Red Mosquito

stip wrote:

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

There's a difference, but I'm also fairly comfortable believing that it's not that these views are softer in the US, as much as it is that there are enough counter currents pushing back against them so that you can't get away with as much.

Birds in Hell wrote:

stip wrote:

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

There's a difference, but I'm also fairly comfortable believing that it's not that these views are softer in the US, as much as it is that there are enough counter currents pushing back against them so that you can't get away with as much.

You can't seriously believe that American conservatives on the whole would support criminalising homosexuality (or worse) if only they could get away with it.

Birds in Hell wrote:

stip wrote:

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

There's a difference, but I'm also fairly comfortable believing that it's not that these views are softer in the US, as much as it is that there are enough counter currents pushing back against them so that you can't get away with as much.

You can't seriously believe that American conservatives on the whole would support criminalising homosexuality (or worse) if only they could get away with it.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

sure, and there's a difference between supporting the criminalizing of homosexuality in your own country and attacking western countries that allow it

Burt touched on this: What happens when a "moderate" who supports criminalizing homosexuality in their own country (man, "moderate" does not seem appropriate for such a view) is transplanted to a western country?

Probably depends on the person. I mean, are they the type that advocates for their views through rhetoric or through force?

Simple Torture wrote:LV, how do you think you'd start a conversation about this with someone who truly believes that their religious faith is not an ideology that's been chosen by them or beaten into their heads by a parent, but is rather the one true path to answer all of the mysteries of the universe?

BurtReynolds wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

sure, and there's a difference between supporting the criminalizing of homosexuality in your own country and attacking western countries that allow it

Burt touched on this: What happens when a "moderate" who supports criminalizing homosexuality in their own country (man, "moderate" does not seem appropriate for such a view) is transplanted to a western country?

Probably depends on the person. I mean, are they the type that advocates for their views through rhetoric or through force?

How much does it matter if its by force or by political power, if what they advocating is so abhorrent? You're assuming that only by advocating through rhetoric, they can't change anything. That's not true.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

sure, and there's a difference between supporting the criminalizing of homosexuality in your own country and attacking western countries that allow it

Burt touched on this: What happens when a "moderate" who supports criminalizing homosexuality in their own country (man, "moderate" does not seem appropriate for such a view) is transplanted to a western country?

Probably depends on the person. I mean, are they the type that advocates for their views through rhetoric or through force?

How much does it matter if its by force or by political power, if what they advocating is so abhorrent? You're assuming that only by advocating through rhetoric, they can't change anything. That's not true.

i'm not sticking up for these views, and successfully implementing them via politics is still awful, for sure. but i'm still separating that type of person from the type of person that shoots up a concert hall.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

sure, and there's a difference between supporting the criminalizing of homosexuality in your own country and attacking western countries that allow it

Burt touched on this: What happens when a "moderate" who supports criminalizing homosexuality in their own country (man, "moderate" does not seem appropriate for such a view) is transplanted to a western country?

Probably depends on the person. I mean, are they the type that advocates for their views through rhetoric or through force?

How much does it matter if its by force or by political power, if what they advocating is so abhorrent? You're assuming that only by advocating through rhetoric, they can't change anything. That's not true.

i'm not sticking up for these views, and successfully implementing them via politics is still awful, for sure. but i'm still separating that type of person from the type of person that shoots up a concert hall.

And I'm condemning the views of both.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

sure, and there's a difference between supporting the criminalizing of homosexuality in your own country and attacking western countries that allow it

Burt touched on this: What happens when a "moderate" who supports criminalizing homosexuality in their own country (man, "moderate" does not seem appropriate for such a view) is transplanted to a western country?

Probably depends on the person. I mean, are they the type that advocates for their views through rhetoric or through force?

How much does it matter if its by force or by political power, if what they advocating is so abhorrent? You're assuming that only by advocating through rhetoric, they can't change anything. That's not true.

i'm not sticking up for these views, and successfully implementing them via politics is still awful, for sure. but i'm still separating that type of person from the type of person that shoots up a concert hall.

And I'm condemning the views of both.

i also condemn people who double park but they're not as bad as terrorists

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

sure, and there's a difference between supporting the criminalizing of homosexuality in your own country and attacking western countries that allow it

Burt touched on this: What happens when a "moderate" who supports criminalizing homosexuality in their own country (man, "moderate" does not seem appropriate for such a view) is transplanted to a western country?

Probably depends on the person. I mean, are they the type that advocates for their views through rhetoric or through force?

How much does it matter if its by force or by political power, if what they advocating is so abhorrent? You're assuming that only by advocating through rhetoric, they can't change anything. That's not true.

i'm not sticking up for these views, and successfully implementing them via politics is still awful, for sure. but i'm still separating that type of person from the type of person that shoots up a concert hall.

And I'm condemning the views of both.

i also condemn people who double park but they're not as bad as terrorists

cutuphalfdead wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

sure, and there's a difference between supporting the criminalizing of homosexuality in your own country and attacking western countries that allow it

Burt touched on this: What happens when a "moderate" who supports criminalizing homosexuality in their own country (man, "moderate" does not seem appropriate for such a view) is transplanted to a western country?

Probably depends on the person. I mean, are they the type that advocates for their views through rhetoric or through force?

How much does it matter if its by force or by political power, if what they advocating is so abhorrent? You're assuming that only by advocating through rhetoric, they can't change anything. That's not true.

i'm not sticking up for these views, and successfully implementing them via politics is still awful, for sure. but i'm still separating that type of person from the type of person that shoots up a concert hall.

And I'm condemning the views of both.

i also condemn people who double park but they're not as bad as terrorists

All I'm saying if you can condemn person a, condemn person b, and admit that person a is much worse than person b.

BurtReynolds wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

sure, and there's a difference between supporting the criminalizing of homosexuality in your own country and attacking western countries that allow it

Burt touched on this: What happens when a "moderate" who supports criminalizing homosexuality in their own country (man, "moderate" does not seem appropriate for such a view) is transplanted to a western country?

Probably depends on the person. I mean, are they the type that advocates for their views through rhetoric or through force?

How much does it matter if its by force or by political power, if what they advocating is so abhorrent? You're assuming that only by advocating through rhetoric, they can't change anything. That's not true.

i'm not sticking up for these views, and successfully implementing them via politics is still awful, for sure. but i'm still separating that type of person from the type of person that shoots up a concert hall.

And I'm condemning the views of both.

i also condemn people who double park but they're not as bad as terrorists

All I'm saying if you can condemn person a, condemn person b, and admit that person a is much worse than person b.

Who is arguing otherwise?

BurtReynolds wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

sure, and there's a difference between supporting the criminalizing of homosexuality in your own country and attacking western countries that allow it

Burt touched on this: What happens when a "moderate" who supports criminalizing homosexuality in their own country (man, "moderate" does not seem appropriate for such a view) is transplanted to a western country?

Probably depends on the person. I mean, are they the type that advocates for their views through rhetoric or through force?

How much does it matter if its by force or by political power, if what they advocating is so abhorrent? You're assuming that only by advocating through rhetoric, they can't change anything. That's not true.

i'm not sticking up for these views, and successfully implementing them via politics is still awful, for sure. but i'm still separating that type of person from the type of person that shoots up a concert hall.

And I'm condemning the views of both.

i also condemn people who double park but they're not as bad as terrorists

All I'm saying if you can condemn person a, condemn person b, and admit that person a is much worse than person b.

Who is arguing otherwise?

A: Only a tiny minority of Muslims are extremists.
B: What are you talking about! Look how many think women shouldn't have rights and gays shouldn't be tolerated!

cutuphalfdead wrote: My initial jump into this discussion because I was getting the sense that people were saying:

A: Only a tiny minority of Muslims are extremists.
B: What are you talking about! Look how many think women shouldn't have rights and gays shouldn't be tolerated!

Rangi Guy wrote:I find it slightly amusing that some of this seems to have turned into condemning 'person a' cause there views are seen as abhorrent regardless of them fighting for those views, and they're the one attacking us cause our views/beliefs are seen as abhorrent - seems a bit ironic.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

stip wrote:

turned2black wrote:Are we really gonna pretend that oppressive societies aren't generally more violent?

No. that's true. And there's clearly more violence. I would argue that the violence is not inherent in the religion.

Not sure about that.

stip wrote: when this issue comes up it is almost always in the context of 'because these people are non-progressive/conservative/reactionary we should treat them like terrorist suspects. And that's what people push back against--treating the entire religion in that capacity. Speaking of straw men, how often do you see prominent liberal voices defending the values and ideology of islam on these issues (other than denying an innate connection between islam and violence)? As opposed to the quite prominent string of conservative voices who strongly imply or outright assert the above?

Simple Torture wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote: My initial jump into this discussion because I was getting the sense that people were saying:

A: Only a tiny minority of Muslims are extremists.
B: What are you talking about! Look how many think women shouldn't have rights and gays shouldn't be tolerated!

I feel like that misrepresents what a few of us were talking about. I know that I was trying to clarify LV's point--which I mostly agree with--that it'd be a disservice to constantly say, "Not all Muslims are extremists," without also pointing out that millions upon millions of "non extremist" Muslims subscribe to an Islamic ideology that fosters extremists. No one's saying that not allowing women to drive is the same as shooting up an Eagles of Death Metal show, but some people are arguing that a seemingly oppressive ideology does have something to do with the rise of ISIS and other groups. Maybe I was too glib when I brought up women's and gay rights earlier, because I wasn't referring to women not having their licenses or gay people being called sissy-nannies--but I was referencing child sexual slavery, honor killings, and punishing criminalized homosexuality by death, which does happen. Capisce?