Belgium authorities are getting worried by a series of school arsons believed to be connected to newly mandatory school sessions in some parts of the country.
That’s not what they’re saying. It’s not a problem that their prophet was a pedophile, the problem is that they worship the prophet that was pedophile as a core element of their system of belief
I dont particularly care about being downvoted, but I am interested in this discussion. I understand why it’s happening, I’m asking nuanced questions about a topic people think is open-and-shut. I’m half expecting to be called a pedophile myself at some point. I’m not. I hope we can continue to discuss without thought-terminating cliches. I know even writing this sounds pretentious, but I just don’t want to get side tracked into emotive yelling. So, with that aside.
If a single concept is part of a structure, why does that make all users of a structure compliant with the requirements of that single concept? Or is it only Islam? If only Islam, what makes that ideology different from other religions? Or is it only religion? And if only religion, what makes religion different from other ideological structures such as language, sports, genres of music, literature, video games… or education, preferred software choice, venues … ?
Is that not exactly the same as saying D&D == Devil Worship, Call of Duty == Being A School Shooter? By the same token, isn’t “having a bank account / money” showing support for “preventing children from having chemotherapy” or “evicting babies to be homeless” as both are parts of capitalism, because, as argued here: if one part of the structure is objectionable, and people use that structure they are necessarily in support of all forms and uses of that structure.
Does the pedophilia thing apply to Picasso? If someone from a religion taints that entire religion, what are the boundaries for Picasso’s pedophilia “ruining” art? Is it art only after Picasso thats bad? Is it only paintings? It can’t be “just liking Picasso’s work makes you a pedophile” (which I think is a silly argument, but that is what is being argued here) because otherwise the Mohammed thing wouldn’t populate to other areas of religion, but in this argument it does.
That’s not what they’re saying. It’s not a problem that their prophet was a pedophile, the problem is that they worship the prophet that was pedophile as a core element of their system of belief
I dont particularly care about being downvoted, but I am interested in this discussion. I understand why it’s happening, I’m asking nuanced questions about a topic people think is open-and-shut. I’m half expecting to be called a pedophile myself at some point. I’m not. I hope we can continue to discuss without thought-terminating cliches. I know even writing this sounds pretentious, but I just don’t want to get side tracked into emotive yelling. So, with that aside.
If a single concept is part of a structure, why does that make all users of a structure compliant with the requirements of that single concept? Or is it only Islam? If only Islam, what makes that ideology different from other religions? Or is it only religion? And if only religion, what makes religion different from other ideological structures such as language, sports, genres of music, literature, video games… or education, preferred software choice, venues … ?
Is that not exactly the same as saying D&D == Devil Worship, Call of Duty == Being A School Shooter? By the same token, isn’t “having a bank account / money” showing support for “preventing children from having chemotherapy” or “evicting babies to be homeless” as both are parts of capitalism, because, as argued here: if one part of the structure is objectionable, and people use that structure they are necessarily in support of all forms and uses of that structure.
Does the pedophilia thing apply to Picasso? If someone from a religion taints that entire religion, what are the boundaries for Picasso’s pedophilia “ruining” art? Is it art only after Picasso thats bad? Is it only paintings? It can’t be “just liking Picasso’s work makes you a pedophile” (which I think is a silly argument, but that is what is being argued here) because otherwise the Mohammed thing wouldn’t populate to other areas of religion, but in this argument it does.
Same question with Woody Allen and movies etc