Describing Muslims as being akin to a destructive foreign species that "breeds rapidly" (which is a trait one typically ascribes to vermin, not human beings) is not "simply disliking" another culture.
>Would you be okay with large groups of people intentionally having as many kids as they can just to affect future demographics?
We're not talking about "large groups of people," we're talking about Muslims, exclusively. And yes, I would be okay with it, because I don't see the existence of Muslims or of their children as a "problem" requiring a solution.
You are defending the rhetoric of a genocide perpetrator. It's like saying "what if Hitler was right about the Jews? I don't agree with his tactics, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a problem."
I think another way of saying phrasing the same idea. Let us assume that Muslims are intentionally having as many kids as they can to become a demographic majority in the future. How does that affect how we should act?
The above phrasing I count as very different from defending rhetoric of a genocide perpetrator because the answer to the above question is not "Kill all Muslims".
What I don't understand is why are you arguing your position? What do you propose I do with respect to the acquisition and spread of knowledge?
Even if Muslims have higher fertility rates than Buddhists, the observation is meaningless.
I regret that I couldn't capture the full quote in which the monk analogises Muslims to African Carp (there was no way to pause or rewind the video, and that's the most I could remember with accuracy). He goes on at length about how they are violent, selfish, attack other species as well as their own kind, pollute the ecosystem, are a foreign invasive species, etc. These kind of analogies are designed to dehumanise their subjects, and to lead to an inevitable conclusion: for the health of the ecosystem, invasive foreign species must be eradicated. Of course culling always feels a bit distasteful, but in the long run it's the best thing to do.
This kind of rhetoric puts my hackles up because I've seen it before. In 2001-2002 I lived in Ahmedabad, India, and I saw at point-blank range how these kind of Islamophobic sentiments culminated in the massacre of thousands of innocent Muslims. So it's something that I take very seriously.
(By the way: this isn't a matter of tribal allegiance. I'm ethnically Jewish and my spiritual practice owes more to Buddhism than anything else -- but somehow it's still not difficult to recognise that the Rohingya are human beings, not African Carp. Anybody who says otherwise can fuck the hell off.)
Interesting, specifically, the "morally superior position" part. Are you willing to explain how hating what white people did is a morally superior position? Also, morally superior position to what, not hating it?
Omg.. are we really debating this?
What I am wondering where you stand on a more exact statement. Is "Hating what white people did to Africans" morally superior to "thinking what what people did to Africans immoral"? Why or why not?
For example, Americans enslaved Africans for hundreds of years. That is a claim of fact. I believe it is true. I believe slavery is bad, it should be stopped in all its forms (including as punishment for a crime), and I'm glad that the 13th Amendment was passed.
Hating what white people did to Africans does not make me evil, in fact it's a morally superior position.
To say that this guy is being evil, is like denying that slavery occurred because you're ignoring his claim of fact. You're effectively saying "No, Muslim populations in Myanmar are not attempting to take over the country by means of rapid reproduction. You are lying to gain support for genocide."
Just because you disagree with someone's proposed solution (assuming that's what he's proposing), doesn't mean there isn't a problem. It would have been one thing to be opposed to the Civil War - maybe the costs were too high - but it would be quite another to claim slavery is moral, or that slavery wasn't going on, or to just ignore the whole issue and pretend that anyone who's encouraging war is evil.
What if what he's saying is true? Would you support genocide? Would you be okay with large groups of people intentionally having as many kids as they can just to affect future demographics? Just because there's no good solutions, doesn't mean that there isn't a problem. At some point global warming may be beyond every solution, but that won't undo the facts or absolve humanity for its blame.