Well that's a stupid thing to believe isn't it?

Do you think a fair sample of members of the KKK will be identically as moral as an equivalent sample of, to pick an organisation entirely at random, Helem?

Do you think some ideas are better than others?

Okay, but video games are still responsible for mass shootings and sexism.

I've largely opted out of this one. I'm not an economist or an expert in european law, so I haven't the knowledge to make an intelligent choice.

I am somewhat naturally inclined toward remaining: there was never a trace of patriotism in my soul, and the european courts at least have done some service toward protecting british freedoms, both from our government and from those corporations who'd like to own it. The common market's a good principle, and I don't have anything but admiration for the idea of a european superpower to oppose the twin fascisms of the US and China.

I never thought I'd grow up to care about immigration, but it turns out I don't like seeing millions of social conservatives marching into western europe from lesser cultures, pushing back against the progress we've made in recent decades.

There's another dimension to that question in the UK, which I don't think is well understood externally: where absolutely anyone with a european passport is allowed permanent residence here, the government keeps the figures down to appease its more xenophobic voters by making it practically impossible for those outside the EU. So, every year we tell thousands of highly skilled, highly intelligent prospective immigrants to just fuck off. Good policy.

In any event, I don't endorse unjust systems like democracy, and wouldn't vote in any referendum.

I spent that entire dialogue repeatedly asking him to assent to something that is implicitly maintained by literally everyone who holds moral principles of any kind.

What about you, do you think some ideas are better than others?

Next.

Homo sapiens? Translate those words and try to apply them to a muslim.

You see why precision of thought is important.

I don't see that this is any less terrible than christians building christian churches.

You probably don't realise that that's what you said, but it is. After all, it sounds ridiculous when put explicitly.

Nevertheless, that is the undeniable implication of the claim that my negative opinion of others is false because these others may hold a similar opinion about me. It's the condition of the world that everyone thinks themselves righteous. The difference isn't made up by pretending therefore that everyone's the same. A distinction is drawn on a foundation of solid argument.

Here's some more things you've said:

1. Islam is immoral.
2. Muslims are just as good as anybody else.

I'm in a position to correct that contradiction in your thinking, but to do so you'll remember there's an affirmation I need you to make.

You claim that everyone in the world is exactly as moral as everyone else? That all opinions are identically valid? I don't believe that that you do, just that you fear some terrible trap will be sprung if you simply admit that there is such a thing as right and wrong.

That's not the end of my argument; I'm not going to flounce off singing of my victory if you do - it's just an absolute prerequisite to any discussion of ethics that the participants affirm that one set of values may be preferable to another, and that individuals are in some way accountable for themselves.

This is the affirmation that so many are now afraid to make, because it opens them up to suasion and debate where they were previously so much happier wallowing in sloshy relativism.

Do you think people who hold admittedly appalling ideas are exactly as good as people who don't, and have all the same rights?

The ugliness of an idea reflects on the people who hold it. Islam is an utterly abhorrent ideology; it must be correct to say that its followers are in some degree less worthy than those who endorse better ethical systems.

Why do muslims deserve to live safely, to be treated with the dignity afforded to human beings, when they deny the same rights to others? There is such a thing as self-defence.

Hey @newtboy, when was the last time the US government executed someone for the crime of homosexuality?

Well, somehow the lesson you've taken from no true scotsman is that it's impossible to define groups, and that no statement can be made that applies to more than one person.

Now the irony for me is that I don't find that hilarious at all, because I don't think you're a waste of my time. What I believe is that there's a thinking person trapped inside you somewhere that might one day break free.

This is unbelievably sloppy thinking. You have a woeful understanding of no true scotsman as well as, apparently, the english language in general.

There are divorced catholics because catholic doctrine is not that it's literally impossible to obtain a divorce. Catholics who get divorces don't suffer sudden existential collapse and wink out of reality. There are no catholics who doubt and despise the bible, who believe that there's no god or historical jesus, and who participate in no catholic tradition. That would be contradictory, and oh look, it's possible to construct a 'no true...' statement that is nevertheless correct. There are no pro-lifers who believe abortion is fine and should be freely available to everyone. There are no democrats who are republicans. There are no jews who believe jesus is the son of god. There are no peaceful muslims.

Put that aside for now. You're arguing for the end of all moral judgement and distinction. Humans are not consistent, therefore it would be outrageous to condemn a car thief for stealing a car. After all, look at all the times he didn't steal a car. Fuck off.

It's possible to make generalisations about arbitrarily large groups that share common attributes. People who steal things are thieves. Apples are fruits. Muslims are violent.

By definition, all muslims share first the belief that mohammed was a good person and second the conviction to follow his example and instruction. By necessity, all muslims share the guilt for the evils of that man, and the evils brought into the world as a result of his legacy.

There are statements that are true by definition. Followers of violent ideologies are not peaceful.

You choose not to believe necessarily factual statements because you're afraid they would hurt your view of yourself as the beneficent, tolerant progressive. That's cowardice. It's more important to be right, to be just, to be rational.