deskpro2k3 said:
You seem upset because the passage from the bible seem to treat women similar. As far as I'm concern I've already answered you, and I'm not going to elabarate it any simpliar. It's up to you if you want to accept it. Let me hit with you some knowledge though. If you want to have a constuctive debate then it's imperative you know about both sides, instead of pulling at straws at me as you're doing now. Anyways I'm done, I'm not even religous. |
Well, I'm not upset, but rather frustrated at your reluctance to directly address my points. Also, saying you're not religious is an Appeal to Authority fallacy. Your arguments are judged based on their merits, not by the nature of the person they are associated with. Anyways, here's my explanation as to why your response is a strawman fallacy.
So to recap on the definition of what a strawman fallacy is, it is when someone is giving off the impresion of refuting a person's argument by refuting an argument not advanced by that person. My original point is that the Quran and by extension, the religion of Islam, promotes the mistreatment and raping (or in more proper terms, non-consensual intercourse) of women. In addition, the context of my response was to a person who refuted another person's interpretation of a passage (in which the refutation was actually correct).
Your response was a bunch of citations to Bible verses that also promote mistreatment of women. However, this is a fallacious respose because (1) it is not related to what I was talking about and (2) you're trying to refute my argument by refuting an argument I did not advance. It seemed as though you were trying to say, "If you're going to say Islam promotes misogyny, then Christianity promotes misogyny, too." While this is not on topic, you are right if that was what you were trying to argue if we were to look at both of the religions' texts.
However, as I said earlier, one group has actually stopped following its texts literally while the other still does. Christians no longer practice what the Bible except for the actual nice things, but it's different with Muslims and the Quran. On the surface, they seem to be identical, but it's a different story when you peel the layers. To further expand on this, nations with Judeo-Christian backgrounds have histories of where their religion has been challenged (e.g. Galileo, Charles Darwin, and teaching of evolution if we were to go on the science route. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein if we want to go on the literary route). Islamic states, however, did not had this kind of history the western nations had. It was obey or be executed. So when Ted Cruz remarked that he preferred Christian immigrants over Muslim immigrants, he actually had a point even though I don't like him ( andit's definitely more rational than Trump's announcement to deport Muslims :P).
Anyways, I apologize for the lengthy response, but I hope you do finally understand why this is my position and why I was being a hardass with the fallacies and all that. I'm not sure if you were trying to get me to crack with the "Did I make you upset?" remark, but I'll forgive you for that 
| KLAMarine said: I'm certain you can find objectionable content in the Quran but as deskpro2k3 pointed out, the Bible also contains objectionable content. Referring back to Scisca's post, should we then call Christianity "savage and totally incompatible with our world"? |
Read my response to deskpro2k3. On the surface, they may be the same, but when you look deeper, it's an entirely different story. One no longer practices the objectionable content while the other still does.
