Printable View
Worn torn areas with lots of in house fighting obviously are a hot bed for things like this, you're taking a point in history and being like woo Christianity is great, Islam is awful.
It's pretty great survivor bias. We're doing the best (debatable really) so we must be right.
There are not that many Muslims here. And the vast majority of them are nominal and relatively secular.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The region turned to Islam by the sword a long time ago. It is currently apostasy to Muhammad, and ISIS will attack it when doing so is the best option. Granted, it probably wouldn't be the best option for ISIS for a while.Quote:
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.
That line of argument is mostly bullshit, the shit going on over there isn't a recent history thing. It's just recent history that anyone in our media has started giving a shit. I'm not saying it wasn't a negative influence but it certainly doesn't come close to being the reason for it. At worst it accelerated and will extend the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The most well known reformation was not like this. It was endogenous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It has proximate cause for sure. The "radicalization" is nothing new to Islam, however. Not remotely new.Quote:
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.
There are a handful of ways in which I think Christianity has benefited the world. American Christianity was one of the main boats upon which Enlightenment ideals gained popularity.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
I may have overstated that, but the fact remains it was never a serious threat to us until we provided an environment that encouraged it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Note that 9/11 was fueled more by Anti-American sentiment than by radical Islamic views. The terrorists picked one country to attack then and it's no coincidence it was the same country that had been fucking in the business of the MidEast for that past 50 years.
How long to do you think militant Islam has been a thing? And how do you think it got started?Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Which one, where and when?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
@wuf: You're really going to double-down on being an ass, huh?
I am disappoint.
You are choosing your words to mean something which no one else is hearing. Your fault, not mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Your choice is ridiculous, in that you are telling people what they believe or that the majority of people in their faith are doing it wrong.
It's a laughable position and you're doing real harm.
Who are you to tell Muslims what their faith is and whether or not they're doing it right?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
What is this nonsense about Muhammad? Like, I am surrounded by Christians and I bet most of them would struggle to name 2 direct Jesus quotes. Are they not Christians? Nearly no modern Buddhist follows Siddhartha's mandate that the only thing in the universe worthy of worship is their own spiritual conversation with the God in their soul. Are they not Buddhists?
Why? Because some ignorant tool who has no compassion for world cultures says so?
Shut up with your nonsense and piece together a cogent thought on the topic.
Stop pretending that you have a leg to stand on with this prejudiced line of reasoning. It's literally no different than the call for persecution of the Jewish people leading into WWII... and I appreciate the comedy of saying that on the internet.
This tiny, less than 1% of a group is shouting that they speak for the entire group, while the rest of the group is diligently telling them and everyone who will listen that no, they do not speak for anyone but their despicable selves.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Who does wuf hear? The one that gives him an excuse to be a lazy hater.
... and I ain't got time for this nonsense.
as for the rest:
Shut the hell up with this lazy hate speech. Drop some data or admit that you're a lazy hater who only needs to placate his self worth by denigrating other people. There is no other option.
Dehumanizing bullshit, here.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I don't really understand your question, from a time scale of when the religion started to now I'd say very close to the beginning. But that clearly isn't what you mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Well, if there's a meme, then I take it back. Your standards of data are remarkable.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Still, there are terrorist attacks every day and plenty of them come from Muslim people.
News Flash: 1/3 of the worlds people are Muslims, and the associated amount of crime goes along with that.
BTW: American terrorists are white dudes who are characterized as "mentally unstable." Doesn't make them any less of a terrorist in reality, but it makes it hard to compare the stats worldwide when this institutional prejudice is in effect.
A brief perusal of the wikipedia page for Muhammad tells me that 'warlord' is not an obtuse title to grant him, but not the whole story. His primary grudge was with the polytheistic Meccan tribes. He took refuge with Christians and ordered that defeated Jewish soldiers were not beheaded, but exiled instead. There is at least one account of him exchanging certain POWs for money after a battle and releasing the rest. He took some places without fighting and signed at least one peace treaty.
He was brutal in that he tended to kill opposing warriors and enslave the women and children, but IDK how that compares to the military traditions of the area in that time period. If it stands out, then it's worth noting, but if not, then not.
So warring, yeah. It was a rough region in Arabia in the 600's. (AFAIK, pretty unstable until the 1930's when Saud united Saudi Arabia into its current state, which is tenuously stable.) Muhammad was driven from his home town (Mecca) by pagans when he said the only God is the God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. That resonated throughout his life in a drive to defeat pagans.
I mean... all the while having a fairly constant conversation with the angel Gabriel, by the accounts.
So I see that he was a military leader. I don't see his military prowess compared to other historical figureheads, nor a drive to expand and conquer distant lands. So I'm not fully on board with 'warlord' as a title.
Bet I know more about Muhammad than wuf after scanning a wikipedia page for 20 minutes.
MMM, I can't go point for point with you, it's just too exhausting.
But 1) I have family who are Muslim, so I'm not sure why you're telling me to befriend some. And I'm not sure what this has to do with a critique of a set of ideas.
2) It's funny that you claim that wuf (and myself I assume) are doing real harm, yet you refuse to entertain the idea that there are varying degrees of culpability among the adherents to this set of ideas. The only harm being done is not flying planes into buildings-- how about the subjugation of a significant subset of ~1/8 (best numbers I can find estimate there to be 1.9b Muslims at most, so not sure where 1/3 of world population) of the people on earth? What about being complicit in a culture in which anti-Semitic views are cheered? A culture which is antithetical to many of our core values, such as free speech.
3) Again, I am not vilifying all Muslims. I am vilifying what I see as a bad set of ideas. While you insist that this bad set of ideas is the totality of these people, I see doctors, fathers, janitors, school kids, etc, who happen to hold a bad set of ideas along with all the other ideas they may have. It is you who have dehumanized these people by reducing them to a single set of ideas.
4)If you find it abhorrent that I should criticize this set of ideas, you need to explain why it isn't abhorrent to criticize the brand of Shintoism from 1930's Japan. Does the latter critique make me a bigot? If not, how does it differ from the former in a sufficiently substantive way?
No, this is appropriate rationale for Napolean, or Ghengis Khan. Why? Because neither are being treated as divine prophets by 1.6 billion humans in 2016.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Well, I mean.. alright.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
Right, so how many should we let in, and what is the process by which we decide which get let in? ( I know that sounds combative, but I actually agree that theoretically we should open our arms to refugees. I mean all you need to say is "Einstein" to make that argument crystal clear.)Quote:
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.
1) Are you suggesting that your family are following bad ideas?Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Have you told them your critiques?
How did that go?
2) I don't refuse to entertain anything.
That's not the only harm. Saying blanket statements about Muslims which do not distinguish innocent people from terrorists causes fear in the innocent Muslims who hear them. It is a terrible thing to do this to someone knowingly, and out of your own stubborn reasons.
Sorry if my numbers are off.
Not sure what you mean with the subjugation part.
You're also complicit in a culture that cheers all kinds of regrettable things. (It seems your argument is that we should be cheering anti-islamic values, so hypocritical point, anyway).
Our culture does things antithetical to our core values. (Don't get me started on the legal / judicial / prison system in the "land of the free.")
3) You describe a set of bad ideas which you don't distinguish from being inherent to Islam, and therefore inherent to being Muslim. Your claim that you are not talking about Muslims is lost on me. If you don't mean to be talking about Muslims, then don't make blanket statements about Islam. You can't expect to make blanket statements about Christianity without raising the hackles on nearby Christians, man.
If you think I'm the one saying that all Muslims are bad Muslims, then you're doing some mental gymnastics that make no sense to me. I'm saying your language fails to distinguish who you're talking about and your language is causing innocent people to feel vilified. By choosing this language you are creating harm and it's not needed or helpful in any way. Knock it off. It is not I who says the janitor holds bad ideas, it is you who says so with your choice of words. He says he is a Muslim, and you say all Muslims hold these ideas, which are bad. You are choosing your own words, sir. My words are: "All terrorists are bad. If they happen to be Muslims, then so be it. Don't be a terrorist."
lol. You said I'm dehumanizing Muslims when I say, "Don't dehumanize Muslims by talking about their religion as though it is the cause of terrorism and socio-political unrest. Don't ignore that Islam is also a cause for peace and family values"
I award you a 10 for mental gymnastics.
4) Criticize ideas all you want. Just make sure you criticize what you mean to criticize and not offend people by being a lazy critique or word-smith.
I don't even see your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I think my rebuttal re. Christians who don't know jack about Jesus and Buddhists who don't follow one of the core teachings of the Buddha made it clear that the actual life of the religious leader is not a causal link to the practicing faithful of today.
1) Yes. Yes. It's a difficult topic, even when breached with a kafir such as yourself, not to mention a believer.
2) You insist on the premise that the majority of Muslims are innocent. I would insist that the majority of Muslims are good people who are on a spectrum of culpability for the worst episodes brought about by Islam.
3) Muslims are people, Islam is a set of ideas. I am critiquing the people in so much as they adhere to the full set of ideas. Ones which chose to toss out most of the bad parts are less deserving of critique and people who cling to the worst parts are most deserving. So my charge is not "You are a Muslim, therefore you are a bad person", it is "Your adherence to the set of ideas known as Islam, as a group, is not helping you be a good people." So, yeah, the Muslim janitor likely does hold bad ideas, in so far as he adheres to the totality of the set of ideas. And I wish to critique those ideas. I don't vilify the person. So far as they are not nominal Muslims, all do hold bad ideas to varying degrees, as I think it is a bad set of ideas. But they also hold ideas outside of this set of ideas. I am not critiquing the person as a whole, I am critiquing a particular set of ideas. For some, this overlap of who they are as a person and who they are as a Muslim may be near complete, and in these cases I suppose I can be said to be vilifying them.
3a) Islam is a lot of things, you surely are on the money here. But while peace and family values can be derived from it, surely you can think of myriad better sources that don't come tethered to throwing homosexuals off cliffs. Goodwins law and all, but, you know, the Nazis had pretty snappy uniforms and an overall great eye for aesthetics-- but just as the interment of the Japanese Americans doesn't on its own paint an accurate picture of America's actions in the war, in isolation designer uniforms and sweet iconography don't tell us much about Nazism.
4) I'll give it to you that it is very important on a subject like this to use the right words. It can be hard diving into it because while "Islamist" describes a specific subset of Muslims, most people, on the left and right think it's synonymous with "Muslim." So even if you chose your words carefully, you can't fully know how they will be read. Further, because I unfortunately am accompanied in critique of Islam by bigots, from the jump my words will often be read as the words of a bigot, because that's who non-bigots are accustomed to hearing ostensibly similar things from.
For example, even today, but certainly in 1942, if you were to say "well, Germany has some really legitimate grievances regarding the terms forced on them in 1918", you'd be heard as a Nazi sympathizer.
Well, now I've doubled up on Goodwin's law in a single post, so I'm going to sign out for the night.
Ok, one last reply:Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
yeah, I think your point is shit. The fact that you can be a practicing X and not adhere to the examples and teachings of the prophet/enlightened one/etc. can just as easily be ascribed to the fact that of those religions where this holds true, the original leaders/texts are largely non violent. Blasphemy and apostasy being capital offenses or not has nothing to do with the character of Muhammad or Buddha?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8P7qitB_6s
The maker of the video that Voltaire's Ghost is critiquing can at least be forgiven for his apologism due to being a Muslim himself. It's understandably difficult to view your own house through a clear lens. What is particularly gobsmacking is that the progressive left has become so authoritarian and absurd that they now have more in common ideologically with the Muslim world than with the Western one. These used to be the counter-culture people. The George Carlins who questioned everything; the skeptics, ever critical of traditions and dogma. But they've come full circle in their crusade for social justice and have hence become unrecognizable. The social justice thing made a little more sense back in previous generations where there were actually large scale injustices being perpetrated on statistically meaningful groups of people. The collective outrage resulted in a lot of progress being made, but the left started gaining a lot of political power (i.e. a voting bloc) by creating and championing certain protected classes: women, ethnic minorities, the poor, later LGBT, and now religious minorities. There has become a greater and greater need to be outraged at more and more trivial injustices (perceived or actual). So at this point, it's difficult to distinguish between a genuine desire to live and let live and a grab for Muslim votes. But it creates interesting bedfellows when Muslims are some of the most strikingly non-liberal people in the world.
As MMM and Poopadoop are not part of the political establishment, I don't doubt that they are in the live and let live camp, and have little concern for the political gain inherent in their beliefs. But it is remarkable how ideas are disseminated from the top and take root in common people (for various non-political reasons) that are nonetheless highly advantageous for those in power. How else can you explain phenomena like dozens of prominent members of the press criticizing Charlie Hebdo in the wake of that attack, when 25 years ago their liberal forefathers were fervently defending American flag burning?
It seems like you're calling into question the support for MMM's argument because of the potential for liberal political gain. Doesnt this also apply to the support for wuf/boost's argument, where there is also potential for conservative political gain? While many people think muslims are being unfairly treated in this day and age, many other people are terrified of muslims. You can get votes by appealing to either camp.
Politics is mostly zero-sum. Both sides cannot gain in turn (at a given point in time) by doing opposing things. Sure, the right can charge up its base by stoking anti-Muslim sentiment, but they aren't actually stealing voters from the other side by doing so. By being the pro-refugee / pro-Muslim party, the left establishment is securing a decisive demographic advantage in the coming decades. Particularly in Europe. In the U.S., not so much, but I ascribe the Islam apologism of the American left to being reflective of globalism. The politics of Americans is affected more than ever by politics abroad.
I don't dispute the notion that some Islamic terrorists exists, and that they base their ideology on their religion. What I object to is the insinuation by Wuf that those muslims who don't practice it are somehow an historical anomaly that is destined to be overcome by fundamentalists. That's just ridiculous.
He says other things that are ridiculous as well and basically echo the fear mongerers by painting Muslims with a broad brush. For example, he argues that most of the Muslim world is in peace because the fundamentalists are already in charge and everyone is in line with scripture. It's not even close to being accurate. Iran is a muslim state which, for all it's failings, is a theocracy in theory but largely secular in practice. Iran has relatively low mosque attendance. People follow dress codes in public but wear western dress in private. There's a thriving black market for alcohol. Moreover, Iran has not launched an aggressive war for 800 years. Read that again - 800 years. I'd like to see the US go 8 years without attacking someone. Yet we're supposed to believe Christians are peaceful and Muslims are violent.
His response to that argument is to suggest that ISIS will get to Iran in due time. Such total crap. It's just fear mongering. ISIS has 30,000 soldiers, Iran could potentially mobilize millions. There's no way in hell ISIS is going to conquer Iran.
Turkey. Another nominally muslim state, it was at peace for nearly 100 years until it started fighting ISIS. That's right, it's fighting ISIS. Liquor freely available in Turkey. Another example that refutes Wuf's claim that Islam is only at peace when it's killed all the infidels.
I don't mind admitting there are bad people who use Islam as an excuse to commit horrible acts. I agree radical Islam is a problem for us these days. I just don't like the fact that some people have overstated the threat to such a degree that they think the answer is to ban all muslims from entering their country.
Another argument of Wuf's that fails is the idea that all reformations of Islam are a return to scripture. There have been reforms away from scripture as well. The westernization of the political institutions of the Ottoman Empire are one example, there are others. Historically, this was advocated by some prominent muslim leaders in the argument 'Muhammad was a prophet, not a politician', an argument for separation of church and state that Locke would be proud of.
Wuf also tries to claim that all Imams teach fundamental radical Islam. It's just lol. If that were true all muslims would come out of the mosque with dynamite strapped around them. Yet it doesn't happen. Why? Because that's not what most Imams teach.
When you make ridiculous statements like that, you can't be surprised that you get called a bigot, xenophobe, prejudiced, etc..
Protestant Reformation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I didn't claim this. I instead claimed that the ideology itself reforms towards violence. This is because of what Muhammad did/taught and that he abrogates all else. It is not through the scriptures that most Muslims move away from this, but by dropping most of the scriptures and dropping the dominant thematic elements.Quote:
I don't dispute the notion that some Islamic terrorists exists, and that they base their ideology on their religion. What I object to is the insinuation by Wuf that those muslims who don't practice it are somehow an historical anomaly that is destined to be overcome by fundamentalists.
The fact that you're equating what I've said to "fear mongerers" is a tell that your mind is persuaded by more than my arguments. Reread my posts. I'm not painting Muslims with a brush. I'm talking about an ideology.Quote:
He says other things that are ridiculous as well and basically echo the fear mongerers by painting Muslims with a broad brush.
Reread my posts to find where this was answered. Islamists conquered all of these areas by the sword. That is one reason why some of them have less violence; the violence already happened before we were born. However, these places have also secularized to some small degrees, which is apostasy to the fundamental reading of Muhammad. This is why violence also returns to these places. ISIS is the reformation that goes back to the text, the fundamental reading, and the way of Muhammad. Most Muslims have abandoned the way of Muhammad to such a degree that they are apostates, which is why in the places ISIS exists they are being slaughtered en masse.Quote:
For example, he argues that most of the Muslim world is in peace because the fundamentalists are already in charge and everyone is in line with scripture. It's not even close to being accurate. Iran is a muslim state which, for all it's failings, is a theocracy in theory but largely secular in practice. Iran has relatively low mosque attendance. People follow dress codes in public but wear western dress in private. There's a thriving black market for alcohol. Moreover, Iran has not launched an aggressive war for 800 years. Read that again - 800 years. I'd like to see the US go 8 years without attacking someone. Yet we're supposed to believe Christians are peaceful and Muslims are violent.
I was talking about the hypothetical scenario of ISIS getting what it wants.Quote:
His response to that argument is to suggest that ISIS will get to Iran in due time. Such total crap. It's just fear mongering. ISIS has 30,000 soldiers, Iran could potentially mobilize millions. There's no way in hell ISIS is going to conquer Iran.
As Prop Joe would say, you're thinking short when you should be thinking long. A reformation back to scripture doesn't happen immediately upon secularization of a group. This is one area where your point about the western military interventions in the region is relevant. It is possible that helped spawn a reformation. But let's not kid ourselves; the reformation is about going back to the text and the teachings/actions of its prophet.Quote:
Turkey. Another nominally muslim state, it was at peace for nearly 100 years until it started fighting ISIS. That's right, it's fighting ISIS. Liquor freely available in Turkey. Another example that refutes Wuf's claim that Islam is only at peace when it's killed all the infidels.
I certainly don't believe in banning based on identification as Muslim. The vetting must be intense though. Well, it should be intense for all immigration anyways.Quote:
I don't mind admitting there are bad people who use Islam as an excuse to commit horrible acts. I agree radical Islam is a problem for us these days. I just don't like the fact that some people have overstated the threat to such a degree that they think the answer is to ban all muslims from entering their country.
The one hesitancy I have is that we just do not know if it is possible for Islam to accept western values. The Muslims who have accepted western values don't do so based on a reasoned reading of Islamic holy texts. Some religions are compatible with western values, which is why we have seen devout adherents to those religions espouse western values. But Islam is not compatible and devout Muslims do not adhere to western values. Muslims that have embraced western values are nominal and don't follow much of the scripture.
But don't listen to me. Listen to Muhammad. He will clear all of this up. You cannot be a devout Muslim unless you follow Muhammad and murder, enslave, and rape for the glory of Allah.
Those aren't religious reformations, but can be considered societal ones. I'm talking very specifically about reformation of the religion itself. In order for Islam to reform in the direction of western values, there would have to be some theological reinterpretation away from Muhammad. I'm not sure that's possible, but I really don't know because I don't know the details for why worldwide orthodoxy of Islam is that Muhammad is the ideal and that his final actions/teachings abrogate everything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I could have been more clear in how I worded that. Imams teach the perfection of Muhammad and his abrogation of all else. There is no way to interpret this but towards violence and subjugation. Imams are much further down this path than people want to admit, but no they don't all explicitly claim that following Muhammad means murdering infidels.Quote:
Wuf also tries to claim that all Imams teach fundamental radical Islam. It's just lol. If that were true all muslims would come out of the mosque with dynamite strapped around them. Yet it doesn't happen. Why? Because that's not what most Imams teach.
Best paragraph in the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
MMM I'm going to bow out of this with you. The above is an example for why. Your view is one that I only can rationalize came by your preconceptions of my points. Calling a religious person nominal and secularized is saying that they're not theologically devout. I'm not sure what part of that is dehumanizing.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Most Catholics are nominal and secular. Most Jews too. Most Protestants too, but probably to a smaller degree than the previous two. Mormons are, well, it appears typically not nominal and only partly secularized. American Muslims are somewhat secularized relative to the world and are typically nominal. Their espousal of their religion is more about the tradition than it is about theology of Muhammad. Sikhs, well I have no idea how nominal Sikhs are. One thing I do know is that they're all a bunch of bigots since they very much fear Islam. Islamists have been murdering Sikhs for the glory of Allah as far back as anybody can remember. I just wish that Sikhs fearing a violent ideology didn't make them bigots.
Jehovah's Witnesses are possibly a good example of non-nominal religious people. I don't know this for sure, but I've heard that they're typically devout regarding the scriptures and the theology.
http://i.imgur.com/YRGNegm.jpg
motherofgod jpg
How can anyone possibly give credibility to an anonymous post on Reddit? I'm willing to bet >50% of what they said is false.
We'll see who's laughing at whom in a few weeks, BID.
Ps: it'll be me when I win the avatar competition. Perhaps I'll suggest a pic of an adult My Little Pony fan?
I thought you were talking about the biggest reformation in Islam being endogenous.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Still bullshit. The Koran is open to interpretation just as the Bible is. There are plenty of places where the Bible preaches violence towards nonbelievers, just as there are many places in which it preaches peaceful ways. The Koran is the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The Koran says "Fight in the name of your religion with those who fight against you." which is similar to places in the Bible that argue for killing nonbelievers (e.g., Deuteronomy 17:12 - Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the [holy man] who represents God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged). The Koran also says "There shall be no compulsion in religion" and "Say to the disbelievers "To you, your beliefs, to me, mine"". It might suit some nuts to follow the violent advice and ignore the peaceful, just as it suits you to make the argument that the violent represents 'fundamental Islam' whereas the peaceful doesn't.
No, it's a tell that I think you're full of shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
But it doesn't. It returned to the Mid East after the US/UK invaded Iraq, not because Iraq had been secularized. There were revolutions in other Muslim countries in the Arab world recently that had no religious motivations. There were not theocracies set up here. There's also the problem stated above that fundamental Islam isn't what you claim it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Again, it's only one interpretation of that text and not one accepted by most Muslims, even the highly religious ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Oh well i that case why stop at Iran. I'm sure they want to take over the world with their 30k guys. No fear mongering there.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Again, you're acting like this 'reformation' is something natural and inevitable. Like a plausible outcome is all Muslims (or at least the ones left alive) becoming violent crusaders for their religion. That's where you're fear mongering. And it's because you don't understand what you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You argued, I believe, that taking 65k Syrian refugees was a problem because they were Muslims.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
This would be funny if it wasn't so telling about your ignorance. That just makes it sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Hundreds of millions of devout Muslims don't do those things.
I really hope this is true. I've read a few times that Wikileaks have an ace up their sleeve.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Honestly, with every day that passes, I want Trump to win more. And I think Trump is an utter fucking moron. That really does tell you how much I'm beginning to fear the prospect of war with Russia.
Putin has ordered that Russian officials abroad send their families home. At the very least, preperations for war are already underway. And the establishment have the brass fucking neck to tell us that Trump would be a dangerous president.
There is one thing that gives me reason for hope. Much to my surprise, the public here do not seem to be falling victim to the anti-Russia propaganda. I read an article in the Daily Mail, critical of Russia. I went to read the comments at the bottom, expecting to see the majority of people supporting anti-Russian views. I was wrong. Comments that critisised us and supported Russia were getting a lot of green arrows, while comments calling them bullies and insulting Putin were mostly getting disliked. This is the Daily Mail, its readerbase is the moron public. If the morons are seeing through this shit, then there's hope.
If you take comfort from the idea than morons agree with you, then you're doing it wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I take comfort from the idea that the morons are waking up. They are becoming less moronic. That's the hope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Why would you think that?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
http://metro.co.uk/2016/10/12/donald...g-day-6187792/
What should they be telling us? That he wouldn't be?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
p.s. Trump can only win now if Clinton drops dead or near dead before election day.
You know these kinds of actions are often used for other reasons than to prepare for war though, right? Diplomatic pressure, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Putin is not going to start a war with the US because he'd lose. Obama is not going to start a war with Russia because he would lose too. They're going to escalate to a point where they both realise it's too close to war and then reach an agreement. Happened over and over again during the Cold War.
I hope you're right.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
I'm not sure about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I think this will come down to who is hated the least, rather than liked the most. And somehow that actually could be Trump.
Clinton is ahead in arizona. Hehe
You just have to think what's to gain for each party & what's to lose?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The absolute carnage that would be involved in a war between the US and Russia (and all the other big countries that would inevitably get involved) would be so bad that it's very hard to see any gain outweighing that. Although nukes will inevitably kill billions of people eventually their use as a war deterrent is pretty outstanding.
I think it's nearly inconsequential whether it ends up being President Parkinson's or President Pussy-Grabber in terms of going to war with Russia. It takes some serious hutzpah to start a war that could condemn half the world to death and I don't think either of them really has it in them.
The fear I have of Trump is that he's more likely than Clinton to act the bully in foreign affairs, and to do things like Bush did where he attacks a country without a reason. I also think he'd be worse for the country in general, just 'cause he'd be more interested in getting his face on TV and promoting the Trump brand than in managing the country. Part of me suspects that's his whole motivation in fact; win or lose, it's all free advertising.
Granted, a lot can still happen between now and election day. But I think Clinton's lead has become nearly insurmountable at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What lead? Voting hasn't started yet, to my knowledge. The only "lead" Hillary has is what the polls tell us. I don't pay any attention to that. There's far too much scope for bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
After hearing his comments about Syria, and her comments about Russia, I doubt this very much. Trump is more in line with reality, Clinton is all agenda.Quote:
The fear I have of Trump is that he's more likely than Clinton to act the bully in foreign affairs,
Silver predicted the 2012 presidential election correctly for all 50 states by this time.
He says trump is getting killed.
Anyone have category suggestions for wufs new avatar? Cringe? Political? An actual picture of wuf dressed like Carlton? I need ideas
you guys will actually like the avatars i give you.
the dramatic rise in the polls for hillary is a great sign. it shows that she's behind. they wouldn't have propped her up so high so quickly otherwise.
ever since then he's been getting things quite wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Thanks for not reading what I said. My response is made easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I have a prediction for November 9th: We'll get a post along these lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
1. Donald lost.
2. He couldn't have lost.
3. Therefore the election was rigged.
I'm not a fan of having my intelligence and integrity marginalized by people who should know better by now.
The truth is that Hillary winning would be the absolute best thing for me. If you tell a lie loud enough and long enough, people will believe it. I still hold out hope that that isn't true, but a Clinton win would teach me it is true and I would stop wasting my time on politics.
The worst news for my side of the entire campaign: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1517376...e-era-of-women
I don't think it will change who wins, but this is an ace in the hole. People care very much about Trump as a person because they hear it nonstop from the media, while few care about Hillary as a person because it's not even on peoples' minds since the media won't cover it.
But like Scott says, nobody cares about the facts. Hypnotism is the name of the game. The media turns a monster into an angel and a questionable-but-also-quality person into a monster, and voters will vote thinking they're rational while they're really just doing what their preferred media outlets told them to do.
Why am I bitching? My prediction hasn't changed. Trump landslide! Robert Cialdini's self-hypnotism be damned!
I'm not meaning to marginalize anything about you, and I'm sorry if I came across that way. I admit my style of arguing can sometimes be a bit grating and it's something I should try to tone down.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I think you're very smart and I don't doubt you sincerely believe the things you say. I think you just need to be a little more open-minded, and to try to accept the fact that like everyone else (including me) you don't have everything all figured out all the time, which is how you sometimes come across.
BTW I don't fault anybody for voting Clinton. Everybody comes to their conclusions for different reasons. I have voted for scum before (Obama 2012) and I did my best to use the best reasoning I could. But I was wrong. I once told my best friend that if he was gonna vote for McCain in 2008, to not tell me. That was wrong and a shitty thing to do, and when I realized it (in 2014) I apologized to him even though he had forgotten about it and didn't care. This same friend isn't going to vote Trump this cycle, and I don't blame him.
Maybe this is part of why I discuss the dogshit media often. They're the real scumbags. Nothing but lies and lies and lies to further entrench their power and agenda.
What are some examples, or what do you mean, about being more open-minded?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
A decent deal of what I think gets me labeled as close-minded is a misreading of what I said. Granted, I am a mortal, and can present things ambiguously by accident. Regardless, I'd like some clarification on what you mean.
Very good article: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/13/why-t...ommentary.html
I like it especially because it makes me feel da smarts since I remember back in 2012 when Romney had a good first debate and the polls shifted to show him beating Obama, I claimed it was just sampling bias. Yay me!
What I mean is you tend to stick with what you believe regardless of what happens or anyone else's arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The Trump train thing is one example. A dispassionate observer would probably look at the evidence back when you made your prediction of a Trump landslide and say it's pretty unlikely unless something changes in a bigly way. But you had all these arguments for why he would crush and were 100% sure that would happen. It's like you took the evidence that supported your views as the valid evidence and dismissed everything else as flawed. You made a few posts between then and now where you found more 'evidence' for this view which, when called out on (as I did with the Florida absentee ballot thing where you predicted an exact number), you passionately defended. Meanwhile you continued to dismiss every bit of evidence against your position as flawed.
Moving on. A dispassionate observer would likely say that at this moment in time, Trump's losing badly, he did this wrong, he did that wrong, he lost the first debate and maybe drew the second, etc. You (I'm guessing based on past behavior) would argue against all of this. You thought he won the first debate even though he lost (I don't know what that means but it's what you said). Your first reaction to pussygate was to interpret it as being good for him. Your first reaction to the latest polls was to say they were rigged. The impression I get (and I could be misinterpreting you I admit) is that it's as if you don't like to even entertain the idea that you may be wrong. And it's that that makes a person appear close-minded.
Im just making you sweat wuf. You won't hate the avatar
In my mind, I post things that are questionable, and when I get called on them from time to time, I then back them up with points. What could I do to make it appear less like I'm about bias and more about using reason?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's an interesting article and well-presented. I hadn't considered this before in why polls tend to swing so much. One thing I noticed - like everyone else- was that polls tend to go up (or down) sharply after a big event (e.g., the numbers always go up after a convention and down after a scandal), and then come back to reality again.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
My own theory was that people tended to be most influenced by things in the recent past (an effect that relies on a property of human memory known as the recency effect). I thought that when someone thinks about who they should vote for, the most recent events are the ones that come most easily to mind and hold the greatest sway over their choice. As the memory for the event fades into the distance, its impact gets smaller and polls tend to return to where they were before.
The CNBC article suggests something functionally similar but theoretically different to this view, namely that pollees tend to not answer pollsters when their candidate has been seen in a bad light lately. But their minds are made up and won't be changed. It's an interesting idea and I'll have to take a look at the Gelman and Rotshchild paper.
What do you think you could do?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The psychologist at work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I've asked the question many times. I don't know the answer.
The most untouched and most powerful demographic: non-college-educated whites. They're the exact group Trump targets, not only for increased support proportion but increased turnout. Change that group's numbers around just a little bit and the election outcome changes drastically
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...-the-election/
This could easily be a situation of that demo increasing turnout by 5% and the R proportion increasing by 5%, which would result in a Trump win. I've seen reports all over the place of unprecedented enthusiasm for Trump in Pennsylvania and Michigan.
If you dont want to appear biased, you got to slip out of debate practice when you're not in a debate format.
Tbf that is exactly what your post would look like if Clinton won.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
sick. fucking. burn.
this contradicts you assertion that trump is winning , as you seem to accept that he is behind and thses 5% swings could win it for trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I don't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
as long as there's enough evidence. if there wasn't evidence, i might still believe it but i wouldn't say much about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
i dont "accept that he's behind" because i dont think he's behind. what i think is that the polls are not capturing reality that well. one example is that there is good reason to believe that the non-college-educated whites are going to turnout and vote republican to a significantly higher degree than they did in 2012. the polls definitely do not capture this. the graphic is using 2012 numbers and placed the current contenders' names in place of obama and romney.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith
I give it >infinity% chance that the Democrats commit systematic election fraud. We already know they did it to Bernie. From what I hear (I don't much research it because it's depressing), the ties between the ownership of the machines and the Democrats is highly disconcerting.
Wuf:
*uses polling data to make argument*
Trump takes a dive in the polls
*says polling data isn't "capturing reality" *