It's a very long time since I knew much about the ins and out of UK student unions so I'm not supporting their decisions but from your own quote from that link:

Taking it at face value, I can fully understand the desire to condemn ISIS without demonising Muslims in general and the opposition to Westem intervention isn't new (or at all surprising after Tony Blair).

Main steam UK politics is having exactly the same arguments btw. No-one is doing anything but condemn ISIS but there is a lot of concern about the rhetoric and the war drums being beaten.

Try reporting posts.

I dont disagree really, but another perspective would be that the government threatening non-profits is a "local" problem whereas the survivor quotes are a tragic "global" problem. They are some of the people you would MOST expect to sympathize but they still cant overcome the xenophobia, the "we have it and we wanna keep it" mentality. People are people, and sometimes thats awfully sad.

Its nonsense to say Muslims are THE problem but it isnt nonsense at all to say that Muslims are A problem. At least, they are a problem to the hundreds of millions of real human beings that are suffering because of the beliefs of those Muslims (most of whom are even Muslims themselves!! What a kick in the nuts!)

They arent a problem for me specifically but sometimes I have empathy.

The regressive lefties in this thread keep saying this all the time instead of discussing ideas.
If they can't find bigots, they just make them up.

I think it is nonsense to say that Muslims are a problem just as it is to say Americans are a problem just because American policy sometimes causes so much suffering (same for the UK). But aside from what may be largely a semantic point, it's reinforcing the belief that all Muslims are responsible for the actions of ISIS. Also problems are things we try to solve, I don't want to see anyone trying to solve 'the problem of the Muslims', I do want to see resolved the problems that people including a lot of Muslims face and a big part of that is down to perceptions.

Your empathy point is well made just because it's a general mistake to accuse those we disagree with of having a lack of empathy.

"For example in this thread we are specifically talking about a bunch of terrorists carrying out the most vile attacks and that mustn't be casually associated with well over a billion people."

Ignoring Fly type stuff what do you disagree with about the actual point.

You think it's ok to associate these vile attacks with 1B+ people or you don't think there's any danger of that happening?

The NUS is a completely powerless organisation.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/11...raud-paris.cnn

People just need to stop taking religion so god damn seriously.

Would be nice if atheists could just opt out of all the bull**** but sadly we can't.

It isn't just religion that whips people into such a fervor that they elevate ideology over human interaction. I have been reading about the French Revolution lately and there are numerous examples of senseless murderous rampages perpetrated in the name of "liberty."

We focus far too much on the name things are done in. They fool themselves as well which is what makes it look so much more significant than it is.

Anarchy....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...ticle27392203/

Yeah, I should speak more precisely. There is Islam the doctrine (meaning the Qu'ran and the Sunnah, plus whatever jurisprudence derives from these) and there is Islam as practised by adherents. The two are distinct, but the second is heavily influenced by the first and they share similar problems, so I have tended to mix them up a bit. For the rest of this post I'll use "Doctrine" and "Practise".

There is little ambiguity about whether "insulting Islam" is a serious crime when it comes to Doctrine. Here is Wiki on the penalty for blasphemy in all the major Islamic schools of jurisprudence:

In Practise, a lot of Muslims wouldn't be in favour of this, but there's an anchoring effect where the "moderate" position is a position that I would still consider extreme (such as that blasphemers ought to be arrested and tried in courts).

There are also no doubt Muslims who don't think blasphemy should be a crime at all, just like there are "Catholics" who don't follow any of the principles of Catholicism. But "Islam is just fine as long as everyone completely ignores what Doctrine says" is not very comforting.

It seems pretty obvious to me that it does. This is precisely what "radicalization" means. As I said above, in Doctrine the penalty for blasphemy is very clearly supposed to be severe. It really cannot be argued based on the Sunnah that there is not supposed to be a penalty. That this is not always the case in Practise relies on the capacity of people to ignore what Doctrine says. "Radicalization" is simply adherents being pushed to take seriously what Doctrine says. The idea that wanting blasphemers - even non-Muslims - to be severely punished is some sort of "corruption" of Doctrine is a complete myth, based on nothing.

People who convert to Islam have to engage more with the doctrine of the religion. It's not just "I'm a Muslim because I was born that way" like it is for many Muslims. Also, anyone who reads the tenets of Islam and thinks "sounds great, sign me up" is an idiot or a lunatic or both.

This seems ludicrous on its face to me.

Even this, which I think is appalling, is a much higher bar than desired by many Muslims, because of the inclusion of intent as a factor. The Jyllands-Posten cartoons were clearly not grossly offensive and intended to cause outrage. Nor was The Satanic Verses.

Man, it is hard to get through to you.

How about this: can you explain to me why racism is a problem?

To save time, if you refer to any specific racist acts that people commit, I'm going to suggest that it's those specific people that should be blamed for those actions. So what I'm looking for is an explanation of why racism is bad but you're not allowed to make reference to any way racism has modified the behaviour of anyone. Go.

Hey fun update for everyone. While simps continue to whine that the biggest problem is that liberals aren't agreeing with them (while at the same time carefully avoiding actually having a point that could be agreed with), the leading candidate for the GOP is saying **** like this about Muslims:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/22/us...smtyp=cur&_r=0

The NUS didn't issue a meaningless statement a year ago, though, so both sides do it.

P.S.

But what about domer's feelings? What about ikes having to read a story in Reason about how college kids don't like blackface? WHAT IF SOMEONE CALLED CHYTRY RACIST?!?!?!?

Sniveling whines about civility are bad enough, but dishonest sniveling whines about civility as a cloak to support oppression can **** right off.

?

One crazy ideal at a time, please.

I understand you just fine. You think the primary reason for terrorism committed by groups like al Qaeda and ISIS is which old books they like to read. I do not. The evidence in my favor includes the 99.99% of people who read the same books and neither do nor condone terrorism. The evidence in your favor is cherry picking passages from those books which show that justification for terrorism can be found in them if one chooses to find it.

I doubt we're likely to reach some sort of agreement.

Your challenge question is LDO loaded and I won't cede the premise that "Islamic" is, by definition, a negative label.

What's the difference between killing in the name of ghosts and superstition compared to killing in the name of government and imaginary lines?

Domer, et al, think the 2nd group and the 1st group are the same people. That's the problem. I don't thiiiiink anyone is making excuses for ISIS (well, some people are, a little bit, but that's hardly the major debate itt).

And, of course, you have your standard aholes standing outside of mosques with guns

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2...f-irving.html/

Why don't more Americans stand up to stop this kind of aggressive threatening xenophobic behavior? Until Americans get their house in order I'm not going to give quarter to any of them.

/if power roles were reversed

This is just a painfully illogical argument, it's a complete non sequitur. The fact that most racists do not commit hate crimes is not evidence that hate crimes are not motivated by racist beliefs. The fact that most Irish nationalists do not set off bombs in London is not evidence that bombing London is not motivated by Irish nationalism. And before you go off on some ludicrous tangent about socioeconomic conditions in Northern Ireland, the point is not that there can't be other factors involved in these things. The point is that the "evidence" you're presenting is a straight up fallacy.

Kind of incredible that I can show you concurrence from all 5 schools of Islamic jurisprudence that blasphemy, even by non-Muslims, is a serious crime that should be punished, that people in France can be shot for drawing silly cartoons of Mohammed, that 80% of British Muslims after the Jyllands-Posten affair thought that the cartoonists should be prosecuted, and your response is to accuse me of "cherry-picking". What data am I ignoring here, exactly?

I agree, but the discussion might clarify things for others.

That's not my point at all. My point is that you're question-begging. You're asking me to justify my idea that Islam is a harmful set of beliefs, but with the stipulation that any argument that Islam causes harmful behaviours will be rejected out of hand. Since "causes harmful behaviours" is the definition of what "a harmful set of beliefs" is, you're just assuming the conclusion that Islam is not harmful. The "evidence" you're using to assume this, that the majority of Muslims are peaceful, is a straight up fallacy along the lines of "smoking can't cause lung cancer because what about all the smokers who don't get it?".