Can we call out Christianity's violent hatred towards gays first, please?
In this country, they've attacked far more homosexuals than Muslims, and have furthered violent hatred of gays in other countries, lobbying to make it illegal anywhere they can.

Really?!? So he thinks religious hatred for homosexuals is only held by Muslims? What utter bullshit.

Ask the exact same questions in a Southern Baptist church, you'll get the same 100% hands raised....and not a single one would say they're 'extremists' either.
Pat Robertson just went on TV and said Christians should stand back and let the Muslims kill the homosexuals....he has tens of millions of followers.....that are "Christians".

If you REALLY think what this guy spouts, you MUST be against ALL religion, or you're simply dishonest or totally naïve...or both.

This was some insane bullshit hyperbole. Downvote.

there's kind of this weird rhetoric that i keep noticing that implies that "gays" and "islam" are the same category of thing and can be compared but can't be prioritized because they're somehow equal. they're not.

homosexuality is an inherent quality. there is nothing to critique or change other than our views of it.

islam, however, is just an idea and needs to be treated as such. it absolutely can be critiqued and changed and i would argue this is required.

the tricky part i see is the conflating of "islam" with "muslims" and using the ugliness of islam as justification for mistreatment and ostracizing of muslims. sometimes to the extent of treating them as sub human, most notably in refugee conversations. islam is gross, imo, and should be criticized (fervently) but muslims are still people and need to be treated as such, just as the gay community should. they both have the right to live and have the opportunity to live with some semblance of safety. people deserve compassion. ideas do not.

The ugliness of an idea reflects on the people who hold it. Islam is an utterly abhorrent ideology; it must be correct to say that its followers are in some degree less worthy than those who endorse better ethical systems.

Why do muslims deserve to live safely, to be treated with the dignity afforded to human beings, when they deny the same rights to others? There is such a thing as self-defence.

Hey @newtboy, when was the last time the US government executed someone for the crime of homosexuality?

did you just suggest that muslims are not human?

Do you think people who hold admittedly appalling ideas are exactly as good as people who don't, and have all the same rights?

slippery slope... if you were a chess player and could see a few moves ahead you would scrap this idea before going any further.

they absolutely have the same rights and they absolutely can be as "good" as people who aren't muslim.

and your argument can be easily used against you. you hold admittedly appalling ideas so in your own view you should not be viewed as "good" as people who have less appalling ideas and your rights should be limited. your view is inherently egocentric, relative to the individual, and is exactly the same as extreme religious views on apostasy or racial/cultural supremacy. it's the same childish "us = righteous, them = evil" bullshit that's a major problem with a lot of ideologies, religious or otherwise.

gay sex was illegal in certain states up until 2003. there are still statutes and attempts to keep it illegal in certain states. prior to 1963 it was a felony in every state. not the death penalty but worth noting.

You claim that everyone in the world is exactly as moral as everyone else? That all opinions are identically valid? I don't believe that that you do, just that you fear some terrible trap will be sprung if you simply admit that there is such a thing as right and wrong.

That's not the end of my argument; I'm not going to flounce off singing of my victory if you do - it's just an absolute prerequisite to any discussion of ethics that the participants affirm that one set of values may be preferable to another, and that individuals are in some way accountable for themselves.

This is the affirmation that so many are now afraid to make, because it opens them up to suasion and debate where they were previously so much happier wallowing in sloshy relativism.

literally never claimed anything like this.

You probably don't realise that that's what you said, but it is. After all, it sounds ridiculous when put explicitly.

Nevertheless, that is the undeniable implication of the claim that my negative opinion of others is false because these others may hold a similar opinion about me. It's the condition of the world that everyone thinks themselves righteous. The difference isn't made up by pretending therefore that everyone's the same. A distinction is drawn on a foundation of solid argument.

Here's some more things you've said:

1. Islam is immoral.
2. Muslims are just as good as anybody else.

I'm in a position to correct that contradiction in your thinking, but to do so you'll remember there's an affirmation I need you to make.

it's not what i said, or implied, or intended.

You see why precision of thought is important.

"precision"? like stating a belief system can somehow change your species?

Homo sapiens? Translate those words and try to apply them to a muslim.

i'm going to walk away from this one because you've shown pretty consistently that you have no interest in understanding my point (or even reading what i wrote) or any point that doesn't share your hyperbolic zealotry.

Next.

You spent that entire dialogue pretending he said everyone and all behavior is equally preferable / moral, when he was actually saying that fundamental human rights are fundamental - we don't have freedom of speech because all speech is fantastic, we don't have freedom of religion because all religion is fantastic - we have those rights in spite of shitty speech like yours and in spite of shitty religion. Then you declared victory because you were victorious in not listening to him.

Why do you think that makes anyone the least bit interested in being 'next' to engage you?

I spent that entire dialogue repeatedly asking him to assent to something that is implicitly maintained by literally everyone who holds moral principles of any kind.

What about you, do you think some ideas are better than others?

No, what he said was that everyone in the world can be as moral as anyone else.

Goes back to the old "you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts". You created a point to demolish that never existed and started lambasting someone for making it...

And how is that any different to how hardline extreme Islamists treat others? They assert an opinion as fact (homosexuality is evil) and then form their entire relationship with homosexuals based on that... That is their opinion, it's not a fact, but they don't really care about that now do they?

As Babymech said: "Then you declared victory because you were victorious in not listening to him."

Well that's a stupid thing to believe isn't it?

Do you think a fair sample of members of the KKK will be identically as moral as an equivalent sample of, to pick an organisation entirely at random, Helem?

Do you think some ideas are better than others?

This video has been discarded due to negative votes by members.

You know for someone banging on about "precision of thought" (neckbeard for "I've found a way to twist your words and derail the discussion") I'd expect a little better than this.

Someone said to you that some muslim people can be as good as anyone else and in reply you said "oh, so everyone is EXACTLY as moral as everyone else?" -- What on Earth are you talking about? To whose points are you replying? The other person, or the one you've made up in your head? Precision of thought, mate!

In all but one comment you've made here you have either asked, "Do you think <something>?" or otherwise told them what they've said or thought that bears only an exaggerated approximation of what that person has said.

If you think you're like Russell Crowe facing down a new gladiator each time to the rapture of the crowd -- "NEXT!" -- I can't believe you said that -- well you're not. You are not replying to the person's comments or points - strawman rubbish, that's why people aren't discussing it with you any more.

What, that people have the potential to be good?

Far less stupid than believing you'll pull your head out of your ass anytime soon (which would be a "good idea" for the record ; )

For your next post, you should totally mention Hitler... You've already managed to add the KKK to the conversation, why not go the whole hog? \= )

Not a one of you has made a point to reply to. No discussion is possible on a basis of absolute relativism.

That's why, rather generously, each of my comments has asked some variation of the question that's necessary to BEGIN the conversation.

You know what that question is, either answer it or admit that you're too much of a scared little bitch to consider its implications.

AYN RAND'S WHITE KNIGHT HAS DISPATCHED ANOTHER RELATIVIST FOE!!

NEXT!!

You had your chance.

i regret having taken you seriously as a thinking adult for even a moment. i was wrong and i know that now. i wont make that mistake again. namaste.

Don't feel bad. I made the same mistake.