this discussion probably can't go anywhere if you really believe that islam is an ideology of global domination because the koran says so.
If you'd like to propose an alternative standard for establishing what Islam is, you're welcome to try. But yeah, I doubt you'll be able to get anywhere there without making up a new Islam.
it also can't go anywhere if you're unwilling to entertain the possibility that the decision to massacre an abortion clinic maybe intersects with christianity and the bible at some point.
I'm happy to entertain the possibility. I'm not happy to assume it and take it for granted while the bodies are still warm. We're also discussing Republicans, not Christianity. Sure, they "intersect" to some extent, but the focus is important.
whoops, i almost missed the best part: you're doing the ironic thing right here in this very paragra ph. you're saying that in one corner we have the most violent subset of islam, and in the other corner we have the total population of peaceful adherents and few wackos. why does christianity get to count all of its peaceful adherents in its "corner," but islam's corner is only represented by the most violent folks you could pick out of the whole?
My correction on Christianity vs GOP still stands. I will take the liberty to assume that you'd make the same point anyway. If that's incorrect, ignore the rest of this paragraph. I will also apply a filter to your hyperbole ("Islam's corner is only represented by the most violent folks you could pick out of the whole" becomes "the attention given to mujahideen is undue and unfairly disadvantageous to peaceful self-identifying Muslims") to attempt to fish out some semi-reasonable point there.
To answer your question with the above revisions: The two are fundamentally different in their core tenets. The Koran is the final authority on the tenets of Islam. Conservatism doesn't really have an ultimate authority. One is a religion, and one that's (relative to other religions) not very open to interpretation, while the other is a political stance. The latter is much more flexible, while Islam is largely inseparable from the Koran.
no, but i'm willing to be wrong about things. it's no big deal.
You're doing an extremely bad job of demonstrating that. Just look at your responses to Blanko.
]in this case we're all going a bit overboard since i figured it would obvious that i was being at least somewhat flippant in my assessment that it was literally the most ironic thing to ever happen in the history of everything. it probably wasn't.
It was quite clear [to me] what you were trying to say. That said, I still think you're horribly wrong. There's nothing surprising, controversial, ironic, hypocritical or whatever going on here. As usual, liberals decided to turn a tragedy into their usual "lol Republicans are the biggest terrorist group in America xDDDD" shtick, and Republicans have to defend themselves. How is this ironic? If you think this kind of attempts at saving face are "ironic", then surely the same goes for the accusations?
also, i agree that it's not true that literally every republican wants to murder every muslim alive today or whatever y'all are saying my argument is. i sort of can't believe that i have to point that out, but here we are.
I already said what my understanding of your argument is, and you agreed that I had it [kinda, sorta] right.
it certainly doesn't delineate violent extremists from non-violent extremists like they're doing here with christians.
At this point, it's clear that you're trying to conflate "Republicans", "Christians" and "Planned Parenthood opponents".
Justify this.
almost. i'm comparing muslims with extremist views to christians with extremist views. you're saying it like i'm comparing muslims to republicans.
Well, yes. You linked to a video of a Republican talking about Republicans. You're the only person who mentioned Christianity, and you only mentioned it this late in the discussion. You're making up the contents of a video and then calling your own fantasy ironic. That doesn't strengthen your argument, it weakens it.
here's what i'm saying: both christianity and islam have fundamentalist/extremist subsets.
The sizes and impacts of each subset are absolutely crucial here. Unsurprisingly, you chose to entirely omit that. Once we start seeing vigilante western Christian groups crashing into buildings in Saudi Arabia and blowing themselves up in Turkey trying to kill as many people as they can, I might start taking your point more seriously. Of course, that's never going to happen, because western culture does not rely on the Koran.
religious fundamentalism/extremism does not necessitate belief in violence in either religion. that extremism does not necessitate belief in violence in christianity is a delineation that i do not think he gop is generally willing to apply to islam, even though it's valid. this, to me, is ironic; i would expect someone who makes that delineation once to make it in all cases. it's the opposite of what i expect.
Yeah, I suppose if you ignore a whole lot of reality, that kind of makes sense.