With Merkel's Foes in Disarray, Germany Defies the Trump Trend

[Dill]

(05-08-2017, 04:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 1. Your first premise is that Fear of Islam is not Islamophobia because it is justified. "THEY are an ideology"--I guess meaning all Muslims. (That is talking point now circulating right wing circles: Islam is not really a religion.) Not a troublesome few. And they have ADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATED that they are to be feared. That has me wondering how they have adequately demonstrated this? Have they recently invaded and occupied Christian/Western lands? Have they massacred 6,000 Christians? Perhaps their refugees from our wars are flooding Western countries, threatening to become 1.02 percent of the population in some particular country? Perhaps they have responded to a poll? No sample-size problem here?

Yes, when discussing islam we are discussing people who practice it.  Don't ascribe points to me that i didn't make, e.g. islam is not really a religion.  This is intellectually dishonest and a tactic you frequently engage in.  I suppose I should be grateful you haven't called me a nazi yet.  Do you really need me to cite examples of islamic terrorism?  Could you be more dishonest?

Most people distinguish between an "ideology" and a "religion."  As I say, the right now uses the term ideology to discredit Islam as a religion.  No one ascribed a point to you that you did not make.  Were I in your position, I would simply explain why I believe Islam may be an "ideology" and a religion at the same time, rather than claiming someone ascribed a point you didn't make and then launching into charges of "intellectual dishonesty."  If you cannot explain, it looks like you are just adopting others' rhetorical terms with no idea what other baggage you are dragging along with it. Charging me with "intellectual dishonesty" is simply substituting accusation for explanation/argument when you have none.

Citing "examples of Islamic terrorism" to characterize Islam would rather prove my point. You denigrate an entire religion on the actions of a few, while exempting Christians and other Westerners from the same standard.

So the expectation here was not that you supply "examples of Islamic terrorism." It was that you explain why your examples should define a billion innocent Muslims.  What is "honest" about generalizing from so small a sample in this case?

The high road was there, but you chose the low, called me "dishonest" and ran from the question.

(05-08-2017, 04:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Guess I need to remind you that Nazis did not "equate" opponents with racism. They condemned them for criticizing racism. Remember their goal was to slander an entire religion and Semitic race, calling them a threat to Western culture as well as German values.  So I understand your sensitivity to Nazi analogies, even where they are not directly made. You also want to denigrate an entire religion and define its (predominately Semitic) followers as a wholesale threat to "Western values." If denigrating an entire people is what you want to do, then where do you see lack of nuance? Your wholesale denigration is not racist? I have met people who avoid this rather obvious question by presenting themselves as unfairly accused by it. They want to condemn a whole religion without any blowback in world where that always turns out badly. But rather than putting the issue to rest with a clear answer, they choose not to dignify it with an answer. Which doesn't work.

Damn, I spoke too soon.  I underlined your previously bolded statement as ultimate proof of your disgusting tactics in this thread.  In no way shape or form did I make or imply what you just accused me of.  Seriously, you should be completely ashamed of yourself.  That would require you to have some sense of shame though, which you appear to lack.

Again, the high road was there.  If you think you have been misunderstood, if you want "examples of Islamic terrorism" to characterize an entire religion of a billion people as threat to western values, but you don't think that is denigrating an entire religion, then you could explain why it is not. You could explain why your accusation of an entire religion is not a "disgusting tactic" and a "vile slanderous attack on a viewpoint that differs from your own."  

But again the low road beckons. You substitute accusation for explanation, leaving the impression that accusation is simply a tactic for avoiding explanation. And you are now the victim, not a billion people known from "examples of terrorism."

Your take on Islam finally comes down to an accusation. And when asked to explain why it is not just an accusation--and a very unfair one at that--you can only broaden the accusation, attack whoever asks the question.  Thus you change the terrain of the debate so no argument can really occur. Like Trump calling reporters "fake news" and walking out of a news conference.