Individuals vs Group

[Gopher Gary]

Any group that has a prohibition against bacon has some serious issues

It's the candy bar of meats. 

[odeon]

This is not humanity's finest hour.

When has humanity had a good hour, exactly? 

I think we had a couple of minutes around 1981 or so.

[odeon]

I can not imagine a single group that will have no absurd and violent members.

Islam specifically encourages it though.

Really? I notice how you've still not replied to my earlier post, so would you mind addressing both this and that earlier one?

[odeon]

I can not imagine a single group that will have no absurd and violent members.

Certainly not, but if groups actually want to be disassociated from their own vigilante terrorists, then the leaders of those groups have to do something about it, other than simply saying, we do not support... because that's seldom easy to believe.

And who are the leaders, in this case?

[odeon]

I can not imagine a single group that will have no absurd and violent members.

Islam specifically encourages it though.

Really? I notice how you've still not replied to my earlier post, so would you mind addressing both this and that earlier one?

I know I shouldn't be replying to my own thread, but please reply using your own words rather than a video.

[Jack]

I can not imagine a single group that will have no absurd and violent members.

Certainly not, but if groups actually want to be disassociated from their own vigilante terrorists, then the leaders of those groups have to do something about it, other than simply saying, we do not support... because that's seldom easy to believe.

And who are the leaders, in this case?

The 'organizations' making official public statements, in your original post.

[Arya Quinn]

Oxford University Debate on Islam

An Oxford University debate on Islam, without Christopher Hitchens, isn't a real Oxford University debate.   

Christopher Hitchens is dead you fool. 

[odeon]

I can not imagine a single group that will have no absurd and violent members.

Certainly not, but if groups actually want to be disassociated from their own vigilante terrorists, then the leaders of those groups have to do something about it, other than simply saying, we do not support... because that's seldom easy to believe.

And who are the leaders, in this case?

The 'organizations' making official public statements, in your original post.

So, following your logic, if this had been the good ole middle ages, the local priests in Sweden and England should have done something about the Spanish Inquisition?

[odeon]

Apparently Charlie Hebdo is about to publish a new issue. One million copies.

They are going to include new caricatures of Mohammad, too. Brave.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

I can not imagine a single group that will have no absurd and violent members.

Islam specifically encourages it though.

Really? I notice how you've still not replied to my earlier post, so would you mind addressing both this and that earlier one?

After reading it, I came to the conclusion that it's one of 2 things.  1) a piece of deloberate sophistry you posted as a test to see how much of it I could refute.  or  2) something I said triggered your psychological defense mechanisms and it's always a waste of time to argue with a persons defense mechanisms.

Either way, I see nothing to be gained by responding. By defending religious psychopathy, you've bet on the wrong horse. It's that simple.

[Jack]

I can not imagine a single group that will have no absurd and violent members.

Certainly not, but if groups actually want to be disassociated from their own vigilante terrorists, then the leaders of those groups have to do something about it, other than simply saying, we do not support... because that's seldom easy to believe.

And who are the leaders, in this case?

The 'organizations' making official public statements, in your original post.

So, following your logic, if this had been the good ole middle ages, the local priests in Sweden and England should have done something about the Spanish Inquisition?

Didn't realize that's what was being discussed, but sure why not, the queen led it, while the pope initially tried to stop it and then changed his mind. They were both influential and causational, but this isn't a situation of the Church being in a position of apposing a ruling government, so difficult to compare. The government isn't trying to prevent the Islamic church from taking a stand against their own extremist folowers. People in positions of power are the only ones with the power to do anything, except for maybe the general public turning vigilante and rioting in the streets. If organizational leaders aren't willing to lead organizations in the direction they publicly claim to be leading them, then it's left to the public to determine if what's being said is actually what's being done.

[Gopher Gary]

Didn't realize that's what was being discussed, but sure why not, the queen led it, while the pope initially tried to stop it and then changed his mind. They were both influential and causational, but this isn't a situation of the Church being in a position of apposing a ruling government, so difficult to compare. The government isn't trying to prevent the Islamic church from taking a stand against their own extremist folowers. People in positions of power are the only ones with the power to do anything, except for maybe the general public turning vigilante and rioting in the streets. If organizational leaders aren't willing to lead organizations in the direction they publicly claim to be leading them, then it's left to the public to determine if what's being said is actually what's being done.

Let it go, Jack.  The PC response is the only response ever acceptable in this type of conversation. *wrings hands* Oh my, what a tradgedy, two wrongs don't make a right, how equally horrible for both sides. *cowers and hides from it all* You know that's all you're going to do anyway, so there's no real point in having an opinion for or against either side of the situation, sucker. 

[Jack]

What has the world and society come to?

[Parts]

I can not imagine a single group that will have no absurd and violent members.

Certainly not, but if groups actually want to be disassociated from their own vigilante terrorists, then the leaders of those groups have to do something about it, other than simply saying, we do not support... because that's seldom easy to believe.

And who are the leaders, in this case?

The 'organizations' making official public statements, in your original post.

So, following your logic, if this had been the good ole middle ages, the local priests in Sweden and England should have done something about the Spanish Inquisition?

Given the state of communications and travel in that time period I would say that is not a very good example
Also the human rights aspect was not even though of yet back then to any extent.  Comparing different time periods in this way is almost  always flawed by the differences in culture between them 

[Jack]

Given the state of communications and travel in that time period I would say that is not a very good example
Also the human rights aspect was not even though of yet back then to any extent.  Comparing different time periods in this way is almost  always flawed by the differences in culture between them 

Meh, nothing wrong with changing the subject, but don't see this as a situation of crimes of church leaders inspired by the government, or lower level church leaders possibly doing something about the atrocities of higher level church leaders. It's about shepherds leading their own sheep.