Muslims

[Napoléon]

1.
Yes, you can fight one and not the other.
If you had an ideology that was against African Americans, saying they were unequal, do I wage war on you as a person?
No, but I can certainly degrade your beliefs.

So we ignore ISIS completely and focus on the ideology they practise.

Right. Let's see how far we get with that.

2.
You interpreted me wrong/I used the wrong word.
I am not saying mass killings are ever justifiable, but a mentally unstable person will be more enticed to do something like that if you discriminate against them.

Please quote where I said/endorse 'discriminating against muslims'.

And I re-iterate. Your position is one that, whether you realise it or not, gives the extremists and the bullies exactly what they want. To find out who rules over you, find out who you can't criticise.

If you're afraid of drawing a picture of Muhammad because it might get you killed, and you are placing such responsibility for being killed on the people drawing the picture, then you're the one contributing to the problem.

3.
Maybe I mispoke, I read a post by someone yesterday that was similar to this but explaining that we should outlaw Muslims from entering certain countries out of fear their ideology would lead them to commit heinous acts. If that is not what you are implying, i'm sorry for making assumptions, that's essentially what I was arguing against.

Outlaw is a strong word and I feel it's one you're deliberately using to create a straw man and argue against something people haven't said. Nobody here to my knowledge has said we should "outlaw" muslims from entering certain countries. The only thing I'm advocating is better control of Europe's borders. Currently freedom of movement is something that Islamic terrorists are quite evidently abusing and it's pretty obvious to me how we can combat that.

4.
Just because someone is trying to look at both sides of the argument does not mean you have to instantly call them out and say "MORAL HIGH HORSE MORAL HIGH HORSE" like they are trying to act better than you. I'm not pandering to the "PC-Pussy footing agenda", I am expressing my beliefs, hell yesterday I argued my opinion against 4 other people in disagreement, and was completely in the minority. I'm not trying to appease anyone with my views, I am simply sharing them.

You're not though. That's my point.

And me saying you're on your moral high horse is just me stating what is evident.

I've explained why. I've also explained why you're pandering to the PC-pussy footing agenda.

And whether you argue with a minority opinion or not makes no diference to me, seems blatantly obvious from where I'm sitting that your 'beliefs' are ones that exist to appease yourself. I may be wrong, but hey, I'm calling it.

An ideology does not define a person, I am not stupid enough to believe that.

And again, nobody said it does.

Why do people insist on arguing against shit that isn't even said in the thread? What reason do you have to state this? Besides making yourself feel morally and intellectually superior?

Say i'm on my "moral high horse", go ahead, it really is overused and meaningless unless someone is actually trying to act better than you morally, or the general public, which doesn't apply to me. Just because I have a view, or rather a hope, that humanity can be treated and deserves to be treated equally, does not mean I am trying to appease or pander to anyone whatsoever, or am acting like I am an angel of some sort. So take it as you will.

Don't worry, I did.