Islam - What's your view on it?

[Danoff]

I guess you've never been to china.

I have.

100% Confident with what I said about China, None of the countries mentioned have even a percent on China's surveillance infustracture, not only that they control their citizens very effectively when not at Home if they study abroad with there Student propaganda arm the "Confucious institute", the propaganda they use unlike what happened in Soviet Russia was very effective as well they have got alot of their people hooked on their propaganda.

Also if your going to mention countries like that @Danoff don't know how you missed Eritrea.

North Korea is more pervasive, influencing every aspect of life, every criticism, with propaganda for everything. And they pull people back in much more effectively than China does. The US actually grants asylum to thousands of Chinese every year. North Korea? You don't get out of North Korea.

North Korea is the most Orwellian state in existence today, and possibly is even more than the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. North Korea is an abomination to all freedom. China actually has quite a bit by comparison.

 

[PocketZeven]

I have.

Work, vacation or study?

 

[Northstar]

Work, vacation or study?

You can read all about it, here.

 

[Danoff]

@PocketZeven

I went there for adoption.

You can read all about it, here.

He's not premium. It costs money to read about my life.

 

[PocketZeven]

@PocketZeven

I went there for adoption.



He's not premium. It costs money to read about my life.

How was your impression of the process and your stay? Let me know if you do not want to share about it by the way, if its too personal. I lived in China for 2 1/2 years and encounter a lot of bias towards China from people that have never been there.

 

[Danoff]

How was your impression of the process and your stay?

That's a big question, there are a lot of aspects of the process and the stay. Overall I was surprised about the similarities between Chinese life and the US. I guess I was expecting something more foreign. I knew part of my trip would be in central China, and when I found out I would be taking a domestic flight for example, I didn't know whether to expect goats on the plane, a dirt runway, and a pilot sitting on a crate.

But no, of course there's an airfield of 747s, airport security that has basically the same rules and procedure as the US, terminals, concourses, and a McDonald's inside security. Of course. I guess I approached it with far fewer assumptions than many people do.

The thing is, there are no McDonalds in North Korea (although maybe that will change). I don't love McDonalds (or American fast food, or whatever), but the option is just not there. The option of eating at all is barely there. North Korea has a single (mostly empty) international airport serviced by 2 airlines with 4 total international destinations. Travel into and out of the country is tightly controlled. In China, you can tune in to CNN, BBC and CNBC (though granted not everything they broadcast makes it to Chinese citizens, censorship of those stations is of course a thing). CNN is not a thing for North Koreans. You get your news from North Korean Central Television, and that's it.

I'd wager none of us on this website have been to North Korea. It is wildly more controlled than China.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Because it targets a demographic group regardless of their agency and indicates that they think they should live their lives in closeted denial. If you're unable to see how this is prejudicial then I'm not sure I can explain any further.

It's a question of morals and not much more though isn't it?

It only gives one poll (actually two) as examples and doesn't limit its conclusions to those two polls exclusively.

I don't think that logic holds up....the fact is the Gallup poll (to the best of our knowledge) wasn't included in the analysis.

Instead it's saying that they think homosexuals should be denied several basic human rights which are freely available to other groups.

How is that not homophobic?

It's still not a direct comparison, even if you believe it to be homophobic.

But it concludes that younger people express more liberal attitudes regardless of where they live.[/QUOTE]
And the conclusion about homophobic beliefs being more prevalent in Muslim communities is equally valid.

If we look at the countries that are most "gay friendly" we see that the top 10 are all (100%) Christian majority nations.
The bottom 10? 70% are Islamic majority.

You don't think it shows any prejudice at all? Really?

I think it's the same as they would against adulterers, or maybe those engaging in pre-marital sex.

Christ on a bike! This is the intelligence thing all over again!

"My world view isn't supported by reality so reality must be wrong."

How so?

In the intelligence debate I showed differences in IQ, difference in brain (and other organ) metrics, differences in admission criteria to universities, differences in social development and the response was "define intelligence"

 

[UKMikey]

Boy, it's hard picking up on these threads weeks later...

It's a question of morals and not much more though isn't it?

No, targetting homosexual people specifically is homophobia and should be when judged by anyone's moral standard.

I don't think that logic holds up....the fact is the Gallup poll (to the best of our knowledge) wasn't included in the analysis.

The article said that many previous polls were inaccurate. Are you saying that it said the ten year old Gallup poll was accurate or that it was one of those many previous polls? How is it illogical to infer the latter?

 

[TexRex]

In the intelligence debate I showed differences in IQ, difference in brain (and other organ) metrics, differences in admission criteria to universities, differences in social development and the response was "define intelligence"

If you can't define intelligence, you can't measure intelligence. Simples.

IQ tests don't measure one's intelligence, they measure one's ability to take IQ tests.

"But 'intelligence' is in its name!" Yeah, and DPRK stands for Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea...but it's not democratic, it's not for the people and it's not a republic. The K is the only honest bit.

What's more, an IQ test can't be administered equally across all populations as it relies heavily on "formal education" (whatever that is) and intelligence exists independently of "formal education".

University admissions evaluations also don't test intelligence, rather, best case scenario, whether a candidate is likely to be able to continue the education they've already received. But then you've got considerations for how much money someone is willing to spend and/or how they look and how difficult their name is to pronounce relative to those already accepted and/or in attendance.

"These people are biologically, physiologically and/or visibly different from those people, so they must possess different levels of intelligence" isn't the sort of due diligence expected of those in the scientific community by those in the scientific community. Why should it fly here?

If you can't define intelligence, you can't measure intelligence.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If we look at the countries that are most "gay friendly" we see that the top 10 are all (100%) Christian majority nations.
The bottom 10? 70% are Islamic majority.

Of course, if you want to play data tables then there are some significant Christian countries "at the bottom", grrr, that includes Russia (big, first world, orthodox Christian). There's the Vatican City, head of the implementation of Roman Catholicism. You've also got heavily Christian parts of the USA (some larger than the countries that they've snuggled in next to). It looks like the problem's more about fundamentalism than it is about religion.

You might be fingering the wrong problem.

 

[UKMikey]

You might be fingering the wrong problem.

Do you think he may be fudging the figures?

You don't think it shows any prejudice at all? Really?

I think it's the same as they would against adulterers, or maybe those engaging in pre-marital sex.

I like how homosexuals are supposed to be "only" as sinful as adulterers or those indulging in pre-marital sex even though unless same-sex marriage is a thing, the only way they can stay on the right side of a god they may or may not believe in is to abstain completely. Because of an accident of birth. Sounds fair and legit.

 

[Dotini]

Islamic State claims responsibility for suicide bombing at Kabul wedding that kills 63, wounds 182.
https://apnews.com/b5ceb0cfb33d4d73aaaadf5eee19fe9d

Apparently this is pursuant to a declared war on Shiite Islam by the Sunni Islamic State.

The US is currently negotiating with the Taliban to end US involvement in the troubled land of Afghanistan.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Boy, it's hard picking up on these threads weeks later...
No, targetting homosexual people specifically is homophobia and should be when judged by anyone's moral standard.

I dunno, maybe it's because homophobia is such a strong word it doesn't sit easily with me to classify a good proportion of the world's population as such.

Would we say those who are pro-life are misogynistic?
What about people who think it's morally wrong for 5 year olds to be counselled on gender dysphoria?

The article said that many previous polls were inaccurate. Are you saying that it said the ten year old Gallup poll was accurate or that it was one of those many previous polls? How is it illogical to infer the latter?

Fair point, it wasn't an illogical conclusion. But even if it's one of the "bad polls", what is that saying about Muslim communities?

If you can't define intelligence, you can't measure intelligence. Simples.

IQ tests don't measure one's intelligence, they measure one's ability to take IQ tests.

"But 'intelligence' is in its name!" Yeah, and DPRK stands for Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea...but it's not democratic, it's not for the people and it's not a republic. The K is the only honest bit.

What's more, an IQ test can't be administered equally across all populations as it relies heavily on "formal education" (whatever that is) and intelligence exists independently of "formal education".

University admissions evaluations also don't test intelligence, rather, best case scenario, whether a candidate is likely to be able to continue the education they've already received. But then you've got considerations for how much money someone is willing to spend and/or how they look and how difficult their name is to pronounce relative to those already accepted and/or in attendance.

"These people are biologically, physiologically and/or visibly different from those people, so they must possess different levels of intelligence" isn't the sort of due diligence expected of those in the scientific community by those in the scientific community. Why should it fly here?

If you can't define intelligence, you can't measure intelligence.

That picture implies there are differences between human groups....

Of course, if you want to play data tables then there are some significant Christian countries "at the bottom", grrr, that includes Russia (big, first world, orthodox Christian). There's the Vatican City, head of the implementation of Roman Catholicism. You've also got heavily Christian parts of the USA (some larger than the countries that they've snuggled in next to). It looks like the problem's more about fundamentalism than it is about religion.

You might be fingering the wrong problem.

This all started from UKMikey saying younger Muslims and those brought up outside Muslim dominated areas were holding more liberal views towards homosexuality. Where does this enlightening attitude come from? Especially in a country that is almost 60% Christian....

Do you think he may be fudging the figures?

There are Christian nations in the bottom 10, in fact they are the remainder to the 70% Muslim nations (30%). I don't think that constitutes fudging.

To get some perspective the highest Muslim majority country in the list is Albania at tied 62....

I like how homosexuals are supposed to be "only" as sinful as adulterers or those indulging in pre-marital sex even though unless same-sex marriage is a thing, the only way they can stay on the right side of a god they may or may not believe in is to abstain completely. Because of an accident of birth. Sounds fair and legit.

I don't think it's fair - personally I think it's stupid.

If we label it homophobic though would we be prepared to say billions of people are then homophobic?

 

[TexRex]

That picture implies there are differences between human groups.

It illustrates built-in bias in testing.

And it's not the least bit surprising that you opted to address only that part of the post.

 

[Novalee]

so the question is islam whats my views on it .
my answer is : less chance it will kill me than christian extremists

 

[PeterJB]

so the question is islam whats my views on it .
my answer is : less chance it will kill me than christian extremists

Kinda depends on where in the world you live.

 

[PocketZeven]

Kinda depends on where in the world you live.

Statistically if you live in North America, he is correct.

 

[BobK]

Statistically if you live in North America, he is correct.

Would you care to share those statistics?

 

[PocketZeven]

Would you care to share those statistics?

Statistically terrorist in the USA are more likely being christians. That is what Novalee, I think, was referring to.

edit: spelling correction

 

[BobK]

Statistically terrorist in the USA are more likely being christians. That is what Novalee, I think, was referring to.

edit: spelling correction

Are those terrorists Christian more or less by coincidence, or are they extremist Christians carrying out their attack for "religious" reasons?

Parenthetically, the text in your graph is so small as to be unreadable.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Kinda depends on where in the world you live.

Definitely true in Britain, particularly in the current climate where NIRA/CIRA are becoming bolder again.

 

[PocketZeven]

Are those terrorists Christian more or less by coincidence, or are they extremist Christians carrying out their attack for "religious" reasons?

Parenthetically, the text in your graph is so small as to be unreadable.

That depends. Statistically a north american is more likely to die from a terrorist that is christian. Also there are more hatecrimes against muslims then hatecrimes by muslims. But essentially it does not matter for the statistical chance to be murdered by a christian vs muslim if the terrorist motivation where because of religious or not. It only matters what religion the terrorist is.

Here is the source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

and another

 

[BobK]

That depends. Statistically a north american is more likely to die from a terrorist that is christian. Also there are more hatecrimes against muslims then hatecrimes by muslims. But essentially it does not matter for the statistical chance to be murdered by a christian vs muslim if the terrorist motivation where because of religious or not. It only matters what religion the terrorist is.

Here is the source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

and another

From your Wikipedia source:

A 2017 report by The Nation Institute and Center for Investigative Reporting looked at the terrorist incidents in the US between 2008 and 2016.[7] It found:[8]

115 Far right inspired terror incidents. 35% of these were foiled (meaning no attack happened) and 29% resulted in fatalities. These terror incidents caused 79 deaths.
63 Islamist inspired terror incidents. 76% of these were foiled (meaning no attack happened) and 13% resulted in fatalities. These terror incidents caused 90 deaths.
19 incidents inspired by left-wing ideologies and eco-terrorism). 20% of these were foiled (meaning no attack happened) and 10% resulted in fatalities. These terror incidents caused 7 deaths.

So assuming all the left-wing and right-wing terrorists combined were Christian, we still have Islamic terrorists killing more than the non-Islamic terrorists. This is in direct contradiction to your assertion that in America one is more likely to be killed by a Christian than Islamic terrorist.

 

[PocketZeven]

From your Wikipedia source:


So assuming all the left-wing and right-wing terrorists combined were Christian, we still have Islamic terrorists killing more than the non-Islamic terrorists. This is in direct contradiction to your assertion that in America one is more likely to be killed by a Christian than Islamic terrorist.

2017/2018/2019 have been terrible years for domestic rightwing terrorism and need to be added to calculate the correct probability.

That said, what also is important is the number and percentage of incidents that led to deaths. Meaning there where 8.19 incidents were 90 died by Islamic terrorism. 35 incidents were 86 died by left/right wing terrorism. There is nuance but statistically I am still correct that someone in the us is more likely to die in a terrorist attack by a Christian then a Muslim.


To get into more depth:

https://medium.com/@nerdyngon/the-m...rom-a-terrorist-attack-in-the-us-308489d6d879

 

[TenEightyOne]

From your Wikipedia source:


So assuming all the left-wing and right-wing terrorists combined were Christian, we still have Islamic terrorists killing more than the non-Islamic terrorists. This is in direct contradiction to your assertion that in America one is more likely to be killed by a Christian than Islamic terrorist.

That's only really relevant to the type of death-by-terrorism that you were likely to suffer 10 years ago. Given attacks of the last year or so the larger risk doesn't seem to be from muslamicals. That's not to say that there's no risk but it seems to be far outweighed by this new-wave neo-right populism.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

You also have to take into account the percentage of the population in this country that are affiliated with which religion, if you have 100,000 Christians and 100 Muslims and the Christians are responsible for 100 incidents and the Muslims are responsible for 20 incidents even though there were actually more incidents committed by the Christians the Muslims are actually for their numbers in the population a more violent people.

The above example if you accounted for every member of the compared religions and assign each member was capable or possible to cause the event in question then there were 100,000 total incident opportunities available to the Christians while only 100 total incident opportunities available to the Muslims. So comparison between the two groups the percentage of incidents between the two groups by the available population numbers the Muslims are by far the most violent and the most likely to be responsible for the incidents even though the overall numbers they committed fewer incidents.

This goes for any types of incidents or behaviors that are attempting to singling out a group of people whether it be race, religion or ideology within a population to assert or compare one group to another based off of the criteria selected to compare the groups. You have to take the numbers of the group into consideration when looking at the group and percentage of incidents they are responsible for.

 

[PocketZeven]

You also have to take into account the percentage of the population in this country that are affiliated with which religion, if you have 100,000 Christians and 100 Muslims and the Christians are responsible for 100 incidents and the Muslims are responsible for 20 incidents even though there were actually more incidents committed by the Christians the Muslims are actually for their numbers in the population a more violent people.

The above example if you accounted for every member of the compared religions and assign each member was capable or possible to cause the event in question then there were 100,000 total incident opportunities available to the Christians while only 100 total incident opportunities available to the Muslims. So comparison between the two groups the percentage of incidents between the two groups by the available population numbers the Muslims are by far the most violent and the most likely to be responsible for the incidents even though the overall numbers they committed fewer incidents.

This goes for any types of incidents or behaviors that are attempting to singling out a group of people whether it be race, religion or ideology within a population to assert or compare one group to another based off of the criteria selected to compare the groups. You have to take the numbers of the group into consideration when looking at the group and percentage of incidents they are responsible for.

Its about the propability of someone being murdered by a christian terrorist or a muslim terrorist. It isnt about more or less violent people.

But to go into that anyway, on a global scale, historically christianity has been more violent. The idea that christianity is a more peacefull religion then islam, has been debunked many times in this thread. It is just not factually true. Personally I think a world without religion would be much more peacefull.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Its about the propability of someone being murdered by a christian terrorist or a muslim terrorist.

And that probability will change depending on where you are in the world and the makeup of the population. I am sure in Iraq and Afghanistan the probability of Higher instances of Murder would be by someone of the Muslim religion than one of the Christian religion.

If religion were to be tied to say Japan then it would be probable that Buddhism would statistically be the most probable of the religious population to commit murder as that is generally the religion that would garner the highest number followers in that country.

Historically I would be willing to say that throughout most the ages that have been recorded that with all the different sectors that make up Christianity as a whole that it has been the most dominate of the religions in terms of numbers of followers as compared to the other mainstream religions.

Due to that your claim that Christianity as compared to other religions as being the most violent is not taking into consideration the total number of followers to make that determination and therefore based on numbers of incidents versus number of followers is worthless to determine the violence factor.

 

[Danoff]

Being more likely to die at the hands of Christian comes down to the fact that there are more Christians in the country. I'm more likely to be killed in a car accident by a Christian than a Muslim, but that doesn't mean the religion has anything to do with it. Likewise, Christianity is not to be blamed for all "Right Wing" attacks.

 

[mustafur]

Should get security scanners out for right wingers then.