|
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 September 19 2016 02:53 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 02:27 Yuljan wrote:On September 19 2016 02:11 Rebs wrote:On September 19 2016 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2016 01:49 Uldridge wrote:
So if religion is used as the medium to get people to commit to a certain lifestyle, isn't it a major factor?
Yes, the geopolitics of the West have made a very unstable region (don't forget the tribal wars in the Middle East though) and have a big hand in the origins of the radicalisation of alot of people, but that's not necessarily known by them. I'm pretty sure not every Islamite that goes on a suicide mission knows the entire Western - Middel-Eastern relationship to its most fundamental aspect, dating back to the start of the crusades or even further.
So, one could argue that the extreme interpreting of the Koran may be enough to identify the extremism we find in today's Islam at face value instead of completely understanding ourselves why it is the relationship has become so sour. Because blaming the Islam solves nothing. Yelling 'Islamic terrorism' isn't going to stop the terrorists from attacking and will only piss off the Islamic people that are not against the West. I'm not saying we should ignore the violence or that we shouldn't seek to protect ourselves but to me there is no reason to focus on the Islam so hard instead of just Terrorism. Dont bother explaining this, no one will listen if they dont already feel this way. Its easy to acknowledge that Islam in of itself requires reform, but Islam varies quite significantly in practice and preaching across the board. Thats when I laugh when people say "Shariah Law" like its a homogeneous thing. There is no such thing is 1 Shariah Law. Theres 4 major schools of just Sunni Islam itself and then the offshoots, let alone all the minority strains and alot of them have very very different beliefs to the point that they hate each other just as much as they might hate others. Islam has problems, plenty of them. But what people dont realise is that they can remove Islam from the equation and these people would latch onto whatever would have existed in the vaccum Islam left and found justification for their actions either way. The Saudis for example are absolute cunts. They are the most vile regressive human beings in existance that have any legitimacy and they have the money to export that filth to poorer muslim countries unchecked, because well, they can. Sadly now its to late, the Saudi project has been like 40-60 years in the making, undoing that and reforming mainstream Islam (even if there was any will to do so in the first place) would take decades aswell. Its also hilarious that people have a problem with blaming guns for violence but have no problem with blaming religion for it. Its literally the same line of thinking. Except you cant kill someone with just an ideology, you have to add a gun to that. A backward stone age religion helps these idiots just as a gun helps you if you want to do violence. I am absolutely opposed to allow guns in a country but I would rather expel all muslims (incl. the decent ones) from my country than allow the 30~40% of them that are in favor of radical islams to continue their ways. So to sum it up: a gun ban and muslim ban create a more peaceful society in my opinion. We all heard about the different interpretations of sharia law: Should you hit your wife hard or soft? Should a homosexual be stoned or beheaded? Can you just behead prisoners or is burning fine as well? Islams problem is that its a religion of conquest and the koran is considered the direct word of god. Then how come there are so many schools, branches and sub-branches which are constantly fighting each other? Was Allah too ambiguous in its message or?... Show nested quote +The only option to stop radical islam is to supress all of islam as harshly as possible (i.e. forbid preaching, close all mosques and dont allow any public display of muslim faith) in the west. Sure, persecuting minorities never went wrong. Plus freedom of conscience doesn't exist, and amputating the whole arm whenever your finger itches is a brilliant solution. Oh by the way, if extremism is inherent to islam, then how come it particularly developed those past decades? If the reason behind all of this is the letter of the Quran, we should find this problem at every age and everywhere. It so happens that we don't. How come?
We do find it in history, and all over the world today. Or are you asking why there were no suicide vests in the 15th century?
|
On September 18 2016 18:04 Sermokala wrote:
Keep in mind that this year with how well stein and Gary are doing that Trump doesn't need anymore then 45ish% to win.
I was doing a more direct 1 vs 1 comparison to simplify things a bit. Also, unfortunately I'm not too concerned with Gary Johnson, as people will eventually choose their 2nd choice instead of going for their favorite. In 2012 Gary Johnson was polling between 4-6%, but only received 1% on election day, I'd be very surprised if he got more than 3%, realistically 1.5-2.5%.
So for example, this is one of the most recent polls with demographics I could find (this poll is +1 for Trump, so it will be a bit in his favor compared to the usual poll):
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/09/05/rel13a.-.2016.post-labor.day.pdf
Keep in mind that so many will say someone else right now, but will vote for one of the two big parties come election day, so for example, here you see:
-Trump is 54-33 with white people, 52-32 with men, and 52-38 for with women (page 22). So I would just scale those numbers up so that Hillary + Trump = 100, so for the first number multiply both by 100/81, and then subtract them for each other, and you'll have the twenty point lead come election day.
We don't have a column for white women, but if we do an approximation (doing the scaling described):
62% of white people support Trump over Hillary, Assume non-white women and men voted the same (in reality men would prefer Trump more), and hence say Trump gets 17% on non-white women vote. With scaling Trump gets 42% of women
42% = 0.65*%white_women + 0.35*%nonwhite_women
Solve for %white_women, I get 55% (in a head-to-head), though obviously there's quite a few assumptions here, but they aren't unreasonable to get a super rough estimate.
Then, looking at age groups, he's tied with Hillary in the 35-49 age category, and beats everyone older sizably, and loses to younger people quite badly as well.
People love to talk about oh, all the people without college degrees like Trump, but first I'd like to point out that in almost every poll, it shows that wealthier people like Trump more, so the trend that smarter people support Hillary isn't particularly true. Now back to college degrees, yes, people with college degrees are more likely to support Hillary, and apologies for being misinformed, this says that 49-35 for Hillary with White college grads support Hillary, I must've read male college grads, and Trump was winning that by a couple percentage points in a poll in the past. Anyway, maybe it's a bigger statement to the quality of education (and liberal brainwashing from my university experiences), than about the intelligence when looking at these two combined.
Interesting that 48-28 Independents support Trump, but only 29-54 support Trump, didn't realize people saw these two terms THAT differently, anyway, just a neat tidbit of information.
Anyway, it's some information, and I know it's not the best or the largest sample, but hopefully it's some evidence to show just how enormous of a lead Trump has with white people, to support the argument I made in this thread some 8 hours ago.
|
...
Islam in the Middle East is bad. Christianity in the West is bad.
Islam condones terrorism, threatens women and has the same kind of public punishments that we in the West were playing around with not even 100 years ago because they believe in some ridiculous fairy tales from a thousand year old book.
Christians who are in power in the West are helping prevent our desperate attempts to curb the extreme amount of carbon we continue to emit into the atmosphere because they genuinely believe that the earth is 6000 years old and don't think that a chart that claims to look back 400 thousand years can possibly be correct, so we need to do more "science" before we should "panic" at this unprecedented level of carbon in our atmosphere.
These are all terribly retarded things (although I think one may result in more death than the other) that don't deserve our respect, but religion is only one of the catalysts here. There's always money and power and whatnot at play. It's hard to tell whether removing religion from that equation will have any effect at all, but I can't help but feel like it would... but only if people voluntarily gave it up as a result of thinking sensible for once. Suggesting any kind of violence (whether it is through forced incarceration or anything else) is really not the way to go. Reasonable discourse, diplomacy, education and all that kind of stuff is the only approach here, even if it takes a long time to produce results.
I say we send out all those useless European "kings and queens" and whatnot to the Middle East to do some negotiation and spread some cultural influence and whatnot. Make them get actual jobs in the Middle East or something and see if that improves things over the next few decades. That's an experiment I'd be willing to run.
|
On September 19 2016 03:11 Gorsameth wrote:
As someone else said, How many Westerners are OK with drone bombings?
Don't pretend like we are much better. How long ago did we burn people at the stake for being a heretic? How many cultures have we destroyed in the name of Christianity. How many 'non-extremist' Christians enjoyed a good witch killing?
Yes the West is a lot less religious nowadays and you can argue we are more 'enlightened' then the Middle East but lets not pretend like 'we' were different.
And lol at thinking suppressing religion has ever really worked.
If someone I knew was ok with drone bombings, I'd lose all respect for them. But these are going out from a level in the chain us people have very little to say about. Drone bombings are absoluely despicable. You're actually usin centuries ago of stake burning as an example of how ruthless and uneducated we were? I guess you made my point for me then.
Where in any of my reply did I even suggest of suppressing religion? I'm open to all religions, I'm absolutely against religion getting the freedom to use itself as a catalyst to radicalize people and letting them become kamikaze fighters.
|
On September 19 2016 03:33 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 03:11 Gorsameth wrote:
As someone else said, How many Westerners are OK with drone bombings?
Don't pretend like we are much better. How long ago did we burn people at the stake for being a heretic? How many cultures have we destroyed in the name of Christianity. How many 'non-extremist' Christians enjoyed a good witch killing?
Yes the West is a lot less religious nowadays and you can argue we are more 'enlightened' then the Middle East but lets not pretend like 'we' were different.
And lol at thinking suppressing religion has ever really worked. If someone I knew was ok with drone bombings, I'd lose all respect for them. But these are going out from a level in the chain us people have very little to say about. Drone bombings are absoluely despicable. You're actually usin centuries ago of stake burning as an example of how ruthless and uneducated we were? I guess you made my point for me then. Where in any of my reply did I even suggest of suppressing religion? I'm open to all religions, I'm absolutely against religion getting the freedom to use itself as a catalyst to radicalize people and letting them become kamikaze fighters.
a quote fail on my part, someone else mentioned suppression. my apologies.
|
I just have to say police repeatedly threatening to not work NFL games if players kneel during the national anthem indicates to me they should have their guns (and probably badges too, but I'm sure they could use them in parking enforcement) taken away.
|
On September 19 2016 03:18 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 02:53 TheDwf wrote:On September 19 2016 02:27 Yuljan wrote:On September 19 2016 02:11 Rebs wrote:On September 19 2016 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2016 01:49 Uldridge wrote:
So if religion is used as the medium to get people to commit to a certain lifestyle, isn't it a major factor?
Yes, the geopolitics of the West have made a very unstable region (don't forget the tribal wars in the Middle East though) and have a big hand in the origins of the radicalisation of alot of people, but that's not necessarily known by them. I'm pretty sure not every Islamite that goes on a suicide mission knows the entire Western - Middel-Eastern relationship to its most fundamental aspect, dating back to the start of the crusades or even further.
So, one could argue that the extreme interpreting of the Koran may be enough to identify the extremism we find in today's Islam at face value instead of completely understanding ourselves why it is the relationship has become so sour. Because blaming the Islam solves nothing. Yelling 'Islamic terrorism' isn't going to stop the terrorists from attacking and will only piss off the Islamic people that are not against the West. I'm not saying we should ignore the violence or that we shouldn't seek to protect ourselves but to me there is no reason to focus on the Islam so hard instead of just Terrorism. Dont bother explaining this, no one will listen if they dont already feel this way. Its easy to acknowledge that Islam in of itself requires reform, but Islam varies quite significantly in practice and preaching across the board. Thats when I laugh when people say "Shariah Law" like its a homogeneous thing. There is no such thing is 1 Shariah Law. Theres 4 major schools of just Sunni Islam itself and then the offshoots, let alone all the minority strains and alot of them have very very different beliefs to the point that they hate each other just as much as they might hate others. Islam has problems, plenty of them. But what people dont realise is that they can remove Islam from the equation and these people would latch onto whatever would have existed in the vaccum Islam left and found justification for their actions either way. The Saudis for example are absolute cunts. They are the most vile regressive human beings in existance that have any legitimacy and they have the money to export that filth to poorer muslim countries unchecked, because well, they can. Sadly now its to late, the Saudi project has been like 40-60 years in the making, undoing that and reforming mainstream Islam (even if there was any will to do so in the first place) would take decades aswell. Its also hilarious that people have a problem with blaming guns for violence but have no problem with blaming religion for it. Its literally the same line of thinking. Except you cant kill someone with just an ideology, you have to add a gun to that. A backward stone age religion helps these idiots just as a gun helps you if you want to do violence. I am absolutely opposed to allow guns in a country but I would rather expel all muslims (incl. the decent ones) from my country than allow the 30~40% of them that are in favor of radical islams to continue their ways. So to sum it up: a gun ban and muslim ban create a more peaceful society in my opinion. We all heard about the different interpretations of sharia law: Should you hit your wife hard or soft? Should a homosexual be stoned or beheaded? Can you just behead prisoners or is burning fine as well? Islams problem is that its a religion of conquest and the koran is considered the direct word of god. Then how come there are so many schools, branches and sub-branches which are constantly fighting each other? Was Allah too ambiguous in its message or?... The only option to stop radical islam is to supress all of islam as harshly as possible (i.e. forbid preaching, close all mosques and dont allow any public display of muslim faith) in the west. Sure, persecuting minorities never went wrong. Plus freedom of conscience doesn't exist, and amputating the whole arm whenever your finger itches is a brilliant solution. Oh by the way, if extremism is inherent to islam, then how come it particularly developed those past decades? If the reason behind all of this is the letter of the Quran, we should find this problem at every age and everywhere. It so happens that we don't. How come? We do find it in history, and all over the world today. Or are you asking why there were no suicide vests in the 15th century?
What is called jihadism dates back to the 1980s.
|
On September 19 2016 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
I just have to say police repeatedly threatening to not work NFL games if players kneel during the national anthem indicates to me they should have their guns (and probably badges too, but I'm sure they could use them in parking enforcement) taken away.
So let's ignore the thousands of other people and their safety in the stadium, but get real mad about one or two dudes kneeling during the anthem and thus not do our job. That is some questionable logic and indeed worthy of getting them fired.
|
On September 19 2016 03:29 a_flayer wrote:... Islam in the Middle East is bad. Christianity in the West is bad. Islam condones terrorism, threatens women and has the same kind of public punishments that we in the West were playing around with not even 100 years ago because they believe in some ridiculous fairy tales from a thousand year old book. Christians who are in power in the West are helping prevent our desperate attempts to curb the extreme amount of carbon we continue to emit into the atmosphere because they genuinely believe that the earth is 6000 years old and don't think that a chart that claims to look back 400 thousand years can possibly be correct, so we need to do more "science" before we should "panic" at this unprecedented level of carbon in our atmosphere. These are all terribly retarded things (although I think one may result in more death than the other) that don't deserve our respect, but religion is only one of the catalysts here. There's always money and power and whatnot at play. It's hard to tell whether removing religion from that equation will have any effect at all, but I can't help but feel like it would... but only if people voluntarily gave it up. Suggesting any kind of violence (whether it is through forced incarceration or anything else) is really not the way to go. Reasonable discourse, diplomacy, education and all that kind of stuff is the only approach here, even if it takes a long time to produce results. I say we send out all those useless European "kings and queens" and whatnot to the Middle East to do some negotiation and spread some cultural influence and whatnot. Make them get actual jobs in the Middle East or something and see if that improves things over the next few decades. That's an experiment I'd be willing to run.
It's an interesting viewpoint, and an easy one to make for an agnostic/atheist point of view, one I've made myself in the past several times.
Wouldn't the world just be easier if there was no religion at all?
But hey, the world would also be easier if there were was only a single race, no homosexuals, or disabled people for example... So you start to go down a dangerous path by seeing your view as superior.
Right in 99.9% of scenarios is relative, and in my opinion, when it comes to anything human related, there is no absolute truth.
I was raised in a very Catholic country (Slovakia), where I was the only person in my entire grade that did not go to religion class. I've always thought that the concept of religion was silly, I've never considered joining one, etc. But especially it maybe the last 3 years, I've gained an appreciation for why someone would choose to be religious, or more accurately spiritual. People try and use this "logic and rationalism" to formulate ideas about human existence, and voila, we get philosophy, the most interesting but most useless field of study known to man. There is no right answer, applying a logical argument to life would result in conclusions of lets just not do anything, nothing matters, maximize dopamine levels, etc.
So the fundamental way we life and enjoy human existence are often based on illogical and irrational ideas, traditions, and/or spirituality. Think about all the meaningful holidays (come on, who with a rationalism mindset would say hey let's have Christmas)... Or the idea of marriage, and why we care to be in exclusive relationships. Why we believe that being educated is important, why we appreciate nature so much... And for example how the average person would pay money (small amount) to not make polar bears go extinct, even though he will never realize the benefit of having them on the planet. It's just some of things to demonstrate that irrational human ideas form the basis of our world.
|
On September 19 2016 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
I just have to say police repeatedly threatening to not work NFL games if players kneel during the national anthem indicates to me they should have their guns (and probably badges too, but I'm sure they could use them in parking enforcement) taken away.
I had to google this and oh boy is it a treat.
“We’ve asked the deputies and the Broward Sheriff’s Office not to do the details anymore,” Jeffery Bell, the president of the International Union of Police Associations, Local 6020, told the Miami Herald. “I respect their right to have freedom of speech.
However, in certain organizations and certain jobs you give up that right of your freedom of speech (temporarily) while you serve that job or while you play in an NFL game.”
So playing in the NFL voids your first amendment rights now?
US police is a fucking joke...
|
I really, really don't want to touch this religion discussion.
On September 19 2016 03:40 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Think about all the meaningful holidays (come on, who with a rationalism mindset would say hey let's have Christmas)...
Most of those holidays have been co-opted by various commercial entities to make you buy things. 
|
On September 19 2016 03:39 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
I just have to say police repeatedly threatening to not work NFL games if players kneel during the national anthem indicates to me they should have their guns (and probably badges too, but I'm sure they could use them in parking enforcement) taken away. So let's ignore the thousands of other people and their safety in the stadium, but get real mad about one or two dudes kneeling during the anthem and thus not do our job. That is some questionable logic and indeed worthy of getting them fired.
People that petty are not safe to give weapons and authority like that, what's worse is it's not just the jerk cops posting on their facebooks, this is coming from leadership.
Police unions may very well be the worst unions in the US, yet the least ridiculed by those who oppose unions.
|
On September 19 2016 03:38 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 03:18 oBlade wrote:On September 19 2016 02:53 TheDwf wrote:On September 19 2016 02:27 Yuljan wrote:On September 19 2016 02:11 Rebs wrote:On September 19 2016 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2016 01:49 Uldridge wrote:
So if religion is used as the medium to get people to commit to a certain lifestyle, isn't it a major factor?
Yes, the geopolitics of the West have made a very unstable region (don't forget the tribal wars in the Middle East though) and have a big hand in the origins of the radicalisation of alot of people, but that's not necessarily known by them. I'm pretty sure not every Islamite that goes on a suicide mission knows the entire Western - Middel-Eastern relationship to its most fundamental aspect, dating back to the start of the crusades or even further.
So, one could argue that the extreme interpreting of the Koran may be enough to identify the extremism we find in today's Islam at face value instead of completely understanding ourselves why it is the relationship has become so sour. Because blaming the Islam solves nothing. Yelling 'Islamic terrorism' isn't going to stop the terrorists from attacking and will only piss off the Islamic people that are not against the West. I'm not saying we should ignore the violence or that we shouldn't seek to protect ourselves but to me there is no reason to focus on the Islam so hard instead of just Terrorism. Dont bother explaining this, no one will listen if they dont already feel this way. Its easy to acknowledge that Islam in of itself requires reform, but Islam varies quite significantly in practice and preaching across the board. Thats when I laugh when people say "Shariah Law" like its a homogeneous thing. There is no such thing is 1 Shariah Law. Theres 4 major schools of just Sunni Islam itself and then the offshoots, let alone all the minority strains and alot of them have very very different beliefs to the point that they hate each other just as much as they might hate others. Islam has problems, plenty of them. But what people dont realise is that they can remove Islam from the equation and these people would latch onto whatever would have existed in the vaccum Islam left and found justification for their actions either way. The Saudis for example are absolute cunts. They are the most vile regressive human beings in existance that have any legitimacy and they have the money to export that filth to poorer muslim countries unchecked, because well, they can. Sadly now its to late, the Saudi project has been like 40-60 years in the making, undoing that and reforming mainstream Islam (even if there was any will to do so in the first place) would take decades aswell. Its also hilarious that people have a problem with blaming guns for violence but have no problem with blaming religion for it. Its literally the same line of thinking. Except you cant kill someone with just an ideology, you have to add a gun to that. A backward stone age religion helps these idiots just as a gun helps you if you want to do violence. I am absolutely opposed to allow guns in a country but I would rather expel all muslims (incl. the decent ones) from my country than allow the 30~40% of them that are in favor of radical islams to continue their ways. So to sum it up: a gun ban and muslim ban create a more peaceful society in my opinion. We all heard about the different interpretations of sharia law: Should you hit your wife hard or soft? Should a homosexual be stoned or beheaded? Can you just behead prisoners or is burning fine as well? Islams problem is that its a religion of conquest and the koran is considered the direct word of god. Then how come there are so many schools, branches and sub-branches which are constantly fighting each other? Was Allah too ambiguous in its message or?... The only option to stop radical islam is to supress all of islam as harshly as possible (i.e. forbid preaching, close all mosques and dont allow any public display of muslim faith) in the west. Sure, persecuting minorities never went wrong. Plus freedom of conscience doesn't exist, and amputating the whole arm whenever your finger itches is a brilliant solution. Oh by the way, if extremism is inherent to islam, then how come it particularly developed those past decades? If the reason behind all of this is the letter of the Quran, we should find this problem at every age and everywhere. It so happens that we don't. How come? We do find it in history, and all over the world today. Or are you asking why there were no suicide vests in the 15th century? What is called jihadism dates back to the 1980s.
Jihad is the religious duty to spread Islam.
It's been around for as long as Islam existed, and why it would ever be welcome in a non-Islamic country is beyond me. It takes different forms, and while we haven't had people blowing themselves up until more recently, it has always been something that is unwanted, and always something that at least a certain percentage wasn't peaceful.
|
On September 19 2016 03:27 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2016 18:04 Sermokala wrote:
Keep in mind that this year with how well stein and Gary are doing that Trump doesn't need anymore then 45ish% to win. I was doing a more direct 1 vs 1 comparison to simplify things a bit. Also, unfortunately I'm not too concerned with Gary Johnson, as people will eventually choose their 2nd choice instead of going for their favorite. In 2012 Gary Johnson was polling between 4-6%, but only received 1% on election day, I'd be very surprised if he got more than 3%, realistically 1.5-2.5%. So for example, this is one of the most recent polls with demographics I could find (this poll is +1 for Trump, so it will be a bit in his favor compared to the usual poll): http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/09/05/rel13a.-.2016.post-labor.day.pdfKeep in mind that so many will say someone else right now, but will vote for one of the two big parties come election day, so for example, here you see: -Trump is 54-33 with white people, 52-32 with men, and 52-38 for with women (page 22). So I would just scale those numbers up so that Hillary + Trump = 100, so for the first number multiply both by 100/81, and then subtract them for each other, and you'll have the twenty point lead come election day. We don't have a column for white women, but if we do an approximation (doing the scaling described): 62% of white people support Trump over Hillary, Assume non-white women and men voted the same (in reality men would prefer Trump more), and hence say Trump gets 17% on non-white women vote. With scaling Trump gets 42% of women 42% = 0.65*%white_women + 0.35*%nonwhite_women Solve for %white_women, I get 55% (in a head-to-head), though obviously there's quite a few assumptions here, but they aren't unreasonable to get a super rough estimate. Then, looking at age groups, he's tied with Hillary in the 35-49 age category, and beats everyone older sizably, and loses to younger people quite badly as well. People love to talk about oh, all the people without college degrees like Trump, but first I'd like to point out that in almost every poll, it shows that wealthier people like Trump more, so the trend that smarter people support Hillary isn't particularly true. Now back to college degrees, yes, people with college degrees are more likely to support Hillary, and apologies for being misinformed, this says that 49-35 for Hillary with White college grads support Hillary, I must've read male college grads, and Trump was winning that by a couple percentage points in a poll in the past. Anyway, maybe it's a bigger statement to the quality of education ( and liberal brainwashing from my university experiences), than about the intelligence when looking at these two combined. Interesting that 48-28 Independents support Trump, but only 29-54 support Trump, didn't realize people saw these two terms THAT differently, anyway, just a neat tidbit of information. Anyway, it's some information, and I know it's not the best or the largest sample, but hopefully it's some evidence to show just how enormous of a lead Trump has with white people, to support the argument I made in this thread some 8 hours ago.
Yea hard to take you seriously when you think university is liberal brain washing and you post shit like how you had to deprogram your gf from a women's studies course. Why are people on the right always so afraid of new ideas and protecting people from them? My grandma gave me a speech about being careful of liberal professor brain washing too. Its ridiculous.
|
@TheYango
Yep, stay away. It's just discussing philosophy, and it's rare reaching a conclusion where someone's mind will change.
|
On September 19 2016 03:45 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 03:38 TheDwf wrote:On September 19 2016 03:18 oBlade wrote:On September 19 2016 02:53 TheDwf wrote:On September 19 2016 02:27 Yuljan wrote:On September 19 2016 02:11 Rebs wrote:On September 19 2016 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2016 01:49 Uldridge wrote:
So if religion is used as the medium to get people to commit to a certain lifestyle, isn't it a major factor?
Yes, the geopolitics of the West have made a very unstable region (don't forget the tribal wars in the Middle East though) and have a big hand in the origins of the radicalisation of alot of people, but that's not necessarily known by them. I'm pretty sure not every Islamite that goes on a suicide mission knows the entire Western - Middel-Eastern relationship to its most fundamental aspect, dating back to the start of the crusades or even further.
So, one could argue that the extreme interpreting of the Koran may be enough to identify the extremism we find in today's Islam at face value instead of completely understanding ourselves why it is the relationship has become so sour. Because blaming the Islam solves nothing. Yelling 'Islamic terrorism' isn't going to stop the terrorists from attacking and will only piss off the Islamic people that are not against the West. I'm not saying we should ignore the violence or that we shouldn't seek to protect ourselves but to me there is no reason to focus on the Islam so hard instead of just Terrorism. Dont bother explaining this, no one will listen if they dont already feel this way. Its easy to acknowledge that Islam in of itself requires reform, but Islam varies quite significantly in practice and preaching across the board. Thats when I laugh when people say "Shariah Law" like its a homogeneous thing. There is no such thing is 1 Shariah Law. Theres 4 major schools of just Sunni Islam itself and then the offshoots, let alone all the minority strains and alot of them have very very different beliefs to the point that they hate each other just as much as they might hate others. Islam has problems, plenty of them. But what people dont realise is that they can remove Islam from the equation and these people would latch onto whatever would have existed in the vaccum Islam left and found justification for their actions either way. The Saudis for example are absolute cunts. They are the most vile regressive human beings in existance that have any legitimacy and they have the money to export that filth to poorer muslim countries unchecked, because well, they can. Sadly now its to late, the Saudi project has been like 40-60 years in the making, undoing that and reforming mainstream Islam (even if there was any will to do so in the first place) would take decades aswell. Its also hilarious that people have a problem with blaming guns for violence but have no problem with blaming religion for it. Its literally the same line of thinking. Except you cant kill someone with just an ideology, you have to add a gun to that. A backward stone age religion helps these idiots just as a gun helps you if you want to do violence. I am absolutely opposed to allow guns in a country but I would rather expel all muslims (incl. the decent ones) from my country than allow the 30~40% of them that are in favor of radical islams to continue their ways. So to sum it up: a gun ban and muslim ban create a more peaceful society in my opinion. We all heard about the different interpretations of sharia law: Should you hit your wife hard or soft? Should a homosexual be stoned or beheaded? Can you just behead prisoners or is burning fine as well? Islams problem is that its a religion of conquest and the koran is considered the direct word of god. Then how come there are so many schools, branches and sub-branches which are constantly fighting each other? Was Allah too ambiguous in its message or?... The only option to stop radical islam is to supress all of islam as harshly as possible (i.e. forbid preaching, close all mosques and dont allow any public display of muslim faith) in the west. Sure, persecuting minorities never went wrong. Plus freedom of conscience doesn't exist, and amputating the whole arm whenever your finger itches is a brilliant solution. Oh by the way, if extremism is inherent to islam, then how come it particularly developed those past decades? If the reason behind all of this is the letter of the Quran, we should find this problem at every age and everywhere. It so happens that we don't. How come? We do find it in history, and all over the world today. Or are you asking why there were no suicide vests in the 15th century? What is called jihadism dates back to the 1980s. Jihad is the religious duty to spread Islam. It's been around for as long as Islam existed, and why it would ever be welcome in a non-Islamic country is beyond me. It takes different forms, and while we haven't had people blowing themselves up until more recently, it has always been something that is unwanted, and always something that at least a certain percentage wasn't peaceful.
What the actual fuck ? That is absolutely not Jihad, that is not the Jihad that is in the Quran, that is not the Jihad that even my fucked up traditional Islamic schooling that was totally biased and full of BS even touted.
You literally just picked up the first line of Wikipedia which is totally unscourced. lololol.
Jihad is literally Islams equivalent to the second amendment. The entire Wiki article is quoted by a book by Lewis Bernard which is arguably the most garbage piece of writing on Islam you can find in english. And was a case study in my Rutgers courses on how to NOT cover Islamic history.
If we are going to assume that to Muslims the Quran is the word of God, not even ambiguously does the Quran suggest that you need to make war to "spread" Islam. Not once of the 199 times its mentioned is Jihad used in a context that says go fight people to convert them. I challenge you to find me something so I can then make you look stupid on a subject I am guaranteed to destroy you in.
Now contemporary usage by terrorist organizations is a different story.
So no the concept of making war and calling it Jihad has not existed since Islam existed. Islamic conquests were mostly a function of imperialism. Nothing to do with spreading religion.
By the same token, all the credit Islamic historians and people try to take for all the advancement that these empires did in math, physics biology what have you also had zero to do with Islam. It was simply Kings wanting to keep people happy and the social-political zeitgeist in the empire demanded that these activities be sponsored so they promoted and funded them. It was an easy way to maintain control. The religion itself contributed nothing.
Ofcourse that doesn't mean cunts wont do it. But if you are referring to the foundation there is none. What 10-15 century Islam did was no different from any other empires that expanded. That it had some sort of foundation in scripture is nonsense.
There is no foundation in the core religion that suggests that "spreading Islam through any kind of violence is Jihad." None. The term is purely defensive and meant as a last resort.
If you ask even the most illiterate person on the street in a Muslim country what Jihad is they will tell you it is a struggle (if necessary militaristic) to protect ones right to practice their religion and fulfill their duty to god. Thats it.
Bernard Lewis is a racist cunt who the Bush administration used for Middle Eastern Policy advice and a dinosaur scholar.
Edit: Edward Said has literally destroyed Lewis and his contemporaries thorougly in their discolored bullshit narrative that is middle eastern history that they peddled to the west for a century.
|
it's not religion per se; it's ideologues, from any ideology, that can be mighty dangerous. (example, the number of people killed by atheist ideologies, admittedly mostly communist ones)
|
On September 19 2016 03:53 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 03:45 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 19 2016 03:38 TheDwf wrote:On September 19 2016 03:18 oBlade wrote:On September 19 2016 02:53 TheDwf wrote:On September 19 2016 02:27 Yuljan wrote:On September 19 2016 02:11 Rebs wrote:On September 19 2016 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2016 01:49 Uldridge wrote:
So if religion is used as the medium to get people to commit to a certain lifestyle, isn't it a major factor?
Yes, the geopolitics of the West have made a very unstable region (don't forget the tribal wars in the Middle East though) and have a big hand in the origins of the radicalisation of alot of people, but that's not necessarily known by them. I'm pretty sure not every Islamite that goes on a suicide mission knows the entire Western - Middel-Eastern relationship to its most fundamental aspect, dating back to the start of the crusades or even further.
So, one could argue that the extreme interpreting of the Koran may be enough to identify the extremism we find in today's Islam at face value instead of completely understanding ourselves why it is the relationship has become so sour. Because blaming the Islam solves nothing. Yelling 'Islamic terrorism' isn't going to stop the terrorists from attacking and will only piss off the Islamic people that are not against the West. I'm not saying we should ignore the violence or that we shouldn't seek to protect ourselves but to me there is no reason to focus on the Islam so hard instead of just Terrorism. Dont bother explaining this, no one will listen if they dont already feel this way. Its easy to acknowledge that Islam in of itself requires reform, but Islam varies quite significantly in practice and preaching across the board. Thats when I laugh when people say "Shariah Law" like its a homogeneous thing. There is no such thing is 1 Shariah Law. Theres 4 major schools of just Sunni Islam itself and then the offshoots, let alone all the minority strains and alot of them have very very different beliefs to the point that they hate each other just as much as they might hate others. Islam has problems, plenty of them. But what people dont realise is that they can remove Islam from the equation and these people would latch onto whatever would have existed in the vaccum Islam left and found justification for their actions either way. The Saudis for example are absolute cunts. They are the most vile regressive human beings in existance that have any legitimacy and they have the money to export that filth to poorer muslim countries unchecked, because well, they can. Sadly now its to late, the Saudi project has been like 40-60 years in the making, undoing that and reforming mainstream Islam (even if there was any will to do so in the first place) would take decades aswell. Its also hilarious that people have a problem with blaming guns for violence but have no problem with blaming religion for it. Its literally the same line of thinking. Except you cant kill someone with just an ideology, you have to add a gun to that. A backward stone age religion helps these idiots just as a gun helps you if you want to do violence. I am absolutely opposed to allow guns in a country but I would rather expel all muslims (incl. the decent ones) from my country than allow the 30~40% of them that are in favor of radical islams to continue their ways. So to sum it up: a gun ban and muslim ban create a more peaceful society in my opinion. We all heard about the different interpretations of sharia law: Should you hit your wife hard or soft? Should a homosexual be stoned or beheaded? Can you just behead prisoners or is burning fine as well? Islams problem is that its a religion of conquest and the koran is considered the direct word of god. Then how come there are so many schools, branches and sub-branches which are constantly fighting each other? Was Allah too ambiguous in its message or?... The only option to stop radical islam is to supress all of islam as harshly as possible (i.e. forbid preaching, close all mosques and dont allow any public display of muslim faith) in the west. Sure, persecuting minorities never went wrong. Plus freedom of conscience doesn't exist, and amputating the whole arm whenever your finger itches is a brilliant solution. Oh by the way, if extremism is inherent to islam, then how come it particularly developed those past decades? If the reason behind all of this is the letter of the Quran, we should find this problem at every age and everywhere. It so happens that we don't. How come? We do find it in history, and all over the world today. Or are you asking why there were no suicide vests in the 15th century? What is called jihadism dates back to the 1980s. Jihad is the religious duty to spread Islam. It's been around for as long as Islam existed, and why it would ever be welcome in a non-Islamic country is beyond me. It takes different forms, and while we haven't had people blowing themselves up until more recently, it has always been something that is unwanted, and always something that at least a certain percentage wasn't peaceful. What the actual fuck ? That is absolutely not Jihad, that is not the Jihad that is in the Quran, that is not the Jihad that even my fucked up traditional Islamic schooling that was totally biased and full of BS even touted. You literally just picked up the first line of wikipedia which is totally unscourced. lololol. Jihad is literally Islams equivalent to the second ammendment. The entire Wiki article is quoted by a book by Lewis Bernard which is arguably the most garbage piece of writing on Islam you can find in english. And was a case study in my Rutgers courses on how to NOT cover Islamic history. If we are going to assume that to Muslims the Quran is the word of God, not even ambigously does the Quran suggest that you need to make war to "spread" Islam. Not once of the 199 times its mentioned is Jihad used in a context that says go fight people to convert them. I challenge you to find me something so I can then make you look stupid on a subject I am guaranteed to destroy you in. Now contemporary usage by terrorist organizations is a different story. So no the concept of making war and calling it Jihad has not existed since Islam existed. Islamic conquests were mostly a function of imperialism. Nothing to do with spreading religion. Ofcourse that doesnt mean cunts wont do it. But if you are referring to the foundation there is none. What 10-15 century Islam did was no different from any other empires that expanded. That it had some sort of foundation in scripture is nonsense. There is no foundation in the core religion that suggests that "spreading Islam through any kind of violence is Jihad." None. The term is purely defensive and meant as a last resort.
Thank you for some sanity.
|
On September 19 2016 03:48 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 03:27 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 18 2016 18:04 Sermokala wrote:
Keep in mind that this year with how well stein and Gary are doing that Trump doesn't need anymore then 45ish% to win. I was doing a more direct 1 vs 1 comparison to simplify things a bit. Also, unfortunately I'm not too concerned with Gary Johnson, as people will eventually choose their 2nd choice instead of going for their favorite. In 2012 Gary Johnson was polling between 4-6%, but only received 1% on election day, I'd be very surprised if he got more than 3%, realistically 1.5-2.5%. So for example, this is one of the most recent polls with demographics I could find (this poll is +1 for Trump, so it will be a bit in his favor compared to the usual poll): http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/09/05/rel13a.-.2016.post-labor.day.pdfKeep in mind that so many will say someone else right now, but will vote for one of the two big parties come election day, so for example, here you see: -Trump is 54-33 with white people, 52-32 with men, and 52-38 for with women (page 22). So I would just scale those numbers up so that Hillary + Trump = 100, so for the first number multiply both by 100/81, and then subtract them for each other, and you'll have the twenty point lead come election day. We don't have a column for white women, but if we do an approximation (doing the scaling described): 62% of white people support Trump over Hillary, Assume non-white women and men voted the same (in reality men would prefer Trump more), and hence say Trump gets 17% on non-white women vote. With scaling Trump gets 42% of women 42% = 0.65*%white_women + 0.35*%nonwhite_women Solve for %white_women, I get 55% (in a head-to-head), though obviously there's quite a few assumptions here, but they aren't unreasonable to get a super rough estimate. Then, looking at age groups, he's tied with Hillary in the 35-49 age category, and beats everyone older sizably, and loses to younger people quite badly as well. People love to talk about oh, all the people without college degrees like Trump, but first I'd like to point out that in almost every poll, it shows that wealthier people like Trump more, so the trend that smarter people support Hillary isn't particularly true. Now back to college degrees, yes, people with college degrees are more likely to support Hillary, and apologies for being misinformed, this says that 49-35 for Hillary with White college grads support Hillary, I must've read male college grads, and Trump was winning that by a couple percentage points in a poll in the past. Anyway, maybe it's a bigger statement to the quality of education ( and liberal brainwashing from my university experiences), than about the intelligence when looking at these two combined. Interesting that 48-28 Independents support Trump, but only 29-54 support Trump, didn't realize people saw these two terms THAT differently, anyway, just a neat tidbit of information. Anyway, it's some information, and I know it's not the best or the largest sample, but hopefully it's some evidence to show just how enormous of a lead Trump has with white people, to support the argument I made in this thread some 8 hours ago. Yea hard to take you seriously when you think university is liberal brain washing and you post shit like how you had to deprogram your gf from a women's studies course. Why are people on the right always so afraid of new ideas and protecting people from them? My grandma gave me a speech about being careful of liberal professor brain washing too. Its ridiculous.
Oh, it's not that due to that, or a tiny fraction at best.
It's because I spent my time at a University, and a very passive non-confrontational culture is emphasized, to an extent that I don't think it's good for solving real world problems, and one that is focused too much on theory and ideals instead of execution. These ideas, while nice, it's important to understand their limitations. I think there's much great about liberals, for the longest time I was one, but I also think there's many that are very blind in following it due to the entire mob following it. And again, I love science, evidence, and reason... But when you base all your ideas of the world on them, that's kind of what it means to be liberal in my opinion.
But like I mentioned in my previous post, there's much about human interaction and the human experience that isn't rational and never will be, and hence they take that thinking to the extreme. I'm getting a bit philosophical here, but I'm just trying to explain my position a little bit more, as I would consider myself a very rational person who doesn't blindly follow Trump, but for a lot of liberals that can be hard to comprehend.
|
On September 19 2016 03:45 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 03:38 TheDwf wrote:On September 19 2016 03:18 oBlade wrote:On September 19 2016 02:53 TheDwf wrote:On September 19 2016 02:27 Yuljan wrote:On September 19 2016 02:11 Rebs wrote:On September 19 2016 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2016 01:49 Uldridge wrote:
So if religion is used as the medium to get people to commit to a certain lifestyle, isn't it a major factor?
Yes, the geopolitics of the West have made a very unstable region (don't forget the tribal wars in the Middle East though) and have a big hand in the origins of the radicalisation of alot of people, but that's not necessarily known by them. I'm pretty sure not every Islamite that goes on a suicide mission knows the entire Western - Middel-Eastern relationship to its most fundamental aspect, dating back to the start of the crusades or even further.
So, one could argue that the extreme interpreting of the Koran may be enough to identify the extremism we find in today's Islam at face value instead of completely understanding ourselves why it is the relationship has become so sour. Because blaming the Islam solves nothing. Yelling 'Islamic terrorism' isn't going to stop the terrorists from attacking and will only piss off the Islamic people that are not against the West. I'm not saying we should ignore the violence or that we shouldn't seek to protect ourselves but to me there is no reason to focus on the Islam so hard instead of just Terrorism. Dont bother explaining this, no one will listen if they dont already feel this way. Its easy to acknowledge that Islam in of itself requires reform, but Islam varies quite significantly in practice and preaching across the board. Thats when I laugh when people say "Shariah Law" like its a homogeneous thing. There is no such thing is 1 Shariah Law. Theres 4 major schools of just Sunni Islam itself and then the offshoots, let alone all the minority strains and alot of them have very very different beliefs to the point that they hate each other just as much as they might hate others. Islam has problems, plenty of them. But what people dont realise is that they can remove Islam from the equation and these people would latch onto whatever would have existed in the vaccum Islam left and found justification for their actions either way. The Saudis for example are absolute cunts. They are the most vile regressive human beings in existance that have any legitimacy and they have the money to export that filth to poorer muslim countries unchecked, because well, they can. Sadly now its to late, the Saudi project has been like 40-60 years in the making, undoing that and reforming mainstream Islam (even if there was any will to do so in the first place) would take decades aswell. Its also hilarious that people have a problem with blaming guns for violence but have no problem with blaming religion for it. Its literally the same line of thinking. Except you cant kill someone with just an ideology, you have to add a gun to that. A backward stone age religion helps these idiots just as a gun helps you if you want to do violence. I am absolutely opposed to allow guns in a country but I would rather expel all muslims (incl. the decent ones) from my country than allow the 30~40% of them that are in favor of radical islams to continue their ways. So to sum it up: a gun ban and muslim ban create a more peaceful society in my opinion. We all heard about the different interpretations of sharia law: Should you hit your wife hard or soft? Should a homosexual be stoned or beheaded? Can you just behead prisoners or is burning fine as well? Islams problem is that its a religion of conquest and the koran is considered the direct word of god. Then how come there are so many schools, branches and sub-branches which are constantly fighting each other? Was Allah too ambiguous in its message or?... The only option to stop radical islam is to supress all of islam as harshly as possible (i.e. forbid preaching, close all mosques and dont allow any public display of muslim faith) in the west. Sure, persecuting minorities never went wrong. Plus freedom of conscience doesn't exist, and amputating the whole arm whenever your finger itches is a brilliant solution. Oh by the way, if extremism is inherent to islam, then how come it particularly developed those past decades? If the reason behind all of this is the letter of the Quran, we should find this problem at every age and everywhere. It so happens that we don't. How come? We do find it in history, and all over the world today. Or are you asking why there were no suicide vests in the 15th century? What is called jihadism dates back to the 1980s. Jihad is the religious duty to spread Islam.
No, there are various forms of jihad, and the armed one is supposed to be defensive. Of course fanatics distorted it and reinterpreted it to match their delirious views. Validating their thesis while pretending to fight them is totally counterproductive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
