It IS a false equivalence, Maajid. But we'll let it slide because we like you and hate Reza.
-
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
no, it's not. Think about it in light of Reza's positions vis a vis Sam's views.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MaajidNawaz @G_S_Bhogal
according to Reza you can't "denigrate an entire people" by discussing Islam .. but you can eat people.
1 reply 2 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @MaajidNawaz
Still seems like false equivalence. Condemning religion =/= partaking in ritual. It's also an example of the tu quoque fallacy.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
no,it's not."Disrespecting" people by talking about an idea they hold dear,is not worse than disrespecting people by eating them
3 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @MaajidNawaz @G_S_Bhogal
And pointing out a hypocrisy is not the tu quoque fallacy, if the original argument one points to is in itself invalid.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MaajidNawaz
That depends on your intention. If it was to invalidate Reza's original assertion, it's tu quoque
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
1) tu quoque fallacy applies when it is used to invalidate an *originally valid* position, due to a hypocrisy in 2nd position
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MaajidNawaz @G_S_Bhogal
2) whereas here, his original assertion that Sam is a racist for critiquing Islam is itself invalid, hence no tu quoqe fallacy.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MaajidNawaz
From your tweet, it appeared to me that you were trying to rubbish Reza's assertion by appealing to his hypocrisy.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
There was no mention of racism. It was purely about what is "acceptable" (whatever that means).
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.