> Idol-worshippers like Hindus are considered beastly and low-life. So don't expect foreigners to accept what Hindus says as our moralities are going to cut through their doctrinal abhrahamic morality though they are separate religions.
Once you start telling people your opposition's views, you're stepping into territory that weakens your own argument. This is a textbook example. All you've done is spread the rhetoric of your own side about how the other side views you, which is propaganda.
In the US, this would be akin to BLM stating that anyone that disagrees with their movement is racist and sees them as sub-human, or the police stating that the defund the police movement is about disbanding the police entirely. While there are obviously subsets of people that do believe those things, those are not the stances of the respective groups and do to convey the overall aims of each.
Why should your self-serving statement that vilifies your opposition be viewed any differently?
seriously? Someone who's generally considered to have been very racist is your reference for what people think today? Not exactly a good argument for why you should be taken seriously.
