Holy ********* Crazy

[Dill]

(06-12-2017, 02:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Easily summed up, I am an educated adult familiar with logic and common sense.  I am also not burdened by the need to atone for the actions of people before me.  Actions that I took no part in and would have opposed if I had existed then.  Your friend GMDino is so paralyzed by this fear he can't even provide an honest answer as to why people won't publicly display a depiction of Mohammed.

I'll show you how the logic and common sense, coupled with education, works while debating this topic.

Words aren't magic. You can't make arguments logical and "educated" simply by claiming they are. And a report on your needs is not a good start either. Save that for your personal diary. (Dear Diary, Today I paralyzed dishonest Dino with fear. You should have seen me, unburdened by the need to atone, as I deployed the prevalent right-wing caricature of liberal guilt to . . . etc. etc.)

(06-12-2017, 02:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

Quote: Wrote:I am not "discounting" your logic; I am pointing out the structural features it shares with all ideologies which target ethnic, religious and racial groups for hate. Because your target is different from some Islamists does not make your denigration of a world religion structurally different from theirs.

This point is inane, you are not equating me with anything, you are labeling me a racist.  Your comparison is as absurd as comparing someone who wants a strong national defense to the nazis because they wanted the same thing.

If I point out a pattern of faulty generalization common to all ideologies which target people for persecution based upon ethnicity, religion and/or race, and specifically state that you are doing this with regard to a world religion--quoting your own words to support my point--then I have not "labeled you a racist"; but I have pointed out the structural features of your argument--your words--which place it in the assigned group as an attack on religion, not race.

If you want to dispute that assignation with "logic" then you must explain why your condemnation of Islam based on the actions of some Islamists should not not be classified with the other types of faulty generalization abovementioned, or why those groups do not really exhibit that structural feature. Those are your choices.

You have not refuted my point by positing an innocuous, general analogy to Nazi concern for national defense which elides the very structural feature I identified. Return it to your analogy and then listen to how "inane" your Nazi comparison sounds. Are you wholly unaware of how Nazis framed the issue of national defense?

You do not fix the problem by positioning yourself as victim of an unfair accusation of racism, nor by demonstrating that you can caricature other religions as well.

(06-12-2017, 02:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here are a list of horrific actions(crimes) committed either directly by the catholic church or enabled by the teachings of chrisitanity in general.
-The Crusades, the most horrific one being the "Children's Crusade" a crime so cynical and callous that I strongly recommend to anyone not familiar with it to read up on it.
- The subjugation of women
- The African slave trade
- The subjugation, enslavement and in some cases genocide of the native population of the American continents
-  By collectively accusing the jewish people of the crime of deicide they promoted and enabled the persecution of jews, leading up to and enabling the Holocaust.
- The persecution, torture and murder of homosexuals
- The rape of children under the care of the catholic church
- Currently, aiding the spread of HIV throughout the African continent by not only forbidding the use of condoms, but spreading the deliberate lie that using condoms actually increases the spread of AIDS

You'll notice that the list, while hardly exhaustive, only lists two points that are ongoing. 

One cannot start out with bad logic and end up with good history, and good history does not embrace an easy equivocation of Catholicism with "the teachings of Christianity" to produce a one-sided narrative in which the latter stands forth only as singular and ultimate origin of your list of "horrific crimes" and the monolithic opponent of education and "enlightenment."

Somehow "Western society" (No Christians among them?) "forced" Christianity to "mellow out." No hint here of how or to what degree the definition of "good" you deploy to define "crimes" derives from Christianity in what you call Western society.

Analogizing versions of salafism which have only emerged in the modern era to Medieval Christianity (or the "Dark Ages" as you call them, following the custom of some 19th century historians) is ahistorical. It excludes or oversimplifies the shaping forces which make that salafisim a distinctly modern response to modern conditions. It is also ethnocentric. If you are curious I can explain more.