Net Llama! wrote: > On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Michael Hipp wrote: >>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Michael Hipp wrote: >> I could go on, of course. That's certainly not to say that every >> adherent to or tenet of Islam is "ridiculous", but those particular >> signals seem buried in the noise. > > Or you're pulling out the signals that fit your argument. Making the > radical minority of any group into representitives for the entire group > doesn't lend itself to a strong argument or example.
Your assertion that such are a "radical minority" is an oft-repeated mantra and entirely unproven. This radical minority rules several countries and has strong influence on several others. One of those "radical minority" countries will likely have deliverable nuclear weapons in the next few years. For there to be a "radical minority" implies there also exists a "non-radical majority". I submit there is little evidence of their existence, or, if they do exist that they have somehow been rendered impotent or irrelevant in the face of that radical minority. Whatever the case, it appears they have few reservations about allowing the radical minority to act as "representatives for the entire group". > There are extremist > nutjob factions in nearly every religion, yet we're not claiming that all > the rest are 'pseudo-religions'. The existence of extremist nutjob factions in other groups proves nothing. Linux has them, so what? More questions: - Do these nutjob groups in other world religions commit acts of large-scale violence around the globe? - Do they govern a number of countries? - Do they have nuclear weapons? - Are they the cause of or directly involved in almost every war going on around the globe at this moment? - Do they have (indirect) censorship capability over the media in progressive western countries? - Do they have state support for their extremist nutjob plans? - Have they called for the death of my children and yours (and would the threat be credible if they did)? I call them a 'pseudo-religion' because their aims are almost entirely political and military in nature. >> BTW, I refer to it as a pseudo-religion because it is actually more a >> system of government that (mis) uses religion as a source of legitimacy >> and power. As such it deserves to be condemned along with all the other >> oppressive types of government that have been tried (monarchy, >> communism, nazism, socialism, theocracy, democracy, etc.). > > Sure, but that really has little to do with your original statement. On the contrary. Has everything to do with it. I consider it ridiculous that any thinking person would want to live under communism. Similarly for all the others (if perhaps in varying degrees). > Yea, but that would ruin all the fun. Its far more amusing to watch > people get all bent out of shape over satire, especially when they can't > identify it as such. Yes. But the reason we didn't identify it as such is perhaps because it actually looks so similar to serious stuff written by people all over the political landscape. Whether we could identify it as satire is one thing, that we seemingly had no reason to doubt its authenticity is cause for deeper pondering. Michael _______________________________________________ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
