Hindu mob kills Muslim for supposedly eating beef at home

[Underseer]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...hters-muslim-who-might-have-had-beef-at-home/

Well, if Muslims will kill non-Muslims for failing to follow Muslim rules (e.g. killing those cartoonists in France), then isn't it only fair that Hindus kill Muslims for failing to follow Hindu rules?

Bah. They're all nuts if you ask me.

 

[Valjean]

It's human nature, I'm afraid.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Anyone who doesn't follow Muslim rules isn't a Muslim, duh.

- - - Updated - - -

It's human nature, I'm afraid.

Shouldn't it be a much more widespread problem if it's human nature?

 

[Valjean]

There hasn't been violence between individuals and groups forever? Hasn't some coercive force been necessary in all societies throughout history?

We're wired to function in small, mobile bands. We're tribal, we're competitive; even predatory. We don't deal well with diversity or other people violating our ideas of propriety -- particularly if they seem to be getting away with it. Without strong diversity training and a threat of retribution people are likely to react violently to any perceived threat to the status quo.

We're a nasty, violent, intolerant species.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

There hasn't been violence between individuals and groups forever? Hasn't some coercive force been necessary in all societies throughout history?

Considering how much violence has decreased in the world, I would think that's a sign that we can change our behaviors, given certain conditions.

 

[Valjean]

Agreed -- education, compulsory interaction with diverse 'others,' and strong enforcement of order enables large masses of humanity to live together relatively peaceably, but it's a continual struggle against our cultural insecurity and tribalism.

 

[Underseer]

The fundamental issue here is that Muslims get mad at non-Muslims for failing to follow Muslim rules. Violently mad.

So now a group of Hindus got violently angry at a Muslim for failing to follow Hindu rules.

The point is that it is wrong and irrational to expect people outside your religion to follow the rules of your religion. There simply is no justification for that.

 

[Valjean]

Of Haidt's six moral foundations, only the first three are legitimate targets for legal mandates.
Enforcing propriety, sanctity or respect is not the legitimate purview of law.


Care/harm: cherishing and protecting others.
Fairness/cheating: rendering justice according to shared rules. (Alternate name: Proportionality)
Liberty/oppression: the loathing of tyranny.
Loyalty/betrayal: standing with your group, family, nation. (Alternate name: Ingroup)
Authority/subversion: obeying tradition and legitimate authority. (Alternate name: Respect.)
Sanctity/degradation: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions. (Alternate name: Purity.)

 

[thebeave]

The fundamental issue here is that Muslims get mad at non-Muslims for failing to follow Muslim rules. Violently mad.

So now a group of Hindus got violently angry at a Muslim for failing to follow Hindu rules.

The point is that it is wrong and irrational to expect people outside your religion to follow the rules of your religion. There simply is no justification for that.

This is why letting tons of Muslim refugees into Europe is such a horrible idea.

 

[Underseer]

The fundamental issue here is that Muslims get mad at non-Muslims for failing to follow Muslim rules. Violently mad.

So now a group of Hindus got violently angry at a Muslim for failing to follow Hindu rules.

The point is that it is wrong and irrational to expect people outside your religion to follow the rules of your religion. There simply is no justification for that.

This is why letting tons of Muslim refugees into Europe is such a horrible idea.

Really?

I don't see how this is a related issue.

But if we're going to go there, then what exactly is going to be the result of allowing refugees to immigrate to Europe?

Further, what is the benefit of refusing aid to the desperate? Surely there must be something you get out of stepping on the necks of the worst off. Is it to prove your moral superiority or something?

 

[thentian]

We are good and right people.

But those people are different from us.

They believe differently. They talk funny. They eat different things than us and dress differently and look different, too.

They are not like us.

We must kill them. We must deport them. We must put them in camps. We must close our borders to them and build walls against them.

Otherwise they will overwhelm us and make us believe like them, eat like them, dress like them, and be like them.

Then we would no longer be good and right people.

 

[RavenSky]

This is why letting tons of Muslim refugees into Europe is such a horrible idea.

Sounds like its more of a reason not to let any Hindus into Europe*

* not actually advocating that, but if Hindus are going to murder people for eating meat...

 

[Underseer]

This is why letting tons of Muslim refugees into Europe is such a horrible idea.

Sounds like its more of a reason not to let any Hindus into Europe*

* not actually advocating that, but if Hindus are going to murder people for eating meat...

For eating cow.

Hindus are against eating cow, not necessarily other meat.

- - - Updated - - -

We are good and right people.

But those people are different from us.

They believe differently. They talk funny. They eat different things than us and dress differently and look different, too.

They are not like us.

We must kill them. We must deport them. We must put them in camps. We must close our borders to them and build walls against them.

Otherwise they will overwhelm us and make us believe like them, eat like them, dress like them, and be like them.

Then we would no longer be good and right people.

Yes, because our ideas are inferior to their ideas, simply being exposed to their ideas will cause everyone to convert to Islam. Thus we must not allow our society to become contaminated with their ideas.

 

[thebeave]

This is why letting tons of Muslim refugees into Europe is such a horrible idea.

Really?

I don't see how this is a related issue.

But if we're going to go there, then what exactly is going to be the result of allowing refugees to immigrate to Europe?

Further, what is the benefit of refusing aid to the desperate? Surely there must be something you get out of stepping on the necks of the worst off. Is it to prove your moral superiority or something?

Huh? How can you not see that what you wrote is related to the Muslim refugee crisis in Europe? We have lots of Muslims coming into Europe and nobody really knows their backgrounds, how fundamentalist they are, etc. And they will encounter a lot of European non-Muslims and will get mad at them for failing to follow the Muslim rules...violently mad, just like you said. I don't see how you fail to make the link between the two. You might want to watch this video to see the possible results of this Muslim immigration:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-to-face-with-an-islamic-extremist-campaigning-for-isis/

 

[Bomb#20]

The fundamental issue here is that Muslims get mad at non-Muslims for failing to follow Muslim rules. Violently mad.

So now a group of Hindus got violently angry at a Muslim for failing to follow Hindu rules.

The point is that it is wrong and irrational to expect people outside your religion to follow the rules of your religion. There simply is no justification for that.

This is why letting tons of Muslim refugees into Europe is such a horrible idea.

Really?

I don't see how this is a related issue.

But if we're going to go there, then what exactly is going to be the result of allowing refugees to immigrate to Europe?

Further, what is the benefit of refusing aid to the desperate? Surely there must be something you get out of stepping on the necks of the worst off. Is it to prove your moral superiority or something?

You just challenged thebeave to answer a question that you yourself had just posted the answer to: your own statements mean the result of allowing refugees to immigrate to Europe is going to be a lot of people in Europe who get mad at non-Muslims for failing to follow Muslim rules. Violently mad. And you are not, in point of fact, so stupid that you don't know you did this.

Here's the thing. You then made an ad hominem attack on thebeave -- you imputed a shameful motivation to him -- that was based on the premise that your question hadn't already just been answered. You knew perfectly well what he thinks the benefit of refusing aid to the desperate is, and yet you made up a different, deliberately worse, reason for him to have. That's something you ought not to have done. It's an abusive debating tactic and it's intellectually dishonest. Civilized people do not behave that way. You should be ashamed of yourself. But that isn't the point. The point is why you did it. Do you even know why you did it? Do you know why you had an emotional reaction against thebeave that overwhelmed your impulse control?

You did it because refusing aid to the desperate is against your religion. You got mad at thebeave because he argued against following the rules of your religion. So let me remind you. It is wrong and irrational to expect people outside your religion to follow the rules of your religion. There simply is no justification for that.

 

[TSwizzle]

More madness;

Some 2,000 people took to the streets Monday in an Indian-controlled area of Kashmir to protest the killing of a teenage Muslim truck driver who was burned to death in the cab of his truck, apparently because he was wrongly suspected of transporting beef.

LA Times

 

[Trausti]

Diversity is our strength.

 

[Underseer]

Really?

I don't see how this is a related issue.

But if we're going to go there, then what exactly is going to be the result of allowing refugees to immigrate to Europe?

Further, what is the benefit of refusing aid to the desperate? Surely there must be something you get out of stepping on the necks of the worst off. Is it to prove your moral superiority or something?

Huh? How can you not see that what you wrote is related to the Muslim refugee crisis in Europe? We have lots of Muslims coming into Europe and nobody really knows their backgrounds, how fundamentalist they are, etc. And they will encounter a lot of European non-Muslims and will get mad at them for failing to follow the Muslim rules...violently mad, just like you said. I don't see how you fail to make the link between the two. You might want to watch this video to see the possible results of this Muslim immigration:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-to-face-with-an-islamic-extremist-campaigning-for-isis/

Ah, so you are OK with allowing Muslim refugees into a country, just not if they have certain opinions.

Freedom!