Hypocrisy

"People who advocate gun-control are stupid. You shouldn't generalize all gun-owners based on the the actions of a few crazies."

>But user, you generalize all muslims based on the actions of a few radicals. Isn't it the same thing?

Well, Sup Forums?

t. Muhammad bin-Swedecuck

rly made me think, that is all, thanks

gun ownership isn't a fucking religion which promotes awful ideas.

Yeah it does, doesn't it?

>ownership of a consumer good
vs
>belief system that promotes conquest

False equivalence. Your thread and logic are trash.

Yeah but this is about valid generalization. If you can't generalize all gun-owners, why can you generalize all muslims? Not all muslims are radical.

Guns promote violence. Also this isn't a false equivalence because they are both generalizations. Not every comparison is a false equivalence, burger-brain.

But you precious revenge on whitey can't happen without mass immigration.

The big bankers make a lot of money off of cheap labor (mass immigration.)

So you still get masters who exploit everyone else. All because you want to get revenge on whitey.

I guess I should join the bankers then. Lord knows you won't be challenging them in any significant way, ever.

Check the polls done on "moderate" Muslims. They're all the same. If they're not actively spreading sharia they will sit back and let it happen.

Guns are killing devices, thier sole existence implies death.

Islam is a violent religion. Same implication.

There are laws to restrict guns. There should be laws to restrict Islam.

If guns promote violence why has the violent crime rate been going down in America for a decade?

Also, the irony of saying guns promote violence while defending Islam.

*ibn

muslims are responsible for their own actions. guns aren't

>If guns promote violence why has the violent crime rate been going down in America for a decade?
Could be other factors that are contributing to the decline in crime. There's just not a single factor that correlate with crime.
>Also, the irony of saying guns promote violence while defending Islam.
Both promote violence imo. The question at hand is about the generalization.

A small percentage of gun owners are a problem but its a majority of Muslims that are a problem

Guns are needed to protect yourself. They may be used to shoot up a gunfreezone but they are useful. Muslims are needed for nothing, only rape crime terrorism and freeloading.

You can generalize a whole religion because you can generally tell from what the religion tells and what the people do by following it.

However you can't generalize people who own guns because there is no same mentality among on the gun owners compared to people who adopt a religion that gives the same mentality among others who have the same religion.

So at what % does a generalization become valid?

You can generalize people if there is a basis behind the generalization.

No-one here REALLY believes that you shouldn't fucking generalize people.

There is countless issues with the Islamic faith.

1. Blocking the polio vaccine which very nearly succeeded in eradicating the disease from our world. There was a counter campaign that claimed the vaccine was designed to sterilize Muslims.
2. Pregnancy below the healthy age for childbearing which is 18-35
3. Inbreeding among close blood relatives
4. FGM, female genital mutilation
5. Vitamin D deficiency from lack of sunlight for women who live out their lives in walking body bags. The skin is the largest organ of the human body. Skin performs necessary body functions beyond mere sex appeal.

Gun advocacy isn't a fucking ideology of hate you fucking bull prepper

MOST GUN OWNERS ARE NOT A PROBLEM.

When they are it's not because of owning fucking guns you fucking retard.

>You can generalize a whole religion because you can generally tell from what the religion tells and what the people do by following it.
Except you can't, can you? There are plenty of denominations within christianity, and some of them believe in drastically different things. I mean, you have the pacifist protestants and then you have the war-mongering christian identity/british israelism who seek to genocide jews. It's no difference when it comes to Islam.

That's an arbitrary line which is hard to draw but it's obvious for Islam.

People universally agree that guns should be used responsibly for responsible purposes, and when people abuse their right to own a gun they should be punished and ostracized.

The same cannot be said about Islam.

Islam has many pages on how Muslims should promote violence and martyrdom and the religion requires its followers to follow the book word for word. What's worse is you get people (usually middle class Americans who have never even ever been to a country run by sharia law, let alone lived their for any significant portion of time) who challenge the notion that it promotes violence even though it's literally written in a book. Most of the terrorist activity in the world is conducted by Muslims in the name of Islam.

Comparing that nutty philosophy to gun ownership is classic liberal logic. There are about as many guns in america that there are people and yet more people are killed by cars or abortion.

My guns haven't shot anyone, how do you say they promote violence? If anything Muslims throwing gays off of roofs promote violence. Muslims have killed more people than my guns have.

>Sweden
>pro gun control
Explains why migrants can do whatever they want, huh.

An inanimate object promotes violence? Sweden yes, your education has finally hit the bluest of pill levels.

But sharia must be held higher than any other law.

Gun owners have to take a course and learn safety not to mention a background check to make sure they aren't crazy

Islam makes people crazy and instructs them to kill for ideas.

Sweden yes!~

Strawman you bitch.

This

>comprehensive federal background checks
We already have that

>mentally ill and domestic violence convicts can't get guns
We already have that

>1. Blocking the polio vaccine which very nearly succeeded in eradicating the disease from our world. There was a counter campaign that claimed the vaccine was designed to sterilize Muslims.
Sure, okay.
>2. Pregnancy below the healthy age for childbearing which is 18-35
Work both ways. It's not healthy to have children above the age of 35 either, yet that's allowed in western civilization.
>3. Inbreeding among close blood relatives
Has been done for millennia in Europe (cousins primarily).
>4. FGM, female genital mutilation
That is the parents choice. Parents are already allowed to fuck up their kids with a shit nutrition (stunting growth, messing with the development of the brain, etc), and that's way worse than any genital mutilation.
>5. Vitamin D deficiency from lack of sunlight for women who live out their lives in walking body bags.
There are supplements. Not an issue.

>Gun advocacy isn't a fucking ideology of hate you fucking bull prepper
It's practically an ideology of violence. At the very least an instrument for it.
>MOST GUN OWNERS ARE NOT A PROBLEM.
Most muslims aren't a problem either, sand-niggers are.

the right to defend yourself, especially with guns, is a corner stone of a free nation. It's doubly important considering western plods are pc cucks that can't do nothing in most cases apart from take notes

So it's arbitrary? Therefore your generalization about muslims isn't really more justified than the generalization about gun-owners?

Your right, we should bann both guns and islam

as long as islam is acceptable than gun ownership should be acceptable as well

>My guns haven't shot anyone, how do you say they promote violence?
Plenty of muslims that haven't bombed anybody. How can you say they promote violence/terrorism?

Sweden you are not even trying anymore.

Never said I'm pro gun-control, burger brain.

False equivalency.

Religions require their believers to act a certain way, i.e. don't eat bacon. So you can easily generalize the followers of a religion by the beliefs of that religion, in this case the belief that they have to destroy infidels.

Guns are property. The only action common to gun owners is the ownership of guns. There's no belief you must have to own a gun.

>American
>Talking about education

see
Guns don't promote each other doing violence or hide plots from authorities.

It's not a strawman just because you said so. Try again.

No. Beacuse guns are just object and how its used depends on the people. In the other hand Islam is a radical religion which can be radical to the lowes of social pressure.
>inb4 christianity
What is the new testament? What was the reformation? What was the are of enlightenment?
>inb4 american gun culture
Yes. Gun culture is exist ,but it's not an ideology with doctrines and laws like islam. It's a much larger cicle.

>isn't in the same thing
No, less than 1% of gun owners shoot people for no reason. 10-15% of western muslims are crazies and a majority of muslims world wide are

You didn't have to

So you should need a license to have a certain ideology? Wew lad.

This is not about whether guns should be legal or not. This is about the generalization.

Agreed.

Which one has an Ammendment dedicated to it in the Constitution?

It's not a false equivalency just because you said so.
>Religions require their believers to act a certain way, i.e. don't eat bacon. So you can easily generalize the followers of a religion by the beliefs of that religion, in this case the belief that they have to destroy infidels.
Not really, considering there are several denominations within the abrahamic religions that are drastically different. You can't generalize them all.

Try again.

Where's the Swedish university on this list again? I can't seem to find it.

Islam promotes war when all other attempts at conversion has failed.

A weapon has no intention, meaning or implications. It has as much power to convince you as a stone or bucket of water.

You want to ban something because of how a human might at some point use it.

Less than 0% of muslims kill someone for no reason. There's always a motive.

Both, actually. Freedom of religion is also an amendment right.

So you respect the 1st Ammendment, but not the 2nd?

Those are most likely based on the amount of jewish indoctrination they offer.

Where is America on this list? Oh, that's a long way down. I wonder why that is? I mean I thought you ahd the best universities in the world yet you're below Sweden? Weird. Maybe your universities aren't that good after all :S

Get it in your fat burger brain that the thread isn't about gun-control or islam, it's about the generalization.

>You can't generalize them all.
Yes, yes you can generalize them all in their similarities to each other because they all come from the same stem they all have some similarities that you can judge all muslims on.
Same with christianity.

The only thing you can generalize all of gun owners on is that they may or may not shoot their gun some time in their life. That's it.

You're trying to make a religion the same thing as an inanimate object. I don't fucking understand how you cannot see this is a false equivalence of the worst kind.

fuck you

ideology =/= mental health problem

YES IM FINALLY UNBANNED

>Islam promotes war when all other attempts at conversion has failed.
Certain denominations might, not all. Same with christianity. There are christian denominations that promote war, others that don't.
>A weapon has no intention, meaning or implications.
Wrong. It's a tool created with the intent to do harm.
>You want to ban something because of how a human might at some point use it.
I'll say it again, because you americans seem to have some kind of mental deficiency. This thread isn't about gun-control or islam. It's about the generalization of the two.

35+ year olds can still consent pedo. And cite some counter-evidence.

Glad to see you're one of the many retards who don't address half of the shit people put in their posts.


>2. Pregnancy below the healthy age for childbearing which is 18-35
Work both ways. It's not healthy to have children above the age of 35 either, yet that's allowed in western civilization.

Doesn't change the fact that many Muslims are having children with extremely young women who shouldn't be childbearing
>3. Inbreeding among close blood relatives
Has been done for millennia in Europe (cousins primarily).

And that makes it right? It is hardly done at all today.
>4. FGM, female genital mutilation
That is the parents choice. Parents are already allowed to fuck up their kids with a shit nutrition (stunting growth, messing with the development of the brain, etc), and that's way worse than any genital mutilation.

That doesn't stop genital mutilation which is completely useless from being a widely used practice.
>5. Vitamin D deficiency from lack of sunlight for women who live out their lives in walking body bags.
There are supplements. Not an issue.

So their religion ends up fucking making women have to take supplements to be healthy? Okay.

>Gun advocacy isn't a fucking ideology of hate you fucking bull prepper
It's practically an ideology of violence. At the very least an instrument for it.

No it's fucking not you brain-dead retard. Read what the fucking 2nd amendment says.
>MOST GUN OWNERS ARE NOT A PROBLEM.
Most muslims aren't a problem either, sand-niggers are.

Yes they are. Look at the fucking image I posted in the earlier post I made. THEY ARE A PROBLEM.

Of course it is. There is VERY VERY fair reason to generalize that specific group. There is NOT for gun owners/advocates.

Congrats Hungary.
Hope the freedom will last for more than a day.

>Yes, yes you can generalize them all in their similarities to each other because they all come from the same stem they all have some similarities that you can judge all muslims on.
>Same with christianity.
Protestants are literally pacifists, whereas christians who subscribe to british israelism or christian identity straight out want to genocide the jews and actively promote such an agenda. Should the pacifists be lumped together with the war-mongering british israelites according to you? Interesting reasoning.

>The only thing you can generalize all of gun owners on is that they may or may not shoot their gun some time in their life. That's it.
Nope, if you can generalize all christians/muslims on the basis that they're all muslims, then you can generalize all gun-owners on the basis that they're all gun-owners. It's a grouping of people, same difference.

>>But user, you generalize all muslims based on the actions of a few radicals. Isn't it the same thing?
But that's not true. We generalize all muslims based on their ideology. Supposed "moderate" muslims are just as fucked up as radicals.

Name one denomination of Islam that doesn't promote war and ISN'T considered heretical.

Now name me one gun manufacturer that instructs their buyers to go out and commit acts of violence on others with their product.

Hypocrisy is almost always yelled by someone misapplying the golden rule and this mistake is one of the fundamentals with the progressive phenomena.

The irony is that wanting guns and mistrusting muslims both have the same underlying motivations when put into the context of the golden rule.

>do you want people telling you how to protect yourself?

I generalize muslims based on their scriptures.

>35+ year olds can still consent pedo.
So can 15 year olds.

I would have assumed it was about hypocrisy based on your op.

Most people have no issue with generalization because there isn't anything wrong with acknowledging statistical differences. Such as more guns = less crime and more muslims = more beheadings

Unfortunately, this is a false equivalence. So, no, it isn't the same thing. One deals with an entire race and religion; while the other deals with the concept of firearm ownership relative to the individual in a specific nation, America.

So both arguments are clearly separate and not interrelated at all.

>t. pedo who can't get women his age

The truth is that no generalization is valid, if by valid we mean able to justify a response by itself.

It's the elite is academia that's muddying the waters with buzzwords like
>evidence based -something-
>marginalisation
>under/over representation

Did you know you can be underrepresented and overrepresented in something at the same time? By different criteria and categorisation. Then how in the world can we base policy on a things like this. There is always a hidden presumption and yet we pretend it's objective.

Sadly this isn't well understood on Sup Forums..

I don't generalize all Muslims.

Check mate, faggot.

>the problem is the gun ownership

this just in: firearms are sentient and can manipulate the human mind

And? It can go both, ways... What's your answer?

Muslims murder with guns, also.

Owning a gun is a right, doesn't matter how many people misuse it, faggot.

Fuck off achmed.

That depends on the country

almost all gun manufacturing companies are owned by jews

no wonder i see so many pro gun threads

>Doesn't change the fact that many Muslims are having children with extremely young women who shouldn't be childbearing
Many gun owners also act irresponsibly. Why is your generalization okay?
>And that makes it right? It is hardly done at all today.
Does it make it wrong? Right and wrong is just arbitrary opinion from an atheistic perspective, hence nonsensical.
>That doesn't stop genital mutilation which is completely useless from being a widely used practice.
Still their kids, their choice, is it not? What if Big Daddy government stepped in and said we're not allowed to teach our kids that sexual promiscuity is wrong? You wouldn't have a problem with that?
>So their religion ends up fucking making women have to take supplements to be healthy? Okay.
We're already doing it in Sweden (since we're living so far north). It's not really a big deal. Too much sunlight is detrimental to ones health, so one could argue that you should be FORCED to cover up in Australia, since it's for your own good. This is what your argument is based on.
>No it's fucking not you brain-dead retard. Read what the fucking 2nd amendment says
Read what the 1st amendment says. Also, we're not all from the USA you mongloid. Lmao.
>Yes they are. Look at the fucking image I posted in the earlier post I made. THEY ARE A PROBLEM.
So are guns.

>that flag
>that false comparison
saged

>nobel prize
>invented by swedes

Way to go guys

Sexual attraction to 15 year olds is not pedophilia, you uneducated criminal. It's ephebophilia. Back to school.

>Wrong. It's a tool created with the intent to do harm.
But it cannot do harm without the human element.

The practitioners of Islam do harm of their own free will or by turning the other cheek to their more "radical" elements. And when called to condemn their "minority" they close ranks and say they are being attacked as a whole.

Freedom of religion is also a right, bratwurst.

We have background checks for gun owners, and nsa for muslims.
Both are necessary to make sure power doesn't go into the wrong hands.
Making generalizations is easier than nitpicking every detail, and is more effective in getting an idea across to another person.
This post has no point, is a circle jerk, and is a decent attempt to break down the components of the stereotypical Sup Forums ideals.
Fuck off back to tumblr where you can worship your trans-gay-strong independant-black whatever gender-holy cow you all seem to obsess over.

He didn't say that at all, and you know it you dishonest prick.

What he was saying is that we have clearly defined laws and statutes for who is allowed guns and how they obtain them, which lets us define "legal gun owners".

Again, the same cannot be said about Islam.

Muslim people can't even decide what constitutes Islam. You have the entire Islamic part of the world who say that followers must abide by the book word for word, but then you have middle class Americans debating that /real/ Muslims don't kill people and that /real/ Muslims don't do this or that (it's usually only negative things that they deny, you never hear anyone arguing that /real/ Muslims stress the subservience of women and gays). It's literally the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

I think your tinfoil hat is on too tight. The Nobel committe is not corrupt. It would create a major shitstorm if it was, and yes, it wouldn't go unnoticed.

>But it cannot do harm without the human element.
Neither can islam. Checkmate.

Well what? Guns are already regulated through the roof. If you accept this analogy, you also accept the premise that Muslims should be regulated through the roof as well.

>What he was saying is that we have clearly defined laws and statutes for who is allowed guns and how they obtain them, which lets us define "legal gun owners".
Yeah I can see that in Texas. People can just go into a store and buy an AR. Fuck out of here.
>Muslim people can't even decide what constitutes Islam.
Yet you people can? This just gets better and better. If they can't even decide themselves, how can you generalize them all? Makes absolutely no sense.

Well... Don't give guns to muslims.

>Protestants are literally pacifists, whereas christians who subscribe to british israelism or christian identity straight out want to genocide the jews and actively promote such an agenda. Should the pacifists be lumped together with the war-mongering british israelites according to you? Interesting reasoning.
Christians are known pacifists as well it goes with the ideology that is following christs ways, which all strains of christianity follow in some way, protestants are as you say, literal pacifists.
Eastern Orthodox is semi pacifistic in that they'll attack when agitated but they'll aim for other ways to solve a conflict.
Then we go onto Mormons, Baptists, Catholics etc.
That what proves my point you can generalize all paths of a religion due to their similarities to eachother their main traits will shine in all of that paths that claim that they are branch of the same tree. This is how you can generalize all Muslims no matter what path they are, if they come from the same roots, they'll always have a couple of traits that you can generalize off of.

The problem is to find what these traits are other than following in Muhameds footsteps.

>Doesn't change the fact that many Muslims are having children with extremely young women who shouldn't be childbearing
Many gun owners also act irresponsibly. Why is your generalization okay?

Compared to Muslims. No. No they fucking don't. Gun ownership isn't related to a fucking retarded religion.
>And that makes it right? It is hardly done at all today.
Does it make it wrong? Right and wrong is just arbitrary opinion from an atheistic perspective, hence nonsensical.

Everything is subjective then. Fucking pathetic counter argument. Yeah xD I like dog fighting but I don't have to justify why because everything is subjective xD hahaha btfo amiright?
>That doesn't stop genital mutilation which is completely useless from being a widely used practice.
Still their kids, their choice, is it not? What if Big Daddy government stepped in and said we're not allowed to teach our kids that sexual promiscuity is wrong? You wouldn't have a problem with that?

I'd have a problem with that. There is a line between fucking physical mutilation and teaching your kids ideas.
>So their religion ends up fucking making women have to take supplements to be healthy? Okay.
We're already doing it in Sweden (since we're living so far north). It's not really a big deal. Too much sunlight is detrimental to ones health, so one could argue that you should be FORCED to cover up in Australia, since it's for your own good. This is what your argument is based on.

Wearing a fucking bedsheet serves no purpose. Without the religion you at least have the opportunity to choose.
>No it's fucking not you brain-dead retard. Read what the fucking 2nd amendment says

What the fuck has the 1st amendment have to do with anything?
>Yes they are. Look at the fucking image I posted in the earlier post I made. THEY ARE A PROBLEM.
So are guns.

Explain why?

>you generalize all muslims based on the actions of a few radicals

No I don't, Lefty. Better check yourself.

>All muslims are terorists. This generalization is alright because there are many muslims that are.
t. sweaty american lardass

See the generalization I made? That's also justified. All americans are obese, because there are many who are. Checkmate. Using your own stupid reasoning against you.

All americans are stupid, because there are many who are.

All americans are sexually promiscuous, because there are many who are.

Fair enough.

Glad to see you have set up a great defense of your attraction to little girls and probably boys.

Interesting that they're teaching you these kind of things in school too. Slippery slop is real it seems. Swedes already defending this kind of degeneracy.