Cite even one instance of Christians stoning a bride on her wedding day for not being a virgin. You can't, because a bid deal about Christianity was that we stopped doing that when Christ said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

At this point you are being willfully ignorant as to the reality of Islam. If given a chance to behead you, and not be punished for it, most Muslims globally would do so. Hence all the beheadings that happen in the West by Muslims against Europeans and Americans.

Did I ever say they wouldn't behead people if the Law allowed them to? I don't believe Islam is the religion of peace or any of that bullcrap, for the record. Were we under under Sharia Law, sure, they'd get right on that, but the fact remains that most muslims not only don't go around beheading people, but also state their explicit dislike for the actions of ISIS, which can only mean thing: Despite the fact that they'd like Sharia Law to be made official, they don't condone blowing shit up for it and killing others to force other countries to do it.
The thing about the Christians was an example of a group of people not following shit to the letter just because it's in their respective holy book, and you can find a lot of examples referring to the new testament too, if only you don't cover your eyes when you go outsite. You say that at this point I'm being willfully ignorant, but all I'm doing is drawing conclussions from the data, which you haven't really countered at all. One would think you'd get right on that, given how dead set you were on citing it as long as it validated your claims.

Fundamentally, yes it does. Because that is what Sharia law demands.

But in reality, it doesn't, as shown by the way they reject ISIS' actions and how most Muslims are not getting in on the whole beheading business. Almost like they can reasonably understand they are not currently living under Sharia Law, and so cannot just go around doing that shit. Either that, or they understand that certain aspects of their religious law the ones justifying terrorism and infidel-purging to spread Islam by force are retardedly extreme, like christians and the whole publicly stoning-non-virgins-on-their-wedding-day deal.

Cite even one instance of Christians stoning a bride on her wedding day for not being a virgin. You can't, because a bid deal about Christianity was that we stopped doing that when Christ said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

At this point you are being willfully ignorant as to the reality of Islam. If given a chance to behead you, and not be punished for it, most Muslims globally would do so. Hence all the beheadings that happen in the West by Muslims against Europeans and Americans.

Did I ever say they wouldn't behead people if the Law allowed them to? I don't believe Islam is the religion of peace or any of that bullcrap, for the record. Were we under under Sharia Law, sure, they'd get right on that, but the fact remains that most muslims not only don't go around beheading people, but also state their explicit dislike for the actions of ISIS, which can only mean thing: Despite the fact that they'd like Sharia Law to be made official, they don't condone blowing shit up for it and killing others to force other countries to do it.
The thing about the Christians was an example of a group of people not following shit to the letter just because it's in their respective holy book, and you can find a lot of examples referring to the new testament too, if only you don't cover your eyes when you go outsite. You say that at this point I'm being willfully ignorant, but all I'm doing is drawing conclussions from the data, which you haven't really countered at all. One would think you'd get right on that, given how dead set you were on citing it as long as it validated your claims.

ISIS is simply following Sharia Law. And here is how Muslims feel about Sharia. Globally, its about 80% That's 8/10 Muslims who want honor killings, rape victims to be executed, death of gays, and beheading of infidels that don't willingly become slaves.

So? The fact that they'd love it if Sharia Law became official doesn't automatically mean they support ISIS or any form of terrorism as a means to achieve it. It also doesn't mean they'll just start to go out and behead homosexuals in their yards. Where were you trying to go with this?

Fundamentally, yes it does. Because that is what Sharia law demands.

But in reality, it doesn't, as shown by the way they reject ISIS' actions and how most Muslims are not getting in on the whole beheading business. Almost like they can reasonably understand they are not currently living under Sharia Law, and so cannot just go around doing that shit. Either that, or they understand that certain aspects of their religious law the ones justifying terrorism and infidel-purging to spread Islam by force are retardedly extreme, like christians and the whole publicly stoning-non-virgins-on-their-wedding-day deal.

Cite even one instance of Christians stoning a bride on her wedding day for not being a virgin. You can't, because a bid deal about Christianity was that we stopped doing that when Christ said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

At this point you are being willfully ignorant as to the reality of Islam. If given a chance to behead you, and not be punished for it, most Muslims globally would do so. Hence all the beheadings that happen in the West by Muslims against Europeans and Americans.

Did I ever say they wouldn't behead people if the Law allowed them to? I don't believe Islam is the religion of peace or any of that bullcrap, for the record. Were we under under Sharia Law, sure, they'd get right on that, but the fact remains that most muslims not only don't go around beheading people, but also state their explicit dislike for the actions of ISIS, which can only mean thing: Despite the fact that they'd like Sharia Law to be made official, they don't condone blowing shit up for it and killing others to force other countries to do it.
The thing about the Christians was an example of a group of people not following shit to the letter just because it's in their respective holy book, and you can find a lot of examples referring to the new testament too, if only you don't cover your eyes when you go outsite. You say that at this point I'm being willfully ignorant, but all I'm doing is drawing conclussions from the data, which you haven't really countered at all. One would think you'd get right on that, given how dead set you were on citing it as long as it validated your claims.

We have studies done on a few thousand people that represent the entire species. That's how stats work.

Obviously with polls there are several factors that skew the results, but that doesn't discount them, it just means more controlled studies trump polls, and polls trump no research at all.

Which is what you have. No research at all. Just your intuition. So you can discuss all the flaws you want, you still don't have something better to refute it with. So you don't have an argument.

This may come as a surprise to you, but controlled research is an apple to the orange known as internet poll. Also, useless research like an internet poll, while worth keeping around for future reference in your research, is not something to throw around as "proof" of your little agenda by itself.
Now, I already called you out on lying about what the poll you cited was about, but since you mentioned how having a poll is better than no research at all, and accused me of not having anything to counter it with: (despite the fact that, since you made it up, you really don't have shit to begin with)
According to this, most Muslims don't like ISIS all that much, or at most don't offer an opinion about them. They also are against terrorism in general.
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/07/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/ (skip to "How do Muslims feel about groups like ISIS")

I'm not too sure why you'd lie about what the poll you cited asked, when a page like this one, which answers the same question, pops up as the second result of "poll how do mulsims feel about isis", unless... *gasp* you just wanted to further your own agenda? No way right? Incidentally, this one was the first:

www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/

So no, there are polls that contradict your little lie. How come you didn't take note of them, if you're such a good researcher? Is it because they don't validate your bias? Serious question, by the way.

ISIS is simply following Sharia Law. And here is how Muslims feel about Sharia. Globally, its about 80% That's 8/10 Muslims who want honor killings, rape victims to be executed, death of gays, and beheading of infidels that don't willingly become slaves.

So? The fact that they'd love it if Sharia Law became official doesn't automatically mean they support ISIS or any form of terrorism as a means to achieve it. It also doesn't mean they'll just start to go out and behead homosexuals in their yards. Where were you trying to go with this?

Fundamentally, yes it does. Because that is what Sharia law demands.

But in reality, it doesn't, as shown by the way they reject ISIS' actions and how most Muslims are not getting in on the whole beheading business. Almost like they can reasonably understand they are not currently living under Sharia Law, and so cannot just go around doing that shit. Either that, or they understand that certain aspects of their religious law the ones justifying terrorism and infidel-purging to spread Islam by force are retardedly extreme, like christians and the whole publicly stoning-non-virgins-on-their-wedding-day deal.

Cite even one instance of Christians stoning a bride on her wedding day for not being a virgin. You can't, because a bid deal about Christianity was that we stopped doing that when Christ said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

At this point you are being willfully ignorant as to the reality of Islam. If given a chance to behead you, and not be punished for it, most Muslims globally would do so. Hence all the beheadings that happen in the West by Muslims against Europeans and Americans.

Did I ever say they wouldn't behead people if the Law allowed them to? I don't believe Islam is the religion of peace or any of that bullcrap, for the record. Were we under under Sharia Law, sure, they'd get right on that, but the fact remains that most muslims not only don't go around beheading people, but also state their explicit dislike for the actions of ISIS, which can only mean thing: Despite the fact that they'd like Sharia Law to be made official, they don't condone blowing shit up for it and killing others to force other countries to do it.
The thing about the Christians was an example of a group of people not following shit to the letter just because it's in their respective holy book, and you can find a lot of examples referring to the new testament too, if only you don't cover your eyes when you go outsite. You say that at this point I'm being willfully ignorant, but all I'm doing is drawing conclussions from the data, which you haven't really countered at all. One would think you'd get right on that, given how dead set you were on citing it as long as it validated your claims.

If a national poll received those results, it would likely reflect the opinion of the nation. Especially when PEW polls have found similar results.

Really? A poll in which not even 1% of the country's people voted, reflects the opinion of the entire population? Really?

We have studies done on a few thousand people that represent the entire species. That's how stats work.

Obviously with polls there are several factors that skew the results, but that doesn't discount them, it just means more controlled studies trump polls, and polls trump no research at all.

Which is what you have. No research at all. Just your intuition. So you can discuss all the flaws you want, you still don't have something better to refute it with. So you don't have an argument.

This may come as a surprise to you, but controlled research is an apple to the orange known as internet poll. Also, useless research like an internet poll, while worth keeping around for future reference in your research, is not something to throw around as "proof" of your little agenda by itself.
Now, I already called you out on lying about what the poll you cited was about, but since you mentioned how having a poll is better than no research at all, and accused me of not having anything to counter it with: (despite the fact that, since you made it up, you really don't have shit to begin with)
According to this, most Muslims don't like ISIS all that much, or at most don't offer an opinion about them. They also are against terrorism in general.
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/07/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/ (skip to "How do Muslims feel about groups like ISIS")

I'm not too sure why you'd lie about what the poll you cited asked, when a page like this one, which answers the same question, pops up as the second result of "poll how do mulsims feel about isis", unless... *gasp* you just wanted to further your own agenda? No way right? Incidentally, this one was the first:

www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/

So no, there are polls that contradict your little lie. How come you didn't take note of them, if you're such a good researcher? Is it because they don't validate your bias? Serious question, by the way.

ISIS is simply following Sharia Law. And here is how Muslims feel about Sharia. Globally, its about 80% That's 8/10 Muslims who want honor killings, rape victims to be executed, death of gays, and beheading of infidels that don't willingly become slaves.

So? The fact that they'd love it if Sharia Law became official doesn't automatically mean they support ISIS or any form of terrorism as a means to achieve it. It also doesn't mean they'll just start to go out and behead homosexuals in their yards. Where were you trying to go with this?

Fundamentally, yes it does. Because that is what Sharia law demands.

But in reality, it doesn't, as shown by the way they reject ISIS' actions and how most Muslims are not getting in on the whole beheading business. Almost like they can reasonably understand they are not currently living under Sharia Law, and so cannot just go around doing that shit. Either that, or they understand that certain aspects of their religious law the ones justifying terrorism and infidel-purging to spread Islam by force are retardedly extreme, like christians and the whole publicly stoning-non-virgins-on-their-wedding-day deal.

Cite even one instance of Christians stoning a bride on her wedding day for not being a virgin. You can't, because a bid deal about Christianity was that we stopped doing that when Christ said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

At this point you are being willfully ignorant as to the reality of Islam. If given a chance to behead you, and not be punished for it, most Muslims globally would do so. Hence all the beheadings that happen in the West by Muslims against Europeans and Americans.

Did I ever say they wouldn't behead people if the Law allowed them to? I don't believe Islam is the religion of peace or any of that bullcrap, for the record. Were we under under Sharia Law, sure, they'd get right on that, but the fact remains that most muslims not only don't go around beheading people, but also state their explicit dislike for the actions of ISIS, which can only mean thing: Despite the fact that they'd like Sharia Law to be made official, they don't condone blowing shit up for it and killing others to force other countries to do it.
The thing about the Christians was an example of a group of people not following shit to the letter just because it's in their respective holy book, and you can find a lot of examples referring to the new testament too, if only you don't cover your eyes when you go outsite. You say that at this point I'm being willfully ignorant, but all I'm doing is drawing conclussions from the data, which you haven't really countered at all. One would think you'd get right on that, given how dead set you were on citing it as long as it validated your claims.

No, it has no bearing on the discussion at hand. Address the arguments, not the arguer.