Rupert Murdoch claims Muslims must 'recognise and destroy growing jihadist cancer' or 'be held responsible'There is a logic fallacy called the "No True Scotsman Fallacy", wherein the actions of one individual are claimed to be not representative of that class of individuals. No true Scotsman would do what that Scotsman did! The claim removes the individual's status of being a member of the class, because his actions prove that he cannot be a member of that class any longer. Although born a Scot, he is no longer a Scot.
"His “dangerous” comments sparked a furious reaction on Twitter, with some Muslims suggesting he had insulted their faith by associating them with extremists. Others asked exactly how Muslims were supposed to be held responsible while they themselves were also victims of terrorism at the hands of jihadists. "
In reality, this fallacy protects the class by ejecting the offending member by denying his association regardless of his logical inclusion in the category. The natural born Scot is no longer a "true" Scot regardless of the fact of his birthright as a Scot.
This is the fallacy of the daily Islamic apologist: those myriad Islamists who kill, rape, enslave are denied their Islamic connection, regardless of the obvious textual connections to Qur'an, Hadith and the model of the life of Muhammad. The fallacy is invoked purely as an attempt to protect Islam from the obvious connection. The fallacy is obvious, and the motive is obvious.
What is not so obvious is whether there is any objective truth involved. This is obscured by the sheer numbers of Muslims who have not (yet) engaged in such atrocities, by the inability to know their true values, by the extremely common recruitment into Islamic terror armies, by the extremely uncommon criticism of extremism from the Islamic community, by the obvious barbarity of anti-liberal Sharia governed Islamic states, by the daily slaughter of Muslims by Muslims, by the random purging, rapes and enslavement of entire villages and cultures by Islamic warriors, etc. a list too long even to write down.
When Islamists claim the No True Scotsman Fallacy as reasoning for their own Victimhood, what are we to believe? Especially when it can be shown that the actions of the newly designated No True Muslims are absolutely congruent with the Qur'an, Hadith, Sharia, and the life of Muhammad? It is easy to observe that Muslims are peaceful... until they are not. For those reasons, including their Victimhood and volatility, it is claimed that they must be appeased and never provoked, be coddled and never held responsible, be given free rein and never to suffer "Islamophobia", and certainly not to be held to western standards of behavior which they absolutely reject; the poor dears are Victims of western degradations such as free speech - they must be expected to act out, right?
From a western perspective, Islam is as anti-western as it gets. Islam is as volatile as any ideology gets. Islam is THE main terror cause in the world. Evan Marxism and Maoism seem pale in comparison at the moment.
Fear of Islam is not a mental disorder; it is a rational conclusion.
Addendum:
There is more on this subject HERE.
3 comments:
Consider this video regarding the supposedly "tiny" radical minority within Islam, giving the "peaceful" majority of Muslims a bad name:
Ben Shapiro: The Myth of the Tiny Radical Muslim Minority
Anticipating the usual nonsense from the missing tooth of the Serpent, let me point out two things:
(1) Ben Shapiro is an Orthodox Jew. This in no way changes the data given. (An ad hominem attack does not refute the data.)
(2) Some of the categories are loosely defined. What is true about one group is not necessarily true about another group.
With those caveats, there is food for thought:
Suppose, merely for the sake of discussion, that the radicals are NOT a tiny minority of the "religion of peace."
Suppose, merely for the sake of discussion, that the end goal of Islam IS a global Caliphate, in which all thought, speech and religious practice that is non-Islamic is forcibly restricted upon pain of death, public lashings and imprisonment.
In this regard, consider the previous topic of Saudi blogger Raif Badawi, given a sentence of 1,000 lashes and 10 years in jail, with the lashings to be administered weekly in doses of 50 lashes.
An isolated incident, not connected to Islam?
Hardly.
Evan Marxism and Maoism seem pale in comparison at the moment.
Marxist terror(radical atheism) seems to be limited to their respective countries,such as India,Nepal and Latin American nations.Whereas Islamic terrorism often spill over into their host nations.Nevertheless,Islamic terrorism is currently the worst,with Marxist terrorism trailing in a not-too-distant second place.
Tsk tsk tsk. Misidentifying logical fallacies.
The Scotsman fallacy is a type of shifting the goal post where you transform a clear-cut criteria into an ambiguous one to attempt obscuring that your statement is refuted.
For example "No clean politician would take bribe!" is not fallacious because there are clear guidelines of what is a clean politician is (if such thing exists).
A couple other examples are:
Boris: I am a Scotsman!
Embassy worker: Did you ever live in Scotland or have any known ancestors from there?
Embassy worker: No, my ancestor is from Russia as far as I know.
Embassy worker: Then you are no true Scotsman.
Michael: I am a Catholic, and I declare my alliance and loyalty to Satan!
Catholic church: Then you are no true Catholic.
Likewise, when terrorists violates the teachings of Islam and attribute it to Islam, usually out of ignorance or attempt to justify an unjustified desired emotional action, we do the "no true" thing.
Most of the victims of terrorist attacks are Muslims, and they are condemned by scripture and scholars, so please don't say ridiculous stuff such as "Muslims secretly support them!".
As for the Rupert guy, more implications we are to assume that Muslims support such atrocities unless they explicitly say otherwise. Thus supporting the ancient sacred principle of: 'Guilty until proven innocent', and creating a wedge between citizens.
There is no need to apologize or accept to be singled out to publicly declare a condemnation over something you have nothing to do and never supported.
On a side note, loved how the march included David Cameron who put the guy behind wiki-leak in jail, and Netanyahu who assassinated and imprisoned multiple journalists.
Post a Comment