...
Ok man, not meaning to offend you here but can you give me your opinion as a Muslim. If Islam is such a normal religion and not at fault for the terrorist attacks, why is it then that mostly Muslims nowadays conduct these attacks. In fact maybe almost all of the religious terrorism in the world is done by Islam fundamentalists. Why does no other religion do this, but Islam does?
Misattribution, I hate that. Let me point out the fallacies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). For example: "This wheel is made of rubber, therefore the vehicle to which it is a part is also made of rubber." This is clearly fallacious, because vehicles are often made with a variety of parts, many of which may not be made of rubber.
This fallacy is often confused with the fallacy of hasty generalization, in which an unwarranted inference is made from a statement about a sample to a statement about the population from which it is drawn.
Which leads into the second fallacy, they truly roll deep, so to speak.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization
Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidenceessentially making a rushed conclusion without considering all of the variables. In statistics, it may involve basing broad conclusions regarding the statistics of a survey from a small sample group that fails to sufficiently represent an entire population.[1] Its opposite fallacy is called slothful induction, or denying a reasonable conclusion of an inductive argument (e.g. "it was just a coincidence").
Yes, followers of Islam that are actual terrorists are violent, brutal, murderous assholes. But like assuming a whole house is made of plastic because you touched the doorbell first, attributing the actions of an extreme minority to a majority because they share affiliation, doesn't always make sense.
It is important to note that the primary victims of terror, specifically of the brand seen in Manchester, are Muslims themselves. For every Manchester that occurs in the West, ten tragedies occur of a greater magnitude in ISIS occupied territories. Mosques get blown the fuck up with an alarming frequency; you might catch a bum deal simply walking to market, or being in a common public place. I say that to say this; it seems they manage to kill more of their own than they do us. An enemy that kills itself, the snake that bites its own tail; perhaps we do not percieve the end of the snake and the start of the tail. They are one of a whole but yet, wholly separate parts.
To counter, it would be slothful to ignore the correlation between incident of violent, contemporary religious extremism and those who claim to be Muslim. It certainly exists. 100 percent of ISIS claims to practice Islam, the most pure form, by their reckoning. But the fallacies of slothful induction and hasty generalization both rely on limited perspective. Consider how long Islam has been around, and consider how the violence of this particular nature only clusters around now and lately. If you want to mention the violent history of Islam, you would have to concede the equally violent histories of all the Abrahamic faiths, in context. This a modern social construct, terrorism; it may correlate with Islam at the moment, but it does not originate from Islam.
Good discussion peeps, please keep this rolling
The opinions are diverse and zesty, I almost want to make a bipartisan politics forum sans bitcoin. These conversations usually degrade into name calling quickly, although it hasn't been all above the belt, I'm proud of y'all for keeping it civil, for the most part.