UK Politics VI - Will Britain Steir to Karmer Waters?

[soundjata]

I also respect your logic @Akka
It just seems puerile to me. [which is to say you seem to have a tendency to be attached to a whole corpus of ideals that stand no ground in reality such as 'nations', 'customs' or 'cultures']
Different minds different thoughts

edit: explained the puerile qualification

 

[danjuno]

That being said, you should maybe check a bit the stats about terrorism and religious laws in today's world. Might be enlightening.

No.
For someone who acted all angry about not being read, you definitely put a lot of efforts in not reading.

That shows terrorism attacks. It doesn't give any statistic on who makes those attacks and the reason they do. Which is kinda the entire point of half the initial question (the other being about religious law, that you haven't even started to answer).

Then say what you specifically want from the beginning. You initial question was vague and wrapped in your usual snark.

 

[Yeekim]

I understand the group you belong to is the majority and that makes you comfortable or relieved.

Yes, we've had incredible luck to be so privileged.

(because if you belonged to the minority that would suck wouldn't it?)

Yes. I will bet you a hundred bucks I can name you a dozen nations who once lived next to us, of whom you've never heard, because they never had a chance for national self-determinaton, being conquered and absorbed instead.

So now please tell me what is that group, and what is the benefit of that group existing, apart from giving you a sense of security

None, and it needs none besides that.

and focus your ostracism on another group?

This is your false projection entirely.

I believe nations are fake categories to keep the mass obedient. (abide by "the group rules" or be punished lol)

Some people don't believe love exists. I feel sorry for them and you too.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

America and its allies and clients are the biggests terrorists in the world, and it isn't close.

Not enough people are saying this, look at the atrocities America has directly comitted, especially in the global south.

America was happy to fund terrorists and perpetuate violence against nations until people got sick of it and retaliated

 

[Akka]

Then say what you specifically want from the beginning. You initial question was vague and wrapped in your usual snark.

I've written a very short, extremely explicit sentence in a context that is very clear. If you can't manage to get "check a bit the stats about terrorism and religious laws in today's world"in a context that is about comparing Islam to other religions, that's certainly NOT on me, absolutely not vague and I don't really see how I can make it more clear or simple. Don't take me for a fool.

I also respect your logic @Akka
It just seems puerile to me. [which is to say you seem to have a tendency to be attached to a whole corpus of ideals that stand no ground in reality such as 'nations', 'customs' or 'cultures']
Different minds different thoughts

edit: explained the puerile qualification

I guess you can say that "culture" and "customs" (and by extension human psychology) have "no ground in reality", but then I really wonder to what reality you refers to, because in this reality they certainly are very, very real.

 

[Senethro]

I've written a very short, extremely explicit sentence in a context that is very clear. If you can't manage to get "check a bit the stats about terrorism and religious laws in today's world"in a context that is about comparing Islam to other religions, that's certainly NOT on me

It is on you. Its honestly easier to just say/give your source than to act like its beneath you.

You're supposedly trying to communicate/persuade/convince here. If it somehow wounds your pride/demeans you to help danjuno, then play a psychological trick on yourself. Pretend that you're sharing your knowledge for the benefit of people who already hold your position, but could use the information!

 

[danjuno]

I've written a very short, extremely explicit sentence in a context that is very clear. If you can't manage to get "check a bit the stats about terrorism and religious laws in today's world"in a context that is about comparing Islam to other religions, that's certainly NOT on me, absolutely not vague and I don't really see how I can make it more clear or simple. Don't take me for a fool.

I provided you "Stats about terrorism" and you complained they weren't specific enough. You are the one trying to take me for a fool by insisting you were as clear as possible when you obviously needed to clarify afterwards.

Also, you criticized me for not including Muslim countries as well as Muslim diaspora and insisted I compare Muslim and non-Muslim countries of similar income levels. I did, and you changed the subject back to diaspora by complaining the source didn't include those.

Again, my original statement was not even challenging the idea that there was some statistical over-representation in Muslim communities and countries, only that their origin was in the socioeconomic state of those communities and countries.

And again, you have yet to address anything Senethro has repeatedly asked of you. Provide your own sources before criticizing mine.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Pleae keep your posting civil and focused on content and not people. Thanks.

 

[Akka]

I provided you "Stats about terrorism" and you complained they weren't specific enough.

Very obviously, when the point is about comparison between religions, throwing terrorism stat that don't give any information on the religious affiliation/motive on these terror attacks, is completely irrelevant. I don't really expect to have to spell this out, seriously. When speaking of right-wing terrorism in the US, you somehow don't seem to have THAT much problem to understand how to link data.

More to the point, my original statement was not even challenging the idea that there was some statistical over-representation in Muslim communities and countries, only that their origin was in the socioeconomic state of those communities and countries.

Except that would mean we should see the same level of over-representation in other-than-Muslim communities and countries from population with comparable socioeconomic states - so, for example when it comes to Europe, poor Christian immigrants from Africa should be bombing people as much as poor Muslim immigrants from Africa. Does this happen ?
Samely, if it's only about socioeconomic factors, then if there is religious violence in many Muslim countries, there should be the same level of religious violence in other countries with comparable wealth but with other religion - for example, South America - and again, I'm speaking about religious violence, not gang or drug wars, because we are speaking of a problem linked to RELIGION. Does this happen too ?

I also specifically asked about religious laws - i.e. what kind of religion-influenced laws we see in countries depending on which religion is in majority.
For example, which countries have apostasy laws (I'm going to spare you the research : they are ALL Muslim countries).

 

[danjuno]

Very obviously, when the point is about comparison between religions, throwing terrorism stat that don't give any information on the religious affiliation/motive on these terror attacks, is completely irrelevant

You brought up discussion of Muslim countries as a whole.

Except that would mean we should see the same level of over-representation in other-than-Muslim communities and countries from population with comparable socioeconomic states - so, for example when it comes to Europe, poor Christian immigrants from Africa should be bombing people as much as poor Muslim immigrants from Africa. Does this happen ?

Yes, poor immigrants are still susceptible to being involved with violent crime on account on their socioeconomic status, even if they share the local religion.

Samely, if it's only about socioeconomic factors, then if there is religious violence in many Muslim countries, there should be the same level of religious violence in other countries with comparable wealth but with other religion - for example, South America - and again, I'm speaking about religious violence, not gang or drug wars, because we are speaking of a problem linked to RELIGION. Does this happen too ?

Yes, poor countries with other religions do in fact have religious violence.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

All terrorists breathe air so maybe we should look at that connection as well

 

[Yeekim]

If identity is valuable, it must be all identities. No primacy. And if you accept primacy in both categories, then you're discarding the possibility of cooperative reciprocation.

Your identity/property/health/life are as valuable to you as mine are to me. Presumably.

Does not mean I need to make your doctor appointments as well as my own, or buy locks for both our doors, or fund your culture as well as mine.

 

[Lexicus]

Samely, if it's only about socioeconomic factors, then if there is religious violence in many Muslim countries, there should be the same level of religious violence in other countries with comparable wealth but with other religion - for example, South America - and again, I'm speaking about religious violence, not gang or drug wars, because we are speaking of a problem linked to RELIGION. Does this happen too ?

"Ah, but you see, only Muslims do violence Muslamically. Checkmate libs"

 

[Senethro]

Your identity/property/health/life are as valuable to you as mine are to me. Presumably.

Does not mean I need to make your doctor appointments as well as my own, or buy locks for both our doors, or fund your culture as well as mine.

Yes, that would be Golden rule behaviour. That requires a very high trust environment to be sustainable.

But if you won't refrain from identity erosion, why should I care when you (major national identity) complain about going from 94% of a population to 93? Thats just whining and hypocrisy.

 

[EnglishEdward]

What identity erosion is Yeekim doing?

 

[Senethro]

What identity erosion is Yeekim doing?

He personally isn't. I just addressed him as "you (major national identity)" for funsies. As If I were speaking to a Nationalism Ghost or something.

 

[Yeekim]

Yes, poor immigrants are still susceptible to being involved with violent crime on account on their socioeconomic status, even if they share the local religion.

Yes, obviously.
Poverty is a risk factor.
Being placed in a foreign environment is another risk factor.
Being adherent to an extremist ideology is third.

Any one creates risk on the level of X.
Any two together? X squared.
Any three together? X cubed.

And no, not all Islamic teachings qualify as extremist, but many do.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I'm sure there's a word for people who view muslims, specifically muslims from the global south, as a uniquely dangerous and inherently destructive force

 

[Yeekim]

But if you won't refrain from identity erosion, why should I care when you (major national identity) complain about going from 94% of a population to 93? Thats just whining and hypocrisy.

That is where we started from!
You, as a neutral third party really don't need to care. I don't expect you to care!
However, you can't expect that I myself would not care, or claim that my concern is stupid or insincere. (And we are not talking about dropping from 94% to 93% but potentially dropping below majority status, at least locally).

Second point - and I am repeating myself - is that minority cultures tend to dwindle in the long run even without any malign actions from the majority. Exceptions exist, but they are rare.

Third point - if a guy meets a polar bear, he should fear getting eaten. If that guy has a history of enjoying steak, you may claim that his fear makes him a hypocritical whiner, or that this encounter represents karmic justice. Fine.
But a lifetime of strict veganism won't reduce his risk of being eaten. The bear has no reason to know or care.

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: As we have now ended up comparing humans to animals, I'll close this thread.
Maybe for a while, maybe not. Maybe people will get points, maybe not.