5 ms·

> So you don't think we should allow Muslim immigration? The Islamic religion has many intolerant precepts, so by your argument we should not be inviting it int

> So you don't think we should allow Muslim immigration? The Islamic religion has many intolerant precepts, so by your argument we should not be inviting it into our tolerant societies. Where did I say I didn't want Muslim immigration? I'm totally fine with Muslims. Most Muslims have met are very tolerant because they don't take their religion too seriously, like most Christians. They pick and choose which bits they want to believe in, ignoring the bits don't jive with modern life and their personal attitudes towards life, sex and other people. Their basic human instincts always beat their religion in the end. I might think their religion is a batshit crazy comfort blanket just like I do Judaism and Christianity, but that doesn't make them intolerant (in my view). Of course some will use their religion to excuse their intolerance. That;s true of many groups. In that case I'd rather just not engage with those people. Your post heavily implies that you equate ISIS with all Muslims though. Or perhaps you are suggesting that all Muslims are intolerant? Because I sure as shit am not. I can't see why else you you would accuse me of something I never said unless you yourself have made these prejudicial equivalences in your head. > Is there? I don't see a difference at all, as long as violence is not part of "putting an end to you and your views". Of course violence is a part of it. How else would you end a group of people and their views? A sternly worded letter? The violently intolerant are the ones I'm talking about. ISIS, KKK, white supremacists, neo-nazise etc. I won't engage with these people, but they often leave you no choice. I have no tolerance for them, just like they don't for me.

naasking 8y ago
> Where did I say I didn't want Muslim immigration? It's the natural conclusion of not wanting to introduce intolerance into a tolerant milieu. But you've now qualified this claim with the concept of treating people as individuals. So will you extend the same courtesy to white supremacists? No doubt there are white supremacists who also don't take it too seriously, and similarly pick and choose which parts they want to believe based on their "basic human instincts [that] always beat their religion in the end". Somehow I doubt it. For some reason, the intolerant white supremacist beliefs don't get the same benefit of the doubt as other intolerant religions. You can't have it both ways. You can't suggest we should treat people as individuals and not judge them on their adherence to some professed beliefs, and then turn around and do the same to another group of people. > Your post heavily implies that you equate ISIS with all Muslims though. Really? Which part exactly? Be precise. > How else would you end a group of people and their views? A sternly worded letter? By convincing everyone that you're right and they're wrong of course. If you convince every white supremacist that they're wrong (or enough of them), then white supremacy ends.
- ionised 8y ago
  > Really? Which part exactly? Be precise. The part where you accused me of being against Muslim immigration just because I said I was anti-ISIS. You equated the two in your head. There is no other reason you could have made that accusation otherwise. And white supremacists want an end to anyone who isn't white. That doesn't mean they want to convince non-whites to start being white, does it? No, it means genocide, and I feel like you are being deliberately obtuse now.
  - naasking 8y ago
    > There is no other reason you could have made that accusation otherwise. I made no accusation. I inferred a straightforward conclusion from one of your unqualified claims about the dangers of importing intolerance into a tolerant milieu. * White supremacy sometimes argues for violence and is intolerant of some types of people, so you don't want to accept white supremacists in your tolerant society. * By formal analogy, Islam sometimes argues for violence and is intolerant of some types of people, so you also shouldn't want Muslims in your tolerant society. The argument is the same, but you've asserted a different conclusion in each case. This is a special pleading fallacy. I've explained this twice now, so I really can't be more clear. > And white supremacists want an end to anyone who isn't white Not true, and it shows that you don't really know anything about the white supremacist movement, just like many people who hate Muslims don't know really know anything about Islam.
    - ionised 8y ago
      Removing people with a different skin colour from your country rather than simply murdering them all is called ethnic cleansing, and it isn't much better than outright genocide. The fact that some white supremacists claim they would rather do that than simply kill everybody that doesn't look like them doesn't make pro-racism a valid viewpoint. It's not a valid viewpoint anymore than pro-rape is a valid viewpoint. When you are arguing from the position of other races being lesser than you, you have lost all credibility and nobody is going to listen to you. But you go ahead and tell me how peaceful and lovely some white supremacists are.

naasking 8y ago

> Where did I say I didn't want Muslim immigration? It's the natural conclusion of not wanting to introduce intolerance into a tolerant milieu. But you've now qualified this claim with the concept of treating people as individuals. So will you extend the same courtesy to white supremacists? No doubt there are white supremacists who also don't take it too seriously, and similarly pick and choose which parts they want to believe based on their "basic human instincts [that] always beat their religion in the end". Somehow I doubt it. For some reason, the intolerant white supremacist beliefs don't get the same benefit of the doubt as other intolerant religions. You can't have it both ways. You can't suggest we should treat people as individuals and not judge them on their adherence to some professed beliefs, and then turn around and do the same to another group of people. > Your post heavily implies that you equate ISIS with all Muslims though. Really? Which part exactly? Be precise. > How else would you end a group of people and their views? A sternly worded letter? By convincing everyone that you're right and they're wrong of course. If you convince every white supremacist that they're wrong (or enough of them), then white supremacy ends.

ionised 8y ago
> Really? Which part exactly? Be precise. The part where you accused me of being against Muslim immigration just because I said I was anti-ISIS. You equated the two in your head. There is no other reason you could have made that accusation otherwise. And white supremacists want an end to anyone who isn't white. That doesn't mean they want to convince non-whites to start being white, does it? No, it means genocide, and I feel like you are being deliberately obtuse now.
- naasking 8y ago
  > There is no other reason you could have made that accusation otherwise. I made no accusation. I inferred a straightforward conclusion from one of your unqualified claims about the dangers of importing intolerance into a tolerant milieu. * White supremacy sometimes argues for violence and is intolerant of some types of people, so you don't want to accept white supremacists in your tolerant society. * By formal analogy, Islam sometimes argues for violence and is intolerant of some types of people, so you also shouldn't want Muslims in your tolerant society. The argument is the same, but you've asserted a different conclusion in each case. This is a special pleading fallacy. I've explained this twice now, so I really can't be more clear. > And white supremacists want an end to anyone who isn't white Not true, and it shows that you don't really know anything about the white supremacist movement, just like many people who hate Muslims don't know really know anything about Islam.
  - ionised 8y ago
    Removing people with a different skin colour from your country rather than simply murdering them all is called ethnic cleansing, and it isn't much better than outright genocide. The fact that some white supremacists claim they would rather do that than simply kill everybody that doesn't look like them doesn't make pro-racism a valid viewpoint. It's not a valid viewpoint anymore than pro-rape is a valid viewpoint. When you are arguing from the position of other races being lesser than you, you have lost all credibility and nobody is going to listen to you. But you go ahead and tell me how peaceful and lovely some white supremacists are.