Foxy,

Shew me where Islam is compatible with democracy, I'm willing, in fact, anxious to be enlightened.

Shew me the references, just a few will do.

You’re really struggling with the whole ‘prejudging’ bit, aren’t you LEGO?

<<You have put all Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen in a box … because of what you say is the "demonstrably false and harmful beliefs they hold.">>

Correct.

<<Muslims too hold "demonstrably false and harmful beliefs" …>>

Not all of them, and therein lies the difference.

<<… but you are saying that they [cannot] be judged as individuals because "nobody can claim to know what every Muslim believes.">>

And because we know some don’t hold radical views, yes.

<<Unless you apply the same standard to Nazis and Klansmen, you are guilty of (shudder) Discrimination …>>

Why’s that, LEGO? Tell us.

<<… because you are applying an obvious double standard.>>

You need to expand on this. You have not yet demonstrated a double standard on my behalf. You’re simply re-stating your original claim.

<<Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen are white and Muslims are almost invariable brown or black.>>

Correct.

<<And if you prejudge separate groups of people differently because of their skin colour, you are a racist.>>

Absolutely.

<<If you hold different groups of people to different standards according to their skin colour, while claiming that you are an [anti-racist], you are a hypocrite.>>

Sing it!

<<You are now claiming that "moderate" Muslims can be defined as those Muslims who "renounce terrorism.">>

“Denounce”, yes.

<<Reminded by me that does not exclude the remainder from … you tacked on a few more virtues of what you think a "moderate Muslim" may be.>>

Yes, although I think you’ll find, more often than not, that most of your list is accompanied by an endorsement of terrorism.

<<… 600 million people in this world … are extremely dangerous. How objectionable the rest are, we just don't know.>>

Well that’s an improvement at least. Before, you were saying they were all objectionable.

<<The danger to our people is just too great unless we prejudge all Muslims ...>>

And then act on that, how? Like I said before, Islam is not going away anytime soon and by marginalising them all, you only encourage radicalisation.

.

Dear Runner,

.

Not to worry, my friend, I think I understand your predicament.

Am I right in thinking that the universal explanation (and, perhaps, the only possible explanation) of your notion of “God” is faith ? Otherwise, your non-response to my various questions appears to indicate that there are no obvious explanations that immediately come to mind.

From my point of view, as I see no more reason to have faith in a hypothetical “God” than I do in meteorologists’ predictions on whether it’s going to rain or not, I try to get along as best I can (without an umbrella), and am always willing to help others avoid getting wet (and catching a cold), if I can.

That said, if, on further reflection, you can think of plausible explanations to any of those matters I raised in my previous post, I should be delighted to hear from you.

Please take your time, Runner. There’s no rush.

Even if it's not on this thread, I'm sure we'll have the pleasure of entering into future discussions on OLO.

In the meantime, I’ll just put it all down to “faith” until you can come up with something more explicit.

.

I love it when my opponents claim that black is somehow white. No wonder you loony lefties hate freedom of speech so much. You know that when put under the harsh glare of reason and logic, your stupid ideology is very easy to deconstruct. Better to riot and disrupt meetings, throw bags of urine, and demand "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" from the opposing logic you know make perfect sense.

The fact that you are a hypocritical racist who holds groups of white people with "false and harmful beliefs" to a different standard to non whites with even worse "false and harmful beliefs" is perfectly clear and easy to see. Your present premise is that it is OK to condemn every individual within white groups who's widely accepted core values you disapprove of, but not OK to do the same with individuals within non white groups who's widely accepted core values you disapprove of.

Well gee, AJ. That is a double standard. And it is one based entirely upon race.

Your latest justification for your clear double standard is that among the non white group who hold "false and harmful beliefs", the difference is that "we know that some do not hold radical beliefs."

But somehow, you can "see inside the hearts" of every Nazi and Ku Klux Klansmen and prejudge every individual as evil. Tell me, did you or the Pew Research Group conduct a poll with every Nazi who existed from 1932 to 2017 to discover if all of their "false and harmful" beliefs are shared uniformly by every individual? The book "The German Officers Wife" illustrated that one of the founding members of the Nazi Party was a woman who was sympathetic to the Jews, and who only supported Hitler because his party was the only one in Germany which would give women the right to divorce.

The principle remains that if you demand that all people must be treated equally, you can not prejudge each group differently. Especially when the only real difference between the "false and harmful" core beliefs of those groups is their race.

I dunno, LEGO. You haven’t done a very good job of it so far.

<<You know that when put under the harsh glare of reason and logic, your stupid ideology is very easy to deconstruct.>>

I mean, you’re certain I’m holding a double standard in some way or another, and yet every attempt to pinpoint it thus far has failed miserably.

<<The fact that you are a hypocritical racist who holds groups of white people with "false and harmful beliefs" to a different standard to [non-whites] with even worse "false and harmful beliefs" is perfectly clear and easy to see.>>

Well, that shouldn’t be too hard to demonstrate then. Did you want to give it another go? Let’s see what you can do this time…

<<Your present premise is that it is OK to condemn every individual within white groups who's widely accepted core values you disapprove of …>>

Not “widely”, “universally”, And therein lies the difference. Bzzzzt! Failed at the get go.

<<… but not OK to do the same with individuals within [non-white] groups who's widely accepted core values you disapprove of.>>

I’ve already explained that skin colour has nothing to do with it. You are yet to demonstrate otherwise.

<<Well gee, AJ. That is a double standard. And it is one based entirely upon race.>>

At least it would have been, had you represented my views correctly.

Do you think I’m stupid enough to fall for your subtle attempt to pass off a universally-held belief as merely “widely”-held? I’ve never fallen for a trick like that before. What makes you think I’ll start now?

<<Your latest justification for your clear double standard is that among the [non-white] group who hold "false and harmful beliefs", the difference is that "we know that some do not hold radical beliefs.">>

Oh, so NOW we acknowledge that all-important factor. We’re a bit late, aren’t we? And, no, skin colour has nothing to do with it.

"Latest", as if it weren't there from the beginning. Nice touch, LEGO.

Continued…

…Continued

<<But somehow, you can "see inside the hearts" of every Nazi and Ku Klux Klansmen and prejudge every individual as evil.>>

No, I don’t have to be able to see inside their “hearts”. Their membership provides us with all we need to know.

<<Tell me, did you or the Pew Research Group conduct a poll with every Nazi who existed from 1932 to 2017 to discover if all of their "false and harmful" beliefs are shared uniformly by every individual?>>

No, it didn’t have to. See above.

<<The book "The German Officers Wife" illustrated that one of the founding members of the Nazi Party …>>

No, I don't think she wasn’t a founding member, and you forgot to mention the fact that she was a Jew who had to hide her Jewish identity. Not much of a Nazi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Hahn_Beer

Even if she were a founding member, the Nazi party evolved radically up until their election. They started out as a socialist, worker’s party and ended up a fascist, right-wing party who retained the socialist label because socialism was popular at the time.

But I like how you have to dig up what dead people did 70 years ago, when not all of them knew about the extent of the Nazi atrocities. Did poor ol' Edith still support the Nazi ideology in 2009 when she died? How about you concern yourself with the Neo-Nazis who are still alive and well aware of what it is that they're supporting, eh?

<<The principle remains that if you demand that all people must be treated equally, you [cannot] prejudge each group differently.>>

That’s not what equality is (http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/equality). By that logic, we couldn’t even incarcerate criminals. There goes caricature Lefty again.

Try again, LEGO.