For my Libertarian friends

Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: So you think that Muslims are more predisposed to violence than other groups of people?  Well, 11 of the 15 most dangerous countries according to Forbes are either mostly Muslim or on the list because of Islamic extremists. Let's not commit the converse error. Just because terrorists tend to be Muslim, it is not so that Muslim's tend to be terrorists.  "We" weren't making any error.  "We" were providing data- that's all. But since you mention this, let's go ahead and post the question: Are Muslim terrorists usually terrorists because of their religion?  I would say yes.  They don't suicide bomb buildings because they don't like the color of the wallpaper in the Men's room.

My point is that you can't conclude that Muslims are predisposed to terrorism just because terrorist are predisposed to being Muslims which is what it appears to me that you're trying to do. That is an error and a very bad one.

There are so many other factors besides Islam that could account for the high numbers of terrorists. To attach some sort of casuality there and justify profiling I think is unwarranted.

Epignosis wrote: Well, 11 of the 15 most dangerous countries according to Forbes are either mostly Muslim or on the list because of Islamic extremists.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: So you think that Muslims are more predisposed to violence than other groups of people?  Well, 11 of the 15 most dangerous countries according to Forbes are either mostly Muslim or on the list because of Islamic extremists. Let's not commit the converse error. Just because terrorists tend to be Muslim, it is not so that Muslim's tend to be terrorists.  "We" weren't making any error.  "We" were providing data- that's all. But since you mention this, let's go ahead and post the question: Are Muslim terrorists usually terrorists because of their religion?  I would say yes.  They don't suicide bomb buildings because they don't like the color of the wallpaper in the Men's room. My point is that you can't conclude that Muslims are predisposed to terrorism just because terrorist are predisposed to being Muslims which is what it appears to me that you're trying to do. That is an error and a very bad one. There are so many other factors besides Islam that could account for the high numbers of terrorists. To attach some sort of casuality there and justify profiling I think is unwarranted.

I'm not concluding that Muslims are predisposed to terrorism on account of the inverse being the case.  I'm concluding that because I've studied their literature.

Have you read the Koran and the Hadith?

“Judgment Day will come only when the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, until the Jew hides behind the tree and the stone, and the tree and the stone say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!’ – except for the Gharqad tree, which is a Jewish tree.”



Edited by Epignosis - August 09 2010 at 12:20

Slartibartfast wrote: Epignosis wrote: Well, 11 of the 15 most dangerous countries according to Forbes are either mostly Muslim or on the list because of Islamic extremists. Perhaps they are just on the list because of being mostly Muslim.  We are talking Forbes here.  I'm quite sure if you have the equivalent of Forbes in the Muslim world, we'd be on their list because of our being either mostly Christian or on the list because of our own extremists.

They explained how they arrived at their list on the first page:

To determine the world's most dangerous countries we combined rankings provided by iJet and fellow risk-assessment firm Control Risks, giving equal weight to each set of data. The two firms used crime rates, police protection, civil unrest, terrorism risk, kidnapping threat and geopolitical stability to develop their own rankings. Where there was a tie, we assigned the higher spot to the nation with a more recent travel alert on the U.S. State Department's watch list. We eliminated any country that didn't appear on at least two of these three lists.

You can accuse anything you don't want to agree with of bias if you wish, but demonstrating that bias is a different task altogether.

manofmystery wrote: ^ hope everyone got the South Park reference

Science damn it!

CinemaZebra wrote: Blah blah debates that will just end up where they started without changing anyone's opinion blah. Any chance you'll be hosting Gladiators today?

Nah. This place is cool, civil and more banter than debate, there's been some good talk in here, if one is interested in politics. No spamming in this one please Zebra



Edited by JJLehto - August 09 2010 at 12:31

Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: thellama73 wrote: I'm sorry, but I am not buying the whole "Most Muslims are moderate, Islam is a religion of peace" line.I see Christians on TV constantly denouncing extremists such as the Westboro Baptist Church and making it clear that they don't represent the true beliefs of Christianity. How many Muslims do you see saying the same things about these terrorists? Personally, I have seen very, very few. The people pushing the "terrorists don't represent Islam" story are white journalists. If it's true that most Muslims don't feel represented by the terrorists, then there are only two explanations for their silence: that they tacitly agree that Western Civilization is "the great Satan" or they are afriad to speak out for fear of retaliation by terrorist groups.In the first case, they are very bad people, in the second case they are cowards, which I'm not sure is much better. I know that there are some Muslims who have spoken out on the subject, but I have seen no evidence to convince me that these moderates are the majority.That being said, let them build their stupid mosque. I totally agree Could've been my answer to Pat's question. We unfortunately live in a society where our affairs are dictated by two parties which are both heavily in favor of war. Equally unfortunately, the media serves essentially as PR person's for the state. The state has a heavily vested interest in proving that all Muslims (or more generally different looking brown people) are terrorist to justify its unbridled militant actions. The fact that the media fails to present evidence to the contrary of the Muslim=Terrorist portrait isn't surprising to me nor would I use that as evidence to condemn people. Further, why should good, honest, peaceful people bear the burden of having to clear their name by distancing themselves from extremist who have hijacked their religion? Having identified as a Christian for most of my life I refuse to apologize for things like the Crusades, Inquisition, or child molestation. Those things have nothing to do with me. I don't feel a burden to separate myself from them. I don't associate with group guilt. I'm an individual. I don't identify as a pack animal.

If the media is in the pocket of war mongerers, then how come every news channel (besides Fox) goes out of its way to constantly apologize and make excuses for the Muslim people? As I mentioned before, a certain MSNBC anchor (Contessa Brewer) openly expressed disappointment that the attempted Times Square bombing was done by a Muslim and not a white, tea party, racist.

The only reason I mention this is that the idea that most Muslims are wonderful human beings is being sold so aggresively by jourmalists (not by the Muslims themselves) that I become suspicious of it in the same way I'm suspicious of any hard sell in any other area of life. The harder someone tries to sell me something, the less I want to buy it.

And you're right, honest people don't have an obligation to distance themselves from extremists, but if they don't then they can't blame people for association them with the most visable members of their group. If I taste a bunch of apples and they're all sour, it would be reasonable for me to conclude that I don't like apples. Then Chris Matthews goes on TV and says "those apples you tried aren't representative of most apples! You're being unfair." I respond by saying "well, where are these delicious apples? If you want me to like them, show them to me." to which he retorts "Apples don't have anything to prove to you!"

Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: So you think that Muslims are more predisposed to violence than other groups of people?  Well, 11 of the 15 most dangerous countries according to Forbes are either mostly Muslim or on the list because of Islamic extremists. Let's not commit the converse error. Just because terrorists tend to be Muslim, it is not so that Muslim's tend to be terrorists.  "We" weren't making any error.  "We" were providing data- that's all. But since you mention this, let's go ahead and post the question: Are Muslim terrorists usually terrorists because of their religion?  I would say yes.  They don't suicide bomb buildings because they don't like the color of the wallpaper in the Men's room. My point is that you can't conclude that Muslims are predisposed to terrorism just because terrorist are predisposed to being Muslims which is what it appears to me that you're trying to do. That is an error and a very bad one. There are so many other factors besides Islam that could account for the high numbers of terrorists. To attach some sort of casuality there and justify profiling I think is unwarranted. I'm not concluding that Muslims are predisposed to terrorism on account of the inverse being the case.  I'm concluding that because I've studied their literature. Have you read the Koran and the Hadith? “Judgment Day will come only when the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, until the Jew hides behind the tree and the stone, and the tree and the stone say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!’ – except for the Gharqad tree, which is a Jewish tree.”

Yes and have you read the bible?

 "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." 

Epignosis wrote: News flash: The wealthy drive the economy (and we're doomed because of it).

Well, that end is certainly ominous

Aren't we expected to go into a double dip recession?


Not sure if you posted that article to poke fun at us scare mongering wealth haters, but I know the economy was always driven by the wealthy, but if it continues to increasingly become so isn't hat bad? Just does not seem like we want the engine of the economy being fueled by a few.

^Which seems to be a weak point of islam. They care what you think. Either you're muslim or you're an infidel.