The News Thread

Doing things like that makes them look ineffectual and weak. Also, Burma refuses to accept refugees, basically and has continued that refusal for decades, that seems to essentially be the problem. They didn't create those refugees and there are plenty of Muslim countries that could take them if they really wanted to. I don't see the real Islamic legitimacy of raging about a non-Muslim state refusing to take Muslim refugees after a war (the break up of Pakistan/ Bangladesh). Muslims specifically aren't supposed to seek refuge in non-Muslim countries, it actually says that in their holy book. It's just one of those bits they seem to have creatively ignored now that modern Western liberalism gives the potential for refuge and immigration to be a form of conquest.
 
You could tell in the interview that he was either showing signs of radicalization or the development of xenophobia in a foreign and unfamiliar environment. Id hate to be a Muslim these days, but becoming the embodiment of what he claimed he wasnt is not a good way to approach the situation. It just goes to show that you never know when religious fanaticism will cause people to snap.

That comment section is also fucked. God damn alt-right and conservative poison posters all getting triggered because someone mentioned the insensitivity of the word retard. At first I was kind of sympathetic to the alt-right, but the anti-PC bullshit is just getting out of hand.
 
>The media portrays Muslims negatively
>Allahu Akbar die random Ohio students who are probably progressive-liberal "allies"
>Media reports story involving another negative example of Islam
>Another young Muslim snaps and attacks people because the media portrays Muslims negatively
>Repeat

The victimhood culture breaks another young person.
 
I see it as religious fanaticism breaks another young person. He didn't *need* to have a special room to pray in 5 times every day, but his religion told him he did. His religion told him he was normal and everyone else was a sinner but him. His religion told him sinners should be punished, etc.

Yes playing the victim is bad too but usually people just get whiny/entitled about that (which is annoying as fuck but better than killing people).

Religion is honestly a major problem in the modern world. It served a purpose in the past by keeping the peasants in check, giving them morals, but now the peasants need to be educated and not deny logic and science. It's honestly fine to believe in a creator or whatever, but all the bullshit that organized religion brings with that causes more problems than it's worth.

Religion = close mindedness
 
At least Christianity is largely only a culture cult and not a violent force. Sure, it certainly promotes ignorance in many cases. It's the reason I can't identify with the Republican party- the ignorance, religion and corporate pandering. The Democrats are even worse with their political correctness culture and blind love of government control. Fuck, why can't more people be agnostic libertarians?
 
Yeah, so many religions have vocal converts violently snapping and driving cars into people. So much so that we couldn't possibly pick one religion in the current year with more problems with this than others. Statistically.

Religious fanaticism is religious fanaticism. If certain religions behave "statistically" differently than others, it's because of the reception or rejection of that religion in a particular historical and cultural context. It doesn't have to do with any fundamentals of said religion.
 
Yeah, so many religions have vocal converts violently snapping and driving cars into people. So much so that we couldn't possibly pick one religion in the current year with more problems with this than others. Statistically.

There clearly is one religion that stands out in recent years, but over the course of history other religions are not necessarily better and in some cases worse.
 
This is the definition of a closed-minded remark.

In what way exactly? Believing in a religion is the definition of closed-mindedness (my phone autocorrected..). For the majority it means you think all of the other religions are wrong and yours is right with no real evidence other than some fairy tales. Obv some are worse than others but on the whole even the best case scenario religion is like getting a degree in philosophy. it's a waste of time.
 
There clearly is one religion that stands out in recent years, but over the course of history other religions are not necessarily better and in some cases worse.

I agree that other religions when looked at era-blind don't necessarily do better, but that blindness does damage to people in the now when it informs policy.

Religious fanaticism is religious fanaticism. If certain religions behave "statistically" differently than others, it's because of the reception or rejection of that religion in a particular historical and cultural context. It doesn't have to do with any fundamentals of said religion.

Sure. We could even talk about the vagaries in labeling "Christian" or "Muslim" and all of the baggage that informs these labels. Or we could just look at the specifics of the individuals engaging in particular activities, or we could take it all in and weight it in the interest of the then(then = whenever you wish) or the now. I think the "now" has some salience. Not that I think that the West is innocent, but I think it isn't innocent broadly and yet we don't have Russian Nukes reigning down or Russians driving cars into crowds for Mother Russia. And yet nationalism is a form of religiousity, and Americans act violently against those who besmirch the flag. Levels of incidence and response suggest that Islam has some - at least sectarian - abnormalities in difficulties of appropriate coping and response.
 
I agree that other religions when looked at era-blind don't necessarily do better, but that blindness does damage to people in the now when it informs policy.



Sure. We could even talk about the vagaries in labeling "Christian" or "Muslim" and all of the baggage that informs these labels. Or we could just look at the specifics of the individuals engaging in particular activities, or we could take it all in and weight it in the interest of the then(then = whenever you wish) or the now. I think the "now" has some salience. Not that I think that the West is innocent, but I think it isn't innocent broadly and yet we don't have Russian Nukes reigning down or Russians driving cars into crowds for Mother Russia. And yet nationalism is a form of religiousity, and Americans act violently against those who besmirch the flag. Levels of incidence and response suggest that Islam has some - at least sectarian - abnormalities in difficulties of appropriate coping and response.

Well I was speaking about religion in general but on that particular topic I agree that we need to take steps in self defense to screen potential immigrants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dak
Trump is picking Mad Dog Mattis for SecDef. While I think he's probably a radical improvement over Carter, I'm concerned about his Iranian fixation. If nothing else, he may stop the destruction of military capability at the hands of people more concerned with everything under the sun except being able to win wars.