If Mort Divine ruled the world

Nice deflection.

It's not a deflection. It's dealing directly with the problem you're implying. Unless there is a political force that threatens a government, they have nothing to really be concerned about, just a big pain in their ass. If there is a political force, i.e. a caliphate within their own borders, they squash it full-on Machiavelli style. The biggest problem with liberals today is the only portions of their ideology that get argued over passionately are issues over identity politics, and general principles of Western governments get lost or trounced upon in the process.
 
It's not a deflection. It's dealing directly with the problem you're implying. Unless there is a political force that threatens a government, they have nothing to really be concerned about, just a big pain in their ass. If there is a political force, i.e. a caliphate within their own borders, they squash it full-on Machiavelli style. The biggest problem with liberals today is the only portions of their ideology that get argued over passionately are issues over identity politics, and general principles of Western governments get lost or trounced upon in the process.

a) No it was a deflection, a rather tired one too.

"The thing about Islam is"

"BUT CHRISTIANS"

b) I didn't say it was going to be some extremist caliphate replacing what's here now, I simply said in 100 years I think many western places (like the UK) will either be an Islamic country or a Muslim majority country.
Once upon a time Islamic countries were the most advanced, they were the pinnacle of civilisation in their day and whose to say that can't happen again by a mixing of western values and structures with Islam as a majority faith?

Your problem is you're searching for malice in my posts when there was none. Just trying to talk objectively about projections.
 
I'm not. I'm talking about the only thing that matters: political power, which is the ultimate consequence of what you're getting at. And that wasn't a deflection. It was a contextualization. I didn't talk about The Crusades, I discussed Christians who are alive today whom would be more than happy to carry out religious persecution if they had the political legitimacy to do so.
 
You don't take into account the number of Christians with extreme beliefs versus the number of Muslims with extreme beliefs and how projections relate to that. But that's beside the point in my opinion.
The UK already has Sharia courts, there's a strong push for a Sharia court here in Australia that isn't lessening but growing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dak
Because modern liberalism has placed its foundational principles below identity politics. Ironically, I think this was done to bring out the minority vote, but didn't actually bring out the vote and therefore worked against them. Liberals today are ashamed to stand up to conservatives and say what they really think and I think that is a tragedy.
 
I actually agree completely with your first sentence and that's why I have a lot of trouble relating even though I consider myself a liberal. To be frank I can't stand to be around most liberals these days.

Not so sure I agree with your last sentence though, unless I'm missing something, but in my experience liberals are louder than conservatives in the realm of politics and debate, if anything it's the Right side of the compass that have become ideologically soggy and weak. Mostly due to the character assassination weaponry the Left wields so effectively. It's better to just keep your mouth shut rather then get called a racist/sexist/homophobe/xenophobe/etc.
 
I have a lot of trouble relating even though I consider myself a liberal. To be frank I can't stand to be around most liberals these days.

Agree with this. I consider myself a moderate/liberal. Many liberals take it to the extreme these days and I can't stand it. It's no better than blindly following a religion.

There's a grain of truth in both conservative and liberal viewpoints, it's a gray area. I don't know why people are constantly so obsessed with making things black and white.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dak, Matt and CiG
I'm a liberal who disagrees with the PCs. Liberals today are afraid to speak out against the misogyny of women in the Middle East and I disagree with that. They pander to Christians across the nation and do not stand against conservatives who say "In God We Trust" should be enshrined upon everything. They're afraid to say that public works projects work. They're afraid to say that taxing the rich works. And they're afraid to say that wealth should be re-distributed to help the disadvantaged. They're afraid to speak for what they believe, and this is ironic given the turn toward identity politics. They turned for votes and their turn failed because they lost their principles along the way.

You should know how politics in the US are. The right have a strong and heavily funded voice in our country. Their voice is stronger amongst the "Real Americans" than the liberal voice is. Haven't you heard of Fox? Hell, CNN panders to their type of headlines now. MSNBC is bad for the reasons I stated in the previous paragraph, and their ratings are shit as a result. Liberals in this nation are killing themselves.

edit: I think the problem is a news headline problem and the liberals are losing it because of the approach they are taking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matt
You make some good points but I think you stretch them a fraction too far, the fact is that the Left and specifically the liberals/progressives run Hollywood and basically the entirety of the entertainment industry and if that isn't a strong voice as well as a strong vehicle for working social views on things I don't know what is.
 
the Muslim population would reach the critical mass necessary to make various countries Islamic by default, and other places create a voting/political bloc powerful enough to push various things through. If you think some of those trends will not continue, how about which one(s) and why/how (with some actual support), rather than going "lulz build a bunker bro".

I already disputed this claim and you agreed to it. Poor people make babies, rich ones don't. CIG's point about conversation is so minor it's crazy. I don't feel like looking back at the article, but I imagine it's before the time of ISIS bombing everyone. Even if it's "up to date," 60 million out of 2.2 billion is so minute it's crazy.

You're also suggesting white countries are going to stand idly by and allow a muslim population to just usurp the whites. Mexicans (hispanics) are closer to that now in the U.S. than the Muslims will probably ever be, but are you fearful of a hispanic takeover? This idea your spewing is reliant on the democratic system being democratic. In that a Muslim majority will vote in a muslim representation and not vice versa. Your only evidence used was a demographic table, which has less to do with religion than social economic status of the world, and CIG's conversion rate. If you want to be persuasive, especially as something as grandiose as a Muslim run world by a century, you're going to need vast and varied amounts of evidence. At least that's what they told me at college.
 
I like how all the evidence I've provided is "small" (and it was only a tip of the iceberg of demographic stuff), and you guys are dismissing it with a grand total of zip other than doing the "look around" test and goin "Nope, don't see any Sharia here", as if we are talking about something that would happen now, or tomorrow, or even twenty years from now.

Obviously a ton of different things could happen in a time-span like 100 years or more that that could change trajectories, like war, resource shortages, etc. That's not being debated. But, what's under contention is pretty clear cut: Islam is growing biologically and through conversion. Europe and the US are graying. Europe and the US also have also been stripped to some degree of defense against aggressive behavior because of SJW bs (like neighbors not reporting the Cali bombers, UK keeping all the rapes hush hush, Germany trying to keep a lid on the NYE stuff, etc), and against conversion because of atheism. If policy, fertility, and religiousity continue to go as they currently are, at some point in a future (very likely past our lifetimes), the Muslim population would reach the critical mass necessary to make various countries Islamic by default, and other places create a voting/political bloc powerful enough to push various things through. If you think some of those trends will not continue, how about which one(s) and why/how (with some actual support), rather than going "lulz build a bunker bro". Or simply don't say anything at all.

This is from your own article, it coincides with what rms has been saying about poor people have more kids:

"One of the main reasons for Islam’s growth ultimately involve simple demographics. To begin with, Muslims have more children than members of the seven other major religious groups analyzed in the study. Each Muslim woman has an average of 3.1 children, significantly above the next-highest group (Christians at 2.7) and the average of all non-Muslims (2.3). In all major regions where there is a sizable Muslim population, Muslim fertility exceeds non-Muslim fertility. The growth of the Muslim population also is helped by the fact that Muslims have the youngest median age (23 in 2010) of all major religious groups, seven years younger than the median age of non-Muslims (30). A larger share of Muslims will soon be at the point in their lives when people begin having children. This, combined with high fertility rates, will accelerate Muslim population growth."

All of that makes complete sense. Population growths of all kinds are cyclical. The article says absolutely nothing about Westerners converting to Islam, and only states that religious switching won't hinder its growth. Did you guys even read the article you've been posting as the only defense or your argument? It didn't mention anything about population growth being especially significant in Western areas, either. And finally; what makes you guys so sure that Islam is just going to continue growing? Given the information in the article, it would follow that the population will eventually decline like all eventually do as it ages. And, if Middle Eastern regions become more prosperous, birthrates would go down.

The main problem with this discussion is there is absolutely no quantifiable information to prove a point, and since you guys (Dak and CIG) are making extreme claims the onus is on you to provide evidence. Posting an article that gives general information Islam's growth but no other specifics accomplishes nothing. Also, CIG: what "conversion rates" are you even talking about? I can't find any legitimate information on it and it would seem that those numbers are impossible to track anyway. It seems that almost all new Muslims are those born into it.

Logically, population sizes in Middle Eastern and heavily Islamic countries will certainly increase substantially, but assuming that they'll just move into Germany or France and declare Sharia Law doesn't make any sense unless White / non-Middle Eastern people in those countries are converting to Islam at an extremely fast rate (there is no evidence to that).
 
Here's a 2010 Pew Article that is extremely relevant:

http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/...muslim-population-related-factors/#conversion

Indirectly, however, conversions may affect the projections because people who have converted to or from Islam are included – even if they are not counted separately – in numerous censuses and surveys used to estimate the size of the global Muslim population in 1990, 2000 and 2010.

There are a number of reasons why reliable data on conversions are hard to come by. Some national censuses ask people about their religion, but they do not directly ask whether people have converted to their present faith. A few cross-national surveys do contain questions about religious switching, but even in those surveys, it is difficult to assess whether more people leave Islam than enter the faith. In some countries, legal and social consequences make conversion difficult, and survey respondents may be reluctant to speak honestly about the topic. Additionally, for many Muslims, Islam is not just a religion but an ethnic or cultural identity that does not depend on whether a person actively practices the faith. This means that even nonpracticing or secular Muslims may still consider themselves, and be viewed by their neighbors, as Muslims.

The limited information on conversion indicates that there is some movement both into and out of Islam but that there is no major net gain or loss.
 
Muslims are the only major religious group projected to increase faster than the world's population as a whole.

Meanwhile, religious switching, which is expected to hinder the growth of some other religious groups, is not expected to have a negative net impact on Muslims. By contrast, between 2010 and 2050, Christianity is projected to have a net loss of more than 60 million adherents worldwide through religious switching.

This is what I posted earlier to answer your question about conversion rates and whether I actually read the article I posted.

It's from this.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...e-the-worlds-fastest-growing-religious-group/

Specifically from a sub-link within that^ link.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/
 
My "within 100 years" theory was just that, so posting some sources that support the theory is sufficient enough. I said it in order to discuss ideas, as obviously there's no real way to prove it absolutely.
 
This is from your own article, it coincides with what rms has been saying about poor people having kids

.........

All of that makes complete sense. Population growths of all kinds are cyclical. The article says

Logically, population sizes in Middle Eastern and heavily Islamic countries will certainly increase substantially, but assuming that they'll just move into Germany or France and declare Sharia Law doesn't make any sense unless White / non-Middle Eastern people in those countries are converting to Islam at an extremely fast rate (there is no evidence to that).

Going into work so I can't go in depth, but these two points keep popping up.

So you are asserting that at some point the demographic trends will end because Muslims will get richer? Or non-Muslims will get poor and boost their fertility?
 
Today, Iran, Lebanon, Tunisia, and Turkey (all in the MENA region) have completed their demographic transition, reaching total fertility rates (TFR, the average number of children per woman) at or below 2.1 children per woman ("replacement level"). Indonesia and Morocco are almost there as well.

Iran surprised the world when its TFR dropped from 5.6 in 1985 to 2.0 in 2000—the fastest decline ever recorded

Table 2 also coincides with this theory (cannot copy and paste it)

http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2013/demographics-muslims.aspx

My "within 100 years" theory was just that, so posting some sources that support the theory is sufficient enough.

Dude, posting two links with evidence that doesn't even really mean anything, does not provide sufficient evidence. For instance, my class read this book about how China will become the global superpower in a relatively short time (like 2020, I think it was) and how the U.S. were going to fall and become basically U.K. It was like 800 pages and his thesis was still weak and largely considered bullshit and was academically responded to with another text.

http://www.amazon.com/When-China-Rules-World-Western/dp/0143118005
http://www.amazon.com/China-Goes-Global-Partial-Power/dp/0199361037

The China and India comparisons are interesting. China has become the 2nd largest population and economy, but where are they? They have experienced the best growth ever recorded in a country, but where are they?

India, who is like 1/4th muslim, showcases this perfectly. The north (muslim) part of India is super poor but table 2 on the link I provided shows the high birth rates compared to a life expectancy of 59 years. 59 years! The most populous country on earth cannot even provide decent infrastructure to its own country.

So no, I will not even consider a muslim country to be into the discussion until they can create a state that is actually relevant on a global level.