Ntuker
My reading was similar to yours until Andros posted, except that I had presumed religious zealotry rather than violence.
Upon reading Andros’ post, it immediately occurred to me that the statement Dogface made was a modal assertion, i.e., an assertion about a state. The reason I framed Andros’ argument as a modal implication was so that I could examine its validity and soundness objectively.
That’s why the word “keep” matters. As an intransitive verb, it means “to remain in a state or condition”. (Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
The reason I had to think about it for several hours is that it is not immediately clear exactly what reference frame Dogface’s modal assertion fits. When I began to think of Mally’s deontic logic system and Menger’s criticism of it, that’s when it dawned on me that the relevant frame is a deontic one, that is to say, one of moral permission and obligation (what one “ought” to do).
At that point, there was no longer any need to look at the issue emotionally, because it could now been mapped to an objective symbology that could be objectively manipulated in accordance with sound principles of logic.
You see, it was not possible that Dogface was talking about “people who commit these types of violent acts”. His modal state is one of pretense: keep pretending.
In listing the attributes that we know concerning the gang, each can be fairly easily examined for its deontic state: [1] the gang is violent (they beat the man), [2] the gang is comprised of religious zealots (their concern was morality), and [3] the gang is comprised of Pakistani Mulsims (so identified by the article).
For any state to continue, it must first have existed — cf., for something to be necessary, it must first be possible. Now, examine the list:
[1] Reasonable people generally do not hold that violence ought to be tolerated, so he could not have been talking about violent people.
[2] Reasonable people generally do not hold that religious zealotry (which so often manifests as violence) ought to be tolerated, so he could not have been talking about religious zealots.
[3] Reasonable people generally do indeed hold that religious faith itself, and diverse cultures as a whole, ought to be tolerated, so he must have been talking about Pakistani Muslims.
His assertion, therefore, was that we ought not to keep pretending to tolerate Pakistani Muslims. A simple modus tollens.
It was upon this realization that I posted my retraction and my apology. A reasonable man, when confronted by an argument that is both valid and sound, is compelled to accept the argument’s conclusion, whether he agreed with it before or not. He must agree with it now. I cannot continue to hold the position I held, and still be a reasonable man.
