In light of recent news, the Woolwich murder, i am blogging. Now i can understand the anger people feel towards what happened but it doesn’t give you the god given right to spout such nonsense, such racist and such inappropriate words on the internet. The acts of a few individual does not mean you can call for fucking genocide you ignorant people … in what world does that even come into it. You would think after historic examples you would see that genocide does not answer any problems *cough*Hitler and the holocaust*cough* (i use this as an example because due to my heritage and education, it really helps in this understanding … to which obviously people are lacking in – and also its the easiest example to give, that or the Genocide in Congo)

Adding to which id like to understand your thought process … 2 individuals (not accounting race or religion) + murder of army serviceman = genocide of entire race/religion … in logical terms you would think the formula would acc state 2 individuals + murder of army serviceman < genocide … ceasing your argument invalid … and anyways the premises and your conclusion aren't even plausible meaning you yourself … have created and argued an UNSOUND argument.

(its sounds like people were to assume i am trying to be a smart arse but its just common logic people … don’t say shit if your not willing to be told how stupid you are)

Imma explain this in a philosophical styled argument because this is what exams do to me

So your statement is ‘We should ‘kill’ all Muslims because of those 2 individuals who murdered the army service man’

1) this statement would assume that you know the concepts of being Muslim. It sounds stupid but being a certain religion does not mean you are a specific race … a lot of people are targeting Pakistani people …

Intermediate conclusion : one were to assume the concepts of being Muslim in order for this argument to be valid

2) In Kant’s thesis to morality (loosely explained btw) we are to assume a place in society of following duty, this duty is based around a categorical imperative, this is a duty you believe everyone must follow, this will entale you being a rational person, being irrational means you disagree with yourself (which you shouldn’t if you are arguing for duties you think everyone should do … e.g. do not murder yet you murder someone). so bringing this back to the statement, if you disagree with the actions of these men, then you morally believe in the idea of ‘not murdering people’. Now this is where this get interesting, if you believe that Genocide should be brought then you would be acting against your morals (against it so much so you may aswell have taken your moral, run it over, spat on its theoretical body, then buried it in a shallow grave so that in a few days you could repeat the process) … this would mean you that you are going against your duty making you irrational.

3) if you continue the idea of duty, perfect duties trump imperfect duties … perfect duties are duties that have not emotional connection or inclination, and imperfect duties are duties which you are emotionally or personally inclined to do … therefore yeah committing genocide is an imperfect duty as this duty is done out of anger, an emotional inclination

Intermediate conclusion : this statement would only be valid if you ignored to assumptions of morality and rationality

THEREFORE : this statement is invalid and unsound as its premises ignore the assumptions of morality which therefore lead us to being rational beings.

NOW THAT … was like mental exercise which may have confused you but you catch my drift … people who wish genocide are dumb and L.I.F.E.G.O.E.S.O.N people … i know its sad, a waste of a life, and to the government a ‘terrorist attack’ but in the current society we live in murders happen to often, yet people don’t call for this, so please just stfu with your racism, your dumbass ideas of the perfect world, and immigration you bellends … your existence irritates me to a point where i could slap a kid in the face with a fish