Muslim/Islam have won their stereotype of being terrorists. How far do you agree?
Yes
Side Score: 14
|
 |
No
Side Score: 16
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
Of course they have! Because of all these terror attacks and threats going around the world and coming back that Muslim/Islam extremist groups are responsible for most of the time obviously people will be scared! Although, i do sympathise for the innocent Muslims and Islam's that really do go by the Quran and do follow the steps of their god Allah. But, because of the extremist groups in my opinion they have won this stereotype and there is no possible way of getting rid of it. Side: Yes
No they haven't! We are talking about all muslims here, not the terrorists.. The majority of muslims are innocent, loving, and caring people. Sadly, terrorists call themselves muslims and that brings a bad image on actual muslims. They haven't won their stereotype of being terrorists no. Not all terrorists are muslim but unfortunantely media has strongly focused on the so called Isis. Side: Yes
3
points
Actually ISIS is following the Quran devoutly. They got burning people alive, sex slaves, child brides, killing the infidels, conquest of your enemies, terrorism and beheadings from the Quran. The words "strike terror into the hearts of the unbelievers" is a constant word choice theme of the Prophet Muhammed. Side: No
2
points
3
points
Actually ISIS is following the Quran devoutly. They got burning people alive, sex slaves, child brides, killing the infidels, conquest of your enemies, terrorism and beheadings from the Quran. The words "strike terror into the hearts of the unbelievers" is a constant word choice theme of the Prophet Muhammed. Side: Yes
|
0
points
No and I’ll explain why in several points. 1 - Muslims as a group are not actively trying to win a stereotype type. You would not say whites are winning the stereotype of being privileged. You would not say blacks have won their stereotype of being single parents? The question itself is non-sense. 2 – The black swan argument? Or is it white swan. There have been several white Christian attacks in the last few years, the abortion clinic shooting, the white supremacy who openly attacked a black AME church, the white supremacy who attacked an innocent black man in attempt to start a race war, the increase in assault on two Muslims (two girls assaulted by a white Christian male trump supporter at the beach who then attacked 2 men who came to their defense). Just because the media failed to report on one group and shows another group ad nausea doesn’t mean that they actually are worse than another group. 3 British Attacks were covered non stop, but the 4th who was white assaulting Muslims, it received significant left coverage. So if the stereotype exists, it’s not via the actual group, it’s the coverage of said group. 3 – Are you referring to Muslims as a race, a religion, a specific organization? Since there is no overriding org, I disagree as your definition. 4 – The actual question I care about not if something is perceived. I care if something is true. I do agree that the stereotype of muslims being terrorists. I dont believe it is warranted in the way your implying it (though i could be wrong its kind of vague). I dont believe that its a competition that they as a group (or individuals) went out purposely to win. I guess, can you define terrorists to start, as this would be a very interesting idea to flesh out. Side: No
2
points
"Muslims as a group are not actively trying to win a stereotype type." Perhaps "earn" would've been a better term. "The black swan argument? Or is it white swan. There have been several white Christian attacks in the last few years" Except those are rare, "lone wolves" who clearly have severe mental conditions. The Quran, on the other hand, is a hateful book quite literally filled with violent decrees against nonbelievers. Where's that in Christianity? "Are you referring to Muslims as a race, a religion, a specific organization? Since there is no overriding org, I disagree as your definition." What definition? None was given in the OP. "The actual question I care about not if something is perceived. I care if something is true." Then why not take a look at Europe, where so-called "refugees" are literally taking over territory. Their tribalism has become so terrible that even emergency services won't enter areas designated as "no-go zones". Side: Yes
0
points
P1 - Perhaps "earn" would've been a better term. P1.1 However I would disagree that they are the ones earning that term. Its been applied by a media that skewers perception rather then actual numbers. I agree that sterotype exists, I would say that they (Muslims) did not earn it, it was applied. Just like African Americans didn’t earn “single parent families” as reported but skewered by the media and others to straw man there society. P2 – My claim - "The black swan argument? Or is it white swan. There have been several white Christian attacks in the last few years" P2.1 – Your claim - Except those are rare, "lone wolves" who clearly have severe mental conditions. The Quran, on the other hand, is a hateful book quite literally filled with violent decrees against nonbelievers. Where's that in Christianity? P2.2 – My response – Why is that when white Christians attack individuals they are lone wolves and have mental conditions yet when non-whites attack they are terrorists? How do you (specifically you) say one is a terrorist and one is not when they both claim to be acting for god and to terrorize individuals who they disagree with on a religious means? You are more likely to die by the hands of a white supremist then a muslim terrorist since I was born. And more recently your more likely to be assaulted, raped, attacked and victum of financial fraud if your muslim. P2.3 Here are actual numbers. . https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2015-hate-crime-statistics-released This years the FBI found that there was a 7 percent rise in reported hate crimes in 2015, driven in large part by a 67 percent rise in reported hate crimes against Muslims. While its volunteer, its hard to get hard stat’s. You still have a lot more hate crime against Muslims n America then by muslims. Additionally the usa killed more civilians in the middle east last month (April) then isis in there bombing, and almost all the guns used in the conflict were supplied to both sides from USA. So yes, Christians and white males commit crimes in the larger numbers and in equal in crimes per capita as muslims. And both commit more crimes per capita that atheist. There have been several genocides Bosnia Serbia was Christian, Russia killing gays is Christian motivated, the new anti-gay laws in several Christian nations, the holocaust was Christian, the child rape crisis in all churches (not just RC), the sexual abuse of ministers is about 30% regardless of faith organization (see spotlight) Also the coverage in media has been completely skewered. Most Americans believe all 4 attacks were by muslims not 3 muslim attacks and 1 christian attack. The last attack got little to no coverage compared to the first 3. Just saying, the bible promotes slavery in old and new testament, and was a justification for slavery in the usa civil war. IT tells rape victims to marry there assaulters. It promotes the killing of non-believers in old and new. You can flip through the web page provided. It has just as many horrible things as torah 3.0. P3 – my claim "Are you referring to Muslims as a race, a religion, a specific organization? Since there is no overriding org, I disagree as your definition." P3.1 - What definition? None was given in the OP. P3.2 – I know right. So im not sure how to answer this completely. P4. – You claim - "The actual question I care about not if something is perceived. I care if something is true." P4.1 you claim - Then why not take a look at Europe, where so-called "refugees" are literally taking over territory. Their tribalism has become so terrible that even emergency services won't enter areas designated as "no-go zones". P4.2 my answer – I do., the claims are false and unsubstantiated and your connection is flawed. P4.2a - Not all countries are having the same problems with crime and violence, just like America is having a problem with black violence citing Chicago. The real issue was income inequality and gender roles. Chicago has a higher unemployment rate, defunding of Planned Parenthood leading to several unwanted pregnancies and the inability to afford proper funding and support of children, lead issues in the water and other economic issues. However those issues in a black area do not mean blacks are fundamentally flawed. There are several minority majority towns where this does not occur. Also in areas of high white unemployment you see the same spike in crime and violence, and even more so with area’s with high lead poisoning. Europe has several areas where integration worked find. However France put all the muslims in one area, gave them no jobs, dependent on the state and made it hard for them to integrate into society or even get full time employment. Even more so, gave them no means to actually get ahead. This was the same in the Serbian Bosnia conflict and Chicago. In places where integration was promoted and opportunity presented it went much better with no significant rise in crime or violence. You can use Canada as an example, the crime rate of immigrants is lower then the norm and the boon to the economy has been demonstrably a benefit. P4.2b – Several places have been reported to be “no go zones” it’s false. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ https://www.buzzfeed.com/ishmaeldaro/ Thank you for your time and parsing the argument. Your questions are more insightful and interesting than most. Hopefully this refines my position and helps you with more information to help you form yours. ps. . . how do you black or bold some text? Side: No
|
