Randomness thread, part two.

[rong]

[MadMojoMonkey]

it's that we're very friendly in superficial circumstances, but when you dig deeper, we're cliquey and flaky.

I wanted to chime in, but I couldn't figure out how to say it. Damn this is concise.

Oftentimes you can think you have some close friends only to find that the friendships all but vanish for no apparent reason.

So much this.

Also, I got stolen from as a parting gift from a bunch of people.

One guy stole one my ashtrays (from a set) just because it was glass, and not plastic. One guy stayed with me for a couple of months for reduced rent when he needed a quick save. He took all my power cords when he moved out (wtf?).

People are weird. People in Seattle moreso.

[boost]

The Reza Aslan Effect

What's the deal? A lot of liberals see this guy talking and think that they are supposed to agree and then just swallow every last drop of nonsensical drivel he spews.

But while that's frustrating, what I can't figure out is what his motivations are. Is he just looking to sell books? He can't actually believe the false representations of reality he puts forth, and he's certainly knowledgeable enough to know that's just what they are. So what's the deal?

[wufwugy]

I'm unaware of the the controversy you're talking about.

[BooG690]

I think boost is pissed that RZA is Asian now.

[boost]

I'm unaware of the the controversy you're talking about.

This is the latest video of him being an ostensibly charming, disingenuous, fact obscuring, talking head, but it's not his first rodeo. And to be clear, I think Maher is often just as bad, but he's a comedian and at least succeeds in being funny often enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzusSqcotDw

[wufwugy]

I guess I don't see what the problem is. From my perspective he seems mostly reasonable.

Saying Islam promotes violence by pointing at ISIS is like saying Christianity promotes violence by pointing at stuff the Catholic Church once did. Mormons are Christian too and are just one of the many sects that do not promote violence. AFAIK Islam has lots of various sects too.

[boost]

Right, so if that is his point, and it is a supportable point, why does he misrepresent reality to prop up his position?

Turkey for example is not a Muslim country, it is a secular country that has forcibly and dramatically curtailed the influence of religion on its politics and the daily lives of its citizens. Indonesia is far from a bastion for women's rights, and in fact Sharia courts are on par with secular courts in some parts of the country. As for female heads of state, the countries are either secular or only technically Muslim, or the politics in these countries are run by powerful ruling families which makes the elections unrepresentative of popular sentiment-- yet despite these families' power, at least one of those female heads of state was assassinated simply because she was an outspoken woman in power in a Muslim country.

So, sure, Maher could be wrong in his characterization of Islam, but why does a Muslim theologian need to resort to what he must know to be distortions of the truth to rebuff Maher?

[boost]

Saying Islam promotes violence by pointing at ISIS is like saying Christianity promotes violence by pointing at stuff the Catholic Church once did. Mormons are Christian too and are just one of the many sects that do not promote violence. AFAIK Islam has lots of various sects too.

This is nonsense. This sort of pretend tit for tat, every religion has done bad things nonsense completely ignores context. The Catholic church had the crusades, which was at worst mildly offensive in those times, and I think that's a stretch.

People are so afraid of being called a bigot that they give all these concessions and carve outs for Islam. It is either an easily corrupted set of ideas, an inherently corrupt set of ideas, or simply the current set of ideas that is being most corrupted, or at least so far as the group of sets of ideas that fall into the category of major world religions. But which ever is the case, nothing will get fixed by pretending that all things are equal and some people are just bad.

I mean, are you really under the impression that there is no correlation between Islam and what ISIS is doing? You don't think that the concept of Jihad and the prescriptions of stoning and beheading are ideas that may need to be put into question?

[spoonitnow]

Brag: I got a ~$1,700 desk on Craigslist for $40 the day before yesterday.

Beat: The thing is so huge that we (me + my dad) could only get it into the living room where it basically overshadows everything else as this big hulking thing that takes up more than half of one wall.

Variance: My dad will openly say fuck, motherfucker, shit, damn, ass, nigger, chink, spic, faggot, etc. openly in front of my girlfriend, but he'll mouth the word "Yankee" instead of actually saying it because he doesn't want to offend her. Her family's from Boston.

[BooG690]

Lol at using that bullshit Catholic Church argument. Talk about the present. Radical Islam is a growing fucking problem. Muslims aren't doing enough to fight it. Fuck that entire religion.

[BooG690]

Also, I'm done trying to reason with people on the subject. Everyone is so fucking scared of being tough against an obvious problem that they almost turn a cheek at the problem and pretend that it's not rooted in Islam. I consider myself quite liberal, in general, but I can't stand the fucking liberal view on Islam/ISIS.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Roughly 23% of people in the world are Islamic.

A vast majority of all terrorist attacks are based on ethnic and nationalistic reasons, and not religion.

I think blaming 23% of all the people for a problem perpetuated by less than 1% (of even the blamed people), is lazy at best.

Yes, there are terrible people in this world. Trying to catch them all with one net cast at a specific religious, ethnic or political group has proven folly repeatedly throughout history.

[BooG690]

I'm not blaming the people; I'm blaming the religion. Some blame lies in the people who aren't doing much to curb this problem from within.

[aubreymcfate]

Brag: I got a ~$1,700 desk on Craigslist for $40 the day before yesterday.

Beat: The thing is so huge that we (me + my dad) could only get it into the living room where it basically overshadows everything else as this big hulking thing that takes up more than half of one wall.

Variance: My dad will openly say fuck, motherfucker, shit, damn, ass, nigger, chink, spic, faggot, etc. openly in front of my girlfriend, but he'll mouth the word "Yankee" instead of actually saying it because he doesn't want to offend her. Her family's from Boston.

Variation of the Variance: When in good spirits, my dad will sing chorus from the old "I'm a Pepper" Dr. Pepper commercial song, with all the same gusto and merriment, replacing the word "Pepper" with... *mouths silently* the n-word. (Whatever, I'm delicate.)

It's pretty hilarious. Like your dad, he's vulgar but sensitive about it. He has a twisted sense of humor but doesn't have the balls to have it outside of the privacy of his own home, and would be mortified if anyone knew the vile words he plays around with and got the wrong impression. It's probably a good thing he doesn't do this particular sketch in public though.

[bigred]

I'm not blaming the people; I'm blaming the religion. Some blame lies in the people who aren't doing much to curb this problem from within.

All Muslim people I know are not terrorists. Nor do they eat Terror-o's for breakfast to grow up to be strong terrorist radicals. There's always going to be bad apples and blaming the whole for a part is straight ignant dawg. Besides, recent reports have suggested the ISIS militants to not be very religious and it's more of a poverty/disgruntled movement.

I see where you're headed with the religion as a platform argument and blah blah blah but there's not enough time in the day and your efforts are better spent finding cute kittens. I call it the Bigred Tao. Go forth and may the kitten be with you. Remember, Caturday is a day of reflection and giggles.

[wufwugy]

Right, so if that is his point, and it is a supportable point, why does he misrepresent reality to prop up his position?

Turkey for example is not a Muslim country, it is a secular country that has forcibly and dramatically curtailed the influence of religion on its politics and the daily lives of its citizens. Indonesia is far from a bastion for women's rights, and in fact Sharia courts are on par with secular courts in some parts of the country. As for female heads of state, the countries are either secular or only technically Muslim, or the politics in these countries are run by powerful ruling families which makes the elections unrepresentative of popular sentiment-- yet despite these families' power, at least one of those female heads of state was assassinated simply because she was an outspoken woman in power in a Muslim country.

So, sure, Maher could be wrong in his characterization of Islam, but why does a Muslim theologian need to resort to what he must know to be distortions of the truth to rebuff Maher?

This is probably all true. His response may have been different if the distinction between a Muslim state and a state with tons of Muslims was made. I have no idea.

I mean, are you really under the impression that there is no correlation between Islam and what ISIS is doing?

The correlation is real. That doesn't mean it's causation.

I don't know that much about Islam. I do know there are a handful of different sects with different beliefs. I know that ISIS and al Qaeda do not represent what Islam means to all Muslims. If we don't acknowledge this then we're doing the same sort of thing we say others should not do to us.

Lol at using that bullshit Catholic Church argument. Talk about the present.

I like what you bring to the table in debate because I've noticed you sometimes call me on things that others don't. I have noticed there is certainly quite a bit of room to attack my arguments. Just saying.

The Catholic Church analogy is fine because it is meant to provide perspective and understand the logic used abstractly. Beyond that, I'm not terribly interested in it since it would be better to work in the present.

Radical Islam is a growing fucking problem.

Who's talking about Radical Islam? I am right there with you. As far as I could tell, so is Aslan. Radial Islam and Islam are two entirely different things.

Muslims aren't doing enough to fight it. Fuck that entire religion.

I suspect this has little to do with the religion. Lots of Muslims have died fighting against Islamic extremists. Perhaps now it appears that isn't the case because the Obama administration's behavior has created a surprise vacuum. For several decades, the friendly nations in the region followed the US leadership. It's only in the last few years that they've been hung out to dry and needing to scramble.

[Renton]

There's almost no question that this religion predisposes people to barbarism more so than christianity, so can we unplug the CNN false equivalency generator already please? This whole liberal movement to be an Islam apologist kind of blows my mind.

Yeah it's wrong to blame all muslims for the isolated terrorist acts which occur, especially those perpetrated by ISIS which has proceeded to alienate the majority of muslim nations with their actions. Yeah it's wrong to be bigoted toward people without cause. But it is NOT wrong to be deeply critical of the base, childish and barbaric shit that people believe. These people need to be shamed, ridiculed, and generally excluded from intelligent discourse until they come back to reality with the rest of us. And that includes Christians as well as Muslims, but Muslims ARE at least slightly worse..

[wufwugy]

There's almost no question that this religion predisposes people to barbarism more so than christianity,

This is true, but I'm reluctant to say it's because of the religion. It's more about the culture. The short of it: Catholicism was always more violent than Protestantism even though they use the same books. They just had different interpretations and different cultural ideals. But today, Catholicism is not violent like it used to be. Little changed in its orthodoxy, just the culture of its adherents and the emphasis of the teaching.

Do we know that the same isn't true of Islam?


For the record, I am not an apologist. I am one of the first people to say left-wing institutions crush discussion on this topic with an iron fist. It's disgusting and its own sort of radicalism.

Also I'm pretty sure the poverty case for ISIS doesn't hold water. ISIS' motivations are very religious and very nationalistic.

[BooG690]

Wuf, re: Catholic Church, are you citing the Crusades? I hope you're not citing something that happened hundreds of years ago. Civilization has grown by leaps and bounds since then. The fact that we're even comparing it to hundreds of years ago is telling enough.

Anyway, I'm done debating this. I'm gonna go practice Bigredbuddhism.

[wufwugy]

Not just the Crusades. The Catholic Church has a very violent history. For most of its history, it was more like an authoritarian imperial state that ruled its constituents by dictate and crushed dissent with force. Millions died at the hands of the Church through numerous religious wars, executions, and various slaughters.

The behavior of the Church today is nothing like it used to be. In a lot of ways I would say it has become a respectable institution, but it most certainly was not back when it was a shadow government that kept its constituents in line through coercion and ignorance.

[Galapogos]

Wuf, re: Catholic Church, are you citing the Crusades? I hope you're not citing something that happened hundreds of years ago. Civilization has grown by leaps and bounds since then. The fact that we're even comparing it to hundreds of years ago is telling enough.

Western civilization has grown leaps and bounds. Just because they can get their hands on automatic weapons now doesn't mean their culture has matured to equal that of all others.

[a500lbgorilla]

Besides, Atheism is by far the most destructive religion. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot...

Just be thankful these savages have a God.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Besides, Atheism is by far the most destructive religion. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot...

Dude.

I mean, come on.

You're blowing our cover here.

[bigred]

YOU GUYS

[boost]

Renton and I vs wufwugy? Dafuq?

[boost]

This is probably all true. His response may have been different if the distinction between a Muslim state and a state with tons of Muslims was made. I have no idea.

You have no idea? He is the theologian, it is for him to make the distinction. He chose not to, and in doing so he grossly mislead viewers. He has been called on this repeatedly, but he goes on because it's an effective, if dishonest tactic.

The correlation is real. That doesn't mean it's causation.

My apologies, I intended to write causation.

[boost]

All Muslim people I know are not terrorists. Nor do they eat Terror-o's for breakfast to grow up to be strong terrorist radicals.

The belief that blasphemy, homosexuality, adultry, etc, should be punishable by death is far more common in the Muslim world than anywhere else. This idea that there is a tiny minority of evil Muslims in a vast sea of good Muslims is facile and naive.

There's always going to be bad apples and blaming the whole for a part is straight ignant dawg. Besides, recent reports have suggested the ISIS militants to not be very religious and it's more of a poverty/disgruntled movement.

This defeatist attitude in the face of complex and nuanced issues is a primary force in halting progress. I understand not wanting to invest your own personal time, but then why do you feel compelled to weigh in with a superficial accounting? There are always going to be bad apples, but that doesn't mean we can't make strides to minimize their numbers and impact.

I see where you're headed with the religion as a platform argument and blah blah blah but there's not enough time in the day and your efforts are better spent finding cute kittens. I call it the Bigred Tao. Go forth and may the kitten be with you. Remember, Caturday is a day of reflection and giggles.

Again, I see where you're coming from, and this time I don't have anything to argue with. I hate myself every time I let sleep deprivation lower my guard against getting into these debates...

[BooG690]

The sick thing about this whole thing is that Bigred is right in saying that, in fact, efforts ARE better spent finding cute kittens. Bigred is the new Dalai Lama, imo.

I'm barely joking. It's really, really sad but I'm at a point where all this bullshit (I think people call it "growing up") where I'm basically like, fuck this social justice, politics and economics. It's easier for me to just look at cute kitties knowing that I won't make a difference.

It's sad but, ignorance really is bliss.

[boost]

Well, I think the take away from bigredism can be far less depressing. You don't need to be the hero, you don't need to save the world. Just find something you enjoy, and, so long as it doesn't hurt others, do the fuck out of it. In doing so, you'll have a positive impact on the world by way of being a happy person making a quality contribution.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's not about finding kittens. It's about picking your battles. It's about putting your effort where it can be both helpful and fulfilling.

@All the peeps
Why would you ever argue with this guy:

This idea that there is a tiny minority of evil Muslims in a vast sea of good Muslims is facile and naive.

That guy is not open to new information or willing to change his mind. He is willing to vilify 23% of all the peoples.
He thinks your information is stupid, and by extension, that you are inferior to him (facile and naive) for believing it.

My advice is to let that guy be. You don't have to be a part of every conversation.

[BooG690]

@All the peeps
Why would you ever argue with this guy:
(insert boost quote here)

That guy is not open to new information or willing to change his mind. He is willing to vilify 23% of all the peoples.
He thinks your information is stupid, and by extension, that you are inferior to him (facile and naive) for believing it.

My advice is to let that guy be. You don't have to be a part of every conversation.

Get the fuck over yourself, MMM. Boost has obviously thought this through before and made up his mind. There's a reason why he won't change his mind: he's heard every kind of argument. You think you can belittle boost and make it seem like he's somehow ignorant for having his mind made up? Fuck that.

You jump to the assumption that boost sees others arguing against him as inferior which I highly doubt. Don't put fucking words in his mouth. Don't tell us what he thinks. Boost can tell us himself.

You obviously refuse to see anything wrong with Islam and look to be covering your ears of any new information. You're exactly the liberal shit that makes having this debate impossible.

[BooG690]

@All the peeps
Why would you ever argue with this guy:


That guy is not open to new information or willing to change his mind. He is willing to vilify 23% of all the peoples.
He thinks your information is stupid, and by extension, that you are inferior to him (facile and naive) for believing it.

My advice is to let that guy be. You don't have to be a part of every conversation.

I just realized why I find this post irritating. Stop talking about people in the third person. You want to tell boost that he's being ignorant, fucking tell him. Don't "that guy" him.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Rage a bit, there,BooG?

I was talking about Boost in the third person to illustrate the point that I was not talking about him specifically.
I was talking about recognizing a futile conversation when you're in one and stepping away.

I'm talking about picking your battles.

Also, I really don't think I put words in his mouth, because A) I wasn't talking about him specifically, and B) I quoted him in the exact context he wrote it.

I don't judge him or begrudge him his beliefs.
I assume that he's secure enough in both his sense of self and in his beliefs to tell them apart, and to tell that any discord between what he believes and what I believe is nothing personal. (If he's not, then that's fine, too, but I'm not gonna walk on eggshells around that, either.)


Also, this is rich:

Don't put fucking words in his mouth. Don't tell us what he thinks. Boost can tell us himself.

You obviously refuse to see anything wrong with Islam and look to be covering your ears of any new information. You're exactly the liberal shit that makes having this debate impossible.

MMMmmmmm.... You can really taste the hypocrisy. Delicious.

The only belief I've imposed into this conversation is some numbers, and I think they can be questioned, but that they're on the correct order to illustrate the point.

I hardly think adding a bit of data to the conversation is any impediment. The fact that it's a debate is why it's not a worthy topic or a conversation. In debate, people say what they think. No party changes their mind. The purpose of debate is to inform, not persuade.

I'm all about spreading information. So lay me some data. Drop me some facts. Spread some knowledge sauce on that bitter dish of judgement you're serving up.

Otherwise. You're just a jabbering tool.

Make me smarter. Make me laugh. Fill me up with feelz.
But don't stand there talking ill-conceived, evidence-free nonsense, which simple math open up as the lie it is, and expect me to stand there.

There are kitties in the world, man!

[spoonitnow]

fuck social justice

+1

[spoonitnow]

My understanding of the stages of jihad through reading the Quran and studying history is that it relies on the minority of so-called extremists blending in and being hidden by the larger majority of "inactives" (for lack of a better term) so that an attack on Islam as a whole is not feasible. How Muhammed prepared before he over Mecca and how he started an offensive afterwards is a good example of this strategy at work.

Jihad is the idea of the religious duty of a Muslim to share/spread the religion, and it's what primarily drives you in the religion as a whole. It's also primarily militarized whether people want to accept that or not (according to the vast majority of scholars who are experts in Islam). There are two main parts to jihad: internal and external. The internal jihad is preparing yourself and improving your position so that you're better prepared to support yourself and fellow Muslims. This is also the preparation for external jihad.

The external jihad is the actual concrete fight against people who are not Muslim, and it can only come after you have gained enough ground through the internal jihad that you aren't just going to be wiped the fuck out. When your numbers are weak, you aren't allowed an external jihad because that wouldn't allow for expansion since you'd just get plowed over and your group of people would be done. Once you have sufficient numbers through internal jihad, you can begin into the defensive portion of external jihad which means you're allowed to fight to defend yourself.

So external jihad has two parts: defensive and offensive. During internal jihad, you're expected to run from a fight to preserve numbers and resources so that you can continue to build up the strength of your group. Defensive jihad happens when your numbers and resources are sufficient that you can fight with people who attack you directly as long as it's not going to hurt your group in the long run. However, there are also two parts to defensive jihad:

Passive defensive jihad: Only fighting when you are directly challenged while you are building your numbers.
Active defensive jihad: Provoking attack by attempting to occupy land, government, resources, etc. as part of a take-over to prepare for offensive jihad.

The use of active defensive jihad allows the group to take over government positions and gain influence through other ways where you essentially ease the enemy into giving you more and more power. Once that's performed to a sufficient level, you have the strength for offensive jihad. This is when you actively fight against non-believers with the attitude that either they convert to Islam and join in the fight or they die.

It's important to notice two things. First, this strategy inherent in jihad very closely resembles how Muhammed took over Mecca (for people who like history) and used it as the center of a unified fight against all non-Muslims. Second, these stages of jihad are localized and not global. What I mean by this is that not all Muslims will be at the same stage of jihad in every place all over the world. For a few examples:

- ISIS (aka Islamic State aka they have government control that they established through active defensive jihad) is currently in the offensive jihad stage.
- The United States is currently in the passive defensive jihad stage.
- The United Kingdom is currently in the active defensive jihad stage.

It's also important to note that not all Muslims are called upon to be militant, and the strategy actually relies on the majority of Muslims not being militant. Offensive jihad cannot take place without the numbers and established state to back it up, so even during this offensive stage, the majority of Muslims are not militant. The "non-extremist" believers in Islam, whether they like it or not and whether they want this to be the case or not, heavily contribute to the perception that we should allow things like Sharia courts.

Don't think that'll ever happen? Guess what? We already have Sharia courts in the United States. We already have tons of people with good intentions telling us that we should allow Muslims to have more and more influence in government and the allocation of resources, and this is happening in the United States and all throughout Europe. In our era, it's the fear of being seen as politically incorrect that's allowing a very rapid defensive jihad stage.

This is already too long, but for a good example of how afraid public officials are of seeming like "Islamophobes," check out this from the Daily Mail:

A criminal investigation has been launched today after a damning new report found Rotherham Council is 'not fit for purpose' and still 'in denial' about the 1,400 young girls who were abused in the town over 16 years.
Investigators concluded girls as young as 11 were left to be abused by mainly [Pakistani Muslim] men between 1997 and 2013 because the council's staff and politicians feared being labelled racist.

[bigred]

Well, I think the take away from bigredism can be far less depressing. You don't need to be the hero, you don't need to save the world. Just find something you enjoy, and, so long as it doesn't hurt others, do the fuck out of it. In doing so, you'll have a positive impact on the world by way of being a happy person making a quality contribution.

It's really to quell you all into a virtual dependency while I prep my minions to take over the world. Adorable, adorable feline minions...

[duck]

This human concept of jihad amuses us ducks.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is me multiple times a day:

[a500lbgorilla]

This human concept of jihad amuses us ducks.

Don't pretend like you shits are better than us in this game called life.

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketsci...exual-battles/

tldr female ducks evolved maze like vaginas to prevent rape babies, men simply evolved rape corkscrews.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Some mosquitoes have scoops on the end of their penis.

When they rape, they scoop out the last rapers rape so they can be the only raper.

[duck]

tldr female ducks evolved maze like vaginas to prevent rape babies, men simply evolved rape corkscrews.

A duck cannot rape another duck. Rape is a legal term. Ducks are not bound by human law.

[a500lbgorilla]

You're subject to some of them. Like the law of supply and demand.

[duck]

duck is outraged.

ong is salivating.

[bigred]

Ducks are not bound by human law.

This is my quote of the day.

[wufwugy]

ive always thought the concept of privilege is dogshit. here's a great article providing perspective on why that would be. granted the latter part of the article is a call to arms to support marriage.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ee-habeeb-mike

it's isn't exactly that privilege doesn't exist, but that trying to counter it by arbitration doesn't work. there isnt a subsidy or a regulation that can make unmarried people married and keep it effective. this is analogous to why things like affirmative action don't work. the mechanism that raises the unprivileged out of that status is a culture that supports the kinds of values that create privilege. just like how society doesn't create healthy marriages by arbitration, it doesn't provide employment skills by arbitration. the people themselves have to value those things to get their privilege.

[boost]

It's not about finding kittens. It's about picking your battles. It's about putting your effort where it can be both helpful and fulfilling.

@All the peeps
Why would you ever argue with this guy:


That guy is not open to new information or willing to change his mind. He is willing to vilify 23% of all the peoples.
He thinks your information is stupid, and by extension, that you are inferior to him (facile and naive) for believing it.

My advice is to let that guy be. You don't have to be a part of every conversation.

I really failed to flesh out my point, but if you read the preceding sentence, you'll see that I was getting at the fact that there is a whole spectrum of Muslims. A small minority commits heinous atrocities, but at least a significant minority passively or actively supports this violent minority's quest for eternal paradise via jihad. I am not vilifying all Muslims, not even close.

As for calling people facile and/or naive, I did not do so. I think it's a distinction people fail to make all too often, but I was critiquing an idea, not a person or persons.

I do find your accusation of closed mindedness rather amusing. Your first post on the topic does not make any claims on its own, but instead it misrepresents ones I've made, all but cries "bigot" in an effort to dismiss me, and encourages others to close themselves off from honest debate.

What gives, dude?

[spoonitnow]

When logic fails, attack the other person. That's the liberal social justice white guilt white knight way.

In the name of feminism and fighting bigotry!

Man we are equal as fuck up in this motherfucker.

[spoonitnow]

“I am a Liberal Fuck,” Krupp wrote in one post. “A Liberal Fuck is not a Democrat, but rather someone who combines political data and theory, extreme leftist views and sarcasm to win any argument while make the opponents feel terrible about themselves. I won every argument but one.” Krupp then detailed the only political argument he claimed her ever lost, a drunken encounter he had with a “conservative gay prick.”

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm not interested in any debate, as I've said. In debate, two parties choose their opinion, then construct arguments to support that opinion. They stand before an audience and exchange their ideas, under the agreement that at no time will either part change their mind. It is primarily a medium for disseminating information about complicated issues.

Which is why I'm not interested in debating.

***
When I hear someone describe a human population in a way that lacks simple humanity, I feel they are being bigoted.
Let's throw a definition at this point: Judging the many based on any subset of the population's actions is bigotry.

You might as well be saying that racism in Missouri is my fault. I live in Missouri, don't I? It's my acceptance of this racism that perpetuates it, right? Clearly the racism would be over if only we Missourians would step up and condemn this bullshit, right?

What about school shootings? I live in the U.S. We have had a lot of tragic massacres of innocent children in our country. Is it my failure to condemn killing innocent school children that is at fault? Is it us as a collective society that have failed to condemn killing children?

BUT if we're going that route, then why do we get to stop early? Why don't we land in a place like:
Look at all these terrible problems in the world. This is all my fault for not doing more.
Why do you get to draw an imaginary line around any groups at the end?
Doesn't the line go around the planet?

***
Whatever. You seem to be interested in defending your hatred, so I'm sure you have an answer to all of this.
And I honestly couldn't care less about your answer.

There is nothing you can say that will make me change my mind and embrace a philosophy which holds hatred as an ideal.
I am just as firmly entrenched in my viewpoint as you are.
There is nothing to be gained from talking to each other on this subject.

So here:

[BooG690]

Just linking to this bigot: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/lh...yaan-hirsi-ali

She thinks Islam needs a reformation because a small subset of them are sexist and violent. What a bigot she is.

[bigred]

Dumb maf/probability question.

I'm playing a card game and I have a card that if played draws a card and rewards me if the drawn card is a certain type. Let's say I have 12 cards left to draw from and I have 2 regular draw cards (no reward, just draws a new card) and a third draw card that is the previously mentioned draw card that rewards me.

Let's say there's only 1 card in the 12 that triggers a reward.

What's the best way to optimize my chances of hitting the card? Obviously if I could draw two others cards to get it down to 10 cards 1/10 is better than 1/12 but I don't know if you can think that way.

Is there a way to optimize this? How does it change if there's 3 cards of the 12 that reward me or the number of non rewarding draw cards increase or decrease.

I don't feel like I explained this well so please ask clarifications if needed. On my phone so don't have time to rewrite.

[BooG690]

Somewhere Spoon has a massive hard-on and isn't sure why.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Let the cards you can play be {P, 2@p}
Let the deck be {D, 11@d}

Where P is the one that gates the potential for reward, and D is gate for actual reward.

You may play your cards in 3 significant orders; i.e. you may play P 1st, 2nd or last.

Which of the three strategies maximizes the chance of reward?

***
Play P first
Success is drawing D
EV = 1/12 ~= 8.3%

Play P second
Success is drawing any d, then drawing D
EV = (11/12) * 1/11 = 1/12 ~= 8.3%

Play P third
Success is drawing any 2@d, then drawing D
EV = (11/12) * (10/11) * 1/10 = 1/12 ~= 8.3%

Fascinating.

[boost]

MMM,

I don't hate Muslims.

Sincerely, Boost.

[spoonitnow]

Somewhere Spoon has a massive hard-on and isn't sure why.

+1

If I understand what you're saying, then the cards that let you draw again don't change your EV, and you can just ignore them and pretend they aren't in the deck.

EG: Adding 200 more cards that allow you to just draw again will not change the EV compared to adding 20,000 more cards that will allow you to re-draw.

[MadMojoMonkey]

+1

If I understand what you're saying, then the cards that let you draw again don't change your EV, and you can just ignore them and pretend they aren't in the deck.

EG: Adding 200 more cards that allow you to just draw again will not change the EV compared to adding 20,000 more cards that will allow you to re-draw.

What do you think of my method above?

Using that method, if you increase the number of cards that, if drawn, give you reward, then you should play the card that draws to reward first.

***
With 3 cards that, if drawn, give reward - in a drawing deck of 12

Play P first | EV = 3/12 = 25%

Play P second | EV = (9/12) * (3/11) ~= 20.5%

Play P third | EV = (9/12) * (8/11) * (3/10) ~= 16.4%

EG: Adding 200 more cards [...]

(If you care)

E.g. adding 200 more cards ...

There is a period after both the e and the g.
The e is the beginning of the sentence, and is capitalized.
The a in adding should be lowercase.

I'm thinking the colon is a yes / no situation, depending on whether what follows is a list.
I think a comma would be better, but my lady says that AP style would not use the comma.

[spoonitnow]

(If you care)

E.g. adding 200 more cards ...

There is a period after both the e and the g.
The e is the beginning of the sentence, and is capitalized.
The a in adding should be lowercase.

I'm thinking the colon is a yes / no situation, depending on whether what follows is a list.
I think a comma would be better, but my lady says that AP style would not use the comma.

Since we just decided to go random grammar Nazi on a forum for no apparent reason: There is no comma in the bold.

This is a good example of social tact gone out the window. If you're going to correct grammar, then you should be correct when you do it. With that having been said, correcting grammar on a forum is almost always a dickhead move.

Edit: AP style would dictate the use of a comma (e.g., this Inception-style example).

[OngBonga]

mojo's comma looks fine to me.

Although I would like to point out that a period is when a girl bleeds out of her vagina. The correct term for the punctuation mark is a full stop.

Fucking Yanks.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I said, "if you care." Sorry if I got under your skin. Write however you want to write.

I'm just offering advice to someone who typically has beautiful grammar, and therefore I assume would actually give a shit.

Seriously, I don't correct many people, and if I do it's only once, as a matter of friendly courtesy.

***
You're right about that extra comma. Thanks. I do overuse commas, but I'm trying to be better about it.
I overuse hyphens and "..." as well. I tend to do it when I think it helps the flow of the written thought, but I can go overboard.

***
What do you think of the math?

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is a good example of social tact gone out the window. If you're going to correct grammar, then you should be correct when you do it.

That's like saying, I'm no Neil DeGrasse Tyson, so I should really just never speak about physics.

I'm not "nazi-ing" if I'm just opening a conversation, am I?

[wufwugy]

mojo's comma looks fine to me.

Although I would like to point out that a period is when a girl bleeds out of her vagina. The correct term for the punctuation mark is a full stop.

Fucking Yanks.

ya but you have ungood grammar

"is capitalized" is not an independent clause

[spoonitnow]

What do you think of the math?

I didn't look at it. I just assumed it was right because you'd done it. I was in the middle of writing about the LOLRETARDED laws for online gambling in South Africa.

[spoonitnow]

That's like saying, I'm no Neil DeGrasse Tyson, so I should really just never speak about physics.

I'm not "nazi-ing" if I'm just opening a conversation, am I?

That's a really poor analogy, and people will respect you more as a man if you own your mistakes instead of trying to back out of them with questions like that.

[MadMojoMonkey]

That's a really poor analogy, and people will respect you more as a man if you own your mistakes instead of trying to back out of them with questions like that.

What "people" respect, or consider manly, couldn't be of less interest to me when I choose my behavior.

However, your respect matters to me, and I'm stymied.

I feel that even in my initial presentation I was conversational. I openly digressed about the colon and comma and admitted that I asked for outside advice. In my apology, I accepted your criticism of my own grammar.

I welcome the criticism. I'm not claiming to be perfect at grammar.

I thought you were saying, "If you're going to tell someone about something, you better be an expert."
So I guess I misunderstand you.

[Savy]

Serious question MMM, does grammar like that really bother you or was it just a topic of conversation?

This isn't directed at you, my one problem with most people who are the type to correct grammar is that they tend to correct really basic stuff and have a fairly poor understanding of it themselves. I'm probability in a minority of people who would love my grammar to be correct but with an explanation explaining why. That very rarely seems to happen except with complete basics unfortunately.

I suppose I'm also a fan of grammar being unimportant except in circumstances where the meaning of what you are saying is changed as a result of poor grammar. I also think that spelling is unimportant as long as you can grasp the meaning of what someone is saying but I probably wouldn't stand behind that principle if people just stopped caring completely.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Serious question MMM, does grammar like that really bother you or was it just a topic of conversation?

In this context (a non-technical online forum), no, it doesn't bother me. It's just conversational. I absolutely wouldn't have mentioned it to 99% of the posters on FTR.

I understand that a language (as opposed to a pidgin) is a dynamic, evolving system. One characteristic of a language is that it is capable of expressing ideas that have never before been expressed. This is part of the feedback loop that is a living language.

As such, no rules are permanent. The rules facilitate the usage and not vice versa.

I'm probability in a minority of people who would love my grammar to be correct but with an explanation explaining why. That very rarely seems to happen except with complete basics unfortunately.

The English language is ridiculously complicated. I learned the rules of German grammar and phonetics in an afternoon.
There are just so many exceptions in English that it can be hard to deal with.

I think there should be a comma before the word, "unfortunately," in your sentence above.
I don't know the exact rule, but it's similar to adding, "too," at the end of a sentence.
E.g. I like to be corrected when I use poor grammar, too.

I suppose I'm also a fan of grammar being unimportant except in circumstances where the meaning of what you are saying is changed as a result of poor grammar. I also think that spelling is unimportant as long as you can grasp the meaning of what someone is saying but I probably wouldn't stand behind that principle if people just stopped caring completely.

In general, I agree with this. The only time it bothers me is when the material is serious or technical and the poor grammar is obfuscating the intended meaning.

I think in most cases, if context makes the meaning clear, then that's fine. However, if I read a news article where they are using commas in a way that changes the meaning, then I find using context can be dangerous. Sometimes that little comma placement is important. Same with scientific publications. In those cases, they are professionals who are telling me something specific. If their language isn't clear, then that's a problem.

Add a comma before, "except," in the first sentence and another before, "but," in the second.
In both cases, you are separating out a whole clause.

You would not use a comma here:
I like vanilla but not chocolate.
You would use a comma here:
I like vanilla, but I don't like chocolate.

[a500lbgorilla]

MMM,

I don't hate Muslims.

Sincerely, Boost.

Don't you hate that you had to make this post?

If there were no Muslims, this would go without saying...

just saying.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@Boost: I still find it hard to understand how you can reconcile these statements:

This idea that there is a tiny minority of evil Muslims in a vast sea of good Muslims is facile and naive.

I don't hate Muslims.

I don't think you're saying that you don't hate evil.

If it's not a "tiny minority," then what %-age of Muslims, do you estimate, is the evil %?
Upon what do you base that estimate?

How many of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world are the evil ones?

How does that compare with the number of evil Missourians or evil Americans or any contextual aid in understanding the data.

[Renton]

The religion cultivates evil. This notion that all terrorists are psychopathic is completely absurd. Are terrorists outliers among the muslim population? Definitely. Are terrorist sympathizers outliers among the muslim population? Harder to say. Polling data strongly supports the notion that they aren't that uncommon.

That said, all religion cultivates evil. However, equivalency arguments are flawed because it is well-established that majority-christian societies have managed to shed some of their barbarism over the centuries in a way that majority-muslim societies have not. The middle east is some of the most resource-rich land in the world, and yet its no more hospitable for humans than it was 2000 years ago. The funny thing is that no society has had as big of a development head start as the Fertile Crescent. At least the worst African countries have an excuse of being relatively young industrialized societies. There are some complete shit-hole African countries that I would sooner live as an expat in than Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan, or even Indonesia. I currently live in Cambodia which is a relatively safe place considering what a shithole it is, and its hard to deny the calming influence of their slightly less evil religion of Buddhism.

[boost]

Yeah, right, so again, if you stop quoting that sentence in isolation, and read it in the context of the preceding sentence and the quote which it is responding to, that would be much appreciated. Even so, I didn't really flesh out my thought, and that's my fault. My point, as I attempted to clarify in my first response to your initial knee jerk reaction, is that there is a spectrum and that spectrum does not abruptly shift from fanatic extremist to benign believer. There are active supporters, there are passive supporters, there are those who are indifferent, those who are vehemently opposed, and all shades in between. The reason I think this is important to mention is it is a counter balance to the idea that there is a fraction of a percent of Muslims who are evil super villains. It's a common talking point hit on, "tiny violent minority"-- it paints a distorted picture of reality.

[Savy]

@MMM Dunno how long ago it was you were in school but I definitely feel that I would have had a better grasp of grammar if my English classes were taught a lot more rigidly. I suppose the idea is that this confines artistic expression. I'd argue that if it's taught well it allows it to flourish.

edit - for the whole muslim debate going on I have to feel it's much more culture over religion in the points that people are making. The media really do push a terrorist = muslim agenda.

[wufwugy]

I currently live in Cambodia which is a relatively safe place considering what a shithole it is, and its hard to deny the calming influence of their slightly less evil religion of Buddhism.

Fucking grammar you fucking philistine.

[boost]

Don't you hate that you had to make this post?

If there were no Muslims, this would go without saying...

just saying.

I'm having a hard time reading your tone here, so I'll just respond flatly.

Yes, I think it would be a better world if there were no Muslims. As well, I think there'd be an improvement with the erosion of belief in any form of the supernatural. The best place to get started, in my opinion, is belief in divine revelation, and more specifically belief systems based on divine revelation which call for the brutal punishment of doubters. Divine revelation that reveals that questioning divine revelation must be punished by death is clearly a recipe for trouble.

[Savy]

How much do people think the same type of belief is held in muslim countries on Christian beliefs?