Satire is meant to be an exaggeration using irony and humor. If you try to "disprove" a satiric work by listing exceptions, I think you're missing the point of satire.SlimShady wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 9:34 pmOk. So just taking that first sentence there-WellPreserved wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 9:26 pmThat basically if a population is of a majority religion, they don't feel the need to apologize, defend, or be fearful of reprisal of acts perpetrated in the name of that religion. For example, Christians in our country feel justified in "requiring" Muslims to atone for the sins of ISIS and yet we don't require Christians to atone for the sins of "a devout Christian President of Russia [] bombing Ukraine". Adherents of a particular religion don't normally see faults or actions within that religion as being indicative of their religion: "speaking about the lunch he purchased on land stolen by his religious forefathers from the local Mi’kmaq people and paid for with his wages earned from the church responsible for rampant sexual abuse of minors since before Confederation" and in fact don't think about it. But people are quick to think about events that occur in the name of those minority religions to be indicative of that group as a whole.
Considering the timing of the article, I imagine it is particularly inspired by the need for Palestinians to apologize and die for the acts of Hamas but I'm just guessing.
That basically if a population is of a majority religion, they don't feel the need to …be fearful of reprisal of acts perpetrated in the name of that religion.
I was saying actually, they do.
It seems as if you are a very black and white thinker and there's nothing wrong with that (my son is the same) but it does mean that many people are going to mis-interpret what you are saying and you are going to mis-interpret what they are saying as most people think, speak and write with nuance.