WTF is the point of these endless back-and-forth banters?
It has been said that unless humans beings find a way to live together, we will all die together.
There are places on this earth that are locked into fierce conflict that seems impossible to solve. For example "the Palestine problem" and various ethnic conflicts that has been going on for decades in Africa. It is a relative privilege to be situated in a peaceful part of the world, but he quarrelsome nature of the human being will surface somehow anway.
What is the fucking point in rehashing conflicts that will not get solved?
I for one am not particularly interested in "turning" people of belief... and there isn't a snowflake's chance in a supernova that they will "turn" me. So why debate along such lines? I get sucked into it every now and then in sheer irritation over what I perceive as retarded arguments, although they probably make perfect sense to the person who's harbouring such points of view.
The John Lennon in me wants to say give peace a chance. The more analytically oriented rationalist part wants to know how.
An obvious solution is of course to not engage; to not feed a pointless "debate" that seems to follow the same genius strategy that made World War 1 so mind-bogglingly bloody: Massive firepower and very little mobility. In an attempt at humour, I will compare this predicament to the slightly less than realistic proposition of certain religious figures in America: The safest and surest way to avoid STD's and unwanted pregnancies is to practice abstinence.
Thou shalt not engage in pointless conflict.
Assuming (for ourself) or projecting a group identity onto any individual is of course not good either.
Stereotyping is the engine that produces strawman arguments.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)