Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yeah, because lacrosse players often call upon other lacrosse players to kill non-lacrosse players. And thousands upon thousands of lacrosse players across the globe unite to support and die for the cause.
Pretty stupid analogy, Ty.
If it's relevant, as you claim, that Muslims oppose suicide bombings, then why is it not relevant that their opposition is rather passive -- much less so than, say, their opposition to unflattering depictions of Islam or Muhammad?
When Slave says Muslims are violent, you say that no, lots of Muslims really hate and oppose suicide bombings and other violent acts. When I point out the dearth of Muslims actually giving voice to such opposition, you talk about Duke lacrosse.
|
Apparently you didn't notice that I wasn't involved in the argument you think you're stepping into.
I thought Wonk and Slave and Penske were arguing about whether Islam is inherent violent. Wonk pointed out that other religions are violent, too. Penske answered that Islam is more violent now. Underlying the frisson of tension between them was a fairly fundamental question about whether the current state of the Middle East owes more to the culture of Islam or other factors, like who controls the means of production, etc. Sadly, they got a little angry at each other, but it was -- is -- an interesting issue. Obviously, there are a lot of violent Islamic radicals out there. Is it Islam that makes them violent, or something else? So I pointed out that there are a lot more non-violent Moslems, and that there are non-Moslem suicide bombers. My point was so powerful that Penske and I were soon singing Kumbayah together.
I don't really equate radical Islamist suicide bombers and Duke lax players. I think you know that. Just in case, I'll make it explicit.
I find this business of condemning x and y for not speaking out against z's actions about as interesting as arguing about whether politicians are hypocritical. If you want to argue about it, go nuts. Just not with me.
