*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[Jack Sawyer]

And what does it say about the second group if they are indifferent to the first group?

Are they?

As gesture of solidarity with the country's Coptic Christian minority, Egyptian Muslims showed up at churches on the eve of the Coptic Christmas on 6 January 2011 during mass service forming a "human shield" against any possible further attacks. In the days before the mass, Muslims and Copts joined together in a show of solidarity that included street protests, rallies, and widespread Facebook unity campaigns calling for an "Egypt for All". In Lebanon, separate condemnations came from the Sunni Mufti of the Republic Mohammad Qabbani and Deputy Head of the Shiite Supreme Council Abdul Amir Qabalan. Hamas has also condemned the bombing in Alexandria, assigning the blame to hidden hands that do not wish well for Egypt and its Muslim and Christian people and seek to inflame sectarian strife. Hamas in its statement sent condolences to Egypt and the victims' families, and hoped that facts would be disclosed the soonest and that those responsible would be brought to justice.

[BananaStand]

Are they?

Yes. I'm not falling for your smokescreen.

sure, it's nice that some muslims stopped some christians from being bullied. But ask those exact same muslims what should happen to any one of them who deigns to leave the muslim faith.....and two thirds of them will tell you "death".

That's a problem. It kinda debunks the idea that there are 'moderate' muslims outside of the west.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yes. I'm not falling for your smokescreen data illustrating that this oppression is from only some Muslims whom interpret Islam in such a way as to promote violence.

FYP

sure, it's nice that some muslims stopped some christians from being bullied. But ask those exact same muslims what should happen to any one of them who deigns to leave the muslim faith.....and two thirds of them will tell you "death".

There's no -ism to believe someone should die. It's bigotry to deny them rights and access to services while they're alive.
No one's saying you have to like people.
What you believe is not a problem. How you act on what you believe is potentially the problem.

There is a professor on campus whom openly says things like he thinks women don't make as good of scientists as men do. He's open in this belief. That's not sexism. Sexism would be if he treated his female students or colleagues in a manner which is different to the way he treats the males. He's whip smart, kinda like you sometimes show, and he knows exactly where that line is. He seems to get some perverse pleasure over rubbing it people's faces that he's free to say women are less than men, so long as his actions don't show his bias.

That's the line. Saying you hate Islam is fine. Saying that it's therefore appropriate to treat Muslims with a different level of human dignity is a totally different issue.

That's a problem. It kinda debunks the idea that there are 'moderate' muslims outside of the west.

It's not a problem except that you can't seem to understand that if a Missourian commits a crime, that is not a condemnation of all Missourians.

[BananaStand]

There's no -ism to believe someone should die.

Pew research polls indicate that two thirds of muslims in Egypt believe that execution is the appropriate punishment for an apostate.

Is that not alarming to you?

What about the frequency with which so-called 'moderate' muslims support death penalties for adulterers and homosexuals? Go google the polls man. Find out how many peace-loving muslims feel that deadly attacks against civilians (e.g. bombs) are an acceptable form of political speech.

A shitload of people hold some really fucking dangerous beliefs. That's a problem, is it not?

You seem to be suggesting that Islam, the institution, is somehow totally in the clear because the frequency of these beliefs is less than 100%.

[BananaStand]

It's not a problem except that you can't seem to understand that if a Missourian commits a crime, that is not a condemnation of all Missourians.

Inappropriate analogy. Here's a better one....

Imagine a series of letter bombs are found or go off 25 cities nationwide. All of the bombs have post marks originating from Missouri.

Where should you start looking for the bomber?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Inappropriate analogy. Here's a better one....

Imagine a series of letter bombs are found or go off 25 cities nationwide. All of the bombs have post marks originating from Missouri.

Where should you start looking for the bomber?

This is a non-sequitur.
Looking for the individual(s) responsible in a place where you have reason to believe they may be found is a totally different thing than assigning guilt to everyone whom meets some similarity to the letter-bomber, in this case all Missourians.

[BananaStand]

This is a non-sequitur.
Looking for the individual(s) responsible in a place where you have reason to believe they may be found is a totally different thing than assigning guilt to everyone whom meets some similarity to the letter-bomber, in this case all Missourians.

Actually it's totally sequitur.

The bad actors have a motive for their bad actions. That motivation is responsible for their bad actions. The motivation is always the same, and always comes from the same ideology. So it's totally sequitur to look for the harmful motivation in a place where I have reason to believe that it may be found. That is....within the ideology that motivated the bad actions.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Actually it's totally sequitur.

The bad actors have a motive for their bad actions. That motivation is responsible for their bad actions. The motivation is always the same, and always comes from the same ideology. So it's totally sequitur to look for the harmful motivation in a place where I have reason to believe that it may be found. That is....within the ideology that motivated the bad actions.

You haven't addressed my answer to your question.

Looking for bad people where bad things are happening is fine.
Assigning guilt to everyone whom has some characteristic in common with the bad people is where you've gone fully 'tarded.

Noting that not everyone whom follows that ideology is a bad person is all you need to realize that there is not a 1:1 correlation between the ideology and the problems caused by some people whom hold that ideology.


For all you like to criticize me as a scientist, you seem to lack understanding of the fundamental premise of science: When ANY evidence shows a contradiction to the thesis, we discard that thesis and revise.

[BananaStand]

That's the line. Saying you hate Islam is fine. Saying that it's therefore appropriate to treat Muslims with a different level of human dignity is a totally different issue.

I'm not sure if we agree here.

Do you consider treating someone like a dangerous enemy as being "a different level of human dignity".

[Poopadoop]

Another example of the low IQ person ignoring the crux of the argument.

dumbana, his point is that you can't hold the group responsible for the behaviour of members of the group.

It's like when Trump goes to jail, should all of his Kool-Aid followers go to jail too?

It's really that simple.

[BananaStand]

dumbana, his point is that you can't hold the group responsible for the behaviour of members of the group.

His point is WRONG. You absolutely can hold the group responsible.

There are three kinds of muslims
A) the kind that bomb civilians
B) The kind that don't bomb civilians but think it's fine if someone else does
C) The kind that don't bomb civilians because they think it's wrong every single time.

Group B is by far the largest. Groups A and B combined represent a STAGGERING majority of muslims worldwide. Group C, outside of the US and Britain, are squarely in the minority.

I hold group B responsible for group A's actions. By tolerating bad actors, they enable their behavior. And that's how I feel it's appropriate to hold the entire group responsible for the actions of group A

[Jack Sawyer]

Why do they have to DO something?

Isn't enough to say "that ideology explicitly states its intention to purge my culture from the face of the earth based on nothing more than my disinterest in converting to their religion"

Very interesting how you put it.

Here:

“The missiles that kill us, American-made. The planes that kill us, American-made. The tanks … American-made. You are saying to me, where is America? America is the whole thing.”

US-made bomb kills 40 school children

Does this mean every American is a bad person? Should the whole group be purged from the face of the earth based on nothing more than what a portion of said group are responsible for?

His point is WRONG. You absolutely can hold the group responsible.

Very interesting right there. Remember that point. Let's continue

There are three kinds of muslims
A) the kind that bomb civilians
B) The kind that don't bomb civilians but think it's fine if someone else does
C) The kind that don't bomb civilians because they think it's wrong every single time.

No, the main kinds are: Sunni, Sh'ia and Kharjite.

The problem is Wahhabism. An ultraconservative, austere, fundamentalist, puritanical Islamic reform movement.

The further problem is the alliance of the Wahabbis (who do not like to be called that) to USA's Middle Eestern BFFs, the house of Saud.

And another problem was US/UK intervention intervention on behalf of their companies (capitalism, so get the govt to do your dirty work, hell yeah) in Iran in '53, overthrowing Mossadegh (who wanted to make the countries' natural resources a public good, much like in Norway today) and installing a puppet. A puppet who turned that country from an open and relatively progressive state to a "DEATH TO AMERICA" chanting state.

This in turn fueled a surge of nationalism which culminated in '79. The US-iran relations are fucked to this day.

But, the events in '79 in Iran also challenged Saudi Wahhabism in a number of ways on a number of fronts. It was a revolution of Shia, not Sunni, Islam and Wahhabism held that Shia were not truly Muslims. Nonetheless, its massive popularity in Iran and its overthrow of a pro-American secular monarchy generated enormous enthusiasm among pious Sunni, not just Shia Muslims around the world.

Khomeiny then preached that monarchy was against Islam and America was Islam's enemy, and called for the overthrow of Al-Saud family. This lead to Saudi Arabia – a kingdom allied with America – to "redouble their efforts to counter Iran and spread Wahhabism around the world", and reversed any moves by Saudi leaders to distance itself from Wahhabism or "soften" its ideology.

Remember 9/11? 15/19 hijackers were Saudis.

And yet the retaliation was to attack Afghanistan, and Iraq. Then Libya, then Syria, then Yemen.

I hold group B responsible for group A's actions. By tolerating bad actors, they enable their behavior. And that's how I feel it's appropriate to hold the entire group responsible for the actions of group A

Let's follow this logic. So, by enabling the Military Industrial Complex in destroying the whole Yemeni civilization by not giving a fuck that it's actually happening, should you Banana be held responsible as well?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Do you consider treating someone like a dangerous enemy as being "a different level of human dignity".

Depends on what you mean by that, and what they did.

Treating criminals like criminals is the whole purpose of the judicial system. I'm OK with that except in the cases where it screws up, which happens in any human system.
Treating people whom aren't accused of any crime by any legal agency as though they are criminals is a problem.

[BananaStand]

Depends on what you mean by that, and what they did

Why do they have to DO something?

Isn't enough to say "that ideology explicitly states its intention to purge my culture from the face of the earth based on nothing more than my disinterest in converting to their religion"

[MadMojoMonkey]

Why do they have to DO something?

Isn't enough to say "that ideology explicitly states its intention to purge my culture from the face of the earth based on nothing more than my disinterest in converting to their religion"

LOL. What?

Becuase if they didn't do anything, then they are not criminals.
If your goal is to create the most ridiculous persona on the internet, then that's a lofty goal, and I kinda appreciate the challenge, but seriously... why?