I wonder how many of these men were islamic

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

I still don't understand the relevance of their religion.

Since when must the mention of someone's religion have relevance?

This thread is becoming yet another prime example of the "White Knight" chivalrous rush to the defense of Islam that is so common these days. Oh, no! Someone mentioned the word Islam next to something bad! Let's rush in and caution everyone to be aware that "not all Muslims" are this way or that way, or think this way or think that way.

A similar "save the princess" mentality does not exist relative to Christianity, Mormonism, Judaism, chiropractic, homeopathy, democratic, republican, Torie or Liberal. Generalized musings about how racist Tea Partiers are, for example, are quite common, yet there is no rush to make it clear that "not all" are racist. We get Christians lambasted as bigoted and homophobic, but there is no rush to warn the world that "not all" Christians are that way.

But, we face from every angle, particularly on the major news channels, the constant reminder that we can't say this or that because "not all" Muslims are a certain way. Well, I think we're all smart enough to know that not "all" of anybody is anything. Oh, wait -- let me add a disclaimer - when I say we're all smart enough, I mean not really all. I can't make that generalization. Each person may or may not be smart enough....

Actually, I always object when someone implies that someone did something because they were part of a group, without any evidence to support it.

[Coito ergo sum]

I still don't understand the relevance of their religion.

Since when must the mention of someone's religion have relevance?

This thread is becoming yet another prime example of the "White Knight" chivalrous rush to the defense of Islam that is so common these days. Oh, no! Someone mentioned the word Islam next to something bad! Let's rush in and caution everyone to be aware that "not all Muslims" are this way or that way, or think this way or think that way.

A similar "save the princess" mentality does not exist relative to Christianity, Mormonism, Judaism, chiropractic, homeopathy, democratic, republican, Torie or Liberal. Generalized musings about how racist Tea Partiers are, for example, are quite common, yet there is no rush to make it clear that "not all" are racist. We get Christians lambasted as bigoted and homophobic, but there is no rush to warn the world that "not all" Christians are that way.

But, we face from every angle, particularly on the major news channels, the constant reminder that we can't say this or that because "not all" Muslims are a certain way. Well, I think we're all smart enough to know that not "all" of anybody is anything. Oh, wait -- let me add a disclaimer - when I say we're all smart enough, I mean not really all. I can't make that generalization. Each person may or may not be smart enough....

Actually, I always object when someone implies that someone did something because they were part of a group, without any evidence to support it.

I think if you click around forums like this one, the overwhelming majority of cases by far involve the rush to defend the delicate sensibilities of Muslims.

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

I still don't understand the relevance of their religion.

Since when must the mention of someone's religion have relevance?

This thread is becoming yet another prime example of the "White Knight" chivalrous rush to the defense of Islam that is so common these days. Oh, no! Someone mentioned the word Islam next to something bad! Let's rush in and caution everyone to be aware that "not all Muslims" are this way or that way, or think this way or think that way.

A similar "save the princess" mentality does not exist relative to Christianity, Mormonism, Judaism, chiropractic, homeopathy, democratic, republican, Torie or Liberal. Generalized musings about how racist Tea Partiers are, for example, are quite common, yet there is no rush to make it clear that "not all" are racist. We get Christians lambasted as bigoted and homophobic, but there is no rush to warn the world that "not all" Christians are that way.

But, we face from every angle, particularly on the major news channels, the constant reminder that we can't say this or that because "not all" Muslims are a certain way. Well, I think we're all smart enough to know that not "all" of anybody is anything. Oh, wait -- let me add a disclaimer - when I say we're all smart enough, I mean not really all. I can't make that generalization. Each person may or may not be smart enough....

Actually, I always object when someone implies that someone did something because they were part of a group, without any evidence to support it.

I think if you click around forums like this one, the overwhelming majority of cases by far involve the rush to defend the delicate sensibilities of Muslims.

That may be true, but it's no grounds to object whenever somebody defends Muslims when they have good grounds to do so.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh, come on.. I mean seriously.. Come on..

That's essentially the point I've been making about the grief Elessarina has been taking for the title of this thread. Come on with the rush to protect Islam from some hint of a generalized implication....

Christ on a bicycle! It's like people are more moved to outrage by Ellesarina's turn-of-phrase than the fact that a slew of grown men raped a little girl.

[Posse Comitatus]

I still don't understand the relevance of their religion.

Since when must the mention of someone's religion have relevance?

lol.

[Robert_S]

Nine people were in on this. I just don't see how nine people could get together for something this sick unless there's something already sick in the community that this happened in.

I have heard that in the UK, a woman dressed in a way that would not attract much notice elsewhere will get heckled and threatened in an Islamic neighbourhood. If that is true, than any women effected by that crap has a right to point out what the religion of these sick fucks is.

[Trolldor]

If you can establish that it is, in fact, their religion, then go ahead.

Don't, however, at any point ever use an event like this to make some pre-emptive wank attack against something. It completely trivialises the horror of the situation.

[Coito ergo sum]

I still don't understand the relevance of their religion.

Since when must the mention of someone's religion have relevance?

This thread is becoming yet another prime example of the "White Knight" chivalrous rush to the defense of Islam that is so common these days. Oh, no! Someone mentioned the word Islam next to something bad! Let's rush in and caution everyone to be aware that "not all Muslims" are this way or that way, or think this way or think that way.

A similar "save the princess" mentality does not exist relative to Christianity, Mormonism, Judaism, chiropractic, homeopathy, democratic, republican, Torie or Liberal. Generalized musings about how racist Tea Partiers are, for example, are quite common, yet there is no rush to make it clear that "not all" are racist. We get Christians lambasted as bigoted and homophobic, but there is no rush to warn the world that "not all" Christians are that way.

But, we face from every angle, particularly on the major news channels, the constant reminder that we can't say this or that because "not all" Muslims are a certain way. Well, I think we're all smart enough to know that not "all" of anybody is anything. Oh, wait -- let me add a disclaimer - when I say we're all smart enough, I mean not really all. I can't make that generalization. Each person may or may not be smart enough....

Actually, I always object when someone implies that someone did something because they were part of a group, without any evidence to support it.

I think if you click around forums like this one, the overwhelming majority of cases by far involve the rush to defend the delicate sensibilities of Muslims.

That may be true, but it's no grounds to object whenever somebody defends Muslims when they have good grounds to do so.

I object to the White Knight defense because it's discriminatorily applied. It's like being against the death penalty not on cruelty grounds, but on the grounds that it is applied more frequently against blacks than whites.

I also object to it because it's stupid. The English language, when used in conversation, is full of generalizations. If we're having a discussion and Elessarina tells me that "Men are Pigs!" - I don't think we need the White Knights to ride to the rescue of males in general and make sure that everyone is cautioned that not "all" men are pigs.

We're all perfectly capable of understanding that when we say "Islam motivates X" that we don't mean that every single god damn Muslim does X. Heck, most of the religious conversations on this website would be difficult to even have if generalizations couldn't be used. We're always talking about religions' impact on the world. This religion does that, and this religion says that. Do we mean EVERY SINGLE self-identified member of those groups does X, Y or Z? Of course not.

The reality is, people swoop in more frequently to defend the honor of Islam (for whatever reason). I wish they'd stop. Islam can take care of itself, and needs no more champions.

[Tigger]

I still don't understand the relevance of their religion.

Since when must the mention of someone's religion have relevance?

This thread is becoming yet another prime example of the "White Knight" chivalrous rush to the defense of Islam that is so common these days. Oh, no! Someone mentioned the word Islam next to something bad! Let's rush in and caution everyone to be aware that "not all Muslims" are this way or that way, or think this way or think that way.

A similar "save the princess" mentality does not exist relative to Christianity, Mormonism, Judaism, chiropractic, homeopathy, democratic, republican, Torie or Liberal. Generalized musings about how racist Tea Partiers are, for example, are quite common, yet there is no rush to make it clear that "not all" are racist. We get Christians lambasted as bigoted and homophobic, but there is no rush to warn the world that "not all" Christians are that way.

But, we face from every angle, particularly on the major news channels, the constant reminder that we can't say this or that because "not all" Muslims are a certain way. Well, I think we're all smart enough to know that not "all" of anybody is anything. Oh, wait -- let me add a disclaimer - when I say we're all smart enough, I mean not really all. I can't make that generalization. Each person may or may not be smart enough....

Actually, I always object when someone implies that someone did something because they were part of a group, without any evidence to support it.

I think if you click around forums like this one, the overwhelming majority of cases by far involve the rush to defend the delicate sensibilities of Muslims.

That may be true, but it's no grounds to object whenever somebody defends Muslims when they have good grounds to do so.

I think that the idea that these men did this because they were part of a particular group is possibly inherently incorrect and I am inclined to agree with you in general principle; however, given that the ethos of Islam is driven largely by a perception of male superiority and a concomitant belief in female inferiority – and the sickening de-valuation of women – it would come as no surprise if all of the men were Muslims.

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

Since when must the mention of someone's religion have relevance?

This thread is becoming yet another prime example of the "White Knight" chivalrous rush to the defense of Islam that is so common these days. Oh, no! Someone mentioned the word Islam next to something bad! Let's rush in and caution everyone to be aware that "not all Muslims" are this way or that way, or think this way or think that way.

A similar "save the princess" mentality does not exist relative to Christianity, Mormonism, Judaism, chiropractic, homeopathy, democratic, republican, Torie or Liberal. Generalized musings about how racist Tea Partiers are, for example, are quite common, yet there is no rush to make it clear that "not all" are racist. We get Christians lambasted as bigoted and homophobic, but there is no rush to warn the world that "not all" Christians are that way.

But, we face from every angle, particularly on the major news channels, the constant reminder that we can't say this or that because "not all" Muslims are a certain way. Well, I think we're all smart enough to know that not "all" of anybody is anything. Oh, wait -- let me add a disclaimer - when I say we're all smart enough, I mean not really all. I can't make that generalization. Each person may or may not be smart enough....

Actually, I always object when someone implies that someone did something because they were part of a group, without any evidence to support it.

I think if you click around forums like this one, the overwhelming majority of cases by far involve the rush to defend the delicate sensibilities of Muslims.

That may be true, but it's no grounds to object whenever somebody defends Muslims when they have good grounds to do so.

I object to the White Knight defense because it's discriminatorily applied. It's like being against the death penalty not on cruelty grounds, but on the grounds that it is applied more frequently against blacks than whites.

I also object to it because it's stupid. The English language, when used in conversation, is full of generalizations. If we're having a discussion and Elessarina tells me that "Men are Pigs!" - I don't think we need the White Knights to ride to the rescue of males in general and make sure that everyone is cautioned that not "all" men are pigs.

We're all perfectly capable of understanding that when we say "Islam motivates X" that we don't mean that every single god damn Muslim does X. Heck, most of the religious conversations on this website would be difficult to even have if generalizations couldn't be used. We're always talking about religions' impact on the world. This religion does that, and this religion says that. Do we mean EVERY SINGLE self-identified member of those groups does X, Y or Z? Of course not.

The reality is, people swoop in more frequently to defend the honor of Islam (for whatever reason). I wish they'd stop. Islam can take care of itself, and needs no more champions.

It's still no reason to object to someone defending a group on rational grounds

@Tigger: No it wouldn't, but that doesn't make it all right to assume, firstly, that they are Muslims at all and secondly, that Islam was a motivator.

[Elessarina]

I just want to reiterate I don't believe these men did it because they were islamic any more than i think catholic priests screwed choirboys because they were catholic.. it was simply a reflection on.. "oh here we go more crimes committed by people who call us immoral" and so forth. Hence my opener of "I wonder how many of these men were islamic"..

[normal]

I just want to reiterate I don't believe these men did it because they were islamic any more than i think catholic priests screwed choirboys because they were catholic.. it was simply a reflection on.. "oh here we go more crimes committed by people who call us immoral" and so forth. Hence my opener of "I wonder how many of these men were islamic"..

Aye...

[PsychoSerenity]

I think that the idea that these men did this because they were part of a particular group is possibly inherently incorrect and I am inclined to agree with you in general principle; however, given that the ethos of Islam is driven largely by a perception of male superiority and a concomitant belief in female inferiority – and the sickening de-valuation of women – it would come as no surprise if all of the men were Muslims.

+1

But equally no surprise if they weren't.

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

I just want to reiterate I don't believe these men did it because they were islamic any more than i think catholic priests screwed choirboys because they were catholic.. it was simply a reflection on.. "oh here we go more crimes committed by people who call us immoral" and so forth. Hence my opener of "I wonder how many of these men were islamic"..

Yeah I realise that now

[normal]