#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Discussion about Islamaphobia
Islamaphobia, or anti-muslim sentiment is extremely prominant, and extremely accepted in society. Even though terrorist groups and actions have been done by isolated people, the country has united against the billion+ people who are members of the religon. So much so, that the republican party fought to show Obama as a Muslim, as if that discredited him as a presidential canidate.
What can/should be done about this, or anything? Or what is your opinion on Islamaphobia in general? Some argue that islamaphobia is the most accepted form of discrimination in the United States. Do you agree?
Add New Argument |
There have been and most likely will be terrorists, extremists and militants who though in the minority will create the most animosity. I believe that there will be many moderate Muslims around the world who are just as outraged as non-muslims at what is happening within Islamic countries. It is difficult to see where this will end. Shia and Sunni need to resolve their issues if not then there will always be a struggle between them. Islamophobia does not help the majority of moderate muslims who are equally appalled by what the minority of radical muslims are doing 3
points
I hate all religions with a passion! but this religion is the worst one of them all. This religion has no place in the modern world. I want someone to show me or tell me what good has this religion brought to this world, its an oppressive and barbaric religion forged in a time where these values were common places! this religion breeds extremism at an alarming rate, were told its only a minority who interpret Islam in this way, yet Islamic extremist is a world wide problem hardly a minority! 1
point
4
points
1
point
Judging a group comprised of millions of people based on a few, albeit horrifying events is obviously the ignorant and uninformed way to deal with a real issue. Terrorism is a problem, but Islamaphobia is not the solution. I have to point out, though, that Islamaphobists are similar to the radical minority of violent terrorists in their ignorant stance, but differ greatly in that they don't actually go around killing innocent people to prove their point. 2
points
There's nothing more to know other than that the Muslims are bull-headed and least deserving of any tolerance;Recognized as the most violent religion,heavy punishment must be brought upon them.Their brotherhood is corrupted,barbaric deserving a place in the hell;Their monotheism brings forth a wrong idea. 1
point
What are you basing this belief off of? Terrorist groups? The actions of the few do not represent the actions of many. What suggests that they are corrupt? Just trying to understand your point of view. Also, if you argue that their monotheism is a problem, do you make the same argument against all monotheistic religions, such as Christianity? Because Christianity also has taken part in equally horrible acts that Muslim groups have. Except Christians are usually white. Is that the difference? Islamaphobia is as bad as any other kind of intolerance be it racism, sexism, Homophobia or whatever, if you judge someone and discriminate against them purely because of their religious beliefs then you are a bigot. I judge people on their actions and deeds not their beliefs, race sexuality, sex or whatnot. 1
point
No, as discrimination of the religion would be claiming that all Muslims are bad because some perform acts of bigotry. What is not discrimination is disagreeing with their bigotry through isolated cases. But I mean, think about it. Christianity advocates tons of shit we disagree with. Does that mean all Christians should be discriminated against? Disagreement of individual cases and discriminating against a group are different things. 'Discriminating against the bigots' isn't really discrimination, because it has specific reason. 1
point
1
point
1
point
I am not saying it's ok to hate gays. I am saying it is wrong to assume that someone hates gays because they are affiliated with a group that contains some who hate gays. Is it okay to say that all whites are racist? Is assuming that all whites are not racist the same thing as defending those who are racists? I'm saying that the assumption is wrong. It is wrong to say that because some members of a group do something, they all must. That is pure ignorance. When you meet a Muslim, assume neither that they are pro-gay or anti-gay, just as you should with anyone. Then, find out. I am not saying it's ok to hate gays. You are defending a group of people that love to hate gays, same thing. I am saying it is wrong to assume that someone hates gays because they are affiliated with a group that contains some who hate gays. But, not condemning the group doing the actual hating. Is it okay to say that all whites are racist? Of course. It is ok to be wrong. Is assuming that all whites are not racist the same thing as defending those who are racists? No, but that isn't what you are doing. I'm saying that the assumption is wrong. Except, sometimes it is correct. It is wrong to say that because some members of a group do something, they all must. Good thing I didn't suggest that. When you meet a Muslim, assume neither that they are pro-gay or anti-gay, just as you should with anyone. Then, find out. How do you find out? There is no way to be neutral. If you ask "Do you think it is ok for someone to be gay?" you assume they are pro-gay, and if you ask "Are you against homosexuals?" you are assuming they are anti-gay. 1
point
You are defending a group of people that love to hate gays, same thing. Except it is not a given that all Muslims hate gays. It would be hypocritical of me to say "I support the KKK and black people" because I would be supporting two things that are in opposition. But there are plenty of pro-gay Muslims, and plenty more who are ambivalent on the matter. You cannot make generalizations like this without proof. But, not condemning the group doing the actual hating. You mean condemning someone who has potentially done nothing wrong is not hate? Of course. It is ok to be wrong. It's ok to be wrong, right. That doesn't make their belief not wrong. I said "Is assuming that all whites are not racist the same thing as defending those who are racists?" No, but that isn't what you are doing. How so? My argument is that assuming all Muslims are not homophobic is not the same thing as protecting those who are homophobic. You seem to be countering that point. Except, sometimes it is correct. Of course an assumption can be correct. But you cannot behave as if that assumption is fact. You can end up hurting a lot of people on that 'sometimes.' I said "It is wrong to say that because some members of a group do something, they all must." Good thing I didn't suggest that. Yes, you kind of are. You claim that Muslims are a group of people that 'love to hate gays.' While some members of the Muslim community are homophobic (just like almost every other community on Earth) not all are. How do you find out? There is no way to be neutral. If you ask "Do you think it is ok for someone to be gay?" you assume they are pro-gay, and if you ask "Are you against homosexuals?" you are assuming they are anti-gay. As, "what is your opinion on homosexuality?" Or have a conversation with them about it and figure out what they think. And it's okay to have preconceived notions, but don't base it solely on something like their religion or ethnicity. That is prejudice. Generalizations like that are immensely harmful to those in the group that are not homophobic. There is a child, somewhere, who believes in many Muslim beliefs. They identify as Muslim, and believe in a large number of Muslim values (just as any religious person does.) And they do not "hate gays." How is it alright to send hate at them for something that other people who are affiliated with something they are affiliated with have done? Except it is not a given that all Muslims hate gays. You are defending the anti gay Muslims as well. You mean condemning someone who has potentially done nothing wrong is not hate? You aren't condemning the actual people doing something wrong either. How so? My argument is that assuming all Muslims are not homophobic is not the same thing as protecting those who are homophobic. You seem to be countering that point. You are saying that anyone who holds the belief that all Muslims might be homophobic is a bad person. You aren't just saying that some Muslims don't hate gays. Of course an assumption can be correct. But you cannot behave as if that assumption is fact. You can end up hurting a lot of people on that 'sometimes.' How does someone get hurt by being considered a homophobe? I said "It is wrong to say that because some members of a group do something, they all must." You also said it is wrong to say "If some members of the group do something, I must be careful about that topic around everyone in that group." Yes, you kind of are. The shoe is on the other foot now. You claim that Muslims are a group of people that 'love to hate gays.' While some members of the Muslim community are homophobic (just like almost every other community on Earth) not all are. So? If 10% hate gays you are right, and if 99% hate gays you are right. In Islamic countries being gay is a very bad idea. My assumptions are based on facts. As, "what is your opinion on homosexuality?" Or have a conversation with them about it and figure out what they think. No one talks like that. And it's okay to have preconceived notions, but don't base it solely on something like their religion or ethnicity. Assumptions are preconceived notions. You don't want people to make preconceived notions about someones belief system by looking solely at part of their belief system? There is a child, somewhere, who believes in many Muslim beliefs. They identify as Muslim, and believe in a large number of Muslim values (just as any religious person does.) And they do not "hate gays." How is it alright to send hate at them for something that other people who are affiliated with something they are affiliated with have done? So, it is ok for you to assume I support sending hate at them, but not ok for me to assume a Muslim hates gays? 1
point
You are defending the anti gay Muslims as well. That's because it's more important to me to protect those who do not deserve shame. I want to speak out against anti-gay Muslims, but it is very important to me that I do not shame pro-gay Muslims and Muslims who are gay themselves. You aren't condemning the actual people doing something wrong either. Sure I am. I'm just condemning them because of the wrong things they do, not because of the group they are affiliated with. You are saying that anyone who holds the belief that all Muslims might be homophobic is a bad person. You aren't just saying that some Muslims don't hate gays. I am saying that there are Muslims who are pro-gay and anti-gay, just like nearly every other group. As such, those who are anti-Muslim are shaming those Muslims who are pro-gay. How does someone get hurt by being considered a homophobe? It's not just being considered a homophobe. Most pro-gay people see homophobia as something very negative, and some people such as The Eccentric can truly hate and shame people who are homophobic. As such, hate and shame are being unjustly directed at people who not deserving of it. So? If 10% hate gays you are right, and if 99% hate gays you are right. In Islamic countries being gay is a very bad idea. My assumptions are based on facts. That doesn't mean those assumptions aren't hurtful to the 1% that don't hate gays. If you want to stop these people's shame, then you should probably try to avoid shaming them yourself. No one talks like that. I am aware. But there are ways to figure out someone's opinion on homosexuality without treating them in one way or another first. Start of neutral, and then learn. If they are homophobic, that's a problem. If they are not, great! So, it is ok for you to assume I support sending hate at them, but not ok for me to assume a Muslim hates gays? I'm not assuming you support sending hate to them, that's what you've told me you're doing. You've made it clear you find it more valuable to make sure that those who are anti-gay are shamed than to make sure those who are pro-gay in that group are not shamed. I'm not assuming you support sending hate to them, that's what you've told me you're doing. You've made it clear you find it more valuable to make sure that those who are anti-gay are shamed than to make sure those who are pro-gay in that group are not shamed. Show me where I indicated anything like that. 1
point
Show me where I indicated anything like that. Ahem… (if I got things wrong here, let me know, sorry if this comes off like I'm twisting your words, didn't mean to, please correct me if I did) You asked if it was "ok to assume that they are bigots against gay people and find out if they aren't," which would imply placing shame on people who were potentially pro-gay. You said "I think it is wrong to condemn people for assuming that Muslims hate gays while defending many Muslims who do hate gays." This shows your support for hating all Muslims, as you to not do so would be 'defending' those who do hate gays. In the same vein, you said that I was "defending a group of people that love to hate gays." You seem to view this method of trying to protect those who are pro-gay as defending those who are anti-gay. You also countered my argument of protecting those pro-gay Muslims by saying "You are defending the anti gay Muslims as well," showing your distaste for protecting the pro-gay Muslims as it is the same thing as protecting the anti-gay Muslims. Also, just noting, you ignored most of my arguments in the last comment I posted. The thing you pulled was my focus, but I had a lot of direct responses to points you had made, which I think better backs up my argument. if I got things wrong here, let me know The last post was letting you know you got things wrong. You asked if it was "ok to assume that they are bigots against gay people and find out if they aren't," which would imply placing shame on people who were potentially pro-gay. This does not place shame on them just like the history of shame placed on gays by Christians and Muslims that you claim doesn't exist. I find it very odd that you can claim that assuming someone is a bigot causes shame, but the history of shame that Christian outcasting has actually placed on homosexuals doesn't exist because there is gay marriage now. You said "I think it is wrong to condemn people for assuming that Muslims hate gays while defending many Muslims who do hate gays." This shows your support for hating all Muslims, as you to not do so would be 'defending' those who do hate gays. No, it shows that I object to you being against hating any Muslims. Clearly it is ok to hate the anti gay Muslims, but you are against that too. In the same vein, you said that I was "defending a group of people that love to hate gays." You seem to view this method of trying to protect those who are pro-gay as defending those who are anti-gay. That's because you are protecting all Muslims, not just the pro gay ones. You also countered my argument of protecting those pro-gay Muslims by saying "You are defending the anti gay Muslims as well," showing your distaste for protecting the pro-gay Muslims as it is the same thing as protecting the anti-gay Muslims. No, you are protecting the anti gay Muslims when you protect every Muslim. This is the perfect example of you twisting my words. I am upset with for protecting the anti gay Muslims and somehow you think I am mad at you for defending the pro gay Muslims. I fail to see how me complaining that you are protecting the anti gay Muslims means I have a problem with you protecting the pro gay Muslims. Also, just noting, you ignored most of my arguments in the last comment I posted. Well, why would I comment on everything else if you have completely misinterpreted what I am saying? 1
point
The last post was letting you know you got things wrong. That was about this one in the way I laid out your beliefs fyi. This does not place shame on them just like the history of shame placed on gays by Christians and Muslims that you claim doesn't exist. I never claimed this shame did not exist. If I did, please show me where (and then I take that back, because it is clearly incorrect.) But how does the history of shame placed by some Muslims on gays justify placing shame on all Muslims? I find it very odd that you can claim that assuming someone is a bigot causes shame, but the history of shame that Christian outcasting has actually placed on homosexuals doesn't exist because there is gay marriage now. Again, I never said that there isn't shame against gays right now, and there isn't' gay marriage everywhere. Wouldn't this be justification for my argument? Are you saying because Christianity and the Islamic faith have a history of shame, it is alright to shame them? I haven't been discussing gay rights much here because this is a debate about Islam. I could get into a discussion with you about gay rights, but I think you'd find we are in agreement. But I am not just an advocate for gay rights. I am an advocate for equality. The fact that gays have been horrendously mistreated does not change the fact that they are not the only group that has suffered such atrocities. No, it shows that I object to you being against hating any Muslims. Clearly it is ok to hate the anti gay Muslims, but you are against that too. I am not against hating any Muslim. I am against hating any Muslim due to the fact that they are a Muslim; just as I am against hating women because they are women, gays because they are gay, blacks because they are black, etc. etc. etc.. If you hate someone, it should be because they have a quality or belief that you find deserving of hate. Because being 'Muslim' is so broad and there ARE pro-gay people within, stereotyping like this is both illogical and immensely hurtful. I made it very clear I am ok with hating anti-gay Muslims. What I am not ok with is hating anti-gay Muslims because they are Muslim. Hate them because they are anti-gay. The fact you have been refusing to address is the fact that not all Muslims are anti-gay. As such, hating all Muslims because you hate people who are anti-gay does not make any sense. That's because you are protecting all Muslims, not just the pro gay ones. How so? By saying you should judge people based on what they actually believe instead of a group they are affiliated with? This way, you will still be able to hate the anti-gay people, while not unintentionally shaming those who are undeserving of your hate. How does that protect those you disagree with? No, you are protecting the anti gay Muslims when you protect every Muslim. As I just explained, I am not. And even if I was, why is it more important to attack the anti-gay Muslims than it is to protect the pro-gay ones? This is the perfect example of you twisting my words. (Which is why I had my first paragraph, sorry) I am upset with for protecting the anti gay Muslims and somehow you think I am mad at you for defending the pro gay Muslims. I fail to see how me complaining that you are protecting the anti gay Muslims means I have a problem with you protecting the pro gay Muslims. Well, because what I'm doing does not protect the anti-gay Muslims. You have also expressed nothing that says what you could do to help protect these pro-gay Muslims if you continue to make assumptions and hurt all Muslims. Well, why would I comment on everything else if you have completely misinterpreted what I am saying? Well, that's why I asked you to correct me. State your argument as I should have understood it. But not a big deal. I never claimed this shame did not exist. If I did, please show me where (and then I take that back, because it is clearly incorrect.) "the best comparison you could get would be that they are being prejudice." You made the claim that Muslims are only being prejudiced. But how does the history of shame placed by some Muslims on gays justify placing shame on all Muslims? The ones who aren't doing any gay shaming will know it isn't targeted at them. Wouldn't this be justification for my argument? Are you saying because Christianity and the Islamic faith have a history of shame, it is alright to shame them? Shaming shamers is ok. stereotyping like this is both illogical and immensely hurtful You have not demonstrated that it is immensely hurtful. I made it very clear I am ok with hating anti-gay Muslims. You have not made that very clear. Hate them because they are anti-gay. The fact you have been refusing to address is the fact that not all Muslims are anti-gay. As such, hating all Muslims because you hate people who are anti-gay does not make any sense. I am against hating, I find no problem with assumptions. How so? By saying you should judge people based on what they actually believe instead of a group they are affiliated with? This way, you will still be able to hate the anti-gay people, while not unintentionally shaming those who are undeserving of your hate. How does that protect those you disagree with? You are making a generalization about who is being targeted. And even if I was, why is it more important to attack the anti-gay Muslims than it is to protect the pro-gay ones? If the damage done to the pro gay Muslims is lower than the damage done by the anti gay Muslims than it is ok. Well, because what I'm doing does not protect the anti-gay Muslims. You have also expressed nothing that says what you could do to help protect these pro-gay Muslims if you continue to make assumptions and hurt all Muslims. My assumptions don't hurt anyone, so there is no solution to present. 1
point
"the best comparison you could get would be that they are being prejudice." You made the claim that Muslims are only being prejudiced. Actually, I didn't. That statement was within a larger analogy, countering his point that Muslims were to gays as the KKK was to blacks. I merely pointed out that the KKK has a mission to act against blacks, while even if all Muslims were anti-gay (which they are not) their goal would not be to commit hate crimes, they would simply have prejudice. Also, how does that quote show that I claimed that there is no shame on gays from Muslims and Christians? Because I still don't think I ever argued that. The ones who aren't doing any gay shaming will know it isn't targeted at them. Except it's not just verbal abuse. People make assumptions, which then impact their actions, job hiring, political choices, hate crimes, etc. etc. etc.. When OBama ran for president, the Republican party fought hard to make him appear to be a Muslim because they knew that most Americans would be appalled by the fact that a Muslim could ever be president. But Muslims will know that all hate against them isn't targeted at them? More directly, people like TheEccentric shame people who are pro-gay and gay in the Muslim faith because, as he claims, they are shaming themselves. So that is targeted at them. Shaming shamers is ok. And eye for an eye… fighting fire with fire... ok that argument doesn't work for a couple reasons. So is murdering murderers ok? What if they killed two people? Also, you're getting trapped in circular logic here. By shaming shamers, you becomes a shamer, which means you should be shamed. For shame! And the point is kind of irrelevant because my argument is that shaming people who are undeserving of shame is the problem, which is what you are doing by shaming all Muslims. You have not demonstrated that it is immensely hurtful. Can you honestly make the argument that prejudice, being denied serves and opportunities, being profiled, being judged as someone who is bad by people who have never met you and so on is not hurtful? Muslims go through much (not all, I predict you yelling at me about this) of the same discrimination as every other group that has been discriminated, such as blacks, gays, women, and so on. You have not made that very clear. To quote me: I want to speak out against anti-gay Muslims, but it is very important to me that I do not shame pro-gay Muslims and Muslims who are gay themselves. I'm just condemning them because of the wrong things they do, not because of the group they are affiliated with. There were a couple other times but they were in context and wouldn't make sense if I directly quoted here. But I said those two several comments ago. If that's not clear, what is. And even if it wasn't clear before, it should be now. I am against hating, I find no problem with assumptions. Do you not see how assumptions lead to hate? As we sort of established early on, you can't just go up to someone and ask them, "Hey, you're a Muslim so you're probably anti-gay, but are you?" As such, if you assume that all Muslims are anti-gay, your assumptions will influence your actions. I've already listed out some examples of these actions/what they can lead to. I said: How so? By saying you should judge people based on what they actually believe instead of a group they are affiliated with? This way, you will still be able to hate the anti-gay people, while not unintentionally shaming those who are undeserving of your hate. How does that protect those you disagree with? You are making a generalization about who is being targeted. What generalization am I making? This is probably my key argument, which you haven't really responded to, so I'm curious. You are assuming that all Muslims are anti-gay. As such, you are targeting all Muslims. Is there something wrong with my logic there?
If the damage done to the pro gay Muslims is lower than the damage done by the anti gay Muslims than it is ok. Seriously? First of all, how can you quantify this? Secondly, you are contributing to the shame done by the anti-gay Muslims, hurting your own cause. Third, wouldn't it be better to attack only the anti-gay Muslims, which you could do simply by removing your assumptions and basing your opinions based off of people's personal beliefs? Fourth, by attacking all Muslims, your argument actually loses some validity. Because most people who are educated about Islam know and understand that there is LGBT representation in the Muslim community, your argument seems uneducated and less legitimate. My assumptions don't hurt anyone, so there is no solution to present. If you believe that your assumptions are ok, which is it wrong for Muslims to assume that all gays are bad? By your logic, why do those assumptions hurt people while your assumptions don't? Your assumptions hurt people in many ways. I already listed many (denying jobs, services, political office, etc. etc. etc.), but just as knowing that people think that being gay is wrong can make gays feel as though they are wrong, Muslims knowing that people think that being Muslim is wrong will have the same effect. There is a solution. Base your beliefs based off of people's personal beliefs. Individually. Don't generalize, don't stereotype, don't make these assumptions. Easy. I merely pointed out that the KKK has a mission to act against blacks, while even if all Muslims were anti-gay (which they are not) their goal would not be to commit hate crimes, they would simply have prejudice. Except they do commit hate crimes. Also, how does that quote show that I claimed that there is no shame on gays from Muslims and Christians? Because I still don't think I ever argued that. You said they only show prejudice, not shaming. Except it's not just verbal abuse. People make assumptions, which then impact their actions, job hiring, political choices, hate crimes, etc. etc. etc.. When OBama ran for president, the Republican party fought hard to make him appear to be a Muslim because they knew that most Americans would be appalled by the fact that a Muslim could ever be president. But Muslims will know that all hate against them isn't targeted at them? That isn't really fair, you are claiming that we shouldn't verbally abuse Muslims about being anti gay because other people are bigots over different things. And eye for an eye… fighting fire with fire... ok that argument doesn't work for a couple reasons. Except in America where it has worked on Christians. So is murdering murderers ok? What if they killed two people? Death penalty. Also, you're getting trapped in circular logic here. By shaming shamers, you becomes a shamer, which means you should be shamed. For shame! That's where you come in. You say that shaming people is wrong then go on to shame people who do shaming. Same deal. And the point is kind of irrelevant because my argument is that shaming people who are undeserving of shame is the problem, which is what you are doing by shaming all Muslims. And I explained why it is fine. Can you honestly make the argument that prejudice, being denied serves and opportunities, being profiled, being judged as someone who is bad by people who have never met you and so on is not hurtful? Muslims go through much (not all, I predict you yelling at me about this) of the same discrimination as every other group that has been discriminated, such as blacks, gays, women, and so on. None of that comes from being shamed about being anti gay. I want to speak out against anti-gay Muslims, but it is very important to me that I do not shame pro-gay Muslims and Muslims who are gay themselves. This is saying you want to do something, but not that you actually do it. I'm just condemning them because of the wrong things they do, not because of the group they are affiliated with. This sounded like a hypothetical more than actual actions you take. Do you not see how assumptions lead to hate? Muslims existing leads to assumptions about Muslims, therefore, according to your logic Muslims must be banned. I am not against things that are unrelated to the problem. As we sort of established early on, you can't just go up to someone and ask them, "Hey, you're a Muslim so you're probably anti-gay, but are you?" As such, if you assume that all Muslims are anti-gay, your assumptions will influence your actions. I've already listed out some examples of these actions/what they can lead to. Some other actions that might occur: not telling your Muslim friend that your gay friend is gay before finding out if he would be offended. You have also listed actions that are not a result of assuming Muslims are anti gay. What generalization am I making? This is probably my key argument, which you haven't really responded to, so I'm curious. You are shaming anyone who remotely sounds like they think every Muslim is anti gay. Seriously? First of all, how can you quantify this? It doesn't matter if it is quantifiable, it is true. If one action is less bad than another it is ok to do it. If you believe that your assumptions are ok, which is it wrong for Muslims to assume that all gays are bad? By your logic, why do those assumptions hurt people while your assumptions don't? They aren't just assuming gays are bad, they are actively telling gays that they are bad. I am not actively telling Muslims they are bad people. Your assumptions hurt people in many ways. I already listed many (denying jobs, services, political office, etc. etc. etc.), but just as knowing that people think that being gay is wrong can make gays feel as though they are wrong, Muslims knowing that people think that being Muslim is wrong will have the same effect. False, I already explained that you are wrong. There is a solution. Base your beliefs based off of people's personal beliefs. Individually. Don't generalize, don't stereotype, don't make these assumptions. Easy. Generalizing, is that where you claim that since someone has assumptions that they are just as bad as everyone else with assumptions? You know like saying that an assumption that a Muslim is anti gay is the same as denying them a job. 1
point
Except they do commit hate crimes. Not all Muslims commit hate crimes, and the central goal of Islamic people is not to actively attack homosexuals. The same is not true for the KKK and blacks. And my solution covers this, only go after those who do things that you find disagreeable, such as hate crimes. Your alternative would be to try and shame all white people because the KKK exists. You said they only show prejudice, not shaming. When did I say that? That isn't really fair, you are claiming that we shouldn't verbally abuse Muslims about being anti gay because other people are bigots over different things. That would be true if people's view on Islam was only affected by one thing, which you seem to think it is. Part of the hate against Muslims is because people believe them to be anti-gay. That means that the example I listed (Republicans trying to prove Obama is a Muslim, because of course a Muslim couldn't be president) is still relevant. Except in America where it has worked on Christians. How so? Death penalty. What about it? I am opposed to it. Just because it exists doesn't mean it's ok... That's where you come in. You say that shaming people is wrong then go on to shame people who do shaming. Same deal. As you seem to not understand, I am not against shaming, so long as it is justified. Shaming people who are undeserving is wrong. I think it is ok to shame people who are anti-gay, because I believe they are in the wrong. I think it is ok to shame people who shame people who are undeserving, because shaming people who are undeserving is wrong. And I explained why it is fine. Um, when? How is it fine to shame people who are undeserving of shame. Isn't your goal to prevent shame of people who are pro-gay? If you say they are strong enough to not be shamed, then your shame against those who are anti-gay won't work. a) What do you accomplish by assuming all Muslims are anti-gay and treating them as such? You make all Muslims feel bad, regardless of their belief. b) What do you accomplish by choosing to shame those who are anti-gay, and treating them as such? You can't blatantly disrespect people on the street because of their religion, but the end result will be that you make anti-gay people feel bad. Why is option a) better? None of that comes from being shamed about being anti gay. Sure it does. The fact that people think that Muslims are wrong because they are anti-gay is one of many factors that contributes to why people might show this sort of prejudice against Muslims. Since you wish to ignore reality and focus only on this issue, then in our scenario, it is the sole cause of actions like these. If you assume that someone is wrong, whether it be their views on something like homosexuality, their lifestyle, race, age, gender, whatever; you are going to discriminate against them, whether you realize it or not. This is saying you want to do something, but not that you actually do it. That is exactly not what I said. I used the word want to explain that that was my goal. That doesn't mean that I am unable to achieve my goal… If you want me to restate it: I speak out against people who are anti-gay, so long as I don't have to shame people who are pro-gay in the process. Happy? This sounded like a hypothetical more than actual actions you take. If I found out someone is anti-gay, if it is appropriate, I will discuss it with them and express that I think that is wrong. On sites like this, I will state my opinions that being anti-gay is wrong, and will communicate that message to the public, where it will reach those who are anti-gay. Your actions would be the same, except you also end up hurting those who are undeserving. Muslims existing leads to assumptions about Muslims, therefore, according to your logic Muslims must be banned. I am not against things that are unrelated to the problem. No. My statement was flawed, but perhaps a better statement would have been "hateful assumptions lead to hate." I gave you this study in another comment, but it is very relevant here: Some other actions that might occur: not telling your Muslim friend that your gay friend is gay before finding out if he would be offended. You have also listed actions that are not a result of assuming Muslims are anti gay. Are you trying to argue that thinking that Muslims are anti-gay is not a cause of the negative feelings towards them? Aren't you living proof of the contrary? Since you only want to focus on one issue that causes harm to Muslims, can't then say that the negative affects on Muslims don't matter because the factor you picked is only a part of it. You are shaming anyone who remotely sounds like they think every Muslim is anti gay. When did I ever attack anyone who only remotely sounded like they think every Muslim is anti-gay? I am attacking the false idea that every Muslim is anti-gay. As such, people who prescribe to that idea are, in my opinion, wrong. How is that a generalization? They aren't just assuming gays are bad, they are actively telling gays that they are bad. I am not actively telling Muslims they are bad people. Again, see the article I linked on how assumptions can negatively affect relationships. False, I already explained that you are wrong. How does your previous argument count the point that Muslims knowing that people think that being Muslim is wrong will shame Muslims? Are you arguing that there is no difference between a person with horrible morals and a person with virtuous morals so long as you keep it to yourself? Generalizing, is that where you claim that since someone has assumptions that they are just as bad as everyone else with assumptions? You know like saying that an assumption that a Muslim is anti gay is the same as denying them a job. I did not directly say that assuming a Muslim is anti-gay is the same thing as denying them a job, merely that assumptions influence actions. As such,a assuming that a Muslim is anti-gay (presuming you think being anti-gay is bad) will lead you to biased actions, which could include failing to hire someone. and the central goal of Islamic people is not to actively attack homosexuals. False, you don't know how many people hate gays and the religious doctrine says to hate gays. That would be true if people's view on Islam was only affected by one thing, which you seem to think it is. You are now making a generalization about how everyone feels about Muslims. When did I ever attack anyone who only remotely sounded like they think every Muslim is anti-gay? When you started attacking me. Again, see the article I linked on how assumptions can negatively affect relationships. Again, maybe you should judge someone based on how they negatively affect their relationships and not on the assumptions they make. 1
point
False, you don't know how many people hate gays and the religious doctrine says to hate gays. How many people hate gays is irrelevant to all Muslims hating gays. Just because the religious doctrine says to hate gays doesn't mean that all people who prescribe to that religion follow that part of the doctrine. As we have already covered, just because something is a belief in a religious book, it doesn't mean that every person who is of that religion believes that belief. You are now making a generalization about how everyone feels about Muslims. By saying that humans base their opinions on more than one factor? That's not a generalization, it's basic human psychology. When you started attacking me. First of all, you more than 'remotely sounded' that you assume every Muslim is anti-gay, you flat-out said it. Second, as I already stated, I am not attacking you, I am attacking the belief that all Muslims are anti-gay. What you are doing is attacking people, some of whom are anti-gay. That is what I find wrong, so I am attacking that belief. Again, maybe you should judge someone based on how they negatively affect their relationships and not on the assumptions they make. As I made very clear (and which you did not respond to) assumptions and relationships are intertwined. Your assumptions will affect your relationships and interactions. To pretend otherwise is foolish. And if you truly believe this, then you would have no problem with people being anti-gay. You would only have problems with people who treat gays poorly. This is clearly not your belief, as we have established that we both agree that being anti-gay is bad. 1
point
According to your logic you wouldn't want to hire me our serve me because I am anti Muslim and your beliefs will lead to hatred of me. Perhaps I would, but not according to the logic I just stated. You failed to see how your assumptions of Muslims could hurt them. By assuming all Muslims are anti-gay, you then treat them as such (which in your case means you treat them negatively), leading to you not wanting to hire them etc. etc. etc.. My actions are not based off of assumptions. I would view you in a negative light and treat you in a more negative way because I know that you are anti-Muslim, just in the same way I would treat someone who I know to be anti-gay in a negative way. Because not all Muslims are anti-gay, treating them all negatively is ignorant, offensive, and would cause me to treat people negatively who are undeserving of being treated negatively. 1
point
So, since you have a legitimate reason to hate me it is ok for you to deny me work and not serve me even though I have never actually done anything wrong toward someone who is Muslim? Oh well, this is a completely different argument here. I was pointing out the negative things that assuming someone is bad could lead to, which includes the examples of mistreatment I mentioned. Whether or not that is ok is a whole other conversation. But incidentally, if your answer to that question is 'no, that's not ok' then why is it ok for you to hate/shame people who are anti-gay but have never done anything wrong towards someone who is Gay? But incidentally, if your answer to that question is 'no, that's not ok' then why is it ok for you to hate/shame people who are anti-gay but have never done anything wrong towards someone who is Gay? Because it is only shaming them. Unlike you I don't think it is ok to harm someone based on their beliefs instead of their actions. 1
point
Because it is only shaming them. Unlike you I don't think it is ok to harm someone based on their beliefs instead of their actions. But you are harming anti-gay people simply based on their belief, not their actions. As I have shown (unless you still wish to dispute this), someone's beliefs influence their actions, and if someone's belief is say, anti-women, this belief will negatively affect their interactions with women. Beliefs and actions are interconnected. Because it is only shaming them. You you think that shaming someone is not the same thing as harming them? But you are harming anti-gay people simply based on their belief, not their actions. I don't shame anyone with my assumptions. As I have shown (unless you still wish to dispute this), someone's beliefs influence their actions, and if someone's belief is say, anti-women, this belief will negatively affect their interactions with women. Beliefs and actions are interconnected. This means you think it is ok to punch someone in the face once you find out they are anti gay. You you think that shaming someone is not the same thing as harming them? Yes, shaming someone is not the same as physically harming them. 1
point
I don't shame anyone with my assumptions. As I have said, a negative assumption about someone will lead to negative repercussions in your interactions with them. If you believe this, then anti-gay people do not cause gays shame. This means you think it is ok to punch someone in the face once you find out they are anti gay. False. I have never stated that these negative actions (nor did I specify what these negative actions are, merely gave some examples, none of which are violence) are ok, merely that they are interconnected with negative assumptions. All I have said is that negative assumptions will lead to negative actions. I never said these negative actions are a good thing, "ok", or that they must be violent. We had been operating under the assumption that the only thing deciding whether or not someone is a good person is whether or not they are pro-gay. As such, if you assume someone is anti-gay, you are assuming that person is not a good person. Through this assumption, you will treat them as not a good person, which will have negative affects on them. I never said that any of that was ok or not ok. And I never said anything about whether or not violence was ok. Yes, shaming someone is not the same as physically harming them. There's more types of harm than physical harm. Anyone who has been involved with the homosexual movement should be very aware of this. Gay and bisexual kids are about 4 times as likely to commit suicide than their peers, and this is not a sole result of physical violence. If you think the only thing that can have harm on others is physical attacks, you are severely ignorant. 1
point
Well, whether or not it's ok to beat someone up if you don't like them is a whole other debate. But your general mentality is correct. Don't assume all Muslims are anti-gay, as that will cause you to naturally mistreat them because you think being anti-gay is wrong. As such, assuming that being anti-gay is your only criteria of if a person is good or bad, you should find out for certain that that person is bad before you treat them as such. Because not all Muslims are bad, you shouldn't assume they are because then you will treat them as though they are bad. So yeah, you mostly got it right. Glad I could change your mind. Well, whether or not it's ok to beat someone up if you don't like them is a whole other debate. But your general mentality is correct. No it isn't. People don't deserve punishment for actions they don't commit. As such, assuming that being anti-gay is your only criteria of if a person is good or bad, you should find out for certain that that person is bad before you treat them as such. This is a conclusion you have drawn against arguments I have repeatedly told you I am not making. So yeah, you mostly got it right. Glad I could change your mind. I disagree with hurting people unlike you. You have convinced me that you are a hypocrite. 1
point
No it isn't. People don't deserve punishment for actions they don't commit. Right. That is my argument, which is why I argue that being anti-Muslim is wrong. It leads people who are not anti-gay to suffer the same 'punishment' you inflict onto those who are anti -gay. This is a conclusion you have drawn against arguments I have repeatedly told you I am not making. You have stated that it is ok to be anti-Muslim because many Muslims are anti-gay. You argued that so long as more anti-gay Muslims were hurt than pro-gay Muslims, it would be ok. I counter this argument, saying that you should ensure that you are only anti-anti-gay. I disagree with hurting people unlike you. You have convinced me that you are a hypocrite. I have never said it is ok to hurt someone, which is why I try to attack only people's beliefs, and only when I truly think those beliefs are wrong. That is why I am not anti-Muslim, as Muslims are a group of people. I am anti-anti-gay, because the ideology of being anti-gay is one that I disagree with. I never said it was ok to hurt people. My first sentence was: "Well, whether or not it's ok to beat someone up if you don't like them is a whole other debate." I intentionally did not state my stance on hurting others because it did not relate to the topic at hand. You claim you disagree with hurting people, but it seems you are perfectly fine with hurting those who are anti-gay. You are aware that shame can be hurtful, right? Right. That is my argument, which is why I argue that being anti-Muslim is wrong. It leads people who are not anti-gay to suffer the same 'punishment' you inflict onto those who are anti -gay. You are also arguing for punishing people who haven't done anything wrong. You have stated that it is ok to be anti-Muslim because many Muslims are anti-gay. You argued that so long as more anti-gay Muslims were hurt than pro-gay Muslims, it would be ok. I counter this argument, saying that you should ensure that you are only anti-anti-gay. You are saying that people only determine that Muslims are bad by using multiple reasons. Therefore, only assuming they are anti gay doesn't automatically mean you assume they are bad. You also made the claim that I will treat them bad, which I told you I don't do. I have never said it is ok to hurt someone, which is why I try to attack only people's beliefs, and only when I truly think those beliefs are wrong. That is why I am not anti-Muslim, as Muslims are a group of people. I am anti-anti-gay, because the ideology of being anti-gay is one that I disagree with. But, you believe that hatred leads to violence and that violence can't be separated from hatred, so you must think it is ok to be violent to anyone who you have confirmed has bad beliefs. I never said it was ok to hurt people. My first sentence was: "Well, whether or not it's ok to beat someone up if you don't like them is a whole other debate." I intentionally did not state my stance on hurting others because it did not relate to the topic at hand. It is the logical conclusion drawn from your stance on people with hatred. 1
point
You are also arguing for punishing people who haven't done anything wrong. That is the argument that I have constantly been arguing against. I think it is wrong to target those who have done nothing wrong. (Assuming views on homosexuality is the only factor): By targeting all Muslims, you are targeting those who have not done anything wrong. That is what you are doing wrong. As I've explained, being anti-something or someone is hurtful to that person or thing. Even though you may not make intentional actions against them, your assumptions will lead to hurtful interactions with those people, it will shame the people (as they will not feel accepted by at least part of society) and so on. That is why we view being anti-gay as something bad. You can pretend that you are anti-Muslim but treat Muslims exactly the same as you treat anyone else, but it simply won't be true. Human psychology will not allow it. You are saying that people only determine that Muslims are bad by using multiple reasons. Therefore, only assuming they are anti gay doesn't automatically mean you assume they are bad. You also made the claim that I will treat them bad, which I told you I don't do. You had chosen earlier on in the debate (several times, actually) to focus on only the pro- and anti- gay views of Muslims. However, even if you include the other factors, we have already established that being anti-gay is a negative quality. Assuming that all Muslims are anti-gay assumes that all muslims possess a negative quality that not all of them possess. This will lead to the same hurtful assumptions (and consequences of those assumptions) I stated already. And as I stated above: You can pretend that you are anti-Muslim but treat Muslims exactly the same as you treat anyone else, but it simply won't be true. Human psychology will not allow it. If you think can be anti-Muslim and not treat them bad, you are wrong. But, you believe that hatred leads to violence and that violence can't be separated from hatred, so you must think it is ok to be violent to anyone who you have confirmed has bad beliefs. I never stated that hatred inherently leads to violence nor did I say that violence and hatred cannot be separated. And even if I had (which I did not) that would not signify that I thought that that connection was a positive thing. Just because something happens does not mean it is inherently good. What I did point out was the fact that if you believe someone to possess a negative quality or is 'bad,' you will treat them in a more negative or 'bad' way. This is simple human psychology. I did not say that was ok, merely that it happens. I also presented a solution to the problem of assuming an entire group to have a negative quality when only certain members of that group possess said quality: Be against the quality, not the group. It is the logical conclusion drawn from your stance on people with hatred. I never used the word violence, imply violence, or make any argument about violence, and I specifically stated that I was not making any stance on violence. I also did not state any opinion on on the negative repercussions of assumptions, neither saying they were ok or not ok. I merely laid out the facts. How does that lead to the 'logical conclusion' that I am pro-violence? That is the argument that I have constantly been arguing against. I think it is wrong to target those who have done nothing wrong. (Assuming views on homosexuality is the only factor): By targeting all Muslims, you are targeting those who have not done anything wrong. That is what you are doing wrong. You are against people who don't interact with Muslims but have anti Muslim thoughts. You are claiming that someone who hasn't targeted Muslims since they don't interact with Muslims is also doing something wrong. Therefore, you believe in attacking someone who hasn't done anything wrong. Even though you may not make intentional actions against them, your assumptions will lead to hurtful interactions with those people So you believe that before those assumptions lead to hurtful interactions they have done something wrong. That is exactly the same thing as claiming that all Muslims hate gays. However, even if you include the other factors, we have already established that being anti-gay is a negative quality. But, you established that one factor isn't enough. Make up your mind. I never stated that hatred inherently leads to violence nor did I say that violence and hatred cannot be separated. Actually, you did. You claimed that all anti Muslim people are the same and since some anti Muslim people are violent toward Muslims, so they all will be. And even if I had (which I did not) that would not signify that I thought that that connection was a positive thing. You claimed that good hatred is fine and that hatred is intertwined with actions, so every action out of good hatred is ok. Just because something happens does not mean it is inherently good. Basically my argument. What I did point out was the fact that if you believe someone to possess a negative quality or is 'bad,' you will treat them in a more negative or 'bad' way. Like you are doing to me. I did not say that was ok, merely that it happens. You said it was ok in the case where you do it to me. I also presented a solution to the problem of assuming an entire group to have a negative quality when only certain members of that group possess said quality: Be against the quality, not the group. Why do you refuse to listen to a word I say then have this notion that you should be listened to? I never used the word violence, imply violence, or make any argument about violence, and I specifically stated that I was not making any stance on violence. You implied violence because you said that everything that any anti Muslim person does will be done by all anti Muslim people. How does that lead to the 'logical conclusion' that I am pro-violence? You said anything that you do is ok as long it isn't an assumption. As long as you confirmed that the person you are talking to has bad beliefs it is ok to do anything that would be negative to do to anyone who you assumed had those beliefs when they don't have those beliefs. 1
point
1
point
There are no openly gay muslims. You can make that claim, but I'm afraid it's false. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTinIslam Or, if you want a site run by gay and pro-gay Muslims, here you go: http://islamandhomosexuality.com If you examine the site, you will actually find there is a history of members of the Islamic faith being both pro-gay and gay themselves. It is not a majority, but they exist. As such, you cannot generalize and say that all Muslims are bad because they are Muslims. The Quran says to kill us. The Bible says to stone us. And yet, there are gay Christians. The Torah says that any person who preaches a religion other than Judaism should be killed. And yet people who don't follow that belief are still Jewish. Just because someone is Muslim does not mean they follow every belief in the Quran. That's because it's more important to me to protect those who do not deserve shame. I want to speak out against anti-gay Muslims, but it is very important to me that I do not shame pro-gay Muslims and Muslims who are gay themselves. You want to speak out against anti gay Muslims, so you choose to chastise people who are upset with Islam? Sure I am. I'm just condemning them because of the wrong things they do, not because of the group they are affiliated with. I haven't seen it. I am saying that there are Muslims who are pro-gay and anti-gay, just like nearly every other group. As such, those who are anti-Muslim are shaming those Muslims who are pro-gay. Ok, but assuming a Muslim is anti gay is not anti Muslim. It's not just being considered a homophobe. Most pro-gay people see homophobia as something very negative, and some people such as The Eccentric can truly hate and shame people who are homophobic. As such, hate and shame are being unjustly directed at people who not deserving of it. Ok, but the hate and shame that results in gays dying is worse. Being anti Muslim makes more sense than being anti anti Muslim since you have no proof that the anti Muslim crowd causes any sort of hate and shame. You are judging all anti Muslim people based on a few of them. That doesn't mean those assumptions aren't hurtful to the 1% that don't hate gays. If you want to stop these people's shame, then you should probably try to avoid shaming them yourself. Assumptions alone don't hurt anyone, that's the point. I am aware. But there are ways to figure out someone's opinion on homosexuality without treating them in one way or another first. Start of neutral, and then learn. If they are homophobic, that's a problem. If they are not, great! I didn't discuss how to treat them. 1
point
You want to speak out against anti gay Muslims, so you choose to chastise people who are upset with Islam? I have more than one goal. Yes, I want to speak out against anti-gay people (not necessarily Muslims, all anti-gay people). Shaming an entire group that includes both pro-gay and anti-gay people is not the solution. I haven't seen it. Listen. I am a strong advocator for equal rights. That means that I don't just focus on one group. Gay rights are immensely important to me. But if they are achieved at the expense of innocents, then it is being achieved in the wrong way. Ok, but assuming a Muslim is anti gay is not anti Muslim. You aren't just assuming a Muslim is anti-gay, you are assuming all Muslims are anti-gay. We've established that being anti-gay is bad. As such, all Muslims are bad. That sounds pretty anti-Muslim to me… And TheEccentric is making that very clear. When talking about 'disagreeing with homosexuality; he said: 'I don't care anyone who disagrees with it can die a horrible death for all I care." By assuming that all Muslims are anti-gay, he is then saying that all Muslims can "die a horrible death for all I care." But that's not anti-Muslim? I said, hate and shame are being unjustly directed at people who not deserving of it. Ok, but the hate and shame that results in gays dying is worse. We are fundamentally disagreeing about something. You say that shaming those who are anti-gay is more important than protecting those who are pro-gay. You think the hate and shame against gays is worse than directing shame at those who are not deserving of it. But some of those people are gay. So aren't you being hypocritical here? If you truly want to stop hate and shame to gays, why are you contributing to it? Being anti Muslim makes more sense than being anti anti Muslim since you have no proof that the anti Muslim crowd causes any sort of hate and shame. You are judging all anti Muslim people based on a few of them. The word 'anti' means 'opposed to; against.' When someone feels as though others are anti-them, you do really think that doesn't create any sort of shame, or feel hateful? Muslims are denied jobs and serves all across America in scarily large amounts that have been increasing since 9/11. An anti-Muslim job owner will be less inclined to hire a Muslim. That can shame them. Muslims are pulled for random testing more frequently than non-Muslims, which is incredibly shameful for them. Mosques and other such Islamic places are victims of hate crimes. Etc. etc. etc.. And if you truly believe this, you have to stop being anti-Muslim, because you're trying to make the same argument back at me. I didn't discuss how to treat them. People's beliefs influence their actions… And TheEccentric, (whose logic, according to you, is 'sound') did discuss that. He said that we should ignore whenever Muslims are mistreated (he "couldn't care less about them being mistreated.") Also, if that is the case, why is the fact that Muslims are anti-gay a reason to dislike them? Just because they have anti-gay sentiments doesn't mean they are acting on them… (This is another thing TheEccentric disagrees with. He said that anyone who disagrees with homosexuality "can die a horrible death for all I care.") And TheEccentric is making that very clear. Clearly he isn't because you have a different interpretation. 'I don't care anyone who disagrees with it can So, specifically referring to anyone who is against gays. No problem there. By assuming that all Muslims are anti-gay, he is then saying that all Muslims can "die a horrible death for all I care." If every Muslim was indeed anti gay (obviously not though) he wouldn't care if the all died. Not a problem there, right? If they did turn out to be anti gay who cares how many of them it is. We are fundamentally disagreeing about something. You say that shaming those who are anti-gay is more important than protecting those who are pro-gay. You think the hate and shame against gays is worse than directing shame at those who are not deserving of it. But some of those people are gay. So aren't you being hypocritical here? No, they will recognize that they aren't really being targeted. The word 'anti' means 'opposed to; against.' When someone feels as though others are anti-them, you do really think that doesn't create any sort of shame, or feel hateful? That's a little arrogant. Thinking you have so much power to cause shame over other people. Evolutionists are opposed to by Creationists, do you think they feel shame over their beliefs in evolution? Muslims are denied jobs and serves all across America in scarily large amounts that have been increasing since 9/11. Not a result of their stance on gays. Different reasons here. Can't really include here. An anti-Muslim job owner will be less inclined to hire a Muslim. That can shame them. Muslims are pulled for random testing more frequently than non-Muslims, which is incredibly shameful for them. Mosques and other such Islamic places are victims of hate crimes. Etc. etc. etc.. Yeah, that sucks. Sounds like the shame from being assumed to hate gays probably pales in comparison to that. And TheEccentric, (whose logic, according to you, is 'sound') did discuss that. He said that we should ignore whenever Muslims are mistreated (he "couldn't care less about them being mistreated.") Oh no, how terrible. He wants to ignore problems Muslims are having because no one cares about the gays. Is that really a big deal? What do you think that will lead to? Will that lead to him posting statistics about Islam getting better treatment from countries that were shutting them out previously even when the problem hasn't been fixed. Marginalize the problems they face? Just because they have anti-gay sentiments doesn't mean they are acting on them… They are though, so... 1
point
Clearly he isn't because you have a different interpretation. Well, you said: Ok, but assuming a Muslim is anti gay is not anti Muslim. I think his statement that I quoted pretty clearly shows that he disagrees with that statement. That was the point I was trying to make. If every Muslim was indeed anti gay (obviously not though) he wouldn't care if the all died. Not a problem there, right? If they did turn out to be anti gay who cares how many of them it is. The problem is, they aren't. And he's not differentiating. He's made the assumption that all Muslims are anti-gay ("A gay Muslim is like a Jew being a Nazi") and, since he is of the belief that being anti-gay is bad, he believes that all Muslims are in the wrong. This is prejudice. No, they will recognize that they aren't really being targeted. They shouldn't have to specify that they are pro-gay without being attacked. Say a pro-gay Muslim was talking to TheEccentric, and he said something to them like, "you can die a horrible death for all I care." The Muslim would then say, I am pro-gay, which would make TheEccentric attack them for their hypocrisy of being involved with the Islamic faith. They are targeted no matter what. That's a little arrogant. Thinking you have so much power to cause shame over other people. Evolutionists are opposed to by Creationists, do you think they feel shame over their beliefs in evolution? Um, of course it can. You think no one cares what anyone else thinks? Do you think that someone is not affected at all if all of their peers claim that they are out of their mind? As advocates for gay rights, you and I should both know that the opinions of others can have a huge affect on a person's self confidence, esteem, etc. etc.. Not a result of their stance on gays. Different reasons here. Can't really include here. It still fits into the anti-Islam sentiment. The attacks on 9/11 gave anti-Muslims an opportunity to attack them even more, and made those who may have been pro-Muslim or neutral question their beliefs. To ignore 9/11 when talking about Islamaphobia would be quite an omission, but we can ignore it if you want to keep focusing on pro and anti gay sentiments. Yeah, that sucks. Sounds like the shame from being assumed to hate gays probably pales in comparison to that. Irrelevant. This is the fallacy of relative privation. Oh no, how terrible. He wants to ignore problems Muslims are having because no one cares about the gays. We cannot invalidate others' problems just because we have problems ourselves. Well, you can, but you can't use that as a legitimate arguments. This is, again, the fallacy of relative privation. Is that really a big deal? What do you think that will lead to? Will that lead to him posting statistics about Islam getting better treatment from countries that were shutting them out previously even when the problem hasn't been fixed. Marginalize the problems they face? I know the problem has not been fixed. But you cannot address only one side of the argument, especially when your goals are being achieved at the expense of people who are undeserving. THE SOLUTION IS SIMPLE. Don't hate Muslims. Hate people who are anti-gay. Done. They are though, so… Same thing is true for anti-Muslim sentiment. That's why it's a problem. The problem is, they aren't. No, there is no problem. And he's not differentiating. False, you just showed he was. He's made the assumption that all Muslims are anti-gay ("A gay Muslim is like a Jew being a Nazi") and, since he is of the belief that being anti-gay is bad, he believes that all Muslims are in the wrong. This is prejudice. Yes, but he also said that he is against specifically the anti gay ones, that's the point I was making. They shouldn't have to specify that they are pro-gay without being attacked. Say a pro-gay Muslim was talking to TheEccentric, and he said something to them like, "you can die a horrible death for all I care." The Muslim would then say, I am pro-gay, which would make TheEccentric attack them for their hypocrisy of being involved with the Islamic faith. They are targeted no matter what. So, you agree that if one person who has assumptions is a jerk than all people who have assumptions are jerks. Nice stereotyping. :D Um, of course it can. It also doesn't have to. Let me spell it out for you. You think no one cares what anyone else thinks? Do you think that someone is not affected at all if all of their peers claim that they are out of their mind? As advocates for gay rights, you and I should both know that the opinions of others can have a huge affect on a person's self confidence, esteem, etc. etc.. I gave you an example of a group that doesn't care what others think. It still fits into the anti-Islam sentiment. The attacks on 9/11 gave anti-Muslims an opportunity to attack them even more, and made those who may have been pro-Muslim or neutral question their beliefs. To ignore 9/11 when talking about Islamaphobia would be quite an omission, but we can ignore it if you want to keep focusing on pro and anti gay sentiments. Thank you for allowing me to ignore a topic that is unrelated to my discussion, you are a saint. Irrelevant. This is the fallacy of relative privation. Yeah, but it was because you made a slippery slope fallacy. We cannot invalidate others' problems just because we have problems ourselves. Well, you can, but you can't use that as a legitimate arguments. This is, again, the fallacy of relative privation. Uh, you are invalidating TheEccentric's problems because you have problems attacking the whole religion. THE SOLUTION IS SIMPLE. Don't hate Muslims. Hate people who are anti-gay. Done. The solution is simple, don't hate people who are anti Muslim, hate the people who have actually treated Muslims badly. 1
point
No, there is no problem. There's no problem with shaming people who are not anti-gay? Yes, but he also said that he is against specifically the anti gay ones, that's the point I was making. Right. But if that's so, why is it okay to be against all Muslims, not just those who are anti-gay? By assuming that all Muslims are anti-gay, you target them all. Your point makes sense, it just doesn't back up what you are doing. Target the anti-gay ones by going after the anti-gay ones. There's no need to attack people who are not the people you are against. So, you agree that if one person who has assumptions is a jerk than all people who have assumptions are jerks. Nice stereotyping. :D You were defending his argument, claiming his view was correct. I showed the flaw in that view. That's not stereotyping. I was creating a situation using the opposing view, and showed why it doesn't work. (I notice that you did not dispute my point, so you agree that by TheEccentric's logic, Muslims are targeted no matter what their beliefs are?) It also doesn't have to. Let me spell it out for you. But that's not in your control. You can't shame someone and then expect them to not be affected if you don't want them to be. People will respond to hate in different ways. As I pointed out, the opinions of others can have a huge affect on a person's self confidence, esteem, and so on. It won't always, but are you arguing that it's okay to harass people on the off chance that they are strong enough to get over it? I gave you an example of a group that doesn't care what others think. So because one group is strong, every single human is not affected by what others think? It is human nature to respond to other's opinions of us. A more effective argument would be to provide proof that every single pro-gay person in the Muslim faith will not be affected by your shaming. Can you do that? I can. Because I don't shame those Muslims who are pro-gay. And if you argue that people don't care what others think, why do you even attempt to shame others? Isn't the point to make them change their opinion based on what you believe? If that doesn't work, why try at all? Thank you for allowing me to ignore a topic that is unrelated to my discussion, you are a saint. This is definitely not unrelated, but if you want to pretend that your view of Muslims is based solely on gay rights, for the saw of argument, I'll stick with you. But in life, that's not how it works. Everyone who heard about 9/11 was subconsciously affected with a fear of the people who did it, it's human psychology. To ignore it will allow these prejudices to continue unchecked. But if you want to pretend it doesn't exist, at least for right now, you can. Yeah, but it was because you made a slippery slope fallacy. Ok, here is evidence to support my original point, which was slippery slope. Assumptions about people make you treat them worse. Response? Uh, you are invalidating TheEccentric's problems because you have problems attacking the whole religion. I am not invalidating TheEccentric's problems, as we agree that being anti-gay is wrong. The problem is his method of showing this, which is attacking the entire religion. As I have stated, I have no problem with being anti-anti-gay. The method is the problem. And this debate is not about gay rights, something that we agree is a problem. This debate is about Muslims. If you are putting Muslims at risk, then arguing that gay rights are more important is irrelevant, unless a solution to help the Muslims at risk endangers gay rights, which my solution does not. The solution is simple, don't hate people who are anti Muslim, hate the people who have actually treated Muslims badly. Being anti-Muslim is treating Muslims badly. If you don't believe that being anti-something has a negative effect on that something, then why are you against people who are anti-gay? 1
point
1
point
Fact: there is not a single Muslim country with decent gay rights. That does not mean that every single Muslim individual is anti-gay, merely that the governments of predominantly Muslim places are. That's not viable evidence that all Muslims are anti-gay. Also, this is beginning to change. In Albania, Lebanon, and Turkey, there have been discussions about legalizing same-sex marriage. Homosexual relations between females are legal in Kuwait. Lebanon has had recent internal efforts to legalize homosexuality. Albania and Sierra Leone have signed a UN Declaration supporting LGBT rights. Those are just a few examples. In France there was an Islamic same-sex marriage on February 18, 2012. All of these are Muslim countries. If large countries that represent large groups of Muslims are beginning to show some pro-gay actions, how can you argue that all Muslims are anti-gay? Muslims to us is what the KKK is to blacks. Even if every single Muslim was anti-gay (which they are not), this statement would still not be true. Just because someone is anti-gay does not mean they commit hate crimes against gays. The KKK actively attacks blacks. IF every single Muslim was anti-gay (again, they are not) the best comparison you could get would be that they are being prejudice. Which is what you're being right now. You are being immensely prejudice against a group that is not as universally against you as you claim. 2
points
Every single one of them worships a paedophile so I couldn't care less about them being mistreated. Muslims are discriminating people themselves especially to my kind. 25% of homophobic hate crimes in the UK are committed by them despite a much lower percentage of the population being Muslim. 1
point
2
points
2
points
1
point
1
point
Also, just because at least 0.0185% of a religion 'disagrees' with homophobia doesn't mean they deserve to be mistreated. People are entitled to their beliefs. That doesn't mean they should be mistreated. Should homophobic blacks been forced to remain slaves? I'd want more information about the 500 members of this survey. Maybe they all lived in the same place, where their society has set up homosexuality as negative. That doesn't mean all Muslims share this belief. Also, there will always be an exception. You think there aren't gay Muslims? Or Muslims who support gay rights? By generalizing like this, you are going to end up hurting the people who share some of your values. 1
point
A gay Muslim is like a Jew being a Nazi. I believe most gay 'muslims' are closeted and act homophobic themselves to hide their true nature which is the most shameful thing ever. I don't want them to be entitled to their beliefs as this liberal attitude will let them take over. 1
point
A gay Muslim is like a Jew being a Nazi. Do you have any idea how ignorant a statement that is? Do you think all 2.7 million Muslims are devout radicals? Just because someone has a belief system, it doesn't mean they can't think or be reasonable. By your logic, all gays who identify as Christian are shameful. Or any person who is a 'sinner' in the eyes of the Bible who identifies as Christian isn't really Christian? Just because someone identifies with the Muslim faith doesn't mean they have the beliefs of the most extreme zealots. A statement like that shows ignorant and closed-minded thinking. This is something that's been faced by women, Jews, blacks, the gay community and many others, and saying the Muslims are and exception because you disagree with the beliefs of some of them is simply perpetuating that. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
They disagree over scripture that has multiple interpretations and the ways in which they worship. They disagree on FAR more than just that. One simply needs to look at the differing beliefs of groups such as American Baptists, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics (just to pick a few) to see what I mean. These groups often also disagree on which parts of scripture should actually be heeded (a concept that dates back to the founding of essentially every Judeo-Abrahamic religion, as can be seen in events such as the First Council of Nicaea). In other words: One can belong to a religion, and not believe that every part of scripture needs to be followed. While you and I might find that confusing, if not downright nonsensical, it is still the way things work. That being said, Islam does contain more possible "divine" justification for atrocities than most (though the Old Testament does get pretty horrifying at times). 1
point
Fine. By this logic, all people who have committed any sin that is in the Bible are shameful. That includes adultery, sex before marriage, wearing clothes with mixed fabrics etc. etc. I'm sure you've heard all the ridiculous decrees in the Bible before. And even if it has just changed recently, that doesn't mean the point lacks validity. Fine. By this logic, all people who have committed any sin that is in the Bible are shameful. Yes, that's how Christians want you to feel. That includes adultery, sex before marriage, wearing clothes with mixed fabrics etc. etc. I'm sure you've heard all the ridiculous decrees in the Bible before. You would think that right, but they just turn their heads when those get brought up. And even if it has just changed recently, that doesn't mean the point lacks validity. Gays are ashamed because of how Christians treat them. In the past that was more prevelant. His logic is sound and your point is invalid. Christianity didn't change because of people like you, it changed because of people like TheEccentric who speak out against making others feel bad. You don't have to hate gays, disapproving of their lifestyle is enough. It will cause empty marriages to appease everyone around you while they secretly live their lifestyle. The spouse loses. 1
point
Yes, that's how Christians want you to feel. Not really. I'm not Christian, but most Christians that I know (at least the ones who aren't insane) understand that the Bible doesn't ask them to follow every single decree. In a modern society, belief systems can evolve a little, and every person can have their own interpretation. Does that mean you should assume that all Christians follow every belief, even the ones that are offensive? Isn't that offensive to those Christians who find those beliefs equally bad as you? You would think that right, but they just turn their heads when those get brought up. I think you believe this mainly because most of your interactions with Christians have been either on the Internet or with radicals. Most Christians in America are not as ridiculous as this. Gays are ashamed because of how Christians treat them. In the past that was more prevalent. This is a very broad statement. Yes, it is a recent thing, but there are many proud gay Christians. And yes, int he past this was more prevalent, but doesn't the fact that it's changing invalidate the point? His logic is sound and your point is invalid. His logic was that if anyone is in a group that includes people who are against them, that person is shameful. That feels to me to fit into the "brave" category, not "shame." What is wrong with being proud of who you are? If there is a gay person who believes most of Muslim beliefs, how is that shameful? Sorry, but I just don't see the logic there. Christianity didn't change because of people like you, it changed because of people like TheEccentric who speak out against making others feel bad. I am speaking out against making others feel bad. It is just my belief that it is better to not shame those who don't deserve shame than to shame both those who don't deserve shame and those who do. Not really. I'm not Christian, but most Christians that I know (at least the ones who aren't insane) understand that the Bible doesn't ask them to follow every single decree. It is only Christians who are shaming gays, not all Christians. Christianity isn't about knowing that you don't follow every decree, but what decrees not to follow. Christians don't go around saying "Bob follows 80% of the Bible, so he is a good person". In a modern society, belief systems can evolve a little, and every person can have their own interpretation. That doesn't mean you can deny that a former belief system didn't exist. Does that mean you should assume that all Christians follow every belief, even the ones that are offensive? Isn't that offensive to those Christians who find those beliefs equally bad as you? Everyone wants you to feel shame for not following the rules they think you should be following. Religious people are the ones with anti gay problems. I think you believe this mainly because most of your interactions with Christians have been either on the Internet or with radicals. Most Christians in America are not as ridiculous as this. How many people have you heard discuss adultery and divorce in a worse tone than homosexuality? It is either the same or homosexuality is worse. The non radicals don't really care about adultery or homosexuality, so my statement stands. This is a very broad statement. Yes, it is a recent thing, but there are many proud gay Christians. And yes, int he past this was more prevalent, but doesn't the fact that it's changing invalidate the point? There is a long history of religious people causing shame for homosexuals and 0 history of shame from being called a homophobe. If you are about reducing shame you are on the wrong side. His logic was that if anyone is in a group that includes people who are against them, that person is shameful. That feels to me to fit into the "brave" category, not "shame." What is wrong with being proud of who you are? If there is a gay person who believes most of Muslim beliefs, how is that shameful? Sorry, but I just don't see the logic there. His logic was that you can't be proud because the other people in the religion will look down on you or even kill you. They fill you with shame until you are forced to pretend you are no longer gay. I am speaking out against making others feel bad. By picking on the group that historically has been made to feel terrible, good choice. It is just my belief that it is better to not shame those who don't deserve shame than to shame both those who don't deserve shame and those who do. You are a fool for saying that TheEccentric is shaming Muslims without focusing on the part where they are anti gay. Every time he complains about Muslims he mentions that they have anti gay beliefs. You ignore the message that being anti gay is wrong and attack the anti Muslim because they directed their comment at Muslims. 1
point
It is only Christians who are shaming gays, not all Christians. Christianity isn't about knowing that you don't follow every decree, but what decrees not to follow. Christians don't go around saying "Bob follows 80% of the Bible, so he is a good person". Right, that's my point. The claim I am opposing is saying that because someone identifies as Muslim, they must be anti-gay. Muslims don't say, "Bob follows most of Muslim beliefs but he's pro-gay so that's shameful." Of course someone can be pro-gay and still be Muslim. That doesn't mean you can deny that a former belief system didn't exist. So? That doesn't mean you have to stand by what the belief system said. I stand by many American values. Does that mean I'm pro slavery?
Everyone wants you to feel shame for not following the rules they think you should be following. Religious people are the ones with anti gay problems. First of all, not just religious people are anti-gay (which is very sad, but still true). Second, how does that make it okay to shame someone who is following what you're saying? Yes, people want to shame others for things they disagree with, but you are saying it's okay to shame a large group of people, that includes both those who are in agreement with what you think is right and those who are not. Pro-gay Muslims are already being shamed by some members of their group. Shouldn't you be honoring them for their bravery of being able to say, "this is what I believe, even if some people who believe the same thing think that some of what I believe is wrong?" How many people have you heard discuss adultery and divorce in a worse tone than homosexuality? It is either the same or homosexuality is worse. The non radicals don't really care about adultery or homosexuality, so my statement stands. People who are divorced and commit adultery are not excommunicated from churches, at least not nearly as frequently. Also, these two things are protected by law universally across the US, which is not true about homosexuality. And right, the non radicals DON'T care about homosexuality. Similar to many non-radicals in the Muslim faith. So why is it ok to shame them? There is a long history of religious people causing shame for homosexuals and 0 history of shame from being called a homophobe. If you are about reducing shame you are on the wrong side. My goal is to reduce shame on homosexuals. By trying to shame the anti-gay Muslims, you are shaming gay and pro-gay Muslims. You are also generalizing and stereotyping people based solely on their faith, which tells you next to nothing about them. As we said earlier, people of a faith can cary in how much of the religion they follow and how faithfully they follow it. I am about reducing shame, and you clearly aren't. If you were, you would be where I am, neutral about a group that contains a variety of people in it. His logic was that you can't be proud because the other people in the religion will look down on you or even kill you. They fill you with shame until you are forced to pretend you are no longer gay. Except that's not true. It may certainly be true in some Muslim areas, or countries, but it is not inherent to the religion itself, and certainly not to every single person within the religion. Same-sex sexual intercourse is legal in 19 Muslim-majority nations. In Albania, Lebanon, and Turkey, there have been discussions about legalizing same-sex marriage. Homosexual relations between females are legal in Kuwait. Lebanon has had recent internal efforts to legalize homosexuality. If his statement was true, the point would stand. But it is not. By picking on the group that historically has been made to feel terrible, good choice. Seriously? Playing the victim card? Yes, homosexuals have been made to feel terrible, and they still are today. So why is the solution to that making others feel terrible? Obviously, homosexuals have gone through and are going through many, many atrocities, and those who commit them are clearly in the wrong. But how does that allow for attacking those who are merely indirectly affiliated with those who are in the wrong? The end goal should be equality, not vengeance. You are a fool for saying that TheEccentric is shaming Muslims without focusing on the part where they are anti gay. Every time he complains about Muslims he mentions that they have anti gay beliefs. You ignore the message that being anti gay is wrong and attack the anti Muslim because they directed their comment at Muslims. Yes, being anti-gay is wrong. Yes, some Muslims are anti-gay. That does not mean all Muslims are anti-gay. This debate is about Islamaphobia, which is anti-Muslim sentiment, not the sentiment of being anti-anti-gay. I asked the question, what is your opinion on Islamaphobia in general? He responded: Muslims are discriminating people themselves especially to my kind. Not anti-gay Muslims, just Muslims. He said that he "couldn't care less about them being mistreated." Not the anti-gay ones, all Muslims. The point of this debate is to discuss hate against Muslims. That's why I'm focusing on that. The claim that being anti-gay is wrong is not what is being discussed, as we are in agreement on that. Where we differ is that you believe that because being anti-gay is wrong, it's alright to be prejudice against all Muslims. Right, that's my point. The claim I am opposing is saying that because someone identifies as Muslim, they must be anti-gay. Muslims don't say, "Bob follows most of Muslim beliefs but he's pro-gay so that's shameful." Of course someone can be pro-gay and still be Muslim. You missed my point though. Second, how does that make it okay to shame someone who is following what you're saying? They aren't being shamed. If a gay loving Christian hears "I hate those damn anti gay Christians" they will know that the person is not talking about them. People who are divorced and commit adultery are not excommunicated from churches, at least not nearly as frequently. Also, these two things are protected by law universally across the US, which is not true about homosexuality. That is my point. You said they cared, now you say they don't. And right, the non radicals DON'T care about homosexuality. Similar to many non-radicals in the Muslim faith. So why is it ok to shame them? It worked in America. My goal is to reduce shame on homosexuals. By making them feel shame for attacking all Muslims. ;) By trying to shame the anti-gay Muslims, you are shaming gay and pro-gay Muslims. No evidence of this. I am about reducing shame, and you clearly aren't. I want Muslims to stop shaming gays, so clearly I am. If you were, you would be where I am, neutral about a group that contains a variety of people in it. Except you aren't neutral toward anyone who thinks they have been wronged by Islam. Everyone who says that Islam hates gays should be treated like the people who deny Muslims work. Except that's not true. False, source - history. It may certainly be true in some Muslim areas, or countries, but it is not inherent to the religion itself, and certainly not to every single person within the religion. That is what happened to American gays a few decades ago. If his statement was true, the point would stand. But it is not. False causing shame has nothing to do with making the thing illegal. You can feel shame for performing actions that are 100% legal. Seriously? Playing the victim card? I am sorry, I didn't realize you had a monopoly on it. Yes, homosexuals have been made to feel terrible, and they still are today. So why is the solution to that making others feel terrible? Making the people feel shame for causing others to feel shame will cause the people causing shame to stop their actions and no one will feel shame. Making people who are being shamed stop shaming the oppressors will only eliminate half the shame. The end goal should be equality, not vengeance. Which way gets us there faster? The point of this debate is to discuss hate against Muslims. That's why I'm focusing on that. The claim that being anti-gay is wrong is not what is being discussed, as we are in agreement on that. Where we differ is that you believe that because being anti-gay is wrong, it's alright to be prejudice against all Muslims. If the point of this debate is to discuss the hate toward Muslims how come your only goal is to shame those who discuss their hate for Muslims? 1
point
You missed my point though. Ok, restate it then. What was your point? They aren't being shamed. If a gay loving Christian hears "I hate those damn anti gay Christians" they will know that the person is not talking about them. People don't say, "I hate those anti-gay Muslims." Most commonly, Islamaphobia is shown through people's actions, influencing almost every interaction in the daily lives of Muslims. That's not what people are saying though. Most people who are anti-Muslim are so for more than just the reason that they think they are anti-gay. People view Muslims as unpatriotic, morally wrong, and some think they are all terrorists. Because of this anti-Muslim attitude, even if it's based on the fact that people assume Muslims are anti-gay, Muslims are excluded from employment, politics, management, discriminated against, victims of hate crimes, and their daily interactions are inhibited by this attitude. A Muslim shouldn't have to specify that they are not anti-gay in order to be treated equally. The fact that they have to specify in order of you to think of them equally is shameful. That is my point. You said they cared, now you say they don't. Where did I say that they cared? I have have suggested that extremists care, but i don't think I ever said that most Christians care about every decree in the Bible… And that supports my argument that juts because someone adheres to Muslim beliefs it doesn't mean they must follow every belief. As such, they are not inherently anti-gay, and treating them as such is offensive. It worked in America. That's because Christianity is the majority religion in America. And that doesn't answer the question of why it's ok to shame non-radicals in the Muslim faith. By making them feel shame for attacking all Muslims. ;) Yes… just because you are members of a group that has shamed people, it doesn't excuse anything you do that is wrong. Should a gay murderer not go to jail because jail people have been victims in the past? If you are doing something wrong, such as attacking people who are underserving of it, then that's wrong. I said By trying to shame the anti-gay Muslims, you are shaming gay and pro-gay Muslims. No evidence of this.
False. (source at bottom, most of this is copy pasted from that link) Incidents of anti-Islamic crimes shot up 1,600% in 2001 compared with the number of similar incidents in 2000. Though that rate of reported hate crimes against Muslims hasn't continued, it has leveled off at a rate that is still much higher than it was prior to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Hate crimes against Islam made up about 13% of religiously-motivated crime in 2013, the second most of any religious group (second only to Judaism.) And that's only reported numbers. Estimates are that these numbers are about 20-40% higher than these. Also, have you talked to any Muslims yourself? Do you have any Islamic friends? If not, how can you assume that you have a good representation of any of them, much less all 2.7 billion on the planet. I want Muslims to stop shaming gays, so clearly I am. Yes, but your method is to shame those who are shaming already as well as those who are not. That's adding waaay more shame into the system than is necessary. If you truly wanted you reduce shame, you would recognize that this is not necessary. Also, if you disagree with one thing that Muslims believe and then attack their whole belief system and everyone who follows that belief system because of that one belief, how effective do you think that will be? Except you aren't neutral toward anyone who thinks they have been wronged by Islam. That's because Islam isn't what's doing the harm. It's specific people who happen to be followers of Islam who are the problem here. That does not mean that it's alright to attack every single member of the Islamic faith. I understand that many hateful things have been done in the name of Islamic faith. But that does NOT mean that every single Muslim should be seen in a negative light. Just those who have done the wrong thing. If you feel you have been wronged by a religion, then you have been wronged by specific people. Why bring your hate and shame out on people who may be as equally upset by this as you? Everyone who says that Islam hates gays should be treated like the people who deny Muslims work. I'm not debating whether or not Islam hates gays, because if we look at it's origins, the answer is a clear yes. However, as we've established, just because something is in a religion does not mean that a follower of that religion believes that thing. False, source - history. If we were having this debate 50 years ago, that's a legitimate argument. But I'm talking about today, in the modern world, and how we should behave. Gay Muslims exists, as do pro-gay Muslims. He had said the a gay person involved with Islam would be filled with shame until they are forced to be closeted. That is clearly not true, as per the source I provided. That is what happened to American gays a few decades ago. I don't see what point this made. By comparing Muslims to gays and saying that it's okay to attack Muslims, are you saying it should be okay to attack gays? False causing shame has nothing to do with making the thing illegal. You can feel shame for performing actions that are 100% legal. Um, yes, this is true. But the laws would not be changing if there was not a change in opinion. It is obviously not there yet, but some groups are clearly taking initiative to bring at least sections of the Islamic world into a more gay-friendly place. I am sorry, I didn't realize you had a monopoly on it. I'm not playing the victim card. I'm not letting any group make excuses. Muslims should be attacked or shamed only when they do things that are deserving of being attacked or shamed. The same is true for gays, Christians, atheists, liberals, democrats, etc. etc. etc. EVERYONE. Victimizing yourself is not a legitimate debate tactic (you are using the ad hominem fallacy by trying to make me look bad because I am attacking a group that has been hurt, even though that group is in the wrong.) Making the people feel shame for causing others to feel shame will cause the people causing shame to stop their actions and no one will feel shame. Making people who are being shamed stop shaming the oppressors will only eliminate half the shame. As I have said repeatedly, I am not against shaming the oppressors. But you must be shaming people because of their beliefs, not because of their affiliation to a group that people with beliefs you disagree with are also affiliated to. I am asking you to stop the unnecessary shame, the shame that comes from you assuming that all Muslims are deserving of shame until proven otherwise. You can still shame the anti-gay Muslims all you want, so long as you are justified by the actions and beliefs of the individual. The only shame I am reducing is the shame on those who do not deserve it. I said The end goal should be equality, not vengeance. Which way gets us there faster? Gee, I wonder. If we want to get to a place of equality, should we start by creating more inequality? Or try to create equality? If the point of this debate is to discuss the hate toward Muslims how come your only goal is to shame those who discuss their hate for Muslims? Because my opinion on this topic is that hate against Muslims is wrong. How is that deviating from the topic? Look, here's the logic you are following: 1) Some Muslims are anti-gay 2) Being anti-gay is bad 3) As such, I can assume that all Muslims are bad. That is a syllogistic fallacy. My logic of going after those who shame all Muslims is as follows: 1) Islamaphobic people (or anti-Muslim people) want to shame all Muslims because they are anti-gay, terrorists, etc. etc. 2) Not all Muslims are anti-gay, terrorists, etc. etc. 3) As such, Islamaphobic people are shaming people for things they are not 4) Attacking people/shaming people for things they are not is the wrong thing to do 5) As such, Islamaphobic people are in the wrong People don't say, "I hate those anti-gay Muslims." Most commonly, Islamaphobia is shown through people's actions, influencing almost every interaction in the daily lives of Muslims. Oh, so criticizing someone for what they say on the internet is slightly stereotypical? Most people who are anti-Muslim are so for more than just the reason that they think they are anti-gay. So you are generalizing the people who are against anti gay Muslims? People view Muslims as unpatriotic, morally wrong, and some think they are all terrorists. Because of this anti-Muslim attitude, even if it's based on the fact that people assume Muslims are anti-gay, Muslims are excluded from employment, politics, management, discriminated against, victims of hate crimes, and their daily interactions are inhibited by this attitude. Wow, it would really suck if someone didn't have all those anti Muslim sentiments and some jerk lumped them together just for being upset that Muslims are anti gay. A Muslim shouldn't have to specify that they are not anti-gay in order to be treated equally. The fact that they have to specify in order of you to think of them equally is shameful. They should feel shame for being anti gay. So, no problem here. Where did I say that they cared? I have have suggested that extremists care, but i don't think I ever said that most Christians care about every decree in the Bible… You said that if I was correct the extremist would care about adultery, now you are agreeing with me that extremists don't have to seriously oppose adultery to seriously oppose homosexuality. And that supports my argument that juts because someone adheres to Muslim beliefs it doesn't mean they must follow every belief. As such, they are not inherently anti-gay, and treating them as such is offensive. It supports my belief that the religious people are more angry about homosexuality than other sins, your position is not opposite of mine, so it doesn't matter if it also supports you. That's because Christianity is the majority religion in America. And that doesn't answer the question of why it's ok to shame non-radicals in the Muslim faith. Yes it does. It works and the non radicals weren't offended. Results matter more than your hypotheticals. If you are doing something wrong, such as attacking people who are underserving of it, then that's wrong. So we both agree you are wrong. Good. I said By trying to shame the anti-gay Muslims, you are shaming gay and pro-gay Muslims. And the pro gay crowd doesn't really feel the shame so it is ok. Incidents of anti-Islamic crimes shot up 1,600% in 2001 compared with the number of similar incidents in 2000. I have a feeling something happened in 2001 that was unrelated to anti gay assumptions. Though that rate of reported hate crimes against Muslims hasn't continued, it has leveled off at a rate that is still much higher than it was prior to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Hate crimes against Islam made up about 13% of religiously-motivated crime in 2013, the second most of any religious group (second only to Judaism.) There are 3 major religions in America and the 2 minority religions make up the number 1 and number 2 most religiously motivated hate crimes. That is a meaningless statistic. Also, have you talked to any Muslims yourself? Do you have any Islamic friends? If not, how can you assume that you have a good representation of any of them, much less all 2.7 billion on the planet. Uh, so what? That's because Islam isn't what's doing the harm. It's specific people who happen to be followers of Islam who are the problem here. That does not mean that it's alright to attack every single member of the Islamic faith. I understand that many hateful things have been done in the name of Islamic faith. But that does NOT mean that every single Muslim should be seen in a negative light. Just those who have done the wrong thing. If you feel you have been wronged by a religion, then you have been wronged by specific people. Why bring your hate and shame out on people who may be as equally upset by this as you? Aren't you guilty of that here? I'm not debating whether or not Islam hates gays, because if we look at it's origins, the answer is a clear yes. However, as we've established, just because something is in a religion does not mean that a follower of that religion believes that thing. And I just established that someone who has assumptions does not mean they will deny them work. If we were having this debate 50 years ago, that's a legitimate argument. But I'm talking about today, in the modern world, and how we should behave. Gay Muslims exists, as do pro-gay Muslims. He had said the a gay person involved with Islam would be filled with shame until they are forced to be closeted. That is clearly not true, as per the source I provided. Which source says that Muslims are coming out of the closet since they don't feel pressure to be straight? I don't see what point this made. By comparing Muslims to gays and saying that it's okay to attack Muslims, are you saying it should be okay to attack gays? No, I was comparing shaming Christians in America to shaming Muslims now. Victimizing yourself is not a legitimate debate tactic (you are using the ad hominem fallacy by trying to make me look bad because I am attacking a group that has been hurt, even though that group is in the wrong.) We are both doing that to each other. You have made no attempt to figure out why someone would attack an entire religion. As I have said repeatedly, I am not against shaming the oppressors. Unless I do it. Gee, I wonder. If we want to get to a place of equality, should we start by creating more inequality? Or try to create equality? If you create more inequality that automatically disappears as real equality is reached it can work faster. Thinking inside the box doesn't make your idea great. You spend more energy up front, but the change happens quicker. Because my opinion on this topic is that hate against Muslims is wrong. How is that deviating from the topic? I am saying it is a weird tactic. Person A: I think Muslim hate comes from the fact that they hate gays. You: You are an asshole for accusing all Muslims of hating gays. (Paraphrasing) Look, here's the logic you are following: 1) Some Muslims are anti-gay 2) Being anti-gay is bad 3) As such, I can assume that all Muslims are bad. That is a syllogistic fallacy. No, it is a strawman because I told you I assume Muslims hate gays, not that they are bad. My logic of going after those who shame all Muslims is as follows: 1) Islamaphobic people (or anti-Muslim people) want to shame all Muslims because they are anti-gay, terrorists, etc. etc. 2) Not all Muslims are anti-gay, terrorists, etc. etc. 3) As such, Islamaphobic people are shaming people for things they are not 4) Attacking people/shaming people for things they are not is the wrong thing to do 5) As such, Islamaphobic people are in the wrong I don't believe 3 is true. 1
point
Oh, so criticizing someone for what they say on the internet is slightly stereotypical? If what they are saying comes from stereotypes… You seem to be arguing that people's beliefs and there actions are completely separate. Am I correct in saying that? So you are generalizing the people who are against anti gay Muslims? No… I am addressing the people who are anti-Muslim. If someone is against anti-gay Muslims for that sole reason, why would they have to specify Muslims? Can't they just be against people who are anti-gay? People who are anti-Muslim are so for multiple reasons, or else they are truly creating unjust prejudice. Being against an entire group based on one belief that is held by only some of the group? Wow, it would really suck if someone didn't have all those anti Muslim sentiments and some jerk lumped them together just for being upset that Muslims are anti gay. Muslims are not inherently anti-gay. If you are merely against them because they are anti-gay, why must you be anti-Muslim? Why can't you just be anti-anti-gay? By being anti-Muslim, you are affiliating yourself with the group that hates Muslims for all the reasons I listed. If you are upset that Muslims are anti-gay, then your belief is misguided, as not all Muslims are anti-gay. They should feel shame for being anti gay. So, no problem here. I was not referring to the anti-gay Muslims. I was referring to the neutral, pro-gay, and gay Muslims who you are shaming through this assumption. You have no problem with shaming pro-gay and gay people? You said that if I was correct the extremist would care about adultery, now you are agreeing with me that extremists don't have to seriously oppose adultery to seriously oppose homosexuality. I wasn't referring to extremists, as not every member of the Muslim faith will be an extremist. It was an example of how just because you prescribe to a faith it doesn't mean you follow every belief. Some Christian communities get overly anti-gay, just as Muslim's do, and Jews, and every other group. That doesn't mean that every Christian is anti-gay, every Jew, every Muslim etc. etc. etc.. Ultimately, even if extremists shame a Christian for being pro-gay, that doesn't mean that it is shameful for that Christian to be pro-gay. TheEccentric argued the opposite. Is my statement incorrect? It supports my belief that the religious people are more angry about homosexuality than other sins, your position is not opposite of mine, so it doesn't matter if it also supports you. Right, we agree on that. Well again, you are generalizing with 'religious people' as not all religious people are anti-gay but yes people do tend to get more riled up about homosexuality in general, we're in agreement, yeah yeah ignore this paragraph. :) Yes it does. It works and the non radicals weren't offended. Results matter more than your hypotheticals. Due to the sheer number of Christians in America (83% of the population), attacks on Christianity are much less direct. When a minority speaks out against a majority, the non-radicals can feel safe in knowing that because they are the 'average' person, they are addressing the radicals. The same is not true for Muslims, which represent less than 1% of the population. When someone targets Muslims in America, there aren't enough that they easily differentiate, or the Muslims can pretend that it is not directed at them. It's group psychology, If one person stands up and attacks 100, the 100 will not be nearly as affected than if 100 people attack 1. Or even if person A attacks person B, but person B has 83X the people who share their view. And if results matter more, show me the results. So we both agree you are wrong. Good. False. You have yet to effectively prove that anti-anti-Muslim people are undeserving of shame. What we are in agreement on is that pro-gay people are undeserving of shame (assuming that someone's views on homosexuals is the only factor at hand.) Through your assumptions, you are shaming pro-gay people. And the pro gay crowd doesn't really feel the shame so it is ok. That's simply not true though. Again I'll ask: do you think that someone's assumptions about someone cannot affect their actions towards that person? Assuming that all Muslims and anti-gay will affect those who are pro-gay. And even if you make it clear that you see Muslims in a negative light only because you assume they are all anti-gay, that is offensive to their religion, and again, will affect them. Say I go up to a white person and say "I hate you because you are racist!" They say "I am not racist." I say, "Oh, good. I don't hate you. But I hate all white people!" That's still going to have an affect on the person I am talking to. Fill in the blank with other terms. Say I call a gay person a sinner, and if they prove they are not, I say "well you're all right, but I still assume that all gay people are sinners." It's disrespectful to who the person is. You are shaming them for being affiliated with a group by your blanket dislike for that group. I have a feeling something happened in 2001 that was unrelated to anti gay assumptions. I am aware, and I know you don't want to talk about it, but it is truly possible to look at a person thinking of only one criteria for how you view them. No matter who you are and how logical you are, what you think of Muslims is affected by more than one issue. If someone hated Muslims because they were anti-gay and then 9/11 happened, do you honestly think that the event wouldn't reaffirm in the person's mind that Islam is bad? Uh, so what? So what you're saying is that all of your assumptions on Muslims are based on second hand experience, things you've read, and the general view of the media? And yet you can safely say that your assumption that all Muslims are anti-gay will not hurt any Muslims. That's not a problem to you? Aren't you guilty of that here? Nice job avoiding the question. Before I respond, let me restate this because I would like a response: That's because Islam isn't what's doing the harm. It's specific people who happen to be followers of Islam who are the problem here. That does not mean that it's alright to attack every single member of the Islamic faith. I understand that many hateful things have been done in the name of Islamic faith. But that does NOT mean that every single Muslim should be seen in a negative light. Just those who have done the wrong thing. If you feel you have been wronged by a religion, then you have been wronged by specific people. Why bring your hate and shame out on people who may be as equally upset by this as you? And to your question: I am doing what I describe. I am not getting angry at a group of people based on what they are affiliated to, I am mad at them for their belief that all Muslims are anti-gay. I would be guilty of what I suggest if I said that I assumed that all users on CD were anti-Muslim… Which I am not doing. It is my belief that being anti-Muslim is wrong, just like the belief that being anti-gay is wrong. As such, I say that being anti-Muslim is wrong, and those who are anti-Muslim are in the wrong. I say that being anti-gay is wrong, and those who are anti-gay are in the wrong. The extra step you are going is making the incorrect assumption that because some Muslims are anti-gay, they all must be, and as such, they all must be in the wrong. That is the problem. And I just established that someone who has assumptions does not mean they will deny them work. Again, are you trying to argue that someone's assumptions will not impact how they behave? Which source says that Muslims are coming out of the closet since they don't feel pressure to be straight? They pressure certainly isn't gone, and many Muslim nations do have anti-gay laws, and many Muslim families are anti-gay. But that is not an absolute. TheEccentric argued that because some of these areas were anti-gay, any gay or pro-gay Muslim was forced to hide it. Here are some examples of that being false: http://islamandhomosexuality.com http://www.lgbtmuslimretreat.com http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTinIslam The 2006 Channel 4 Documentary Gay Muslims I could list more, but I think you get the point. Clearly, while it is not a majority, portions of the Muslim community are working to give gay and pro-gay Muslims a safe place to be both. No, I was comparing shaming Christians in America to shaming Muslims now. Christian shaming in America is very different because they have always been a majority, and as such were in a much safer position than the Muslims who make up less than 1% of the population. I don't think either shaming is good, as I've pointed out that you should shame people for their specific beliefs, not groups for beliefs shared by only some of it's members, but shaming Islam in America is much more hurtful to those you shame than shaming Christians. We are both doing that to each other. I genuinely believe you are in the wrong for attacking innocents. My attacks on you are specific to the debate, and I am not attacking your character, merely your beliefs. That is not a fallacy. You did the opposite, by trying to make me look like a bully for addressing flaws of people that are inside of the gay movement. That is a direct attack on my character that does not address the topic. That is the ad hominem fallacy. You have made no attempt to figure out why someone would attack an entire religion. Well, haven't you made it clear that you only want to focus on the one issue, a person's opinions on gays? Whenever I try and extend the topic, you say I am going off-topic. Unless I do it. Because in addition to shaming those who are in the wrong, you are also shaming those who are undeserving. My problem is not with you shaming the 'oppressors,' is is with shaming those who are not the 'oppressors.' If you create more inequality that automatically disappears as real equality is reached it can work faster. Thinking inside the box doesn't make your idea great. You spend more energy up front, but the change happens quicker. How does the inequality of assuming that all-Muslims are anti-gay disappear? Because even if more and more Muslims are becoming pro-gay, your assumption won't change, right? I am saying it is a weird tactic. Person A: I think Muslim hate comes from the fact that they hate gays. You: You are an asshole for accusing all Muslims of hating gays. (Paraphrasing) Well, you certainly haven't made the argument that Muslim hate comes from the fact that they hate gays. Whenever I have tried to open the conversation up to include other factors, such as terrorism, you have said to stay on topic. Your argument is that you can assume that all Muslims hate gays. Since we are in agreement that hating gays is bad, you transitively believe that all Muslims are bad. However, not all Muslims hate gays. As such, I claim that your belief is incorrect. No, it is a strawman because I told you I assume Muslims hate gays, not that they are bad. Right… but we established that being anti-gay is bad, and (assuming the only factor we consider of whether a person is good/bad is their opinion on homosexuality, which is what you have urged me to stick to in this debate) as such, people who are anti-gay are bad. You know some Muslims are anti-gay. By the logic above, you know people who are anti-gay are bad. But your conclusion is that all Muslims are bad. Therein lies the syllogistic fallacy. I don't believe 3 is true. Ok, let me try again to help explain why number 3 works (I think I covered it a bit earlier, I'll try to explain it in a slightly different way here), in the realm of this argument (only dealing with homosexuality). 1) Being anti-gay is bad. 2) Islamaphobic people (anti-Muslim people) want to shame all Muslims because they believe or assume that all Muslims are anti-gay. 3) When a person has assumed that another person is bad, they will treat, talk about, and interact with them in a way that indicated this (because someone's beliefs affect how they behave) 4) When a person is treated as though they are assumed to be bad, that makes them feel bad 5) As such, when an Islamaphobic person assumes that all Muslims are anti-gay, they make them feel bad 6) Not all Muslims are anti-gay. 7) As such, Islamaphobic people are making people who are not bad feel bad 8) Making people who are not bad feel bad is bad 9) As such, Islamaphobic people are bad Every single one of them worships a paedophile so I couldn't care less about them being mistreated. Mohammed lived in a time in which pedophilia was acceptable. It is arguable whether such practices are damaging or not in a society in which there is no stigma. As repulsive as it seems now. 2
points
2
points
1
point
Can't blame people for detesting the Islamic disease which causes so much death and misery in every country which they infest. From Australia to the U.S.A, and Canada. France, the U.K, along with most of the European nations which foolishly opened the doors to the low lives who are now in a constant state of either committing acts of terrorism or plotting to do so. The billions of dollars which most western nations have to spend in counter Islamic measures to keep their citizens safe is a significant drain on their economies and ties up resources which would be used for the welfare of their people. Ship the filth back to the 'tip head' countries of their ethnic origins and keep out of all things Muslim. East is East and West is West and never the t'wain shall meet. 1
point
Islamaphobia, or anti-muslim sentiment is extremely prominant, and extremely accepted in society. Which society? What constitutes as "extremely accepted"? Most people whom I've seen display anti-Islamic sentiment are labeled as "racist", or "Islamophobic". Even though terrorist groups and actions have been done by isolated people, the country has united against the billion+ people who are members of the religon. To start off, while terrorists themselves are a tiny minority, many Muslims worldwide aren't exactly hippy dippy lovelies themselves: https://www.youtube.com/ So much so, that the republican party fought to show Obama as a Muslim, as if that discredited him as a presidential canidate. No. Certain Republicans/right-wingers accused Obama of being a Muslim. I don't recall the Republican Part officially espousing this belief at any point in time (although I wouldn't be surprised if they were involved in the birther controversy.) What can/should be done about this, or anything? Learn to differentiate between blind paranoia and criticism of a religion, for one. Dismissing it all as "Islamophobia" (like oh so many do) doesn't help in the slightest. Or what is your opinion on Islamaphobia in general? I don't know. What are we considering "Islamophobia" here? Some argue that islamaphobia is the most accepted form of discrimination in the United States. Do you agree? Not in the mainstream media. Dunno about elsewhere, you'll have to be more specific. 1
point
1) Deignorization - more information about Islam to people who are unfamiliar, and more information about non-Muslims, the west, etc. to Muslims. Much of Sharia is supported by the old testament which Jews and Christians believe. Exposure to the internet, to the modern world, etc. - at first the modern world seems strange and likely distasteful, but once they get past the superficial layer, they can see that people are largely the same wherever. 2) Dereligifying - exposure to science, alternative methods of human emergence, perpetual doubt, etc. 3) Less visible presence of western military in the middle east. 4) Opportunity - bottom-up (following Maslow's hierarchy) achievement - and development (and recognition) of interdependent relationships - Long term - de-tribalize: "they" aren't the problem; they is the problem! |