NAP for Groups?

[M.2]

10 hours ago, Erwin said:

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

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

Right then.
Even though I do not agree with your logic on an intellectual level, your logic is completely sound when applied in real life. People in Europe, from Ireland to Russia, we are all very afraid of all muslims. And those of us that are smart, Poland and Hungary, we do not want to see any muslims in our countries, no matter what kind of Muslims they claim to be.

The same applies the other way around. People in the middle-east and affrica, whose homes have been bombed by american drones, do not care what kind of westerner you are. As long as you look western, you are the enemy. 

This is sad, but it is how we evolved.

[Eudaimonic]

15 hours ago, Erwin said:

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

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

Collective neither exist not are individuals.

A forest doesn't exist, only individual trees. You can't abstract the collective from individuals. 

[Erwin]

5 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Even though I do not agree with your logic on an intellectual level, your logic is completely sound when applied in real life. People in Europe, from Ireland to Russia, we are all very afraid of all muslims. And those of us that are smart, Poland and Hungary, we do not want to see any muslims in our countries, no matter what kind of Muslims they claim to be.

I'm not sure what you mean by "on an intellectual level". How do you reconcile intellectual agreement with practical agreement? If there is agreement in practice, shouldn't your theory be revised to more accurately model practical evidence?

The way I see it, no one gets to sign a contract, and say "well hey... I know I signed, but I'm really a moderate! I don't recognize clause IV, and I didn't mean to pay $500 per month literally". Yet we tolerate this line of reasoning for Muslims. Why? 

[M.2]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "on an intellectual level". How do you reconcile intellectual agreement with practical agreement? If there is agreement in practice, shouldn't your theory be revised to more accurately model practical evidence?

The way I see it, no one gets to sign a contract, and say "well hey... I know I signed, but I'm really a moderate! I don't recognize clause IV, and I didn't mean to pay $500 per month literally". Yet we tolerate this line of reasoning for Muslims. Why? 

There is theory, and then there is practice. There are ideals, and then there are facts.

I don't think it is reasonable to consider ALL muslims having violated the NAP, not even if MOST muslims have. There are muslims who are still children, muslims who could be killed for apostacy, muslims who just haven't been presented with reason and evidence yet.

All that said, I do feel a deep hatred for everyone that calls themselves muslim, because I FEEL (emphasis here) like they have violated the NAP against me, giving me the right to retaliate.

Making sense?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

7 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

There is theory, and then there is practice. There are ideals, and then there are facts. I don't think it is logical to consider ALL muslims having violated the NAP, not even if MOST muslims have. There are muslims who are still children, muslims who could be killed for apostacy, muslims who just haven't been presented with reason and evidence yet.

All that said, I do feel a deep hatred for everyone that calls themselves muslim, because I FEEL (emphasis here) like they have violated the NAP against me, giving me the right to retaliate.

Making sense?

Makes perfect sense to me. Especially when you consider Muslim children will eventually become Muslims adults who'll violate our moral values and breed more NAP violators, to put it vaguely.

I want to revise what I said about groups and collective blame somewhat because I do think groups ought to be held collectively responsible if everyone participated in the action, however I now think that members of a group who may not have actively participated in a crime also should suffer condemnation (and whatever punishment is appropriate) because they're at least enabling it with silence or worse still creating it through private actions.

In the case of Muslims, I feel all right (again 'feel') saying "I want no Muslims nor people with an Islamic heritage" in my country or living space because even if there's a chance I "get lucky" with a fake Muslim, it is far more likely I'll either be neighbors with actual Muslims and those who'd foster it. 

Therefore, on the broader subject of collective judgements, while they not be philosophically 100% valid (they're about as valid as the percentage of danger presented by the group's dangerous members, so to figure) they are practically valid because exceptions do not make the rule, and if there is a group with a very high rate of criminality it's perfectly reasonable to want them gone and far away, even if there is a risk of abandoning the "good ones" because they are exceptions liable to create more of the rule themselves.

Plus, it's just a lot safer and a lot more efficient to make decisions about collectives based on them collectively. 

[Erwin]

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I don't think it is reasonable to consider ALL muslims having violated the NAP, not even if MOST muslims have. There are muslims who are still children, muslims who could be killed for apostacy, muslims who just haven't been presented with reason and evidence yet.

Actually, you're right and we're in agreement here. Poor choice of words on my part. I neglected to specify ""all muslims who joined voluntarily" (which is what the original example is about).

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

All that said, I do feel a deep hatred for everyone that calls themselves muslim, because I FEEL (emphasis here) like they have violated the NAP against me, giving me the right to retaliate.

Making sense?

Of course. In-group preference is perfectly natural.

[Mister Mister]

Associating with criminals is one thing.

Aiding and abetting and helping cover up their crimes makes you an accomplice.

But we already have laws for that

[RichardY]

I think a problem is a herd mentality that can take over like some kind of Mexican wave or a phantom traffic jam caused by following too close behind then braking with a following cascade effect. One action by a person can balloon into something much larger, like the "Hillsborough Disaster". Carl Jung referred to the actions of collective organisations and the individual in "The Undiscovered Self".

Stefan mentioned recently about standing in front of the crowd and telling them to "stand down". Or you could stand back and watch people get crushed to death like the MGTOW.