It's so funny when a member of the younger generation comments. Younger generations are always trying to kill off the older generations. Both physically and metaphorically, too!
It makes sense in a way. If you were actually successful in doing that, you could finally make the world in your image instead of having to work around all those pesky "legacy" viewpoints that hold back the True Progress of the Younger Generation. But alas, the older generation still exists, because the younger can't do it.
But do continue with the passive aggressive comments. While it keeps me spry, you still get paid entry-level wages when you should be kings.
I am OK with you personally practicing a religion and its rules.
I am NOT OK with you forcing me to follow some religion's rules.
And yes, I will look down on countries whom choose to force a specific religion on everyone. We can look in our own backyard, with multiple abortion bans, which lead to many women dying due to miscarriage and needing abortion. Was illegal (cause of baby Jesus, spit) so women died.
Or we can look at Saudi Arabia school fire in 2002 where the girls didn't have headdresses and were shoved back in. They died due to radical Islamic bullshit. Or the idea of "Religious police".
Religion and government should never mix. Not ever. Our founding fathers and Marx were all right about that.
Because people in the former group don't criticize those countries, they criticize Islam, and tend to categorize all Muslims (specifically Muslim immigrants) as ontologically evil.
Meanwhile people in the latter group tend to be very specific that their criticism is of a state and its policies, rather than the religion of Judaism or Jews in general, even though their efforts tend to fall on deaf ears.
>Observing Islam does not make one Islamic. Observing ontological evil does not make one ontological evil.
No, by your own words, "People who believe in ontological[sic] evil are ontologically evil people"
If you believe that Islam is ontologically evil, you believe in ontological evil.
Ipso facto you are an ontologically evil person.
This is basic kindergarten logic if it doesn't get through to you I don't know what to say.
"Observing Islam does not make one Islamic" is not an equivalent statement. You did not make a subjective statement about observation, you made an objective statement about belief.
>Dumb flex but OK.
I agree. It was dumb - "only Sith deal in absolutes" level stupid, and I don't know why you came back to double down on it.
>No, by your own words, "People who believe in ontological[sic] evil are ontologically evil people"
Yes, people who believe in ontologically evil beliefs (such as Islam) are ontologically evil people. Not belief in the concept of ontologically, this is a misattribution error on your part.
>If you believe that Islam is ontologically evil, you believe in ontological evil.
Islam is an ontologically evil as I stated above. I believe in ontological evil as a concept, but that does not make me ontologically evil.
Ipso facto you are misattributing this to ontologically evil as a concept. This is basic kindergarten logic and contextual understanding if it doesn't get through to you I don't know what to say.
QED.
>"Observing Islam does not make one Islamic" is not an equivalent statement
Yes it as, as the first sentence was "Islam is [an] ontologically evil [religion]."
>I agree. It was dumb
Glad you agree your flex was dumb, "ackchyually" level stupid, then you came back to triple down on it.
Maybe you're right though, no chance "The Religion of Peace" could be unpeaceful.
Indeed, it both feels like the same type of pro-theocratic propaganda. Its a way to disingenuously claim "you hate everyone of our group", when thats demonstrably not true. You likely hate the actions a country masquerading as the group inflicts against others.
My disdain is for all theocratic countries. I dont particularly care for any religion that takes over a government.
And I do include the USA in that, as theocratic fundamentalist christanity. Ive done so since changing the pledge of allegience and adding "in god we trust" on the currency.
They're getting old, and with that enough of them are getting rich. And that makes them worth pandering to so they can be parted from their money. See for example all the commercials that feature 90s crap and political talking points intended to appeal to them.
