**** Elections thread *****

[bigred]

Wish I had a fear-mongering Trump bingo card or drinking game. I'd be hammered from murderers and drug lords alone. I'd be dead if I included radical terrorists.

[wufwugy]

Is it fear-mongering when it's true?

[wufwugy]

This is a serious ass blasting. She's got nothing.

[bigred]

This is a serious ass blasting. She's got nothing.

Politics feels like rooting for the sports team you picked up as a kid regardless of changing tides. I agree with your first sentence but replace she with he. He hasn't said a single fact. It's been generalized attacks, "she's a disasta, a real disasta, she's done nothing, a disasta." I'm embarrassed for him.

Edit: I was very surprised when it said she's got nothing. Was not expecting that but then again I haven't read this thread.

[bigred]

Is it fear-mongering when it's true?

So if we let in 65,000 Syrians they're all terrorists and drug lords?

[OngBonga]

When it comes to Syria, he nailed her. In the pussy.

[Savy]

So if we let in 65,000 Syrians they're all terrorists and drug lords?

Commie.

[wufwugy]

So if we let in 65,000 Syrians they're all terrorists and drug lords?

There is very good reason to believe that opening the doors to Syrian so-called refugees would create a serious danger of terrorism. Politicians have said flat out that they can't vet them and IIRC the ratio of young male "refugees" is far greater than women and children. There are definitely bad motives involved. Definitely many who just want to come in here and provide no value and get benefits, and some who are looking to undermine the country and the people and do some killing.

[bigred]

Commie.

You spelled 'American' wrong. Nation built on refugees and immigrants.

[wufwugy]

Politics feels like rooting for the sports team you picked up as a kid regardless of changing tides. I agree with your first sentence but replace she with he. He hasn't said a single fact. It's been generalized attacks, "she's a disasta, a real disasta, she's done nothing, a disasta." I'm embarrassed for him.

Edit: I was very surprised when it said she's got nothing. Was not expecting that but then again I haven't read this thread.

He's said some facts. Approximately as many as she has. Regardless, facts aren't persuasive; emotions and perceptions are. He's getting one over on her very often.

[bigred]

There is very good reason to believe that opening the doors to Syrian so-called refugees would create a serious danger of terrorism. Politicians have said flat out that they can't vet them and IIRC the ratio of young male "refugees" is far greater than women and children. There are definitely bad motives involved. Definitely many who just want to come in here and provide no value and get benefits, and some who are looking to undermine the country and the people and do some killing.

That "good reason" boils down to fear and xenophobia imo. A few bad apples shouldn't prevent thousands of people from getting help from a nation who can help them. Also, terrorism isn't a threat. Your drive to the grocery store today is tremendously more risky, statistically, than letting in 65K Syrians. This "terrorism threat" is nothing short of fear-mongering and sensationalism to scare the simple minded people who fear a religion they don't understand.

[wufwugy]

You spelled 'American' wrong. Nation built on refugees and immigrants.

That's true enough, but also it didn't look like the current situation in Syria. We didn't have welfare and they didn't have large support for anti-western values.

We should have lots of immigrants, but we shouldn't undermine our own situation through immigration.

[Savy]

You spelled 'American' wrong. Nation built on refugees and immigrants.

Yeah but you sure as hell make sure they aren't on an equal footing since wave one.

So I'm guessing the debate is over? Inb4 Trump won, no he didn't, yes he did.

[bigred]

Yeah but you sure as hell make sure they aren't on an equal footing since wave one.

Can't refute that. Half of us are too busy telling them they don't belong here to even get to a subsequent conversation about equal opportunity.

[wufwugy]

That "good reason" boils down to fear and xenophobia imo. A few bad apples shouldn't prevent thousands of people from getting help from a nation who can help them.

It's not a few bad apples. It's many, many bad apples.

Also, terrorism isn't a threat. Your drive to the grocery store today is tremendously more risky, statistically, than letting in 65K Syrians. This "terrorism threat" is nothing short of fear-mongering and sensationalism to scare the simple minded people who fear a religion they don't understand.

The threat is greatly underrated. Historical and doctrinal exploration of the world of Islam is astoundingly horrific.

[bigred]

That's true enough, but also it didn't look like the current situation in Syria. We didn't have welfare and they didn't have large support for anti-western values.

We should have lots of immigrants, but we shouldn't undermine our own situation through immigration.

I'd be interested to see the numbers for money lost to people gaming Welfare vs people gaming the tax system (i.e. recent Trump tax revelations.)

This tweet sums up how I feel: https://twitter.com/benjaminmoser/st...694720?lang=en

The welfare mooching argument, imo, is fodder fed to middle class workers with no factual basis to keep them angry at the wrong people.

[bigred]

It's not a few bad apples. It's many, many bad apples.



The threat is greatly underrated. Historical and doctrinal exploration of the world of <Insert any religion here> is astoundingly horrific.

FYP.

Also, there's 1.6 billion Muslims in this world. So that's what, .00000000000001%, plotting to blow us up?

[bigred]

I wish there was a section of the debates that address the topics that are foundational to a country's growth and prosperity instead of this Twitter-like flavor of the minute Q&A. I want to hear something substantial from Trump on how he wants to approach education, infrastructure investment, etc and hold him accountable for something more concrete than "People are gonna get the best education, I love education, I'm great at education!"

[bigred]

On a lighter note, this twitter feed has brightened my morning: https://twitter.com/Papapishu

[boost]

bigred, many people who are ignorant of Islam have a "not in my neighborhood metnality" view of things. This for sure is true. Interestingly though many who are ignorant of Islam have a "it's just another religion, and all religions have good and bad" view of things.

Both are faulty logic, and both can have dire consequences.

This appeal to cultural relativism you've made is absurd on its face. Given a set of goals, there are clearly better and worse cultures. This rubs a lot of people the wrong way, and I get that, but aside from the gut reaction, where do you find fault in this claim?

[bigred]

bigred, many people who are ignorant of Islam have a "not in my neighborhood metnality" view of things. This for sure is true. Interestingly though many who are ignorant of Islam have a "it's just another religion, and all religions have good and bad" view of things.

Both are faulty logic, and both can have dire consequences.

This appeal to cultural relativism you've made is absurd on its face. Given a set of goals, there are clearly better and worse cultures. This rubs a lot of people the wrong way, and I get that, but aside from the gut reaction, where do you find fault in this claim?

Where did I appeal to cultural relativism? I'm assuming with my FYP on Wufwugy but that's more of a religion generalization than relativism.

I'd be lying if I was well informed when it comes to Islam. I get most of my understanding from my friend's and colleagues who are Muslim and they're wonderful people. I recognize this may not always be the case.

Frankly, I don't understand your entire last paragraph. I'm not trying to judge different cultures or label them as good or bad. I'm simply saying not letting 65,000 people into the country who need our help because of a minimal terror risk is just bad math and heartless.

It's also a gesture to the greater Islamic population that we're not afraid of them and want to work with them for a better future. Muslim registers, closed borders, and other xenophobic measures only furthers radical idealization. There's a good article somewhere by George Takai that likens this Islamphobia to the Asian scare and imprisonment of the Japanese.

[Poopadoop]

Just started watching the replay: I see Trump's got a mike that sniffs again.

[Poopadoop]

Meh, pretty dull debate. No bombs dropped. No clear winner. zzzzzzz

[wufwugy]

I'd be interested to see the numbers for money lost to people gaming Welfare vs people gaming the tax system (i.e. recent Trump tax revelations.)

This tweet sums up how I feel: https://twitter.com/benjaminmoser/st...694720?lang=en

The welfare mooching argument, imo, is fodder fed to middle class workers with no factual basis to keep them angry at the wrong people.

I didn't intend to discuss welfare in terms of gaming, but instead as being a burden to society due to its disincentives for beneficiaries to produce. Before welfare was a thing, immigrants had little choice but to become responsible and productive, and over time we saw all sorts of poor immigrant groups rise up. With the existence of welfare, that is much more rare, especially when the immigration is from cultures that never embraced the Protestant work ethic or Enlightenment principles that are at the backbone of American history and culture.

As for the twitter, there is a unique difference between taking advantage of the system to not pay taxes and taking advantage of a system to receive welfare. One is not having something taken from you that came to you by your productivity; the other is taking something from somebody that came to them by their productivity. If you don't agree, cool. I'm just pointing out why I think they're different.

FYP.

Islam is unique. The short of it is that Muhammad was a warlord whose purpose was the total subjugation of the world. Islam's history is of violence and subjugation to a far more remarkable degree than other religions. It is also important to examine doctrinal reformations of religions. Christianity's violence came from interpretations of Christianity that deviated from the scripture, and the Protestant Reformation was a return to scripture (scripture is basically Jesus, as he partially abrogates everything else in scripture). This is how Christianity became far more peaceful. Islam's reformation, however, is very different because Muhammad abrogates everything that came before him and he was a disgusting genocidal rapist maniac. ISIS is an Islamic reformation. It is a return to scripture, to the way of Muhammad.

Also, there's 1.6 billion Muslims in this world. So that's what, .00000000000001%, plotting to blow us up?

The amount of people in Islam who believe that violence is appropriate to convert or punish is >1%. By some metrics it is >10%. The quantity of people in Islam who run interference with opposition against these extremists is >50% (it's close to like 98%). Every Mosque is a Sharia court, and most Muslims support positions antithetical to western values. There are a handful of nominal secularized Muslims in the West, and they are a very small minority. It should be noted that there is a common theme in the history of Islamism: undermining cultures from within. It isn't just the threat of terrorism at the gates, but the threat of the tentacles of Islamism itself.

[wufwugy]

Good stuff: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1515994...om-switzerland

[wufwugy]

Lots of reports that the GOP is actively sabotaging Trump GOTV

It truly is a one-party country. The party of hegemony on the global stage and globalism at home.

[Savy]

Lots of reports that the GOP is actively sabotaging Trump GOTV

It truly is a one-party country. The party of hegemony on the global stage and globalism at home.

Does that lose him the election? I've been under the impression no one wanted him at any point in the race. Does anything they do hurt him seriously or is it just something to take up the headlines for a bit.

It's very hard to believe that Trump isn't somewhat under the thumb of the people running the show. It makes no sense for him not to be as big as Trump is he's nothing compared to the right wing establishment, they could easily destroy him.

[Poopadoop]

they could easily destroy him.

Or just not nominate him in the first place...

[Poopadoop]

Why nominate him, then try to throw the election just to prove an outsider can't win? Why tarnish their own party that way? Wouldn't they rather have a candidate who could become president? Makes no sense.

Nah, I think what happened is they honestly thought they could coach him into acting like a president instead of how he acts. So they nominated him, and said 'ok Donny try not to be too obnoxious and alienate half the country'. And he decided he was superman and wasn't going to change his act for anyone, and went on to commit gaffe after gaffe after gaffe cause he just doesn't get it.

That's when the party started turning against him imo.

[wufwugy]

Does that lose him the election? I've been under the impression no one wanted him at any point in the race. Does anything they do hurt him seriously or is it just something to take up the headlines for a bit.

It probably helps him gain more supporters, but probably hurts their ability to vote. The recent reports involve the GOP with a suspiciously low new registrants and sending Trump supporters away.

It's very hard to believe that Trump isn't somewhat under the thumb of the people running the show. It makes no sense for him not to be as big as Trump is he's nothing compared to the right wing establishment, they could easily destroy him.

They've been trying to destroy him and haven't had any success already. I don't see reason to believe or evidence that he's under anybody's thumb. Donors and politicians are pissed at the RNC and threatening the RNC because of Trump, but they have no sway with Trump.

[wufwugy]

Why nominate him

Because the other option was Ted Cruz, a man they loathe more than Satan. They knew what they were getting with Cruz: the boot. They believed/hoped Trump would be more "reasonable."

I won't go into the electoral politics of it, but the short is that the RNC did everything it could to get Bush, then Rubio, then Kasich the nomination. They lost because of pesky voters who have had it with corruption.

Nah, I think what happened is they honestly thought they could coach him into acting like a president instead of how he acts. So they nominated him, and said 'ok Donny try not to be too obnoxious and alienate half the country'.

There was some of that. They knew Cruz would destroy them, but Trump gave them reason to believe that he might play ball.

That's when the party started turning against him imo.

The party, meaning the RNC and politicians, have been against him from the beginning. League of Big.

[Poopadoop]

The party, meaning the RNC and politicians, have been against him from the beginning. League of Big.

They haven't all been saying they wouldn't vote for him from the beginning though. It's just been coming in bunches here and there.

[wufwugy]

They haven't all been saying they wouldn't vote for him from the beginning though. It's just been coming in bunches here and there.

It's been all over the place. Most of the what's happened so far was before he got the nomination. He got boatloads of negative comments from RNC before then. He started getting some positive comments from them when it was Trump vs Cruz. Then the pattern continued after he beat Cruz.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@Wuf: I wish I didn't have to say it, but I refuse to let your ethnocentric BS go unchecked when you're literally vilifying 1/3 of all the people. When you talk about Islam, you are a bigot, a base hater.

Save the defensive narrative running in your mind; I don't want to hear what excuses you've justified for you to pretend that people in other places are so much worse than people in your place. I.e. I don't care what motivates you to be a bigot and a hater, and I'm certainly not going to entertain your arguments pretending that what you said was anything but bigotry and hatred.

Data or STFU.

In b4 you say that I'm not allowing you to be a bigot and a hater, because I am not stopping you from anything. You can type your hatred all you like, but I'm not going to let you couch it in terms of social justice.

[wufwugy]

@Wuf: I wish I didn't have to say it, but I refuse to let your ethnocentric BS go unchecked when you're literally vilifying 1/3 of all the people. When you talk about Islam, you are a bigot, a base hater.

Save the defensive narrative running in your mind; I don't want to hear what excuses you've justified for you to pretend that people in other places are so much worse than people in your place. I.e. I don't care what motivates you to be a bigot and a hater, and I'm certainly not going to entertain your arguments pretending that what you said was anything but bigotry and hatred.

Data or STFU.

In b4 you say that I'm not allowing you to be a bigot and a hater, because I am not stopping you from anything. You can type your hatred all you like, but I'm not going to let you couch it in terms of social justice.

My focus is on political Islam. It has an agenda no less grotesque than the worst you've ever read about. Most Muslims are good people and don't agree with this agenda, which is why the most devout followers of Muhammad are slaughtering them.

I encourage you to investigate. The data on the aggression by Islamists is rife in history books. The data on who Muhammad was and what he did and what he taught is in the holy texts and emphatically accepted by leadership in Islam. You can begin to find the data on the lack of support for western values here.

[wufwugy]

If swallowing the red pill sounds like a good idea, I'd start by watching some interviews with Gad Saad. He's one of the few academics who speaks out on this issue.

[OngBonga]

This relentless misuse of the word bigot gets on my tits, and I'm gonna pull mojo up on it.

Save the defensive narrative

I don't want to hear what excuses you've justified

I don't care what motivates you

You can type your hatred all you like

All of these comments demonstrate clearly your intolerance of wuf's opinion on this matter. I'm not knocking you for that, but here's something... intolerance of another person's opinion makes you a bigot. That's what bigot means.

If you don't want to fall under the realm of bigotry yourself, then you need to try to understand why wuf feels the way he does, instead of dismissing his opinion as racism.

Or you could just acknowledge that bigotry isn't necessarily a negative trait and find a more suitable word to throw at him.

[OngBonga]

Point being... most people who use the word "bigot" as critisism, it's usually an act of bigotry in its own right.

[MadMojoMonkey]

[...]

Save the defensive narrative; I don't care what excuses you've justified for you to pretend that people in other places are so much worse than people in your place. I.e. I don't care what motivates you to be a bigot and a hater, and I'm certainly not going to entertain your arguments pretending that what you said was anything but bigotry and hatred.

If you're talking about extremists and jihadists, then that's one thing.
If you're talking about Islamic people and Muslims, then that's a totally different thing.
One is bigotry. The other is hating murderers, a group against whom I embrace open bigotry.

You can begin to find the data on the lack of support for western values here.

Weak sauce.

Your argument is that some people are haters, so you hate on anyone who remotely shares something about the haters that is not the same as about you... they don't have the same religion? So you hate on their religion.

News flash: Muslim terrorists are being killed by Muslim police every day.

News flash: there are Mosques all over America. Have been for ages. Where's this problem with Muslims?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Point being... most people who use the word "bigot" as critisism, it's usually an act of bigotry in its own right.

No. I'm not hating on wuf because of stuff "people like wuf" do that I heard about. I'm not saying that all people like wuf are bad and should be hated upon or have their lifestyle externally altered in an altogether unpleasant way.

I'm calling out wuf for saying stupid shit that dehumanizes and vilifies innocent people.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If you don't want to fall under the realm of bigotry yourself, then you need to try to understand why wuf feels the way he does, instead of dismissing his opinion as racism.

No. Again. I'm not being prejudiced. I am not hating on wuf for some aspect of his life over which he has little or no effective control.

I read what he wrote and it vilified 1/3 of all the people and I am calling him out for being a bigot on it.
If you prefer racist, that's fine... but there are people of every race who are Muslims, so it doesn't make sense.

It doesn't matter why he feels justified to embrace a dehumanizing attitude towards his fellow humans. It is leading him to create a world-view which demonizes innocent people. That is a terrible and dangerous attitude.

[Poopadoop]

Mojo I'm sick of bigots like you telling other bigots to stop being bigots. Intolerant cunt.

[Poopadoop]

Oh wait, I think I just became a bigot. Fuck.

[Poopadoop]

My question for Wuf is this:

Did you start with the idea that Islam is a bad religion and then go try to find evidence to support this view, or did you start with the idea that it might be good or it might be bad or it might be neither, and go try to find out which it is?

[JKDS]

I liked when hillary said muhammad ali was a muslim

[boost]

MMM, you're being unreasonable here.

Bigred, sorry if you felt like I jumped on you for something you don't feel like you said.

I tend to regret getting into these exchanges on here-- I find it far too easy to get lost in the weeds and the point by point tangents quickly grow to an unmanageably numerous tangle of confusion.

So with that in mind, I'll just point out that while wuf is on "the other team", if I were to vote on the same ballot as either of you, it'd probably look near identical if not identical-- yet, I think you both have the wrong of this. Unfortunately, sometimes the truth aligns with the twisted motives of bigots, but it doesn't make the truth any less true.

[boost]

Fun thought experiment on the topic:

Is it possible Americans of Japanese descent were better off in internment during WWII? If you think not, what dials on the societal control board would you have to turn, and how far would you have to turn them, for this to be likely?

[boost]

My question for Wuf is this:

Did you start with the idea that Islam is a bad religion and then go try to find evidence to support this view, or did you start with the idea that it might be good or it might be bad or it might be neither, and go try to find out which it is?

I'll hop in here if I may.

I started with the idea that Christianity was bad, the crusades the inquisition, etc. I thought we in the west were responsible and to blame for all the trouble in the middle east. Etc.

Then my critical view of religion as a whole lead me to study up on various religions, not just the dominant one in the west. This is where I may differ from wuf-- I think faith based belief systems are a net negative for society at this point in time. It's just that I think faith based belief in certain sets of ideas is more damaging.

Fuck.. I guess I'm sorta jumping into this again...

[OngBonga]

Mojo I'm sick of bigots like you telling other bigots to stop being bigots. Intolerant cunt.

Inolerance of bigotry is bigotry!

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm not jumping on bigotry. I endorse bigotry against some groups, e.g. murderers.
I'm not saying all bigots are bad.

My criticism is directed not at wuf, the person, but at the ideas he posted.

[Poopadoop]

Inolerance of bigotry is bigotry!

So is the intolerance of those who are intolerant of intolerance. Fucking bigot!

[OngBonga]

So is the intolerance of those who are intolerant of intolerance. Fucking bigot!

Yeah but I'm not the one saying bigotry is bad, am I?

I'm a proud bigot.

[boost]

Right, but you didn't engage with the ideas. You overtly said as much. You decided that certain concepts cannot be reached but by (the bad kind of) bigotry, and so you refused to hear any possible reasoning as to challenge this assertion.

Maybe wuf and I are bigots. But apparently we either a) recognize it doesn't go over well, so we hide it or b) are unaware of the fact. If you think it's the former, then, well, lol. If you think it's the latter, then wouldn't you want to engage with our wrong headed justifications for our bigotry and show us the light? Mischaracterizing our arguments as having "vilified 1/3 of all the people" and crying out " I'm certainly not going to entertain your arguments pretending that what you said was anything but bigotry and hatred." is not the best strategy here.

On their face, these points may seem offensive to you, and I understand that, but your offense is not the arbiter of truth. Engage with the ideas, or pipe down.

[OngBonga]

My criticism is directed not at wuf, the person, but at the ideas he posted.

I'm sorry I was just trolling, being the pedantic fucker I am.

But I do tend to find that a lot of people who throw that term about tend to hold bigoted views themselves. There is a great deal of intolerance doing the rounds, not just from racists and homophobes.

[boost]

I am not hating on wuf for some aspect of his life over which he has little or no effective control.

Am I correct to infer that you think Muslims have little or no effective control over their beliefs?

[OngBonga]

For the record, I don't think wuf & boost's views are racist.

Islam isn't a fucking race. It's a religion. If you hold anti-Islamic views, they are anti-religious views.

You can tell if someone is racist or not. Ask them how they feel about Chinese immigration. The Chinese have never caused us any problems; they come here and work hard, pay taxes, learn the language, absorb the culture. Anyone who has a problem with Chinese, or Polish immigration... well then it's looking more like racism. These people do not pose a risk to us either politically or eocnomically. They are a benefit.

Islam poses a different challenge. Those who oppose Islamic immigration while welcoming non-Islamic immigration... racism is not the correct charge.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Right, but you didn't engage with the ideas. You overtly said as much. You decided that certain concepts cannot be reached but by (the bad kind of) bigotry, and so you refused to hear any possible reasoning as to challenge this assertion.

Oh, really?
A) Watch me engage with ideas:

Weak sauce.

Your argument is that some people are haters, so you hate on anyone who remotely shares something about the haters that is not the same as about you... they don't have the same religion? So you hate on their religion.

News flash: Muslim terrorists are being killed by Muslim police every day.

News flash: there are Mosques all over America. Have been for ages. Where's this problem with Muslims?

and B) replace Muslims with Blacks and tell me why I should entertain anyone's ridiculous rationalizations for why they think it's OK to hate on black people. Replace Muslim with gay and same thing.

Maybe wuf and I are bigots. But apparently we either a) recognize it doesn't go over well, so we hide it or b) are unaware of the fact. If you think it's the former, then, well, lol. If you think it's the latter, then wouldn't you want to engage with our wrong headed justifications for our bigotry and show us the light? Mischaracterizing our arguments as having "vilified 1/3 of all the people" and crying out " I'm certainly not going to entertain your arguments pretending that what you said was anything but bigotry and hatred." is not the best strategy here.

a) I don't care what you think or believe in your head. I care what you contribute to the world. If you keep your bigoted thoughts to yourself, then that's fine with me.

b) I have no ambition to "show you the light" if you don't want to see it. If you do want to see it, then I am not qualified to act as your expert guide. Make friends with some Muslims, FFS.

It's no mischaracterization to say that wuf's words vilified 1/3 of all the people. Claiming otherwise is a lie.
You may not understand my strategy of calling out BS and lies for what they are, but it's working in the sciences quite well.
I never claimed to be the best at anything, certainly not strategy. I'm doing what I know to do. If it's less than perfect, so be it.

Engaging in the conversation is to give weight to the notion that there is any merit to harboring reasons to hate on large groups of innocent people. I reject that hypothesis. I say if this is how you hate, then you're a lazy hater. Step up your hate game and focus on individuals who are deplorable, and stop saying emotionally charged and offensive BS which doesn't reflect the reality you live in.

On their face, these points may seem offensive to you, and I understand that, but your offense is not the arbiter of truth. Engage with the ideas, or pipe down.

Show me data and I'll engage. I refuse to engage with lies and hearsay.

I have studied Islam as a religion. I have read parts of the Quran (not the whole thing by any means). I have lived with and worked with Islamic people. If you tell me that the religion is one of terror or domination, then I can justifiable assert that I know you are wrong, because I have studied the religious texts in question and gotten to know the people of that faith. For you to assert as much is ignorance at best and bigotry at worst. If you're an adult who is saying ignorant things and have had the time and opportunity to become more informed, yet you have not... then bigotry by negligence, IMO.

Refusing to see groups of people as "normal" humans is bigotry.
Choosing to call out individuals for bad acting is justice.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Am I correct to infer that you think Muslims have little or no effective control over their beliefs?
[/COLOR]

No.

[bigred]

MMM said the stuff for me.

We are getting off topic from the Syrian refugee thing. Imo, the best way to fight radicals/ISIS is to ban, deport, and/or refuse to let the people trying to flee from them and find a safe place for their family. Sets a nice image for western society and our "morals." True American ideals.

[CoccoBill]

Intolerance of bigotry is not bigotry, it's criticism.

[OngBonga]

Intolerance and critisism are not the same thing.

[CoccoBill]

Exactly, just like bigotry against a group of people and the intolerance of it aren't.

[OngBonga]

Intolerance of a group of people though, that is bigotry.

So if you're intolerant of racists, you're a bigot.

[Poopadoop]

It's just an argument about semantics, and it's stupid. It was obvious what he meant and also obvious that you're trolling.

In any case, it's clear that toddlers with guns are a bigger threat to America than jihadi terrorists. Guns don't kill people, toddlers kill people! Ban toddlers from America, goddamnit!

Attachment 902

[wufwugy]

If you tell me that the religion is one of terror or domination, then I can justifiable assert that I know you are wrong, because I have studied the religious texts in question and gotten to know the people of that faith.

I'm very happy you said this.

I am not talking about Muslims at all; I am talking about a political doctrine that is worse than Nazism.

Islam is the way of Muhammad. The Muslims who do not murder other people are nominal, cultural, Muslims. They do not follow the way of Muhammad nor the teachings of the Imams. My opinion or your opinion about Islam or Muslims do not matter. The only opinion that matters is Muhammad's. According to Muhammad and to the widely accepted doctrine, Muhammad was a warlord who commanded his followers to proselytize by the sword. Muhammad's latter actions and teachings have abrogated everything else.

The primary victims of Islamism are Muslims. It's because they're apostates who aren't following Muhammad. Calling ISIS a group of genocidal maniac extremists paints an incomplete and misleading picture of the them. They are the reformation of Islam back to the teachings of Muhammad.


A fruitful discussion would be to consider whether or not there is any hope for Islam as a religion. I'd certainly like there to be, but there is a common theme that runs through religions that suggests there isn't. That theme is that the (perhaps) only way religions reform is by returning to the scriptures and interpreting more literally, purely, and with abrogation of previous teachings. Islam is in a terrible place because the purpose for its creation was the subjugation of all into its ways. Islam can't go back to the scriptures to find peace because there is no peace to be found in Muhammad. I have no idea what the solution is to this, but it certainly is not to give a violent political ideology a pass.

Attacking me based on my statements is like attacking somebody who claims Nazism is awful as instead saying the German people who were also Nazis were awful. I am saying no such thing about Muslims. Muslims are normal people like you and me. But Islamism is one of the most destructive political forces in human history and in the world today. It is not that way due to its adherent just being bad, but because of the teachings of Islam itself. We in America are fortunate in that the vast majority of Muslims here are very nominal and they don't believe this stuff because they're, well, nominal and cultural Muslims instead of adherents to the doctrine.

[wufwugy]

My question for Wuf is this:

Did you start with the idea that Islam is a bad religion and then go try to find evidence to support this view, or did you start with the idea that it might be good or it might be bad or it might be neither, and go try to find out which it is?

I was a vociferous defender of Islam as a peaceful ideology. I didn't know anything about Islam, but I believed the common narrative in the West.

Also, it doesn't bug me to have intellectuals call me a bigot. The intelligentsia has sold its soul to the devil on this issue. The interesting question is why the intelligentsia has done so. My theory is that Islam is so far away and Christianity is close, so the religious oppression many of us have experienced comes from Christianity instead of Islam. Regardless of the explanation for why, the examples that suggest the intelligentsia having sold their soul are staggering.

[Poopadoop]

So given how determined these people are to come and kill all of us infidels, why are they so poor at executing? Why aren't we seeing terrorist attacks on a daily basis, or at least weekly, or at least monthly, in the US? If > 10% of them are radical fanatics who think we should all die (and their own people who aren't radical fanatics should also die), and are happy to lose their own lives to make that happen, then that's at least 600 million terrorists who are completely failing at their purpose in life according to you.

[wufwugy]

Food for thought: when "freedom of religion" was established, the only "religion" was Christianity. Americans back then didn't think of religion the way we do today. They were virtually 100% Christian, to the point that the most extreme "non-Christian" types were the Rationalists, who still believed in the Christian God but that he didn't intervene in the human world. This was such an extreme belief that they were thought of as atheists.

The idea that religion is sacred comes from this history. It's a history where the only things thought of as religions were Catholicism and Protestantism. They both professed to be followers of Jesus, more or less having Jesus abrogate the things in the Old Testament that they didn't like. Catholicism's violent past by this time had been reformed tremendously by adopting the Protestant innovations regarding Jesus related doctrine.

With this knowledge of history (this is exactly what one of my history professors taught me), does it make sense that if Islam was considered relevant at the time, that the ideal of religious freedom would have been proposed and adopted? Islam was an ideology of subjugation with a rife history of doing so. It toppled empires and enslaved more than the West ever did. Everywhere it went it consumed the society whole into its exclusive way. The religious freedom ideal was for the purpose of allowing Christians of different sects to practice their beliefs, and none of them believed in proselytizing by the sword. Islam existed for the express purpose of proselytizing by the sword, and it had been overwhelmingly successful. I tend to think that under these circumstances, the Founding Fathers would not have adopted religious freedom. It would have been silly to grant rights to an ideology that professes that murder is a divine obligation.

History is such a cool topic. It shows so much of what contemporary thought gets wrong.

[wufwugy]

So given how determined these people are to come and kill all of us infidels, why are they so poor at executing? Why aren't we seeing terrorist attacks on a daily basis, or at least weekly, or at least monthly, in the US? If > 10% of them are radical fanatics who think we should all die (and their own people who aren't radical fanatics should also die), and are happy to lose their own lives to make that happen, then that's at least 600 million terrorists who are completely failing at their purpose in life according to you.

Attacks are incredibly frequent. There's a meme going around that it's hard to even go one day without a new attack in the name of Muhammad. Also the vast majority of the attacks are on Muslims themselves. Being a Muslim who doesn't follow the way of Muhammad is an even bigger sin than being a non-Muslim. The followers of Muhammad kill them with primacy.

[Poopadoop]

Attacks are incredibly frequent.

In the US? No.

[wufwugy]

In the US? No.

I'm talking worldwide.

Also, keep in mind that the Islamic areas where there are few attacks are ones where they already won the wars and where there are few people that need attacking anymore. Islamism's idea of peace is for every person to be a perfect Muslim like Muhammad was, which would make there no reason to kill them. The antecedent strongholds of Christianity were toppled by the sword wielded by Islamists.

[Poopadoop]

Islam was an ideology of subjugation with a rife history of doing so. It toppled empires and enslaved more than the West ever did. Everywhere it went it consumed the society whole into its exclusive way. The religious freedom ideal was for the purpose of allowing Christians of different sects to practice their beliefs, and none of them believed in proselytizing by the sword. Islam existed for the express purpose of proselytizing by the sword, and it had been overwhelmingly successful.

I guess your history teacher never explained to you how many wars were fought in the name of God by Christians. It may not have been their 'ideology' to subjugate, conquer, convert and/or enslave, but that's exactly what they did.

[Poopadoop]

I'm talking worldwide.

And I was asking you about the US. With so many muslims there why aren't attacks much more frequent?

Also, keep in mind that the Islamic areas where there are few attacks are ones where they already won the wars and where there are few people that need attacking anymore.

Patently false. Iran is largely secular; there's very few mosques there and the general population do not follow scripture. Yet they aren't being beheaded or attacked at all.

Turkey is another example. Nominally muslim country where they sell alcohol. Where are all the radicals running around chopping heads?

[wufwugy]

I guess your history teacher never explained to you how many wars were fought in the name of God by Christians. It may not have been their 'ideology' to subjugate, conquer, convert and/or enslave, but that's exactly what they did.

We went some into that but European history was not the topic. We did get some of that from the Catholic invasions of the Americas.

Also, I addressed that. I explicitly stated that Catholicism has a history of subjugation. I also explained an important element for why it has this history and why it began abandoning that position.

[Poopadoop]

You also talk about a return to scripture in Islam as if it's some kind of inevitable outcome. Yet the only time it seems to happen is when you get a bunch of people who are sick of being shit on by outside forces. If there's a wave of radical Islam in the MidEast now, it's largely thanks to the actions of Christian powers like the US and the UK with their illegal war on Iraq, for example.