Will Trump be the next US president?

[the-pi-guy]

A group of people who are involved in a religion/ideology, but does not necessarily follow all of the religion/ideology's doctrines (see Christians for an example).

Then where did the homophobia come from? If your answer is radicalization, what kind of radicalization are you referring to?

By most accounts, the Orlando shooter was gay. 

Christianity has a serious problem with homophobia, racism, etc.  We have a history of  awful stuff, the crusades, KKK, people still look at the Bible for "proof" for racism. 
That doesn't mean that it is acceptable to blame everyone for it. 

Does it matter what kind? 

[Aura7541]

the KKK was motivated by their christian beliefs.  unless you want to rainbow the entire christian religion based off of one group of extremists than don't rainbow the entire muslim faith based on another.  it's pure scapegoating and ignorance.

The Christian religion is not a group of people. Also, the KKK is a fringe group that is close to being dead.

By most accounts, the Orlando shooter was gay. 

Christianity has a serious problem with homophobia, racism, etc. 

Does it matter what kind? 

If the shooter was gay, then where did the self-hatred come from?

Christianity has a serious problem with the aforementioned issues, but most Christians don't. Again, there's a difference between religion and followers of a religion.

[the-pi-guy]

The Christian religion is not a group of people. Also, the KKK is a fringe group that is close to being dead.
If the shooter was gay, then where did the self-hatred come from?

Christianity has a serious problem with the aforementioned issues, but most Christians don't. Again, there's a difference between religion and followers of a religion.

So why is the religion an issue with one but not the other?  

[Aura7541]

So why is the religion an issue with one but not the other?  

But did I say that? Read the last paragraph of my previous response again.

[kitler53]

The Christian religion is not a group of people. Also, the KKK is a fringe group that is close to being dead.
If the shooter was gay, then where did the self-hatred come from?

Christianity has a serious problem with the aforementioned issues, but most Christians don't. Again, there's a difference between religion and followers of a religion.

i'm really not following where you are going with this...

..the guy you are defending (trump) thinks at least in part that the solution to radical islam is to ban any muslim from entering the USA.  obama doesn't like to use the phrase quite specifically because many americans can't distinguish the group from the religion and trump offers a great example of how obama is right.  he's trying to prevent (or at least not worsen) hate crimes on muslims as a reaction to fears from isis.  it's a think we've done in the past against communists and the japonese,.. there is precedence for the concerns.

and like obama said in his speech,.. what the fudge does saying the phrase radical islam actually accomplish towards defeating isis??  absolutely nothing.  what does it do to undermine the defeat of isis??  enough because it propagates the fears in america against muslims and the radicalizes muslims in the middle east that view the war as a war on their faith.


so i guess gratz are in order for trump?  i don't know why,.. the fudge-tard offers no plan for how to deal with isis but somehow obama not being an bumb is an issue inside his pea-brained head.

[Aura7541]

i'm really not following where you are going with this...

..the guy you are defending (trump) thinks at least in part that the solution to radical islam is to ban any muslim from entering the USA.  obama doesn't like to use the phrase quite specifically because many americans can't distinguish the group from the religion and trump offers a great example of how obama is right.  he's trying to prevent (or at least not worsen) hate crimes on muslims as a reaction to fears from isis.  it's a think we've done in the past against communists and the japonese,.. there is precedence for the concerns.

However, I only agreed on Trump's assessment of the Orlando shooting. Please check my previous responses and you will find I did not say anything about his proposed ban on Muslim immigration into the US. I also do not approve of censorship. Call a spade a spade, no matter what it is. If the shooting was motivated by Christianity, then I will say it was motivated by Christianity. If it was motivated by Islam, then I will say it was motivated by Islam. No religion gets a free pass. Furthermore, if people falsely associate radical Islam to all Muslims, then it is up to us to correct them. Open-dialogue should be the utmost priority. The government's job is not to molly-coddle people's feelings.

and like obama said in his speech,.. what the fudge does saying the phrase radical islam actually accomplish towards defeating isis??  absolutely nothing.  what does it do to undermine the defeat of isis??  enough because it propagates the fears in america against muslims and the radicalizes muslims in the middle east that view the war as a war on their faith.

How do you know that saying the phrase radical Islam will accomplish nothing? I don't think Obama said so is a valid reason for censorship. The shooter specifically attacked and killed gay people at a club. As a result, people will naturally ask why did he do that? The answer to that would be because of Islam since its texts advocates for killing homosexuals. So how should society respond? By calling out against the homophobia preached by the Qu'ran and the Hadiths. Liberal Muslims should call out Muslims who advocate for such regressive beliefs, which will deter extremists from committing homicide like Omar Mateen as well as preventing Muslims from becoming extremists.

The last part is extremely important because there was a mosque in Orlando who invited a Muslim scholar that called for killing gay people. That is unacceptable and the mosque should be called out for hate speech against homosexuals and be put in the same league as the Westboro Baptist Church. By ripping out the source of anti-gay bigotry, less Muslims would be exposed to that kind of hate and be homophobic.

so i guess gratz are in order for trump?  i don't know why,.. the fudge-tard offers no plan for how to deal with isis but somehow obama not being an bumb is an issue inside his pea-brained head.

Like I said at the beginning, I only agreed with Trump's assessment with the shooting. Nothing more, nothing less. Just because I agree with one thing with Trump does not mean I subscribe to all of his ideals. Whether Trump has an effective plan to combat ISIS or not is an entirely separate issue.

The main problem I see from you and Pi is that both of you seem to be unable to distinguish the difference between criticizing a religion/ideology and criticizing people who follow a religion/ideology. The former involves a set of beliefs while the latter involves a group of people who do not necessarily follow all doctrines (e.g. gay Muslims).

[DD_Bwest]

one of the problems lies with the fact there is a group in islam with some really messed up views.  now its not all, irs not even close to a majority, but theu do exist and it is large enough to cause problems.   so we are stuck in a rough spot.  it isnt right to label all muslims under that category, but it also cant be ignored.  one of the sayings that piss me off are when people say someone isnt a "REAL" muslim because of yadda yadda reasons.  its just the no true scottsman fallacy.

one of the things i think needs to happen is islam acknowledging that these terrorists believe they are following islam.  it is only then that these issues can be addressed.  by just repeating they arent true muslims, all they do is try and bury the issue.

we need to deal with why these people choose more extreme interpretations, and the best people to do that are those within the faith.  its kinda hard for those of us who arent to talk about since we arent part of it.





i feel the same way towards catholicism and mordern  christianity..

[the-pi-guy]

The only thing that labelling it that way accomplishes is opening the door to morons who think all Muslims are terrorists.  
Correcting the people that think that is impossible.  
I know several people and have tried to "correct" them but they are stubborn.  

What does labelling it "radical Muslim" over "radical" help with?

[Aura7541]

The only thing that labelling it that way accomplishes is opening the door to morons who think all Muslims are terrorists. 
Correcting the people that think that is impossible. 
I know several people and have tried to "correct" them but they are stubborn. 

What does labelling it "radical Muslim" over "radical" help with?

However, there are people who are willing to change their minds when proven wrong. That is why open-dialogue is very important. Also, radical is a broad term, so people will just end up asking "What kind of radicalism?" or "In what way was this person radical?"

You may respond with, "The person was radical because he hated gay people."

And then people will ask, "That's horrible. What led him to hate gay people so much?"

You: "Well, um.... he followed a certain book whose texts advocate for killing homosexuals."

The other people will ask, "What is this particular book that has these homophobic doctrines?"

Eventually, you have to be specific on the origins of the anti-gay bigotry. People will be curious and they'll keep digging until they find answers. So unless you can eliminate curiosity altogether, prohibiting the mention "Radical Islam" is rather pointless and a waste of time.

[the-pi-guy]

How do you know that saying the phrase radical Islam will accomplish nothing? I don't think Obama said so is a valid reason for censorship. The shooter specifically attacked and killed gay people at a club. As a result, people will naturally ask why did he do that? The answer to that would be because of Islam since its texts advocates for killing homosexuals. So how should society respond? By calling out against the homophobia preached by the Qu'ran and the Hadiths. Liberal Muslims should call out Muslims who advocate for such regressive beliefs, which will deter extremists from committing homicide like Omar Mateen as well as preventing Muslims from becoming extremists.

You don't need to say "radical Islam" to call out homophobic behavior.  Just like I don't need to say someone is part of the KKK to call out their racism.  
There's little reason to associate all Muslims with the radicals, which is the only thing you accomplish by saying "radical Islam."  

The main problem I see from you and Pi is that both of you seem to be unable to distinguish the difference between criticizing a religion/ideology and criticizing people who follow a religion/ideology. The former involves a set of beliefs while the latter involves a group of people who do not necessarily follow all doctrines (e.g. gay Muslims).

Yeah, not really.  Aside from the one post before this one^, you only said "they were different."  So please excuse us for misunderstanding your criticism.

He didn't say that the shooting was motivated by radical Islam. In response to the criticisms he received, he doubled down, refusing to use the phrase.

Also, there is a major difference between criticizing Muslims and criticizing Islam. The former involves a group of people while the latter involves a religion/ideology. "Omar killed gay people because of Islam" =/= "Omar killed gay people because he's a Muslim". These two phrases have different meanings.

However, there are people who are willing to change their minds when proven wrong. That is why open-dialogue is very important. Also, radical is a broad term, so people will just end up asking "What kind of radicalism?" or "In what way was this person radical?"

I don't think I've ever heard any of those questions, and I think pretty much everyone assumes "radical Muslim" when they hear radical.  

You may respond with, "The person was radical because he hated gay people."

And then people will ask, "That's horrible. What led him to hate gay people so much?"

You: "Well, um.... he followed a certain book whose texts advocate for killing homosexuals."

The other people will ask, "What is this particular book that has these homophobic doctrines?"

I don't think anyone has ever has these questions.

It's usually "OH IT'S A MUSLIM"  "THEY'RE TERRORISTS"

"He's a murderer"
"What kind of murderer?"

No one is going to ask "What led him to hate gay people?"
We even today, even in the US have an incredibly homophobic culture.  

Eventually, you have to be specific on the origins of the anti-gay bigotry. People will be curious and they'll keep digging until they find answers. So unless you can eliminate curiosity altogether, prohibiting the mention "Radical Islam" is rather pointless and a waste of time.

What does it really help with labeling "Radical Islam"?

It helps answers some questions. Sure. What does it do beyond that?  It's detrimental.  

"Who killed him?"
"This black guy"
"Ohhh, so it's because he's black"

This is how society works ^

[Aura7541]

You don't need to say "radical Islam" to call out homophobic behavior.  Just like I don't need to say someone is part of the KKK to call out their racism. 

There's little reason to associate all Muslims with the radicals, which is the only thing you accomplish by saying "radical Islam." 

However, not all homophobic behavior is the result of radical Islam. People will want to know the specific origins of the anti-gay hate.

Your second paragraph is a slippery slope. Not everyone is going to jump to that kind of conclusion. Radical Islam is a rather specific term. Blaming Islam and blaming radical Islam are two significantly different things.

I don't think I've ever heard any of those questions, and I think pretty much everyone assumes "radical Muslim" when they hear radical. 

"Think" is not good enough. It's either you know that everyone assumes or does not assume "radical Muslim" when they hear radical and you show the statistics for either of those claims. I am not satisfied with mere thought.

I don't think anyone has ever has these questions.

It's usually "OH IT'S A MUSLIM"  "THEY'RE TERRORISTS"

"He's a murderer"
"What kind of murderer?"

No one is going to ask "What led him to hate gay people?"
We even today, even in the US have an incredibly homophobic culture.

Again, "think". Furthermore, you're counter-arguing based on anecdotes. Your personal experiences are not representative of everyone else's experiences. Also, here's a more accurate scenario:

"He's a murderer"
"Who did he murder?"
"A bunch of people at a gay club"
"What?! Why would he do that?"

No one asks "What kind of murderer?" because if you Google News "murderer", all articles refer to a person.

Also, a 55% approval rating for gay marriage is not an incredibly homophobic culture. Long ways to go? Yes, but "incredibly" leaves a "widespread" impression and therefore, this is hyperbolic.

What does it really help with labeling "Radical Islam"?

It helps answers some questions. Sure. What does it do beyond that?  It's detrimental.

Restricting certain types of speech and consequently, promoting ignorance via omission are detrimental, too. You're also asking the wrong question. The correct question would be how can we limit the detrimental effects of mentioning "radical Islam"? The answer to that will be by promoting open-dialogue and do whatever we can to have a calm, civil debate. There are people who will admit to being wrong and correct themselves.

"Who killed him?"
"This black guy"
"Ohhh, so it's because he's black"

How does citing a Spanish venn diagram prove that the above example is how society works? Did you sample each and every reaction from each person and calculate the percentages? Did you haphazardly polled 1000 people's opinions on the Orlando shooting and received the results that correlate with your conclusion? If so, please show me the numbers.

I'm going to make this interesting. I challenge you to look at some videos on Islam from some YouTubers I follow: Sargon of Akkad, Top Hats and Champagne, Chris Ray Gun, Kraut and Tea, Dr. Layman, and That Guy T. They are of different nationalities, ethnicities, and political leanings. The Rubin Report also holds some good interviews with various people on Islam. Let's see if you still claim that the above sham of the example is how society works...

[the-pi-guy]

Wrong chart.  

[Aura7541]

Wrong chart.  

How about this poll instead?

[the-pi-guy]

How about this poll instead?

Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll

However, not all homophobic behavior is the result of radical Islam. People will want to know the specific origins of the anti-gay hate.

Your second paragraph is a slippery slope. Not everyone is going to jump to that kind of conclusion. Radical Islam is a rather specific term. Blaming Islam and blaming radical Islam are two significantly different things.

For a lot of people it is one in the same.

"Think" is not good enough. It's either you know that everyone assumes or does not assume "radical Muslim" when they hear radical and you show the statistics for either of those claims. I am not satisfied with mere thought.

Again, "think". Furthermore, you're counter-arguing based on anecdotes. Your personal experiences are not representative of everyone else's experiences. Also, here's a more accurate scenario:

Of course I am.  I don't have a gigantic source of good statistical information on the subject.  I don't think anyone does.  

Also, a 55% approval rating for gay marriage is not an incredibly homophobic culture. Long ways to go? Yes, but "incredibly" leaves a "widespread" impression and therefore, this is hyperbolic.

"incredibly" means "to a great degree; extremely or unusually."  I would say 40% is an an extremely large percentage.  It's a pedantic complaint.  

Restricting certain types of speech and consequently, promoting ignorance via omission are detrimental, too. You're also asking the wrong question. The correct question would be how can we limit the detrimental effects of mentioning "radical Islam"? The answer to that will be by promoting open-dialogue and do whatever we can to have a calm, civil debate. There are people who will admit to being wrong and correct themselves.

Just two different ways to get to the same place.  

How does citing a Spanish venn diagram prove that the above example is how society works? Did you sample each and every reaction from each person and calculate the percentages? Did you haphazardly polled 1000 people's opinions on the Orlando shooting and received the results that correlate with your conclusion? If so, please show me the numbers.

I'm going to make this interesting. I challenge you to look at some videos on Islam from some YouTubers I follow: Sargon of Akkad, Top Hats and Champagne, Chris Ray Gun, Kraut and Tea, Dr. Layman, and That Guy T. They are of different nationalities, ethnicities, and political leanings. The Rubin Report also holds some good interviews with various people on Islam. Let's see if you still claim that the above sham of the example is how society works...

I was trying to find something that was relevant, but there's a lot to sort through.

From Top Hats and Champagne, I find this video:
"Orlando Gay Club Shooting - The shooter, to no one's surprise, was muslim. The implications."

That Guy T
"The religion of muthafuggin peace! (Orlando Attack)"


I think it's pretty clear how people perceive these things.  
This to me looks exactly what I was talking about.  

[Aura7541]

Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll

What does the article mean as "unreliable methodology"? I expected the writers to provide examples of things such as sampling bias or non-blind tests. However, they did not.

You and the article also fell into the trap of ad hominem. You must judge people or organizations on a point-by-point basis. Regardless of the CSP's dubious history, does its poll hold up to scrutiny? If it does not, then what makes the poll inaccurate? Unfortunately, neither you nor the article specified the flaws.

Of course I am.  I don't have a gigantic source of good statistical information on the subject.  I don't think anyone does. 

Then state claims that you know to be true. "Think" connotes lack of robustness and conclusiveness.

"incredibly" means "to a great degree; extremely or unusually."  I would say 40% is an an extremely large percentage.  It's a pedantic complaint. 

So, if we were to follow your logic (and I'm going to keep an eye on you if you resort to moving the goalposts), then there's is an "incredibly" homophobic culture in the American Muslim community. Over 52% of them oppose same-naughtiness marriage, which is over 40%:

Just two different ways to get to the same place. 

I don't see two different ways, rather two mistakes. Your first mistake was the red herring fallacy. This response failed to be on topic and actually address my argument. Second mistake, you failed to elaborate on "same". Same in what way and how do you know (and not what you think)?

I was trying to find something that was relevant, but there's a lot to sort through.

From Top Hats and Champagne, I find this video:
"Orlando Gay Club Shooting - The shooter, to no one's surprise, was muslim. The implications."

That Guy T
"The religion of muthafuggin peace! (Orlando Attack)"

I think it's pretty clear how people perceive these things. 
This to me looks exactly what I was talking about. 

You fell into the ad hominem trap again. Looks like you only read the titles and felt like you didn't need to do anymore legwork. Did you watch their content and what particular arguments do you disagree with? I am very disappointed that you did not say "I disagree with That Guy T or Top Hats and Champagne on _______ because _______".

Your closing statement also falls into the same "thinking" trap. "I think", "It seems", "This looks", etc. I want conclusiveness, not this pitter-pattering. I want more of "These people prove exactly what I was talking about because they said _______". Specificity, Pi-guy.

Overall, your arguments are vague, failing to dig into the specifics. They are reliant on other people who hold the same positions, but do not elaborate (e.g. failure to explain the "unreliable methodology"). Your arguments are also reliant on fallacies, most notably the ad hominem fallacy. When someone makes a claim, you are dissecting the claim; you are not dissecting the person's background.