Quote:I don't understand what your point is.
To be honest, I'm getting a bit fuzzy on that my self.
That said, I felt that kandrathe was making a lot of over-genralizations. Now I don't have a problem with him saying things about the Danes: they're a horrible nation of Ludfisk-eaters, only slight less despicable than the Norwegians. But I do think, especially in the current world situation and the need for tolerant societies with a plurality of different beliefs, that one has to be very careful about about sterotyping whole religious groups.
I took kandrathe's original point to be that Christians were more tolerant than Muslims because they didn't respond to a newspaper editorial comparing Obama with Jesus by shooting the writer. Whether or not that's the case, he certainly appeared to be comparing Muslims unfavorably with Christians. On the other hand, he appeared to be a lot more defensive about any shortcomings shown by Christians and discounted that they meant anything about true Christianity.
In that context, his statement that "I don't have a problem with many Muslims. I'd say about 90% are not the radical variety that condone terrorist violence." sounds a lot more like an implication that Muslims are more inclined to terrorism than non-Muslims --- which is certainly how I took it --- than "Most Muslims are so gosh-darn nice," which is how you appear to have read it. And the idea that Islam and Muslims are intrinsically more violent than Christianity and Christians, say, is indeed a very wide-spread view, whether or not it's true, and whether or not it's what kandrathe meant.
To interpret my objection to his statement as coming merely from the fact that it suggested *some* Muslims (like *some* Christians, and *some* Athiests) are not decent people, is a knee jerk reaction probably caused by an inability to understanding opposing views. To read into my statement any form of political correctness is just plain ignorant. Ignorant of logic, ignorant of meanings, ignorant of argument.;)