Posted: Jul 15, 2015 2:14 pm
by Nicko
Peter Brown wrote:my logic once more


Looks like I get to explain why it's not logic once more.

Peter Brown wrote:If the Qur'an is a book of currently criminal ideas in some countries then people who practice those criminal activites should face the judge.


Straight from the start, you dive headlong into the piss-filled swimming pool of deceit. Again.

Note the bolded. Ideas are not actions. Yet you conflate the two. Immediately.

There are plenty of ideas in the Bible that would be illegal if acted out. Try stoning your child to death for disobedience - not merely permitted, but required of the faithful by the OT - and see what the cops have to say about that.

As a society, we do not punish people for having bad ideas. We punish people for doing bad things.

There is no one in this thread saying that Muslims who break the law should not be prosecuted. No. One.

What people are saying is that a group should not be collectively punished for the actions of a minority of its members. Because to do so would be corrosive to the principles of civilised justice - and thereby be destructive of the secular, democratic values that make Western society worth defending in the first place - while strengthening the extremist camp that you falsely believe yourself to be opposing.

Peter Brown wrote:If a criminal organisation meet in a hall to promote criminal ventures, then they should be denied access to that hall.


Of course. If an Al Qaeda cell or some ISIS recruiters want to hold public meetings, that sounds like the perfect time to arrest some criminals. Go for it.

In order for your "logic" to work here, however, you need to actually demonstrate that Muslims as a whole are a "criminal group". Something you have so far failed to do, rendering this point of yours a non sequitur. By which I mean, this point - from which all your other points flow - is logically unconnected to your first point.

Which was - as I pointed out - bullshit anyway.

Peter Brown wrote:Calling your criminal organisation a religion, or hiding behind hangalongs is not nor ever should be an excuse to evade justice if you break the law or promote breaking the law of the land.


True. But see my response above. There are actual legal standards that apply in order to declare a group of people a "criminal organisation". Being an organisation for starters, which - as everyone in this thread who's not utterly ignorant is already aware - Islam is not.

Peter Brown wrote:People who support criminal organisations and don't wish them to face the judge for breaking the law are as guilty as the criminal; they are aiding and abetting crimes o take place.


Again with the conflation of ideas and actions.

No, someone who agrees with a criminal and hopes they don't get punished is not "aiding and abetting". This is due to the technicality that for someone to be guilty of "aiding and abetting" they need to actually aid and abet. Not just think thoughts, or speak words. Because that would be fucking magic.

And again with the completely unsupported assertion that Islam as a whole qualifies as a criminal organisation.

Peter Brown wrote:Calling someone a criminal if they invite others to break the law with them is not being a bigit or a strawman or a true scotsman.


No, such problems do however start to creep in when one accuses all members of a group of committing such acts when only a minority do. Which is what you've done.

Peter Brown wrote:Stating what the religion tells the follower because it is a book is not a true Scotsman fallacy, it is just a plain simple reality that the book they believe is from Allah is telling them to do crimes.


Just as the Bible requires believers to perform actions that would be crimes if Christians actually did them.

Peter Brown wrote:Pretending that it wasn’t is aiding and abetting the crimes to carry on.


Again. You are clearly labouring under a fundamental misapprehension of what "aiding and abetting" means. Educate yourself.

Peter Brown wrote:Why do some Muslims not follow the Qur'an as writen? Maybe they fear the punishment of man more than that of Allah, the whole bedrock of Islam is the fear of Allah has to be greater than the fear of men.


Same reason that Christians generally don't stone people to death for collecting sticks on the Sabbath.

Most of them aren't psychopaths. They don't want to do psychopathic things. They therefore interpret their religion in a way that allows them to not behave like psychopaths.

Why is this such a difficult concept for you to wrap your brain around?