alt Hacker News>Observing Islam does not make one Islamic. Observing ontological evil does not make one ontological evil.
No, by your own words, "People who believe in ontological[sic] evil are ontologically evil people"
If you believe that Islam is ontologically evil, you believe in ontological evil.
Ipso facto you are an ontologically evil person.
This is basic kindergarten logic if it doesn't get through to you I don't know what to say.
"Observing Islam does not make one Islamic" is not an equivalent statement. You did not make a subjective statement about observation, you made an objective statement about belief.
>Dumb flex but OK.
I agree. It was dumb - "only Sith deal in absolutes" level stupid, and I don't know why you came back to double down on it.
>No, by your own words, "People who believe in ontological[sic] evil are ontologically evil people"
Yes, people who believe in ontologically evil beliefs (such as Islam) are ontologically evil people. Not belief in the concept of ontologically, this is a misattribution error on your part.
>If you believe that Islam is ontologically evil, you believe in ontological evil.
Islam is an ontologically evil as I stated above. I believe in ontological evil as a concept, but that does not make me ontologically evil.
Ipso facto you are misattributing this to ontologically evil as a concept. This is basic kindergarten logic and contextual understanding if it doesn't get through to you I don't know what to say.
QED.
>"Observing Islam does not make one Islamic" is not an equivalent statement
Yes it as, as the first sentence was "Islam is [an] ontologically evil [religion]."
>I agree. It was dumb
Glad you agree your flex was dumb, "ackchyually" level stupid, then you came back to triple down on it.
Maybe you're right though, no chance "The Religion of Peace" could be unpeaceful.