality
Rather, to embrace it is to embrace bias over rationality. From an unproven premise comes, without much surprise attaching, an errant conclusion. The fundamental error on the part of the majority of the left isn't founded in the love of killing babies. It's founded in the wrong headed belief that a woman's right to control of her reproduction and self is an absolute, where the rights and being of the unborn is at best tangential until such time as it can be said to exist independently of her. That's why even most of those who favor a woman's choice will balk at extending those rights until the moment of birth. Were the killing of infants the desire and root another reaction would be in evidence.
