[krapp]

Because people in the former group don't criticize those countries, they criticize Islam, and tend to categorize all Muslims (specifically Muslim immigrants) as ontologically evil.

Meanwhile people in the latter group tend to be very specific that their criticism is of a state and its policies, rather than the religion of Judaism or Jews in general, even though their efforts tend to fall on deaf ears.

[butlike]

We hate the demagogue for being a demagogue and their followers for being stupid.

[throwawaypath]

>they criticize Islam, and tend to categorize all Muslims (specifically Muslim immigrants) as ontologically evil.

Islam is ontologically evil. People who believe in ontologically evil are ontologically evil people.

In before you whataboutism Christianity/Judaism.

[krapp]

So people who believe in ontological evil are themselves ontologically evil.

But because you believe this, you yourself believe in ontological evil, and therefore are ontologically evil.

Weird flex but OK.

[throwawaypath]

>But because you believe this, you yourself believe in ontological evil, and therefore are ontologically evil.

Observing Islam does not make one Islamic. Observing ontological evil does not make one ontological evil.

>Weird flex but OK.

Dumb flex but OK.

[krapp]

>Observing Islam does not make one Islamic. Observing ontological evil does not make one ontological evil.

No, by your own words, "People who believe in ontological[sic] evil are ontologically evil people"

If you believe that Islam is ontologically evil, you believe in ontological evil.

Ipso facto you are an ontologically evil person.

This is basic kindergarten logic if it doesn't get through to you I don't know what to say.

"Observing Islam does not make one Islamic" is not an equivalent statement. You did not make a subjective statement about observation, you made an objective statement about belief.

>Dumb flex but OK.

I agree. It was dumb - "only Sith deal in absolutes" level stupid, and I don't know why you came back to double down on it.

[throwawaypath]

>No, by your own words, "People who believe in ontological[sic] evil are ontologically evil people"

Yes, people who believe in ontologically evil beliefs (such as Islam) are ontologically evil people. Not belief in the concept of ontologically, this is a misattribution error on your part.

>If you believe that Islam is ontologically evil, you believe in ontological evil.

Islam is an ontologically evil as I stated above. I believe in ontological evil as a concept, but that does not make me ontologically evil.

Ipso facto you are misattributing this to ontologically evil as a concept. This is basic kindergarten logic and contextual understanding if it doesn't get through to you I don't know what to say.

QED.

>"Observing Islam does not make one Islamic" is not an equivalent statement

Yes it as, as the first sentence was "Islam is [an] ontologically evil [religion]."

>I agree. It was dumb

Glad you agree your flex was dumb, "ackchyually" level stupid, then you came back to triple down on it.

Maybe you're right though, no chance "The Religion of Peace" could be unpeaceful.

[mystraline]

Indeed, it both feels like the same type of pro-theocratic propaganda. Its a way to disingenuously claim "you hate everyone of our group", when thats demonstrably not true. You likely hate the actions a country masquerading as the group inflicts against others.

My disdain is for all theocratic countries. I dont particularly care for any religion that takes over a government.

And I do include the USA in that, as theocratic fundamentalist christanity. Ive done so since changing the pledge of allegience and adding "in god we trust" on the currency.