Like I've said, I've been quite clear throughout in why the examples provided were insufficient, and it wasn't just because they didn't agree with my premise. It's because they weren't probative of the conclusion they were provided to support. If, for instance, the claim is that German courts are withholding the full application of Muslims, out of sympathy for their beliefs, then an example where a group of boys who engaged in a gang rape - boys who aren't even identified as Muslims - received probation rather than jail time, on account of their youth (where, incidentally, the one adult in the group did receive jail time) is not relevant.
Most of the examples provided in this discussion have been similar in that respect. They didn't identify the wrongdoers as Muslim, or they didn't explain the rationale behind the "favorable" treatment (or clearly explained it as something other than deference to their Islamic beliefs), or there's something else about the example that doesn't square with the present discussion.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
"Clearly, the penguins have finally gone too far. First they take our hearts, now they’re tanking the global economy one smug waddle at a time. Expect fish sanctions by Friday."
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 8/9/17 10:37 (UTC)Most of the examples provided in this discussion have been similar in that respect. They didn't identify the wrongdoers as Muslim, or they didn't explain the rationale behind the "favorable" treatment (or clearly explained it as something other than deference to their Islamic beliefs), or there's something else about the example that doesn't square with the present discussion.