You seem to have a problem with misrepresenting the posts of others. The beliefs that I am referring are his EXTREMISM, NOT his ideology.
OK, let's review. Your argument previously was that conservatives should condemn him AND his ideas. Then you said that ideas are not the problem, separating the individual from the ideas.
Now you argument is that his EXTREMISM is the problem. The problem for you is that you are back to combining the individual with the ideology since extremism is defined as:
Extremism is any ideology or political act far outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common moral standards.
So again, you first condemned the individual AND his ideology, next you separated the individual from the ideology and said the ideology is not the problem, the problem is the individual....and then finally you say EXTREMISM is the problem.....which is the individual acting out using EXTREME ideology as a rationale.
Of course it does. It's like Islam or Christianity. Neither religion causes violence. What causes violence is how an individual interprets the words of those religions. Same for anything.
If the individual is using (interpreting) literal translations, such as verse calling for the killing of non-believers (which is in the Abrahamic texts), then it is still the individual AND the ideology, they are not separate, they are combined. We do not excuse murder because of the ideology being used, the literal interpretation is condemned, that text is condemned by many because of ideology of justifying the murder of non-believers. There are whole schools of apologists defending the text, setup just to defend some the most insane, irrational aspects of the text.
Oh yes, you first condemned the individual AND the ideology, then you condemned just the individual, and now you have gone back to condemning both with your new "extremism" argument.
No, I addressed your points. You don't agree with them. You have made no compelling argument that demonstrates that any of your points are more valid that what I have said. You have been unable to show that two individuals, believing in the same ideology could NOT act differently. When you can, THEN you might have a point.
Aside from the fact that your argument keeps flip-flopping, I was never required to show that an ideology was the problem only when it is 100% effective, causing ALL to act out in its most extreme, literal form.
My argument still is that the ideology is a problem when it calls for the murder of those outside of the group.
You can keep arguing that is not a problem, and keep going through your verbal gymnastic demonstrations of combining, separating and recombining the ideology and the individual, but you are still defending bad ideologies, excusing them by arguing they are not a problem, that it is totally the individual.
There are no bad ideas, just bad people....that is poppycock, BS.