zlacker

Islam soils the reputation of islam. It has a massive problem of large percentages of Muslims supporting (or being okay with) violence and terrorism.

42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-ameri...

>>imagin+(OP)
> Islam soils the reputation of islam.

No slurs, please. We've already banned one account for turning this thread into a religious flamewar. Comments here need to stay factual.

>>dang+F
I did stay factual, I even provided a link.

If you're going to restrict speech, restrict all mentions of religion, not just the ones that contradict your preconceived notion.

>>imagin+H1
Indeed. The moderation in this thread has been supremely disappointing. Your post contained no slurs, only an interpretation of data along with a link.

>>decipl+E3
No. What dang quoted was a slur.

Definition from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_eng...:

"An insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation"

Saying that "Islam soils the reputation of islam" is a slur by any reasonable interpretation. The link provided some information but the first sentence did nothing to that effect and was simply inflammatory.

>>davesq+26
This wasn't a mere insinuation, this was a claim made along with some study linked in support of the claim. And since the topic at hand is precisely Islam's reputation in the first place, it seems we can't have any conversation about Islam's reputation for violence (deserved or not), and what to do about it, at all.

If your goal is to integrate Muslims living in Western nations into Western society, what is going on here is not helping to achieve it.

>>decipl+r6
The OP began by saying "Islam soils the reputation of islam. It has a massive problem of large percentages of Muslims supporting (or being okay with) violence and terrorism." Without further proof, that statement is an allegation at best and a slur at worst (especially if the following proof doesn't hold up).

He then went on to say "42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall)." So why wasn't his original statement "Islam in France among 42% of Muslims less than 30 years of age (that were prompted to answer a survey question in an environment we know nothing about) soils the reputation of Islam?"

So, he began by making a broad generalization about Islam as a whole and then quoted a statistical observation about a small percentage of Muslims. Sorry, but 2 + 2 = 4. Broad generalization + no proof = slur.

>>davesq+X9
I'd be in agreement with you if the OP started and stopped with that first sentence, but he didn't. And OP is not claiming that all Muslims are violent or making a generalization like that - he very specifically referred to reputation for same and cited a document showing a significant minority of Muslims who support or tolerate violence, especially in France.

I also agree that he would have been better served to clarify in his post that the problem is particularly acute in France rather than in general, but even a cursory glance at the document he provided will bear that out. However that is something to bring up in further discussion (as I have actually done in a sibling comment). Then you can have a conversation about what France is doing differently from other countries that are having relative success, even to the point of e.g. the US where Muslims tend to be more peaceful than the wider population.

But when you just shut down the discussion as was done here, none of that can happen. That's why, as I say, if your goal is to integrate Muslims living in the West into Western society (and French Muslims into French society), then what happened here is counterproductive.

>>decipl+jb
> I'd be in agreement with you if the OP started and stopped with that first sentence, but he didn't

No, it's exactly the other way around: if the comment had omitted the first sentence, it would have been fine. That bit could be taken out without any loss of information, and should have been.

Despite how much you've posted about this, there's no serious argument here. A slur followed by a factual statement is obviously still a slur.

As for "shutting down the discussion", that's a bit of a stretch with 650 comments in one thread and 500 in the other.