|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 15 2016 23:21 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 23:05 SolaR- wrote:On June 15 2016 22:30 Plansix wrote:On June 15 2016 22:23 SolaR- wrote:On June 15 2016 22:20 Gorsameth wrote:On June 15 2016 22:17 SolaR- wrote:On June 15 2016 21:29 mahrgell wrote:
Doesn't really need a friend to show some respect.
Otherwise they could also ask at Immigration to just burn all other countries flags, because you know, you should now subscribe only to your new home countries flag.
Nothing hostile about it, but just burn a US flag when immigrating to the EU, thanks. I've burned qurans and bibles in my rebellious youth. I've eaten pages from the bible for shock value while drunk. I have also burned several american flags. There are objects nothing more. The fact that people place so much inportance in them is why we have problems in the first place. In fact, those religious texts have been symbols of tyranny and oppression for centuries, why respect it? You != other people. So i should place importance and respect for something, simply because others do? Collectivism at it's finest. There is no requirement to do so. Just don’t expect people to be supportive of your decision to go out of your way to be an asshole. The atheist who has to see religion permeating through everything and influencing society through it's dogmatic prininciples is the asshole because he burns a book that you can buy at your local book store for 10 dollars.I find it funny liberals love to call atheists or anti-theists assholes for simply criticizing religion, but will go to great lengths to defend Islam. One of the most oppressive religions of all time. Religion is a choice, and like all choices it is subject to criticism and does not qualify for any level of respect. It is not to be grouped with race, gender, or sexuality as they are inherent in one's identity that cannot be changed. The fact that we have so many religions with conflicting principles with people who take it so seriously to the extent of life or death is the very reason while we will continue to have violent conflicts. Immunity from criticism and their unwillingness to hear any criticism is the primary reason why Islam has lacked reform and modernization compared to the other Judaic religions. In addition, people in this thread need to stop referring to Muslims as a race of people. It is a religion, not a race. The middle east is multi cultural. Black, brown, and white muslims. Many arabs are borderline white. So stop referring to it as a ban on brown people. I'm pretty sure that describes me and probably most people on TL. Somehow I've never burned any of those things because it doesn't serve any purpose. I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to, free speech you should be able to torch it if that's your desire. But unless you're going for some massive fedora points or to be the edgiest guy around its really pointless. I despise religion myself and yet I think doing that makes you an asshole.
I don't know if it is by circumstance or my subconcious. Most if not all of my friends are non-religious stemming from multiple cultures.
It's not like i went to a mosque and lit a quran in front of it. I would never instigate people that way unless attacked first, because i get hit i gotta hit them back harder.
The context of when i did those things are completely harmless and mostly took place in party environments. I burned the american flag, but i am by no means anti-american. I am against certain american values, and also acknowldege the triviality of taking pride in a dumb flag.
I love how i am being judged as thinking i am edgy or a superior intellectual. Trust me, i am neither of those things.
Plansix while many philosophers and intellectuals have been having these discussions for centuries. These discussion s were limited with the common folk. Intellect and the access to information have changed alot since then.
|
Ignoring that the vast majority of violence in the US is perpetrated by US nationals and doing pretty much diddly squat about it. Wonder how long blaming outsiders will be effective...
|
On June 15 2016 15:19 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 14:24 On_Slaught wrote:On June 15 2016 12:45 cLutZ wrote:On June 15 2016 12:24 On_Slaught wrote:On June 15 2016 12:02 cLutZ wrote:On June 15 2016 11:47 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 15 2016 11:36 Doodsmack wrote:On June 15 2016 10:59 cLutZ wrote:On June 15 2016 10:52 On_Slaught wrote:
Still wondering what the religious test is going to look like to prove people are Muslim. Are we going to continue to monitor every dark skinned person who enters the country after they get in to make sure they aren't Muslim, like they told us they weren't in the interview? Which is why rhetoric and policy prescriptions are not the same thing. When promoting the PPACA they didn't talk about mandates, penalties, and minimum required coverage, but that is what the policy is in practice. Similarly, this would likely be a country of origin system, in practice. Which we already have and historically have had. Honestly, it feels like intentional feigning of naivety when people ask this question. And I don't even particularly think its a good solution (just think this question is incredibly disingenuous). Yes, asking Trump and his supporters for a basic, initial detail on how his stated plan would be carried out is naive and disingenuous. Your analogy is way off because this detail we're requesting from Trump's supporters is fundamental. A religion ban and a country of origin ban are two very different things. It's especially egregious because Trump's opponents in the primary (both Cruz and Paul) offered a country of origin ban and he maintained his own non-plan was distinct and superior. Yes, that Cruz and Paul proposed options that are realistic showed they were smarter and more practical than Trump on this issue (one of many reasons I preferred them), but arguing against the practicality of a Muslim ban is an inherently dumb position to stake out (arguing its wisdom as policy is where you set up). Practicality implies implementation, which means basically one of two options: 1) National origin; or 2) A strict, positive proof test (burden on the migrant) that essentially means no immigration. Neither is impractical, they just arent great policy long term. Who are you to decide that it's OK to attack the policy but not the implementation? One of the biggest arguments against mass deportation, for example, is implementation, and rightfully so. This is the real world, not a high school debate, so pragmatism matters. Having said that, I'm against it both practically and philosophically. The reasons why such a ban makes us look bad, is a anathema to our values, and has a real chance of putting us in further danger are so numerous and easy to find I won't waste my time listing them here. Uhhg. You've got it backwards. Mass deportation is impractical because all possible implementation require the hiring of a massive police force. The "muslim ban" is not impractical because you are arguing against a straw man aka, "Hurr durr please fill out this immigration survey about your muslimness". The actual Muslim ban policy always boils down to a country of origin test OR a "burden of proof on the immigrant" test. Neither of which is impractical. . Ironic that you're saying I'm using a strawman. Your argument is not Trumps. He has the burden of saying how it would work. Until he does, stop spouting you own ideas on it. Even if they are logical, Trump has shown no appetite for using logic himself. Plainly, his call is for a ban of Muslims. Read my sig. On a side note, Trump has said we have to do more to protect Christians in these countries. Wonder if he would be OK with banning them as part of a country ban. Somehow I doubt it. I mean, you might think that, I might think that its a stupid policy, but it doesn't solve that you are arguing from a point of logical inconsistency. Either A) The "muslim ban" is as stupid as the strawman, and thus is not a Muslim ban, it is merely a ban of Muslims who are not liars (aka a policy that would never be implemented); 2) It is a correlative Muslim ban wherein people from certain areas are "presumed guilty" and not admitted; 3) It is a burden of proof on immigrants Muslim ban where the government rubberstamps the word "no" on applications for immigration unless you have overcome some high standard; or 4) some combination of #3 and #4 (most likely). These are not good policies, but only #1 is "not practicable". The other ones work, they just are not good (except maybe #2 on a short term basis till better things are thought of).
How do we know your list of options is the same thing Trump has in his head? Maybe he wants to use the same method of identification as would be used for his database of US Muslims, and neither options 2 nor 3 work for that purpose. Also keep in mind that Trump's recently-articulated country of origin ban is in addition to the Muslim ban. So that rules out #2.
I'm also skeptical that option 3 is practical. How does an atheist prove they're not Muslim?
|
Canada11363 Posts
On June 15 2016 23:05 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 22:30 Plansix wrote:On June 15 2016 22:23 SolaR- wrote:On June 15 2016 22:20 Gorsameth wrote:On June 15 2016 22:17 SolaR- wrote:On June 15 2016 21:29 mahrgell wrote:
Doesn't really need a friend to show some respect.
Otherwise they could also ask at Immigration to just burn all other countries flags, because you know, you should now subscribe only to your new home countries flag.
Nothing hostile about it, but just burn a US flag when immigrating to the EU, thanks. I've burned qurans and bibles in my rebellious youth. I've eaten pages from the bible for shock value while drunk. I have also burned several american flags. There are objects nothing more. The fact that people place so much inportance in them is why we have problems in the first place. In fact, those religious texts have been symbols of tyranny and oppression for centuries, why respect it? You != other people. So i should place importance and respect for something, simply because others do? Collectivism at it's finest. There is no requirement to do so. Just don’t expect people to be supportive of your decision to go out of your way to be an asshole. The atheist who has to see religion permeating through everything and influencing society through it's dogmatic prininciples is the asshole because he burns a book that you can buy at your local book store for 10 dollars. I find it funny liberals love to call atheists or anti-theists assholes for simply criticizing religion, but will go to great lengths to defend Islam. One of the most oppressive religions of all time.
Book burning does not equal 'simply criticizing religion.' The book burning part is what they were balking at. You can't just say, 'hey, guys I'd like to burn religious books in front of the religious person', notice people say, 'um, we'd rather not' and then scold them for not wanting to criticize religion. Those aren't even the same categories of actions, but it is very much like the atheist's version of the Puritans.
|
On June 15 2016 23:38 ticklishmusic wrote:
Ignoring that the vast majority of violence in the US is perpetrated by US nationals and doing pretty much diddly squat about it. Wonder how long blaming outsiders will be effective...
I would argue that white supremacists and right wing christians are vastly dangerous on US soil than islamists. For a start, they kill more or less the same amount of people (9/11 excluded) and because they actually have a chance to push and implement their political agenda which is not the case for islamists. And that's a very significant difference.
And there are more people who believe in their crazy ideas than people calling for sharia law.
But I haven't seen Trump calling for a ban on christianity.
In a democracy, we fight ideas with ideas. If some citizens have stupid ideas, well you fight them through education and political discussion, whether they are right wing christians or islamists. And as long as they respect the law (an immense majority of both fundamentalist christians and islamists do), whether they think it's a great idea to torture people, oppose interracial marriage or stone women who had sex outside marriage, you can have faith that american democracy will be stronger than their medieval opinions.
In any case, banning a billion people from entering the country solely based on the fact that some of them have bad ideas is the most stupid suggestion and the biggest insult to democracy ever uttered in a presidential campaign. That's exactly the opposite of what America stands for.
|
On June 15 2016 23:48 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 23:05 SolaR- wrote:On June 15 2016 22:30 Plansix wrote:On June 15 2016 22:23 SolaR- wrote:On June 15 2016 22:20 Gorsameth wrote:On June 15 2016 22:17 SolaR- wrote:On June 15 2016 21:29 mahrgell wrote:
Doesn't really need a friend to show some respect.
Otherwise they could also ask at Immigration to just burn all other countries flags, because you know, you should now subscribe only to your new home countries flag.
Nothing hostile about it, but just burn a US flag when immigrating to the EU, thanks. I've burned qurans and bibles in my rebellious youth. I've eaten pages from the bible for shock value while drunk. I have also burned several american flags. There are objects nothing more. The fact that people place so much inportance in them is why we have problems in the first place. In fact, those religious texts have been symbols of tyranny and oppression for centuries, why respect it? You != other people. So i should place importance and respect for something, simply because others do? Collectivism at it's finest. There is no requirement to do so. Just don’t expect people to be supportive of your decision to go out of your way to be an asshole. The atheist who has to see religion permeating through everything and influencing society through it's dogmatic prininciples is the asshole because he burns a book that you can buy at your local book store for 10 dollars. I find it funny liberals love to call atheists or anti-theists assholes for simply criticizing religion, but will go to great lengths to defend Islam. One of the most oppressive religions of all time. Book burning does not equal 'simply criticizing religion.' That is what they were balking at. You can't just say, 'hey, guys I'd like to burn religious books in front of the religious person', notice people say, 'um, we'd rather not' and then scold them for not wanting to criticize religion. Those aren't even the same categories of actions, but it is very much like the atheist's version of the Puritans.
I never burned a religious book in front of a religious person( if i did not intentionally) nor have i advocated for it.
|
On June 15 2016 23:38 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 23:21 OuchyDathurts wrote:On June 15 2016 23:05 SolaR- wrote:On June 15 2016 22:30 Plansix wrote:On June 15 2016 22:23 SolaR- wrote:On June 15 2016 22:20 Gorsameth wrote:On June 15 2016 22:17 SolaR- wrote:On June 15 2016 21:29 mahrgell wrote:
Doesn't really need a friend to show some respect.
Otherwise they could also ask at Immigration to just burn all other countries flags, because you know, you should now subscribe only to your new home countries flag.
Nothing hostile about it, but just burn a US flag when immigrating to the EU, thanks. I've burned qurans and bibles in my rebellious youth. I've eaten pages from the bible for shock value while drunk. I have also burned several american flags. There are objects nothing more. The fact that people place so much inportance in them is why we have problems in the first place. In fact, those religious texts have been symbols of tyranny and oppression for centuries, why respect it? You != other people. So i should place importance and respect for something, simply because others do? Collectivism at it's finest. There is no requirement to do so. Just don’t expect people to be supportive of your decision to go out of your way to be an asshole. The atheist who has to see religion permeating through everything and influencing society through it's dogmatic prininciples is the asshole because he burns a book that you can buy at your local book store for 10 dollars.I find it funny liberals love to call atheists or anti-theists assholes for simply criticizing religion, but will go to great lengths to defend Islam. One of the most oppressive religions of all time. Religion is a choice, and like all choices it is subject to criticism and does not qualify for any level of respect. It is not to be grouped with race, gender, or sexuality as they are inherent in one's identity that cannot be changed. The fact that we have so many religions with conflicting principles with people who take it so seriously to the extent of life or death is the very reason while we will continue to have violent conflicts. Immunity from criticism and their unwillingness to hear any criticism is the primary reason why Islam has lacked reform and modernization compared to the other Judaic religions. In addition, people in this thread need to stop referring to Muslims as a race of people. It is a religion, not a race. The middle east is multi cultural. Black, brown, and white muslims. Many arabs are borderline white. So stop referring to it as a ban on brown people. I'm pretty sure that describes me and probably most people on TL. Somehow I've never burned any of those things because it doesn't serve any purpose. I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to, free speech you should be able to torch it if that's your desire. But unless you're going for some massive fedora points or to be the edgiest guy around its really pointless. I despise religion myself and yet I think doing that makes you an asshole. I don't know if it is by circumstance or my subconcious. Most if not all of my friends are non-religious stemming from multiple cultures. It's not like i went to a mosque and lit a quran in front of it. I would never instigate people that way unless attacked first, because i get hit i gotta hit them back harder. The context of when i did those things are completely harmless and mostly took place in party environments. I burned the american flag, but i am by no means anti-american. I am against certain american values, and also acknowldege the triviality of taking pride in a dumb flag. I love how i am being judged as thinking i am edgy or a superior intellectual. Trust me, i am neither of those things. Plansix while many philosophers and intellectuals have been having these discussions for centuries. These discussion s were limited with the common folk. Intellect and the access to information have changed alot since then.
Just some good old fashioned book burning parties eh? 
Yup, they're just objects, totally. But what purpose does burning them ultimately serve? This isn't some passionate protest, it's just childish. There's a lot of trivial stuff people take pride in, doesn't mean I go around burning shit. It's so silly man and expecting religious people to burn what they believe to be their holy book is retarded. Look you don't have to explain it to me, no matter how much you try and talk your way out of it I'm always going to think its an asshole move. You're not going to convince me its cool or enlightened or anything like that. Doing stuff like that just doesn't help anything.
Sure I don't agree with what you have to say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it....I still don't see the point though.
|
Canada11363 Posts
On June 15 2016 23:51 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 23:48 Falling wrote:On June 15 2016 23:05 SolaR- wrote:On June 15 2016 22:30 Plansix wrote:On June 15 2016 22:23 SolaR- wrote:On June 15 2016 22:20 Gorsameth wrote:On June 15 2016 22:17 SolaR- wrote:On June 15 2016 21:29 mahrgell wrote:
Doesn't really need a friend to show some respect.
Otherwise they could also ask at Immigration to just burn all other countries flags, because you know, you should now subscribe only to your new home countries flag.
Nothing hostile about it, but just burn a US flag when immigrating to the EU, thanks. I've burned qurans and bibles in my rebellious youth. I've eaten pages from the bible for shock value while drunk. I have also burned several american flags. There are objects nothing more. The fact that people place so much inportance in them is why we have problems in the first place. In fact, those religious texts have been symbols of tyranny and oppression for centuries, why respect it? You != other people. So i should place importance and respect for something, simply because others do? Collectivism at it's finest. There is no requirement to do so. Just don’t expect people to be supportive of your decision to go out of your way to be an asshole. The atheist who has to see religion permeating through everything and influencing society through it's dogmatic prininciples is the asshole because he burns a book that you can buy at your local book store for 10 dollars. I find it funny liberals love to call atheists or anti-theists assholes for simply criticizing religion, but will go to great lengths to defend Islam. One of the most oppressive religions of all time. Book burning does not equal 'simply criticizing religion.' That is what they were balking at. You can't just say, 'hey, guys I'd like to burn religious books in front of the religious person', notice people say, 'um, we'd rather not' and then scold them for not wanting to criticize religion. Those aren't even the same categories of actions, but it is very much like the atheist's version of the Puritans. I never burned a religious book in front of a religious person( if i did not intentionally) nor have i advocated for it.
Right- guess it was dear old Testie with his religious test. But part of the point still stands in that balking was due to book burning and not necessarily due to criticism of the religion in question.
|
On June 15 2016 23:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 23:38 ticklishmusic wrote:
Ignoring that the vast majority of violence in the US is perpetrated by US nationals and doing pretty much diddly squat about it. Wonder how long blaming outsiders will be effective... I would argue that white supremacists and right wing christians are vastly dangerous on US soil than islamists. For a start, they kill more or less the same amount of people (9/11 excluded) and because they actually have a chance to push and implement their political agenda which is not the case for islamists. And that's a very significant difference. And there are more people who believe in their crazy ideas than people calling for sharia law. But I haven't seen Trump calling for a ban on christianity. In a democracy, we fight ideas with ideas. If some citizens have stupid ideas, well you fight them through education and political discussion, whether they are right wing christians or islamists. And as long as they respect the law (an immense majority of both fundamentalist christians and islamists do), whether they think it's a great idea to torture people, oppose interracial marriage or stone women who had sex outside marriage, you can have faith that american democracy will be stronger than their medieval opinions. In any case, banning a billion people from entering the country solely based on the fact that some of them have bad ideas is the most stupid suggestion and the biggest insult to democracy ever uttered in a presidential campaign. That's exactly the opposite of what America stands for.
Please show data backing your claims, because that seems absolutely absurd. Right wing white supremacists have all been neuterd basically. They still exist, but they almost have no grip on american politics or influence.
|
The main reason to burn religious texts is to piss of religious people, or to demonstrate to your non-religious friends that you are willing to piss of religious people.
I am not religious in any way. However, i do believe in a philosophy of "Not pissing off other people for no reason makes life better for everyone". I would have no problem if you were trapped in a blizzard and needed to light a fire, and thus burned a bible. That is reasonable. Doing it just to piss off people or to prove how edgy you are is silly and slightly dickish. Note that i am not saying that it is the worst thing ever. Depending on context, it can range from slightly dickish to very dickish. I don't think it is something a person should be punished for, but i would definitively think lower of someone who burns a book for no reason whatsoever.
Generally speaking, burning books does not have the best reputation. It shows that you are not willing to confront what it says in the book, you would rather use societal pressure to get rid of the thing you dislike. In a historical context, the burning of books almost always accompanied dark chapters of humanity. Avoid it.
|
On June 15 2016 23:59 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 23:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 15 2016 23:38 ticklishmusic wrote:
Ignoring that the vast majority of violence in the US is perpetrated by US nationals and doing pretty much diddly squat about it. Wonder how long blaming outsiders will be effective... I would argue that white supremacists and right wing christians are vastly dangerous on US soil than islamists. For a start, they kill more or less the same amount of people (9/11 excluded) and because they actually have a chance to push and implement their political agenda which is not the case for islamists. And that's a very significant difference. And there are more people who believe in their crazy ideas than people calling for sharia law. But I haven't seen Trump calling for a ban on christianity. In a democracy, we fight ideas with ideas. If some citizens have stupid ideas, well you fight them through education and political discussion, whether they are right wing christians or islamists. And as long as they respect the law (an immense majority of both fundamentalist christians and islamists do), whether they think it's a great idea to torture people, oppose interracial marriage or stone women who had sex outside marriage, you can have faith that american democracy will be stronger than their medieval opinions. In any case, banning a billion people from entering the country solely based on the fact that some of them have bad ideas is the most stupid suggestion and the biggest insult to democracy ever uttered in a presidential campaign. That's exactly the opposite of what America stands for. Please show data backing your claims, because that seems absolutely absurd. Right wing white supremacists have all been neuterd basically. They still exist, but they almost have no grip on american politics or influence.
I'm delighted to oblige:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3139077/White-extremists-killed-Muslim-fundamentalists-9-11-claims-report-ignores-death-toll-Americans-abroad.html
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 15 2016 23:34 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 22:21 ticklishmusic wrote:Just throwing this out far as terrorism goes: ![[image loading]](http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/gsi2-overview-13.png) So Just in The middle east section there are about 32 million people who are ok with suicide bombings. This is what Trump should use to show the backwardness of islam while at the same time justifying his argument to ban people from these countries. All it takes is 1 radicalized person to do massive damage, and inspire fear.
I mean, that's just the number of people who are willing to admit that support to pollsters. In truth the number of people who either support it or are willing to support an ideological position whose logical conclusion leads to suicide bombing is higher.
|
On June 16 2016 00:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 23:59 SolaR- wrote:On June 15 2016 23:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 15 2016 23:38 ticklishmusic wrote:
Ignoring that the vast majority of violence in the US is perpetrated by US nationals and doing pretty much diddly squat about it. Wonder how long blaming outsiders will be effective... I would argue that white supremacists and right wing christians are vastly dangerous on US soil than islamists. For a start, they kill more or less the same amount of people (9/11 excluded) and because they actually have a chance to push and implement their political agenda which is not the case for islamists. And that's a very significant difference. And there are more people who believe in their crazy ideas than people calling for sharia law. But I haven't seen Trump calling for a ban on christianity. In a democracy, we fight ideas with ideas. If some citizens have stupid ideas, well you fight them through education and political discussion, whether they are right wing christians or islamists. And as long as they respect the law (an immense majority of both fundamentalist christians and islamists do), whether they think it's a great idea to torture people, oppose interracial marriage or stone women who had sex outside marriage, you can have faith that american democracy will be stronger than their medieval opinions. In any case, banning a billion people from entering the country solely based on the fact that some of them have bad ideas is the most stupid suggestion and the biggest insult to democracy ever uttered in a presidential campaign. That's exactly the opposite of what America stands for. Please show data backing your claims, because that seems absolutely absurd. Right wing white supremacists have all been neuterd basically. They still exist, but they almost have no grip on american politics or influence. I'm delighted to oblige: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3139077/White-extremists-killed-Muslim-fundamentalists-9-11-claims-report-ignores-death-toll-Americans-abroad.html
If only the population sizes were the same.
|
On June 16 2016 00:10 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2016 00:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 15 2016 23:59 SolaR- wrote:On June 15 2016 23:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 15 2016 23:38 ticklishmusic wrote:
Ignoring that the vast majority of violence in the US is perpetrated by US nationals and doing pretty much diddly squat about it. Wonder how long blaming outsiders will be effective... I would argue that white supremacists and right wing christians are vastly dangerous on US soil than islamists. For a start, they kill more or less the same amount of people (9/11 excluded) and because they actually have a chance to push and implement their political agenda which is not the case for islamists. And that's a very significant difference. And there are more people who believe in their crazy ideas than people calling for sharia law. But I haven't seen Trump calling for a ban on christianity. In a democracy, we fight ideas with ideas. If some citizens have stupid ideas, well you fight them through education and political discussion, whether they are right wing christians or islamists. And as long as they respect the law (an immense majority of both fundamentalist christians and islamists do), whether they think it's a great idea to torture people, oppose interracial marriage or stone women who had sex outside marriage, you can have faith that american democracy will be stronger than their medieval opinions. In any case, banning a billion people from entering the country solely based on the fact that some of them have bad ideas is the most stupid suggestion and the biggest insult to democracy ever uttered in a presidential campaign. That's exactly the opposite of what America stands for. Please show data backing your claims, because that seems absolutely absurd. Right wing white supremacists have all been neuterd basically. They still exist, but they almost have no grip on american politics or influence. I'm delighted to oblige: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3139077/White-extremists-killed-Muslim-fundamentalists-9-11-claims-report-ignores-death-toll-Americans-abroad.html If only the population size were remotely the same.
You are saying that muslims are most dangerous from far right christian nutters because there are more far right christian nutters for the same death toll? Or am I missing something?
|
IIRC, the fbi terrorism analysts say the biggest threats are from the people in the so-called sovereign citizens movement. (which is an umbrella term, it's not like a single organization)
just providing wiki link for people unfamiliar with it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement
|
How to Cover Donald Trump Fairly: A Style Guide
This Style Guide to Covering Trump Honestly and Fairly is too late for me, since I work at The Post, which has had its credentials revoked by the Trump campaign.
But it may not be too late for you, other members of the media! Please read and implement!
The Pillars of Covering Trump:
1. Donald Trump is never wrong.
Donald Trump is infallible — like the pope but with more raw sexual charisma. If Donald Trump appears to be wrong in a story, either because of a statement or an action, or some combination of the two, it should be rewritten so that he is not wrong. A good baseline for what is fair and honest coverage is that fair and honest coverage depicts Donald Trump as the shining, golden god he is, envied of men and beloved of women. Unfair, dishonest coverage does not depict Donald Trump this way.
2. Style is as important as substance. A good post about Donald Trump includes at least one of the following words: “huge,” “great,” “manly,” “terrific,” “incredible,” “fantastic,” “remarkable,” “big”/”bigly,” “immense,” “girthy,” “magisterial,” “gargantuan,” “tumescent.” Ideally, this word would be in the headline. A bad post about Donald Trump includes the words or phrases “puny,” “dangerous,” “Godwin’s law,” “cocktail shrimp in a toupee,” “husk of dead skin and hyperbole,” “garbage fart,” “what results if you accidentally leave Guy Fieri in a microwave.”
3. Does Donald Trump contradict himself? Very well; he contradicts himself. Donald Trump is large. Donald Trump contains multitudes.
4. Who among us has not been in the position where what he means to say is something wise and temperate and what actually comes out of his mouth is a garbage fart? Equipped with this knowledge, it is often best to take into account what Donald Trump should have said and to report that instead of what he actually did say. (The great historian Thucydides used to do this, which is why Pericles’s Funeral Oration is so lovely.)
5. Remember the transitive property of Trump: Whenever Donald Trump loves something, it loves him back. Donald Trump loves women. Therefore, women love Donald Trump. Donald Trump loves Hispanics. Therefore, Hispanics love Donald Trump. Any polls that obscure these truths should be disregarded.
6. Donald Trump’s hair is real. Well, no. “Real” is putting it too mildly. Donald Trump’s hair is a fact that transcends reality or unreality, not to be questioned, merely to be admired, like the triune nature of God or the singular beauty and excellence of a Donald Trump building.
7. Two words: LARGE HANDS.
8. Facts are often biased against Donald Trump and should be used sparingly in reporting, if at all. Think of them as a garnish, not an entree.
9. Donald Trump’s word suffices. Fact-checking is at best gauche and at worst treasonous. What is fact? Donald Trump speaks truth, which is bigger than fact. Donald Trump loves you. You love Donald Trump.
10. Donald Trump believes that criticism is healthy. As Noel Coward put it, Donald Trump can take any amount of criticism, so long as it is unqualified praise.
Some Frequently Asked Questions on Fair Trump Coverage
Q: Can I just print a transcript of what Donald Trump actually said?
A: No. This is very mean and bad. What Donald Trump actually says is, of course, uniformly good and correct. But sometimes if you just write it out and give it to people to see, they will not think so. Therefore, this is to be avoided.
Q: What is a fair question?
A: An example of a fair question is “Donald Trump, why are you so good at business?” An example of an unfair or gotcha question is “Why did Lincoln succeed?”
Q: Can I describe what someone did at a Donald Trump rally?
A: Yes, if that someone is Donald Trump and what that someone did was “be awesome without interruption.”
Q: What if Donald Trump didn’t answer my question?
A: Not true. Donald Trump has given you the answer. Your question was not correct. This isn’t hard, just think of it like “Jeopardy!”
Q: In the statement issued by the Donald Trump campaign stating that it will stop credentialing Post reporters, the campaign said, “Mr. Trump does not mind a bad story, but it has to be honest.” What is a bad story that is honest that Mr. Trump would not mind?
A: A story about Hillary Clinton.
~ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2016/06/14/how-to-cover-donald-trump-fairly-a-style-guide/?postshare=331465994952494&tid=ss_fb
I found that article to be hilarious... Although to be fair, #5 isn't transitive; it's symmetric.
|
On June 15 2016 23:59 Simberto wrote:
The main reason to burn religious texts is to piss of religious people, or to demonstrate to your non-religious friends that you are willing to piss of religious people.
I am not religious in any way. However, i do believe in a philosophy of "Not pissing off other people for no reason makes life better for everyone". I would have no problem if you were trapped in a blizzard and needed to light a fire, and thus burned a bible. That is reasonable. Doing it just to piss off people or to prove how edgy you are is silly and slightly dickish. Note that i am not saying that it is the worst thing ever. Depending on context, it can range from slightly dickish to very dickish. I don't think it is something a person should be punished for, but i would definitively think lower of someone who burns a book for no reason whatsoever.
Generally speaking, burning books does not have the best reputation. It shows that you are not willing to confront what it says in the book, you would rather use societal pressure to get rid of the thing you dislike. In a historical context, the burning of books almost always accompanied dark chapters of humanity. Avoid it.
Again, i don't think i am edgy.
I don't like religion, actually i despise it greatly.
I admit it is childish and serves no purpose. However, i will not act like i am the only one who does something that is childish simply because they disliked it. Every one does a ton of shit everyday with no purpose, simply because they just wanted to do it.
I will give religion no reservation. If i hate it and want to burn it, i will do it. It being a religion changes nothing. In high school my friend ran over the vhs movie "Toys" with his suv repeatedly because he hated it so much. It is the same feeling with me and religion, but i am not going to constrain myself just because a lot of people care about it.
Again, i already admitted i did most of these things as a young college undergrad or high school. I don't really do shit like that anymore, but i have been wanted to go a good bonfire recently 
|
I misremembred, it was the START survey data, here's the threat table:
Type of Group Potential Threat (2013-14) Potential Threat (2006-07)
Sovereign Citizens 3.20 (1) 2.49 (7)
Islamic Extremists/Jihadists 2.89 (2) 3.13 (1)
Militia/Patriot 2.67 (3) 2.61 (6)
Racist Skinheads 2.58 (4) 2.82 (3)
Neo-Nazis 2.56 (5) 2.94 (2)
Extreme Animal Rightists 2.54 (6) 2.79 (4)
Extreme Environmentalists 2.51 (7) 2.74 (5)
Klux Klux Klan 2.38 (8) 2.47 (8)
Left-Wing Revolutionaries 2.36 (9) 2.04 (13)
Extreme Anti-Abortion 2.36 (9) 2.30 (11)
Black Nationalists 2.34 (11) 2.35 (10)
Extreme Anti-Tax 2.33 (12) 2.47 (8)
Extreme Anti-Immigration 2.33 (12) 2.41 (9)
Christian Identity 2.19 (13) 2.59 (8)
Idiosyncratic Sectarians 2.19 (13) 2.13 (12)
Millennial/Doomsday Cults 2.17 (15) 1.93 (14)
Reconstructed Traditions 2.13 (16) 2.04 (13)
and the study:
https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_UnderstandingLawEnforcementIntelligenceProcesses_July2014.pdf
|
I find it funny that extreme animal rights activists are more of a threat than the KKK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
