This is so fascinating to watch, and election of London's new mayor is shedding even more light on it.
Members of one specific religion - a religion with a current record of extreme violence, intimidation and terror - are telling us precisely what they're going to do, and they're doing it. It's expansion is clear and rapid and undeniable. We're watching it happen in real time, particularly across Europe. This isn't a partisan or religious opinion, it is a clear fact, based on observation.
Meanwhile, a group of people - the Regressive Left (as honest liberal Bill Maher refers to them), a group all too happy to attack the misdeeds of another religion (Christianity, obviously) in absolutely every possible way, at absolutely every opportunity, are bending over backwards to be defensive and so very tolerant of the first religion. A religion, by the way, that treats women and gays as lesser objects, among other behaviors that the Regressive Leftists loathe.
Exactly what is happening here?
Is this just a petulant, knee-jerk reaction against Christianity and conservatives, is it that simple? Are they willing to be so very tolerant of one specific religion just to be contrarian against certain other people they hate?
Or could it be more? Is this behavior related to the payback tactics that we're seeing with race and wealth? Or perhaps do they harbor certain affinities for the religion to which they won't openly admit?
And directly to the Regressive Leftists here: I'm certainly not, nor do I ever, expect a straight, clear and honest answer from you on this. What I expect from you is the standard deflection, derision, personal insults and name-calling. I know that's what we'll get, it's an easy prediction. This thread is specifically about your behaviors, not about Islam. I'm just curious about this, and perhaps some other responses will shed some light or provide some clues.
.
This fails as both a straw man fallacy and hasty generalization fallacy.
And telling you that your thread premise has failed is not deflection, derision, engaging in personal insults, or name-calling.
Straw Man Fallacy – the OP contrives a lie about his opponent in an effort to misrepresent his opponent’s position on a given issue, then attacks the lie contrived (straw man) claiming ‘victory.’
In the case of this thread’s failed premise, you’ve contrived the lie that ‘liberals’ are ‘hostile’ to Christianity while not exhibiting that same hostility toward Islam, a religion you incorrectly believe warrants such hostility. Your failed attempt to misrepresent ‘liberals’ as being ‘inconsistent’ and applying a ‘double standard’ is devoid of facts and objective evidence in support, hence the fallacy.
Hasty Generalization Fallacy – using the actions or statements of a small, non-representative minority of a given class of persons, the OP incorrectly infers that the actions of that minority are ‘representative’ of the whole, and attacks an entire class of persons based on the actions of the minority.
In the case of this thread’s failed premise, you’ve incorrectly inferred that the statements or actions of some ‘liberals’ are ‘representative’ of all ‘liberals,’ when in fact that’s not the case.’
You’ve also incorrectly inferred that the actions of a minority of terrorists and extremists who happen to be Muslim are ‘representative’ of all Islam, when in fact that’s also not the case.
So what exactly is happening here is your thread premise has failed as a fallacy, the premise is devoid of logic, reason, and merit.
