Baron Bodissey, who, along with his wife Dymphna (no, not their real names) runs one of the major Counter-Jihad websites (Gates of Vienna, on my blogroll, while he has never put my blog on his blogroll, even though he knows me well and knows my blog and his blog has a humungus list of other websites on Islam) on the Internet (i.e., most of reality for the modern world), recently posted a clever little essay, Syllogislam, showing someone's diagram (I guess a "Venn diagram" whatever the fuck that is). His analytical explanation of the diagram was as follows:
|1.||No Muslims are Jihadists. (In other words, the classes are disjoint.)|
|2.||All and only Muslims are Jihadists. (In other words, the classes are identical.)|
|3.||All Muslims are Jihadists, but not all Jihadists are Muslims. (In other words, the class of Muslims is a proper subset of the class of Jihadists.)|
|4.||All Jihadists are Muslims, but not all Muslims are Jihadists. (In other words, the class of Jihadists is a proper subset of the class of Muslims.)|
|5.||Some and only some Muslims are Jihadists. (In other words, the classes overlap, but only in part.)|
Bodissey then commented:
"In order for “S is anti-Muslim” to follow from “S is anti-Jihadist,” either 2 or 3 must be true. But notice that in both of them, all Muslims are Jihadists. So T, unwittingly, is saying that all Muslims are Jihadists!"
Two days ago, I emailed him my response:
There's another possibility: T is saying that S thinks that way. And I think the Ts of the West are being more logical than the Counter-Jihad. If we condemn Islam for the mountain of good reasons we have, how are we not also condemning those people who follow, affirm, support, enable, think Islam is their meaning of life? (And who when challenged, prevaricate and tap-dance with sophistry -- including the "Reformers" (though rarely do Counter-Jihad people ask them challenging questions)).
Bodissey still hasn't responded. I can't imagine how he could get out of this corner. Not that I give a fuck anymore