NAP for Groups?

[Erwin]

Does the NAP also apply to collectives, as opposed to only individual people?

Clarification of "collective": What I mean by a collective is a group formed via voluntary association.

 

My Stance: Yes.

My Theory: By choosing who we associate with, we are also choosing to be associated with anyone that the person / entity is known to be associated with. Therefore, by choosing to form / join a collective we are choosing to be at least partially responsible for the consequences of the collective's operations up to - and as of - that point.

Test Case 1: Voluntarily Practicing Islam

By practicing Islam, Muslims are choosing to associate with rapists, murderers, and pedophiles. Given that this case is an obvious violation of the NAP, I would say the evidence supports the theory.

[shirgall]

All universals are universal.

Association is not the initiation of force, however, or even the endorsement of force, so your test case isn't saying much unless the person voluntarily practicing Islam is initiating force.

For example, people that don't leave Democracies are living in a state that endorses the initiation of force on the results of a vote to initiate that force. Does that mean they themselves are initiating or endorsing the initiation of force?

[Erwin]

I don't see how practicing Islam ever involves voluntary actions. 

The example you provide doesn't match the circumstances of my test case. It is possible to stop associating with Islam and - with reasonable security measures - not be killed. You can never choose to not associate with government without being kidnapped or killed. So of course, living under a democracy is not the initiation of force, as force has already been initiated unto you.

[shirgall]

26 minutes ago, Erwin said:

I don't see how practicing Islam ever involves voluntary actions. 

The example you provide doesn't match the circumstances of my test case. It is possible to stop associating with Islam and - with reasonable security measures - not be killed. You can never choose to not associate with government without being kidnapped or killed. So of course, living under a democracy is not the initiation of force, as force has already been initiated unto you.

One could argue that one usually does not have a religion without being indoctrinated before before a mature sense of consent, too, just the same as being a signatory to a social contract before being able to consent.

[Erwin]

Just now, shirgall said:

One could argue that one usually does not have a religion without being indoctrinated before before a mature sense of consent, too, just the same as being a signatory to a social contract before being able to consent.

Which is why I explicitly specified voluntarily practicing Islam. In other words, a situation where someone explicitly chooses to practice it, as opposed to the usual case you describe.

[shirgall]

5 hours ago, Erwin said:

Which is why I explicitly specified voluntarily practicing Islam. In other words, a situation where someone explicitly chooses to practice it, as opposed to the usual case you describe.

But since people pick and choose whatever practices any religion they espouse professes, they don't necessarily initiate force.

[M.2]

Would it not be a better example to take a mid-rank soldier instead, who was drafted into the military, then whose country subsequently declared war on another nation?

Does the soldier violate the NAP as immediate consequence, or just as soon as he kills someone?

I see that the key word is voluntary association, but the state of the soldier can be argued to be voluntary, since even draftees can theoretically get themselves dismissed.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

2 hours ago, shirgall said:

But since people pick and choose whatever practices any religion they espouse professes, they don't necessarily initiate force.

This part's confusing, and the question in general I find interesting.

First; do you mean to say those who adhere to a religion generally do whatever that religion claims to be about? Therefore if religion A is supposed to be a religion of peace, then they generally ignore parts that say "except in this circumstance where violence is justified"? 

Or are you saying a religion that endorses the use of force to spread itself and sustain itself, it's adherents claiming to be members are not necessarily initiating force?

Before answering these two interpretations of what you said, I think I have an answer as to whether groups can violate the NAP in the same sense of individuals;

 

If a person is a thief, then he's a thief. If a group is a group of thieves then they have mutual responsibility for thievery because they're all thieves.

Therefore applied to Islam, those who practice their religion for real(also known as "extremists")  rather than just pretend to can be collectively condemned. However Muslims who do not violate the NAP but merely wear the badge and pretend to be real Muslims are not violating the NAP so long as they aren't, you know, circumcising their children, raping people, etc. etc. 

However to be clear, for a group to have violated the NAP, every individual counted must have. Therefore outliers in any group must be counted out, hence why we call real Muslims "Islamic extremists", the idea being everyone in that group violated the NAP whereas not every self-identifying Muslim has violated the NAP or even really practices actual, orthodox Islam.

This can be extrapolated to pretty much any other scenario, such as black criminals, a group comprised entirely of criminals in order to separated from blacks in general, as not every black commits crimes but black criminals are by definition criminals. 

 

I hope what I'm saying makes sense as a formula. 

 

In regards to voluntary association, I can't say someone proclaiming to be a Muslim by choice (i.e. a 30-something year old convert) is necessarily violating the NAP by association (which mustn't be considered the same as actually doing it) because what they define to be "true Islam" may not be the Koran but some weird New-New-Testament and they decided to just call it "Islam". 

Similar to how not every AltRighter is a Rightist, because some are Leftists who mistake themselves for Rightists (e.g. Fascists and moderate Socialist populists). The bigger the umbrella the more corrupted and less meaningful it winds up being. Not saying umbrellas don't mean anything, I just can't logically blame everyone under it for something only a part of them are unless it's like 99% and the remaining 1& is just some confused crazy person.

 

Edited May 20, 2017 by Siegfried von Walheim
Edited a little for clarity

[Siegfried von Walheim]

7 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Would it not be a better example to take a mid-rank soldier instead, who was drafted into the military, then whose country subsequently declared war on another nation?

Does the soldier violate the NAP as immediate consequence, or just as soon as he kills someone?

I see that the key word is voluntary association, but the state of the soldier can be argued to be voluntary, since even draftees can theoretically get themselves dismissed.

As a guy who found this topic interesting, I'll take a stab at it.

Assuming the soldier was forcibly conscripted, then moral standards no longer apply to him because he's in an amoral situation and robbed of agency by an external force. It's akin to be told to shoot someone while someone else holds a gun to your head; are you really evil for shooting someone when ordered to do so at gunpoint?

If the soldier is a volunteer (i.e. he willingly joined the army) then he has some responsibility to at least know his army's history as an aggressor or non-aggressor. If the army has a history of warmongering then by joining he is indirectly endorsing warmongering and therefore violates the NAP. However if he thought the army was always heroic and a defender, then being told to do evil was a violation against him on the part of the army's command as he didn't sign up to become an instrument for war crimes.

 

[shirgall]

7 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

First; do you mean to say those who adhere to a religion generally do whatever that religion claims to be about? Therefore if religion A is supposed to be a religion of peace, then they generally ignore parts that say "except in this circumstance where violence is justified"? 

Or are you saying a religion that endorses the use of force to spread itself and sustain itself, it's adherents claiming to be members are not necessarily initiating force?

Before answering these two interpretations of what you said, I think I have an answer as to whether groups can violate the NAP in the same sense of individuals;

If a person is a thief, then he's a thief. If a group is a group of thieves then they have mutual responsibility for thievery because they're all thieves.

Therefore applied to Islam, those who practice their religion for real(also known as "extremists")  rather than just pretend to can be collectively condemned. However Muslims who do not violate the NAP but merely wear the badge and pretend to be real Muslims are not violating the NAP so long as they aren't, you know, circumcising their children, raping people, etc. etc. 

However to be clear, for a group to have violated the NAP, every individual counted must have. Therefore outliers in any group must be counted out, hence why we call real Muslims "Islamic extremists", the idea being everyone in that group violated the NAP whereas not every self-identifying Muslim has violated the NAP or even really practices actual, orthodox Islam.

This can be extrapolated to pretty much any other scenario, such as black criminals, a group comprised entirely of criminals in order to separated from blacks in general, as not every black commits crimes but black criminals are by definition criminals. 

 

I hope what I'm saying makes sense as a formula. 

 

In regards to voluntary association, I can't say someone proclaiming to be a Muslim by choice (i.e. a 30-something year old convert) is necessarily violating the NAP by association (which mustn't be considered the same as actually doing it) because what they define to be "true Islam" may not be the Koran but some weird New-New-Testament and they decided to just call it "Islam". 

Similar to how not every AltRighter is a Rightist, because some are Leftists who mistake themselves for Rightists (e.g. Fascists and moderate Socialist populists). The bigger the umbrella the more corrupted and less meaningful it winds up being. Not saying umbrellas don't mean anything, I just can't logically blame everyone under it for something only a part of them are unless it's like 99% and the remaining 1& is just some confused crazy person.

 

I'm saying people pick and choose what parts of religions they follow. You have to judge people by their actions. It doesn't help that there are contradictions in all the established religions on top of it, otherwise there wouldn't be sects. I can be skeptical of someone that claims to be a member of a religion, but I don't generally discount them until I hear what they think about it.

There *are* situations where membership in a group can be initiation of force, for example staying in a demonstration that turns violent rather than leaving even if not directly being violent, like antifa hiding the violent members in their generally anonymous ranks. That's voluntary association with a group that's being violent right then and there. i can even extend this to a group that is deliberately intimidating, threatening or inciting violence. Membership in a religion is so ephemeral and distant in comparison that I cannot damn 90%+ of the world for vague association.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

1 minute ago, shirgall said:

I'm saying people pick and choose what parts of religions they follow. You have to judge people by their actions. It doesn't help that there are contradictions in all the established religions on top of it, otherwise there wouldn't be sects. I can be skeptical of someone that claims to be a member of a religion, but I don't generally discount them until I hear what they think about it.

There *are* situations where membership in a group can be initiation of force, for example staying in a demonstration that turns violent rather than leaving even if not directly being violent, like antifa hiding the violent members in their generally anonymous ranks. That's voluntary association with a group that's being violent right then and there. i can even extend this to a group that is deliberately intimidating, threatening or inciting violence. Membership in a religion is so ephemeral and distant in comparison that I cannot damn 90%+ of the world for vague association.

Yeah, that's pretty much where I am with it. 

I suppose I forgot to mention groups that may not have a majority of violent adherents but tend to often hide or purposely ignore its violent members. Antifa would be a good example, while ISIS would be the perfect example of a group that can be collectively condemned as anti-NAP because their whole mission statement is "bring back the Caliphate, Boss Man is the new Sultan, and let's Make Arabia Dark Aged Again!" .

[Erwin]

7 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Would it not be a better example to take a mid-rank soldier instead, who was drafted into the military, then whose country subsequently declared war on another nation?

Does the soldier violate the NAP as immediate consequence, or just as soon as he kills someone?

I see that the key word is voluntary association, but the state of the soldier can be argued to be voluntary, since even draftees can theoretically get themselves dismissed.

Soldiers are recruited because they are paid other people's taxes. Anti-NAP right off the bat.

For the sake of argument, let's suppose the funds were somehow earned voluntarily. It would depend on whether or not the military in question had a history of coercive behavior.

An example of such a military force is BlackWater (or wtv name they go by now). Ignoring the government contracts, I would say their history of violence is purely defensive.

[Erwin]

 

10 hours ago, shirgall said:

But since people pick and choose whatever practices any religion they espouse professes, they don't necessarily initiate force.

If they get to cherry pick their practices, are they really practicing that religion? I think not, based on the same rationale as the pro-life argument.

Let x = the number of Muslim practices; at what point from 0 to x are you then considered Muslim? Of course, there is no way to come at such a number. Therefore, if a so-called Muslim fails to initiate force, then why call it a Muslim?

[Erwin]

8 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

However Muslims who do not violate the NAP but merely wear the badge and pretend to be real Muslims are not violating the NAP so long as they aren't, you know, circumcising their children, raping people, etc. etc.

I disagree with the premise that it is possible to be Muslim and NAP-compliant (see my previous post for justification).

However, I think even calling oneself Muslim is anti-NAP in itself. It is impossible to publicly denominate yourself as part of a voluntary group, without necessarily implying that the group is good or ethical (otherwise why did you join it?). Doing so to Islam, has the effect of normalizing Muslim practices, and normalizing anti-NAP behavior is anti-NAP.

[M.2]

I'll take your reply to my previous question, Erwin..

However I am still trying to get your logic.

- So you are saying that since Islam, or at least the founder of Islam, speaks and acts violence and violates the NAP, all muslims by default violate the NAP?

- Further testing... Suppose I am a proud communist, and I support everthing the USSR ever did, but have never actually harmed anybody. Would you have the right to punch me on the street, since I have already violated the NAP?

- I also noticed that you changed vocabulary a bit. First you said "violation of NAP", then you switched to anti-NAP. Is there a difference?

[Erwin]

2 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

- So you are saying that since Islam, or at least the founder of Islam, speaks and acts violence and violates the NAP, all muslims by default violate the NAP?

Correct. It is impossible to be both Muslim and NAP-compliant, because:

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

If they get to cherry pick their practices, are they really practicing that religion? I think not, based on the same rationale as the pro-life argument.

Let x = the number of Muslim practices; at what point from 0 to x are you then considered Muslim? Of course, there is no way to come at such a number. Therefore, if a so-called Muslim fails to initiate force, then why call it a Muslim?

____________________________________

6 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Further testing... Suppose I am a proud communist, and I support everthing the USSR ever did, but have never actually harmed anybody. Would you have the right to punch me on the street, since I have already violated the NAP?

Punching someone on the street is never NAP-compliant, unless that is the amount of force required to save yourself from an aggressor.

Moreover, I don't think beliefs can ever be immoral unless acted on. Communism when practiced is nothing more than theft + mafia-style virtue signaling because they help the poor. Is it immoral to defend yourself against the mafia? I don't think so.

12 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

I also noticed that you changed vocabulary a bit. First you said "violation of NAP", then you switched to anti-NAP. Is there a difference?

In this context, I am referring to the same thing.

[M.2]

3 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Punching someone on the street is never NAP-compliant, unless that is the amount of force required to save yourself from an aggressor.

Moreover, I don't think beliefs can ever be immoral unless acted on. Communism when practiced is nothing more than theft + mafia-style virtue signaling because they help the poor. Is it immoral to defend yourself against the mafia? I don't think so.

So they are violators of the NAP, but they are not aggressors? Would it not be completely fine to nuke all the violators, or what do you suggest?

Ok, I can comprehend the opinion that ideas cannot be immoral without action.

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

Correct. It is impossible to be both Muslim and NAP-compliant, because:

If they get to cherry pick their practices, are they really practicing that religion? I think not, based on the same rationale as the pro-life argument.

Let x = the number of Muslim practices; at what point from 0 to x are you then considered Muslim? Of course, there is no way to come at such a number. Therefore, if a so-called Muslim fails to initiate force, then why call it a Muslim?

Actually (being the know-it-all nerd here), Islam is very much in effect a cherry-picking religion, much like protestantism, hinduism and buddhism. The only doctrinally centralised religions in the world are Catholicism, Orthodoxy and arguably Mormonism).

[Erwin]

3 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Islam is very much in effect a cherry-picking religion

According to one famous Imam:

*on the subject of having an opinion that is not related to the Quran*

"If it supports the Quran, we don't need it. If it refutes the Quran, we don't want it. If it does neither, why have it?"

In any case, that begs the question: if Muslim tenets do not define what is a Muslim, then what is a Muslim?

[M.2]

6 minutes ago, Erwin said:

According to one famous Imam:

*on the subject of having an opinion that is not related to the Quran*

"If it supports the Quran, we don't need it. If it refutes the Quran, we don't want it. If it does neither, why have it?"

In any case, that begs the question: if Muslim tenets do not define what is a Muslim, then what is a Muslim?

That's the thing. It is just one famous imam. Where is the Pope of Islam? Oh right, it was the great Sultan, who died along with the Ottoman Empire.
The very first thing that occurred after the death of Muhammad was a great scism. Even muslims cannot agree on who is muslim and who isn't.

I think you didn't notice a question of mine:

19 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

So they are violators of the NAP, but they are not aggressors? Would it not be completely fine to nuke all the violators, or what do you suggest?

 

[Erwin]

2 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Even muslims cannot agree on who is muslim and who isn't.

Which brings us back to our previous question, why call themselves Muslim if they don't know what it means?

In fact, it is grossly negligent to denominate yourself in a certain way without considering the practices that denomination is associated with, because:

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

calling oneself Muslim is anti-NAP in itself. It is impossible to publicly denominate yourself as part of a voluntary group, without necessarily implying that the group is good or ethical (otherwise why did you join it?). Doing so to Islam, has the effect of normalizing Muslim practices, and normalizing anti-NAP behavior is anti-NAP.

___________________________________

38 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

So they are violators of the NAP, but they are not aggressors? Would it not be completely fine to nuke all the violators, or what do you suggest?

Sorry, I thought it was rhetorical.

Who are you referring to by "they"?

[M.2]

6 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Which brings us back to our previous question, why call themselves Muslim if they don't know what it means?

In fact, it is grossly negligent to denominate yourself in a certain way without considering the practices that denomination is associated with, because:

___________________________________

Sorry, I thought it was rhetorical.

Who are you referring to by "they"?

It is a shame that your base example was about Islam, because even much smarter people than either of us cannot define Islam. This was why I was trying to shove in another case to discuss.

"They" is the communist/soviet/USSR sympathiser. Or a muslim. Whichever.

[shirgall]

4 hours ago, Erwin said:

 

If they get to cherry pick their practices, are they really practicing that religion? I think not, based on the same rationale as the pro-life argument.

Let x = the number of Muslim practices; at what point from 0 to x are you then considered Muslim? Of course, there is no way to come at such a number. Therefore, if a so-called Muslim fails to initiate force, then why call it a Muslim?

I've never encountered a religious person that didn't cherry-pick their practices, primarily because of mutually-exclusive restrictions and countervailing "teachings". What I respect is values and people that follow them.

[Erwin]

23 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

It is a shame that your base example was about Islam, because even much smarter people than either of us cannot define Islam.

With that logic, then how can we define anything?

32 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

"They" is the communist/soviet/USSR sympathiser. Or a muslim. Whichever.

If they are a credible threat, and such a big threat that the minimal force required to defend yourself is nukes, then sure. But that would never be the case tho.

[M.2]

21 minutes ago, Erwin said:

With that logic, then how can we define anything?

If they are a credible threat, and such a big threat that the minimal force required to defend yourself is nukes, then sure. But that would never be the case tho.

Catholicism, Orthodoxy, perhaps Mormonism can be defined objectively, since these are doctrinally centralised. The same does not apply to other religions. We can and we do discuss it, but no, Islam cannot be defined objectively.
If you are willing to go with the idea that Islam is exactly solely what Muhammad said and did, then I think you won't run into many disagreements. (Emphasis on the "not many")

 

I will be living in France for the next year, and in Belgium for the following few. Should I consider every muslim there an aggressor to the NAP and beat them senseless with a bat or not? Belgian and French muslims are notorious for harbouring terrorists, and my brother studies in Brussels where some terror attacks occurred, so it is pretty personal to me. I guess I could use nukes because they already escalated to bombs.
I will take the liberty to assume that you will say it depends on the situation, but here is my problem really:
What do we do with NAP aggressors? Do we simply sit back and make a cognitively refined assessment over a group, or do we have the right to act aggressively upon the assessment?

[Eudaimonic]

On 5/19/2017 at 0:23 PM, Erwin said:

Does the NAP also apply to collectives, as opposed to only individual people?

Clarification of "collective": What I mean by a collective is a group formed via voluntary association.

 

My Stance: Yes.

My Theory: By choosing who we associate with, we are also choosing to be associated with anyone that the person / entity is known to be associated with. Therefore, by choosing to form / join a collective we are choosing to be at least partially responsible for the consequences of the collective's operations up to - and as of - that point.

Test Case 1: Voluntarily Practicing Islam

By practicing Islam, Muslims are choosing to associate with rapists, murderers, and pedophiles. Given that this case is an obvious violation of the NAP, I would say the evidence supports the theory.

Only individuals exist, you can't apply a moral concept to a non-entity.

This is like asking: NAP for Smurfs?

[Erwin]

5 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Catholicism, Orthodoxy, perhaps Mormonism can be defined objectively, since these are doctrinally centralised.

What do you mean by doctrinally centralised?

6 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Should I consider every muslim there an aggressor to the NAP and beat them senseless with a bat or not?

That's not how the NAP works. Violence is only justified as self-defense against coercion. Immoral association is not coercion unto you personally, it's just that: immoral. At most, the only NAP-compliant response to your example would be to refuse to associate with muslims, so as to not promote or normalize Islam. It sounds to me like your argument is the ole' "Not all [Enter Anything] are like that".  Which is bizarre considering I don't see how it fits with your first argument that Muslims don't know what Muslims are.

So to summarize, Muslims call themselves Muslims, yet they disagree on who are Muslims and they don't know what Muslims are, but not all Muslims are like that. 

[Erwin]

20 minutes ago, Eudaimonic said:

Only individuals exist, you can't apply a moral concept to a non-entity.

Would you agree that entity = that which has agency?

[Eudaimonic]

5 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Would you agree that entity = that which has agency?

Depends on how you define agency.

[Erwin]

Just now, Eudaimonic said:

Depends on how you define agency.

the capacity of an actor to act in a given environment

[M.2]

3 minutes ago, Erwin said:

What do you mean by doctrinally centralised?

That's not how the NAP works. Violence is only justified as self-defense against coercion. Immoral association is not coercion unto you personally, it's just that: immoral. At most, the only NAP-compliant response to your example would be to refuse to associate with muslims, so as to not promote or normalize Islam. It sounds to me like your argument is the ole' "Not all [Enter Anything] are like that".  Which is bizarre considering I don't see how it fits with your first argument that Muslims don't know what Muslims are.

So to summarize, Muslims call themselves Muslims, yet they disagree on who are Muslims and they don't know what Muslims are, but not all Muslims are like that. 

Doctrinally centralised means that there is a single set of doctrine that everyone who claims to belong to that faith obseves.

Ah, I think I see where we are speaking past each other. So my understanding of what you say is that someone who does not abide by the NAP, and anyone associated with them, has committed aggression towards me, thus giving me the right to act aggressively towards them. So tell me where I am wrong.

Actually I was not making the "not all muslims argument". I was merely trying to see how your arguments work in practice. You seem to throw muslims (whatever they are) in the same basket.

You got that last part down pretty well. Pretty much the reason why I could never call myself a muslim.

[Eudaimonic]

11 minutes ago, Erwin said:

the capacity of an actor to act in a given environment

I would say that's a possible quality of an entity, but that an entity can not be an actor just as well.

An entity as I define it is simple an independent existent with identity. That includes inanimate, animate, live or dead, acting or not. Rocks, trees and humans are all entities.

[Erwin]

4 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Doctrinally centralised means that there is a single set of doctrine that everyone who claims to belong to that faith obseves.

I see. Are you treating "Peaceful Islam" as a separate set of doctrine? If so, I would disagree there on the basis that "Peaceful Islam" is a rejection of violent practices, and by definition, not a doctrine at all. That leaves every other type of Islam, the least radical of which is Shia Islam and they're still pretty brutal.

10 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

So my understanding of what you say is that someone who does not abide by the NAP, and anyone associated with them, has committed aggression towards me

Not necessarily toward you. Towards whoever is being aggressed.

For example, a Soviet citizen has every justification to revolt even violently against the USSR, because that Soviet was being aggressed. But if Stalin were to walk down the block, I don't get to just punch him. However, it would be horrible of me to associate with Stalin. Let's say Stalin wants to eat at my restaurant, I would be helping to keep a mass murderer alive (which helps him continue mass murder). 

17 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

You seem to throw muslims (whatever they are) in the same basket.

No, I fully recognize that there are those who call themselves Muslim, but don't really practice it. I'm just saying that even identifying with it is immoral.

[Erwin]

7 minutes ago, Eudaimonic said:

I would say that's a possible quality of an entity, but that an entity can not be an actor just as well.

An entity as I define it is simple an independent existent with identity. That includes inanimate, animate, live or dead, acting or not. Rocks, trees and humans are all entities.

Ok, thank you. So to come back to what you said:

56 minutes ago, Eudaimonic said:

Only individuals exist, you can't apply a moral concept to a non-entity.

Given the definition we've agreed on, collectives are entities, given that they exist and have identity. Am I missing something?

[M.2]

3 minutes ago, Erwin said:

- I see. Are you treating "Peaceful Islam" as a separate set of doctrine? If so, I would disagree there on the basis that "Peaceful Islam" is a rejection of violent practices, and by definition, not a doctrine at all. That leaves every other type of Islam, the least radical of which is Shia Islam and they're still pretty brutal.

- Not necessarily toward you. Towards whoever is being aggressed.

- For example, a Soviet citizen has every justification to revolt even violently against the USSR, because that Soviet was being aggressed. But if Stalin were to walk down the block, I don't get to just punch him. However, it would be horrible of me to associate with Stalin. Let's say Stalin wants to eat at my restaurant, I would be helping to keep a mass murderer alive (which helps him continue mass murder). 

- No, I fully recognize that there are those who call themselves Muslim, but don't really practice it. I'm just saying that even identifying with it is immoral.

- Ok, something we agree on. Quite frankly, I don't give two ships about the millions of sects within Islam. I think they all should leave their barbaric culture and join the west.

- Right. Now tell me. Did ALL the muslims in Belgium aggress towards by brother by associating with the terrorists? And does he now have the right to nuke them?

- I completely lost you on this point. So Stalin has associated himself with people who tried to conquer and enslave the entire western world by force, and you wouldn't even punch him? 

- I got the part that it is immoral. Do I get to do something about it, or do I tolerate it like you would tolerate Stalin? I would think that I have the moral obligation to put an end to everything immoral.

I am profoundly enjoying this conversation, and I really appreciate your arguments. Please do not misunderstand my tone, be it a bit snarky.

[Erwin]

3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Did ALL the muslims in Belgium aggress towards by brother by associating with the terrorists?

All Muslims ever. At minimum, they implicitly promote aggression against your brother. At worst, they were the perpetrators.

3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I completely lost you on this point. So Stalin has associated himself with people who tried to conquer and enslave the entire western world by force, and you wouldn't even punch him? 

Actually, when you put it in those terms, I'll amend what I said.

I wouldn't punch him if I were in a country with a low probability of being invaded by him. That's assault.

3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I got the part that it is immoral. Do I get to do something about it, or do I tolerate it like you would tolerate Stalin? I would think that I have the moral obligation to put an end to everything immoral.

Well of course, we can do something about it. Send them back to the Sahara.

3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I am profoundly enjoying this conversation, and I really appreciate your arguments. Please do not misunderstand my tone, be it a bit snarky.

Likewise