View Full Version : Just today and the day isn't over
59 dead at an attack on a church in Kenia, so far
60 dead at an attack on a church in Peshawar
89 dead at an attack claimed by Boko Haram in Nigeria.
When will you lefties get the message, it's 13:20 on my watch right now
Have a nice sunday, and I can't stress enough that it has nothing to do with, a fakkit it's useless
Allahuh Akhbar
Oh and peace, yo
59 dead at an attack on a church in Kenia, so far
I suppose you're a worshipper of mammon if a shopping center is a church to you but yes, those are some horrible attacks.
Nairobi: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24193059
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/21/us-kenya-attack-idUSBRE98K03V20130921
Peshawar: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-22/suicide-bomber-strikes-pakistani-church/4973762
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/Suicide-attack-on-Pakistani-church-kills-60-people/articleshow/22888704.cms
Nigeria: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/20/us-nigeria-violence-toll-idUSBRE98J0SP20130920
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/20/nigeria-village-islamist-140-dead
I'm also really sorry that Islamists are getting the blame for this after they claimed they did it.
Many of the countries where this happened already seem to be fighting against Islamists and I didn't see any leftists argue against that so what are you far-rightists trying to say exactly?
I suppose you're a worshipper of mammon if a shopping center is a church to you but yes, those are some horrible attacks.
Nairobi: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24193059
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/21/us-kenya-attack-idUSBRE98K03V20130921
Peshawar: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-22/suicide-bomber-strikes-pakistani-church/4973762
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/Suicide-attack-on-Pakistani-church-kills-60-people/articleshow/22888704.cms
Nigeria: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/20/us-nigeria-violence-toll-idUSBRE98J0SP20130920
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/20/nigeria-village-islamist-140-dead
I'm also really sorry that Islamists are getting the blame for this after they claimed they did it.
Many of the countries where this happened already seem to be fighting against Islamists and I didn't see any leftists argue against that so what are you far-rightists trying to say exactly?
Forgot about the shopping mall but that was yesterday, church is today. I am not 100% sure of that, but islam clearly sucks. And obviously isn't peace. Could be mistaken with the other hundreds of attacks on churches by muslims there are just too many to keep up with
Montmorency
09-22-2013, 13:07
Allahuh Akhbar
Allah is news
He hates every Jews
So don't drink booze
And don't throw your shoes
Forgot about the shopping mall but that was yesterday, church is today. I am not 100% sure of that, but islam clearly sucks. And obviously isn't peace. Could be mistaken with the other hundreds of attacks on churches by muslims there are just too many to keep up with
Maybe you could help with, you know, a link or so, my quality google only shows me old news and I'm afraid of page two and different search terms right now: https://www.google.de/search?client=opera&q=kenya+church+attack&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Maybe you could help with, you know, a link or so, my quality google only shows me old news and I'm afraid of page two and different search terms right now: https://www.google.de/search?client=opera&q=kenya+church+attack&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Sure I could, but I am not going to, what would I gain by doing so you don't want to hear it. Violence against christians is rampant, explain yourself to your fellow christians if you can find the time, I am sure they understand your position
Sure I could, but I am not going to, what would I gain by doing so you don't want to hear it. Violence against christians is rampant, explain yourself to your fellow christians if you can find the time, I am sure they understand your position
You don't even know my position, you only think you do and that is your problem.
I ask you for a link and you say I don't want to hear it, are you hallucinating?
Rhyfelwyr
09-22-2013, 13:22
Forgot about the shopping mall but that was yesterday, church is today. I am not 100% sure of that, but islam clearly sucks. And obviously isn't peace. Could be mistaken with the other hundreds of attacks on churches by muslims there are just too many to keep up with
Well you stated at least 59 people died in this Kenya attack in your OP, so barring some great coincidence, I think it is indeed the shopping mall attack yesterday where at least 59 people died. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24193059)
But then I don't have access to quality media so who knows...
Well you stated at least 59 people died in this Kenya attack in your OP, so barring some great coincidence, I think it is indeed the shopping mall attack yesterday where at least 59 people died. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24193059)
But then I don't have access to quality media so who knows...
Yeah that is a screwup from me, it was a shopping mall and it was yesterday. But I don't have to think very long over who is also screwing up by not seeing the nature of islam. Your fellow christians are under constant threat, I take care my friends I would do anything. But you are looking away, good for you. Your own are under constant threat but hey, let's rediculise anyone bringing that up
That christians are under threat has been known for about 2000 years.
If you think muslims have no place here then you should support calling "our own" back from Muslim countries which would also remove them from the threat.
That christians are under threat has been known for about 2000 years.
If you think muslims have no place here then you should support calling "our own" back from Muslim countries which would also remove them from the threat.
Did I say anything like that, as I did't. But the torelance given to the muslims in the western world isn't exactly mutual. If you would stop singing schlagers in your heimat and move to the city you would know it isn't mutual there either
Did I say anything like that, as I did't. But the torelance given to the muslims in the western world isn't exactly mutual. If you would stop singing schlagers in your heimat and move to the city you would know it isn't mutual there either
I live in a city with a whole lot of muslims around, try again.
Apart from that, are you proposing that we give up exactly the reason we can say that we are morally superior to a lot of muslim countries?
Is your point that because they are often evil, we should become more evil ourselves? How is that an improvement?
There are problem areas where nothing is done and that is indeed a problem but even the lefties say so and our right wing politicians aren't doing any better at solving these problems. Some say these problems are generated in the first place because Germany refused to deal with immigrants for amyn years and integration policies have placed them all in the same areas where they are among themselves and have less contact with Germans as a consequence. The problem is that the whole separation thing is not a solution but was used as one for a long time. That is however not the fault of the muslims but of the apartheid immigration policies that created ghettos and separation.
Rhyfelwyr
09-22-2013, 14:08
Yeah that is a screwup from me, it was a shopping mall and it was yesterday. But I don't have to think very long over who is also screwing up by not seeing the nature of islam. Your fellow christians are under constant threat, I take care my friends I would do anything. But you are looking away, good for you. Your own are under constant threat but hey, let's rediculise anyone bringing that up
I think I am reasonably well aware of the dangers of Islamism to Christians, and you know I am not a bleeding-heart islamopologist (did I just make that word up?).
The only thing I was poking at was your take on the media - you say that our sources don't tell the truth, yet you are the one making incorrect claims. I've seen the sources you sometimes give, and to me they look anything but reliable. You can't trust the blogosphere.
I think I am reasonably well aware of the dangers of Islamism to Christians, and you know I am not a bleeding-heart islamopologist (did I just make that word up?).
The only thing I was poking at was your take on the media - you say that our sources don't tell the truth, yet you are the one making incorrect claims. I've seen the sources you sometimes give, and to me they look anything but reliable. You can't trust the blogosphere.
No you didn't make that up, I am guilty of that one I think, let's share it. I don't post anything from blogs anymore but they are almost always ahead, less reliable but almost always right. It can of course also go wrong but that is pretty rare with the good ones
The Christian thing to do is turn the other cheek, pray for the dead, and remember we all worship the same god. Terrorists don't represent Muslims any more than Fred Phelps represents me.
But it isn't about christianity or religion in general, most muslims are good people I will immediatly admit that (and avoid the ridicule if I say I have muslim friends) but there is absolutily something wrong with the islam.
Request to close thread, I cannot avoid breaking the rules when I respond
Rhyfelwyr
09-22-2013, 20:52
Frags just say what you've gotta say, you can say pretty much anything on these boards - what matters is the way you say it.
I sometimes wonder why we have these arguments.
Does anybody here apologize for Al-Shabab or Boko Haram or whoever? No they do not.
Does anybody here think that they represent all, or even most Muslims? No they do not.
So what are we arguing about?
What I really think about the islam would kinda get me into trouble here. I have zero-respect for the islam. I think it's a sck ideoligy. Lefties are confused, women's and gay rights are a good thing, but they will always choose respect for backwardness over principle. It disgusts me.
Papewaio
09-22-2013, 21:43
Terrorism is more closely associated with political-socio-economic factors.
It people feel that they have nothing then they have nothing to lose. Take away family, possessions, religion and their ability to be heard and you will get some pretty horrendous outcomes.
Terrorism is more closely associated with political-socio-economic factors.
And this is where I get into trouble, because I don't buy that socio-economic part of the equation. I think islam is just pretty damn evil, and reality proves me right almost every day. Islam is a cancer to the west and a horror for the people of Africa. There, I said it.
less reliable but almost always right.
Do what now?
Sources aside, do you really think that there are no socio-economic aspects to terrorism?
Do what now?
Sources aside, do you really think that there are no socio-economic aspects to terrorism?
He's probably right and the Irish and the early Israelis only resorted to terrorism because of their evil religions.
Terrorism is more closely associated with political-socio-economic factors.
It people feel that they have nothing then they have nothing to lose. Take away family, possessions, religion and their ability to be heard and you will get some pretty horrendous outcomes.
I think I must mention that OBL was a multimillionaire industrialist.
Who was able to push his ideology on the poor and disenfranchised. If we (we being the USA) had rebuilt Iraq's infrastructure from day-1 to at least Saddam levels, there is no way the insurgency would have taken hold. Extremist views are all around us, even (perhaps especially) in America. But without the right breeding ground, they just remain views. Africa is a giant colonialist waste-bin. An entire continent of around 1 billion diverse people speaking hundreds of languages are living with borders determined by white people less than 100 years ago, operating in a global economic system that requires them to be horribly in debt to western nations (or, lately, China) in order to stay afloat with the most basic of services. Violent Islamism is spreading in Africa and the rest of what we might as well consider the "Islamic World" for the same reason violent Communism used to spread.
We didn't have the chance to rebuilt the infrastructure when they were blowing it up just as quickly.
Were I to put my finger on a single mistake in the Iraq venture, I'd say it was disbanding the Iraqi army. Sure, they wanted to de-Baath it and re-make it, but in the mean time you left many people unemployed who formerly had good paying jobs. People with military training... and access to military hardware...
HopAlongBunny
09-23-2013, 02:56
Violent Islamism is spreading in Africa and the rest of what we might as well consider the "Islamic World" for the same reason violent Communism used to spread.
Better pamphleteers and grass roots organization? The USA might consider itself the "child of revolutionary France" but OBL was a better scholar of revolutionary movements.
Ironside
09-23-2013, 08:46
I think I must mention that OBL was a multimillionaire industrialist.
Terrorist leaders are usually more educated and affluent. The rank and file aren't. Take away the first and you'll get local terrorists without major financial backing, take away the later and you'll get a rich eccentric.
59 dead at an attack on a church in Kenia, so far
60 dead at an attack on a church in Peshawar
89 dead at an attack claimed by Boko Haram in Nigeria.
When will you lefties get the message
None of those countries' administrations are "leftist".
None of those countries' administrations are "leftist".
Never has a star shined brighter. The leftists are the islamphiles who scream we must respect islam and claw out your eyes if you can see it isn't an enrichment to our culture. Multiculturalists :sweetheart: beards&burquas. There is nothing in the islam worth respecting if you are a real humanist.
Papewaio
09-23-2013, 09:41
And this is where I get into trouble, because I don't buy that socio-economic part of the equation. I think islam is just pretty damn evil, and reality proves me right almost every day. Islam is a cancer to the west and a horror for the people of Africa. There, I said it.
Right and the same can be leveled at the IRA. So unless you are a hypocrite you must think that Catholicism is a cancer and Protestant-ism is a poison whilst believing that individual Christian people are ok.
Right and the same can be leveled at the IRA. So unless you are a hypocrite you must think that Catholicism is a cancer and Protestant-ism is a poison whilst believing that individual Christian people are ok.
Of course I am a hypocrite, who isn't. I am just not as hypocrite to defend an ultra-orthodox religion and consider myself to be progressive. You can't be an islamopoligist and progressive at the same time, it's not possible.
Kadagar_AV
09-23-2013, 10:36
I claim christianity is as vile as islam.
The difference is that we in the west have had the whole enlightenment thingy, so white people don't buy into the bull**** the same way Arabs and Africans do.
I claim christianity is as vile as islam.
The difference is that we in the west have had the whole enlightenment thingy, so white people don't buy into the bull**** the same way Arabs and Africans do.
Perhaps. But it's the left that annoys me. I should be one of them really, had they not betrayed everything they should stand for because of 'respect'
Campaign poster from the seventies (nudity!) https://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=981&bih=410&q=campagne+poster+psp&oq=campagne+poster+psp&gs_l=img.3...201782.211973.0.212621.19.10.0.9.9.0.391.1691.0j8j1j1.10.0....0...1ac.1.27.img..9.10.13 21.FNkawNtDHKw#biv=i%7C0%3Bd%7CQJI9f_wOyqBKQM%3A
I guess link is ok as it's an official campaign poster
And now they get angry if you don't respect walking around in a tent
Disgusting imho
Yes, communism was great when Stalin didn't do that islamopolist respect thingie.
And I totally agree that white people would never falls for anything stupid the same way brown people do. I mean really, if someone denied half our children education we'd still continue to breed Einsteins and rocket engineers because we're whites and we invented enlightenment because of that. Also Asians are good at maths and blondes are all stupid.
The leftists are the islamphiles who scream we must respect islam and claw out your eyes if you can see it isn't an enrichment to our culture. Multiculturalists :sweetheart: beards&burquas. There is nothing in the islam worth respecting if you are a real humanist.
The multiculturalism thing is also a big part of centre right politics. I suppose it's all about getting elected...
You have a news story about some woman in veil who doesn't want to take it off and it makes big news in some tabloid or other... it's a sensationalist story designed to grab the attention of and infuriate a certain type of person.
Islamist terror is much like any other terror, the news coverage of islamist terror is also much the same as the news coverage of any other kind of terror - very one sided depending on which side of the fence you're on. They are following a warped, extremist ideology bearing the badge, buzz words and catchphrases of a religion, but in fact have very little to do with that religion. They want to be associated with (the "correct" form of) the religion in question - the new media is often happy to play along.
To me it's much like neo nazis or skin heads - they like to call themselves by those labels or think of themselves as "fascist", yet for the majority there are very individual reasons as to why they subscribe to this kind of ideology. It usually boils down to simple old fashioned racism and/or xenophobia, but not always. Many can be just disillusioned types, who have fallen in with the wrong crowd. Islamist extremist groups are similar, in that it's usually the young, vulnerable and impressionable who make up the numbers as "foot soldiers". They lend a willing ear to simplified explanations of the world's problems which place the blame on a specific group of people, religion or country - not much different to some neo nazi/far right groups (or whatever they're called nowadays) in that respect.
None of the countries you referred to are "leftist", yet two of them in particular certainly have become breeding grounds for islamist terror groups.
You could justifiably complain about "leftists", if you had a good case that "leftist" policies were sowing the seeds of this kind of thing, as it stands, the main terror targets have been occupied countries, western countries and their allies - the breeding grounds have certainly not been "leftist" states either.
Going for gold in the para-olympics of missing the point I guess
Oh no I got that point, I can assure you...
Oh no I got that point, I can assure you...
Good, don't put too much weight on it
Kadagar_AV
09-23-2013, 16:58
Yes, communism was great when Stalin didn't do that islamopolist respect thingie.
And I totally agree that white people would never falls for anything stupid the same way brown people do. I mean really, if someone denied half our children education we'd still continue to breed Einsteins and rocket engineers because we're whites and we invented enlightenment because of that. Also Asians are good at maths and blondes are all stupid.
The enlightenment brought a rather broad cultural change. You disagree?
You honestly think western christians is as "god fearing" as african and middle eastern muslims?
About the intelligence thing... I guess the jury is still out on that one. I for one have seen few African countries, communities or persons thrive. Even when given equal chance (or even better, get a better chance - like short cuts to university education aso) they seem to still do pretty bad.
Might be cultural, might be racial, might be a complete fluke :shrug:
But don't close your eyes and hold for your ears going "la la la la la" hoping the problem will stop existing just because you want to have a politically correct and "nice" world view.
About the intelligence thing... I guess the jury is still out on that one. I for one have seen few African countries, communities or persons thrive. Even when given equal chance (or even better, get a better chance - like short cuts to university education aso) they seem to still do pretty bad.
Might be cultural, might be racial, might be a complete fluke :shrug:
Perhaps it's due to misrule, bad government and foreign interference/intervention?
There are historical reasons as to why the middle east and Africa are how they are today. One of the biggest factors in Africa, Latin America and eastern Asia is colonialism, whether some like to admit it or not. Some of the worst regimes/leaders we have seen in Africa, such as Mobutu were propped up and bankrolled, in some cases installed, by former colonial powers, the US and others. It's not going to take decades for things to improve there, it's going to take centuries. This is because though they may leave the former colonies to self govern, they like to leave them in the hands of some willing puppet who will dance to the same tune.
But don't close your eyes and hold for your ears going "la la la la la" hoping the problem will stop existing just because you want to have a politically correct and "nice" world view.
:laugh4:
This pretty much sums up the politically correct ostriching that the West has been doing for the past 20 years. It really needs to stop ASAP. That of course is entirely dependent on whether or not Europeans care to save their culture from people with culture. I'm not worried about America one bit: we're far away from the troublesome regions and we have a knack for cracking and assimilating anything and everything. Europe worries me though.
Kadagar_AV
09-23-2013, 17:48
Perhaps it's due to misrule, bad government and foreign interference/intervention?
There are historical reasons as to why the middle east and Africa are how they are today. One of the biggest factors in Africa, Latin America and eastern Asia is colonialism, whether some like to admit it or not. Some of the worst regimes/leaders we have seen in Africa, such as Mobutu were propped up and bankrolled, in some cases installed, by former colonial powers, the US and others. It's not going to take decades for things to improve there, it's going to take centuries. This is because though they may leave the former colonies to self govern, they like to leave them in the hands of some willing puppet who will dance to the same tune.
Oh, that's why black Americans still struggle on even the USAnian intellectual market? Cool story bro.
Same here in the west, black people just don't seem to do very well even after a few generations, where they have gone to the same school and had all the same (or better) benefits from their surrounding society.
We can blame their general failure on a Humpdey Dumbte amount of unquantifiable factors and go on with a failing system, or we could just admit that they have special needs.
When it comes to racial comparison, I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that groups separated for several tens of thousands of years - with very different environments - would evolve identically mentally and physically.
Bah, who am I kidding, we know that there are differences. It's just not politically correct to admit it.
Montmorency
09-23-2013, 17:50
I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that groups separated for several tens of thousands of years would evolve identically mentally and physically.
And yet you treat "black" as a race. :rolleyes:
And yet you treat "black" as a race. :rolleyes:
Blacks in America have formed a very distinct culture as well. It's not very successful, but extremely well defined.
I'm not worried about America one bit: we're far away from the troublesome regions and we have a knack for cracking and assimilating anything and everything.
Blacks in America have formed a very distinct culture as well. It's not very successful, but extremely well defined.
I see, very distinct and extremely well defined culture = cracked and assimilated?
As for Kadaga, at which day exactly did enlightenment start and when was the day most Europeans stopped identifying themselves as christian? And how did Europeans treat other cultures during their age of enlightenment?
Also how did Islam get from enlightenment to terrorism and how long did it take Europeans to destoy all progress the Romans had made?
Kadagar_AV
09-23-2013, 18:53
I see, very distinct and extremely well defined culture = cracked and assimilated?
As for Kadaga, at which day exactly did enlightenment start and when was the day most Europeans stopped identifying themselves as christian? And how did Europeans treat other cultures during their age of enlightenment?
Also how did Islam get from enlightenment to terrorism and how long did it take Europeans to destoy all progress the Romans had made?
What has that to do with the question at hand?
My point is -> Black people seem to do sub par regardless of whatever.
As to the arabs, what does it matter what year the enlightenment happened and so on? The important thing is THAT it happened, and had a big impact on the western world compared to the muslim world.
Rhyfelwyr
09-23-2013, 19:02
I used to share Kadagar's suspicions on racial differences. But while I remain unaquinted with other races, I've seen enough stuff going on in white communities to realise that culture probably is the best explanation for why some groups achieve, and others do not.
When it comes to racial comparison, I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that groups separated for several tens of thousands of years - with very different environments - would evolve identically mentally and physically.
Talking about different environments - consider how many there are of these in Africa. It covers desert, tropical and temperate climate zones; supporting both settled and nomadic, both urban and rural civilizations. When the Celts were still wandering nomands (or living in huts, depending on your origin theory), black Nubians/Kushites/Ethiopians has some quite well developed cities, agriculture and trade links, especially around the Red Sea area near Yemen.
Even just a single millenia ago, far deeper into Africa, the city of Great Zimbabwe was greater than almost any found in Northern Europe at the time.
I see, very distinct and extremely well defined culture = cracked and assimilated?
Yes. Their original culture was for the most part destroyed by slavery, so they came up with a new one. It's very distinct and very well defined.
I used to share Kadagar's suspicions on racial differences. But while I remain unaquinted with other races, I've seen enough stuff going on in white communities to realise that culture probably is the best explanation for why some groups achieve, and others do not.
Indeed. It's all about the culture.
Montmorency
09-23-2013, 19:15
It's not very successful, but extremely well defined.
Now see, that runs into a similar fallacy.
There is no "black" culture in America, and if there ever was it was in generations past. Today, there is a, speaking very generally, a African-American poor-urban culture, a African-American poor-rural culture, a middle-class African-American culture, and a wealthy African-American culture. The last two are quite close to their "white" counterparts. Don't mistake the prominence of the so-called "hiphop" culture in the mass media as evidence for some broad "black culture". And at any rate that has nothing to do with racial categories per se...
Their original culture was for the most part destroyed by slavery
The slaves, though coming for the most part from a relatively narrow slice of Africa, belonged to dozens of different cultures, tribes, language groups, what-have-you. Quit reducing diversity to skin-color.
My point is -> Black people seem to do sub par regardless of whatever.
There's a certain choice you're making here. We could take these sundry and diverse 'tropically-adapted' peoples and attribute their 'problems' to easily demonstrable and clear-cut historical, political, and socio-economic factors -
or we could claim that all these groups are pretty much the same and that they're innately less capable than everyone else.
The problem with the latter is that you make pretty huge assumptions without testing any of them, and finally come to a very big conclusion merely by extrapolating from the assumptions.
'If "black" is a valid racial classification with numerous significant shared structural attributes, and blacks "do poorly" in every environment, and the usual factors don't have much relevance to this point, then there is something inherent to 'blackness' that is responsible'.
You don't see any issues whatsoever with those three assumptions? Really?
There is no "black" culture in America, and if there ever was it was in generations past.
Sure there is. It manifests itself in their language, their ethics, their politics.
Montmorency
09-23-2013, 19:31
Sure there is. It manifests itself in their language, their ethics, their politics.
You are saying African Americans predominantly speak the same way, share the same ethics, and have the same politics.
The point is that this is not so.
You are saying African Americans predominantly speak the same way, share the same ethics, and have the same politics. The point is that this is not so.
And it's not a very convincing point TBH.
Montmorency
09-23-2013, 19:38
And so, what basis do you have for that sentiment besides stereotypes and music videos?
And so, what basis do you have for that sentiment besides stereotypes and music videos?
Politics and statistics. I see what happens to cities and towns run by the carriers of Black culture. I see their voting patterns, their prison population statistics, out-of-wedlock birth rates, etc. The list is very big.
Montmorency
09-23-2013, 19:51
I see what happens to cities and towns run by the carriers of Black culture.
Again, a black culture suddenly for you becomes the black culture. It isn't even a majority culture, so...
their voting patterns
It's interesting to note that while more than 90% of those identifying as "black" voted Democrat in the 2012 presidential election, a quarter of politically-affiliated blacks are Republican or Independent.
their prison population statistics, out-of-wedlock birth rates
Soooo - you still don't think it makes sense to distinguish between poor, middle-class, and rich blacks? They're all the same? Huh.
their prison population statistics
Accounting for economic class and the fact that blacks do drugs at the same rate as whites yet are arrested 3-8 times as much, there wouldn't be such a discrepancy.
out-of-wedlock birth rates
Among many poor blacks.
Again, I'm just pointing out that poor blacks are quite different than the others.
And we haven't even touched upon African immigrants, who really have nothing at all in common with the culture you have in mind.
You are not spending enough time in poor white communities.
That's not true... just this Summer a business trip took me to central Missouri, the Northern border of the Ozarks. The area is wretchedly poor and totally White, but at the same time conservative and with almost non-existent violent crime. Safe enough that people don't lock their cars when shopping. Try that in Detroit or Flint :laugh4:
Kadagar_AV
09-23-2013, 19:57
There's a certain choice you're making here. We could take these sundry and diverse 'tropically-adapted' peoples and attribute their 'problems' to easily demonstrable and clear-cut historical, political, and socio-economic factors -
or we could claim that all these groups are pretty much the same and that they're innately less capable than everyone else.
The problem with the latter is that you make pretty huge assumptions without testing any of them, and finally come to a very big conclusion merely by extrapolating from the assumptions.
'If "black" is a valid racial classification with numerous significant shared structural attributes, and blacks "do poorly" in every environment, and the usual factors don't have much relevance to this point, then there is something inherent to 'blackness' that is responsible'.
You don't see any issues whatsoever with those three assumptions? Really?
*as to the bold part*
Me?
I am the one stating that people with black colour, regardless of shade, do worse intellectually than others. YOU are the one making pretty big assumptions without testing them.
Can it be because of cultural factors? Sure :shrug:
However, that doesnt mean that black people don't have a problem, as they don't seem to change this culture very fast, nor work on it very hard.
However, there are also some physical differences that plays into culture. Testosterone levels as an example... They are not the same between black people and white people, this plays into aggression issues and so on...
There are as much differences in the DNA between blacks and whites, as there is within each sub group. This is true. HOWEVER, and this is important, so try to follow me here... It's NOT the same differences, see?
And if you think DNA, testosterone levels, difference in brain build and so on plays no role in shaping a culture... Then I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Now if those folks in the Ozarks lived in the same population density as poor blacks in Detroit, what do you think would happen?
It's very similar to Flint in terms of population density. And Flint is a scary mini-Detroit.
Montmorency
09-23-2013, 20:02
I am the one stating that people with black colour, regardless of shade, do worse intellectually than others. YOU are the one making pretty big assumptions without testing them.
Wow. I hope this is ironic.
It's NOT the same differences, see?
By your claim, almost all "white" groups should have more genetic similarity to other white groups than to any "black" groups, and almost all black groups should have more geneti similarity to other black groups than to any white groups. This has not been shown to be true. In fact, rather the opposite.
Also, apparently we have determined all genetic differences between all groups, including ones that we've otherwise invented...
Kadagar_AV
09-23-2013, 20:06
Now if those folks in the Ozarks lived in the same population density as poor blacks in Detroit, what do you think would happen?
You would of course see a slight change in culture, but crime levels and education problems would still be FAR from the level of blacks.
Look at Japan, they live about ten million people per square inch, and they have extremely low crime rates. Regardless of if they are poor or rich. Culture plays a BIG part, of course.
In Sweden, I see how poor Swedes organize demonstrations, while poor blacks burn cars and generally riot. Only difference in condition is that the black people get MUCH more money for schools, more youth centers, libraries, football fields and so on... Not that it helps, as there is an elephant in the room.
By your claim, almost all "white" groups should have more genetic similarity to other white groups than to any "black" groups, and almost all black groups should have more geneti similarity to other black groups than to any white groups. This has not been shown to be true. In fact, rather the opposite.
Ahem, there's this thing called mitochondrial DNA. It's propagated via mothers' genes and is very slow to change with no observable changes for about 10000 years or so. Scientists tested mitochondrial DNA of people all over the world and found some interesting results:
In sub-Saharan Africa there were multiple mitochondrial DNA groups with many variations, sometimes significant. The rest of the world belonged to a single (as in "one") mitochondrial DNA group. So yes, the "non-blacks" are similar to each other in this sense. What does it mean (if anything), who knows? Just sayin'.
What has that to do with the question at hand?
My point is -> Black people seem to do sub par regardless of whatever.
As has been pointed out, they already did quite well for a long time until brutish barbarians came and destroyed their cultures.
If by doing well you mean being stronger militarily then you have a very weird definition of doing well and should love America a lot more than you do.
As to the arabs, what does it matter what year the enlightenment happened and so on? The important thing is THAT it happened, and had a big impact on the western world compared to the muslim world.
The arabs were quite developed way before us and were quite tolerant, then it changed. And our enlightenment took centuries to fully develop, yet you expect other people to go the same way in a few years while they have quite a few other conflicts to solve as well. A lot of arabs have come a long way anyway and to throw them all into the terrorist basket is just silly, even Fragony admit that most muslims are not extremist.
Furthermore we continue to provide these people with outside enemies by invading their countries, which conveniently distracts them or is used to distract them from solving their own internal problems and advancing their societies. But no, just because thir cultures don't radically change within an iPhone generation, they have to be naturally inferior...
Yes. Their original culture was for the most part destroyed by slavery, so they came up with a new one. It's very distinct and very well defined.
Where is the awesome assimilation there?
Where is the awesome assimilation there?
Didn't you read what I posted? Their original culture was destroyed.
Kadagar_AV
09-23-2013, 20:15
Wow. I hope this is ironic.
By your claim, almost all "white" groups should have more genetic similarity to other white groups than to any "black" groups, and almost all black groups should have more geneti similarity to other black groups than to any white groups. This has not been shown to be true. In fact, rather the opposite.
Also, apparently we have determined all genetic differences between all groups, including ones that we've otherwise invented...
What would be ironic? Fact is, blacks are more prone to fail intellectually. This is a seen effect. YOU are the one making assumptions as to why, while I just state that they fail.
And I don't know what you know of DNA, but YES, there very very very much exists plenty of mutations that separates blacks from whites, that all (or some) whites have in common. Skin colour comes to mind...
You honestly think populations would evolve identically when separated? I am NOT saying that there isn't huge differences between sub groups, but hey, AGAIN (this is the important bit) THESE ARE NOT THE SAME DIFFERENCES.
Gah!
Of course every separate group has close ties to black people, as Africa is the motherland of Humanity. But it has been very very very much proven that there is DNA differences between the people who stayed in Africa, and those who went away. Again, skin colour comes to mind.
Os is that just a cultural factor as well? :dizzy2:
Rhyfelwyr
09-23-2013, 20:15
That's not true... just this Summer a business trip took me to central Missouri, the Northern border of the Ozarks. The area is wretchedly poor and totally White, but at the same time conservative and with almost non-existent violent crime. Safe enough that people don't lock their cars when shopping. Try that in Detroit or Flint :laugh4:
Without posting particular personal information, I used to live in a 100% white area that at times would honestly make GTA look tame. It is completely saturated with a very visible gang culture and a hatred of the police and anything seen as being part of the establishment. So white communities can end up like that too.
There is no "black" culture in America, and if there ever was it was in generations past. Today, there is a, speaking very generally, a African-American poor-urban culture, a African-American poor-rural culture, a middle-class African-American culture, and a wealthy African-American culture. The last two are quite close to their "white" counterparts. Don't mistake the prominence of the so-called "hiphop" culture in the mass media as evidence for some broad "black culture".
While speaking purely in terms of black culture is too simplistic, I think your own divisions here are equally rigid (even when generally speaking). I think culture is something that has many layers, and, as a non-American, I do get the sense that there is some sort of overarching "black consciousness" that is shared by blacks of different backgrounds in America, I guess as a consequence of their shared history/experiences.
Kadagar_AV
09-23-2013, 20:15
doubble post
Rhyfelwyr
09-23-2013, 20:17
while poor blacks burn cars and generally riot.
Seen plently of that from whites as well. How do you respond to that?
...So white communities can end up like that too.
They certainly can, but generally don't.
Kadagar_AV
09-23-2013, 20:21
Without posting particular personal information, I used to live in a 100% white area that at times would honestly make GTA look tame. It is completely saturated with a very visible gang culture and a hatred of the police and anything seen as being part of the establishment. So white communities can end up like that too.
While speaking purely in terms of black culture is too simplistic, I think your own divisions here are equally rigid (even when generally speaking). I think culture is something that has many layers, and, as a non-American, I do get the sense that there is some sort of overarching "black consciousness" that is shared by blacks of different backgrounds in America, I guess as a consequence of their shared history/experiences.
Well Rhyf, thing is, that you cant compare the cesspool where a community (Great Britain) send their scum (through socioeconomical means) to British white culture at large.
Just like you wouldnt compare your home to someones elses toilet, you would compare it to their home, no?
Montmorency
09-23-2013, 20:24
Ahem, there's this thing called mitochondrial DNA. It's propagated via mothers' genes and is very slow to change with no observable changes for about 10000 years or so. Scientists tested mitochondrial DNA of people all over the world and found some interesting results:
In sub-Saharan Africa there were multiple mitochondrial DNA groups with many variations, sometimes significant. The rest of the world belonged to a single (as in "one") mitochondrial DNA group. So yes, the "non-blacks" are similar to each other in this sense. What does it mean (if anything), who knows? Just sayin'.
It might be surprising for some to learn that most research has found the vast majority of genetic variation occurs between members of the same "group" - whether geographical, cultural, or racial - than between groups.
Surely a proper taxonomical "race" should have the members distributed such that there is minimal genetic variation between them?
Skin-color as a phenotype for classifying into race just really sucks.
What would be ironic? Fact is, blacks are more prone to fail intellectually. This is a seen effect. YOU are the one making assumptions as to why, while I just state that they fail.
And I don't know what you know of DNA, but YES, there very very very much exists plenty of mutations that separates blacks from whites, that all (or some) whites have in common. Skin colour comes to mind...
You honestly think populations would evolve identically when separated? I am NOT saying that there isn't huge differences between sub groups, but hey, AGAIN (this is the important bit) THESE ARE NOT THE SAME DIFFERENCES.
Gah!
Of course every separate group has close ties to black people, as Africa is the motherland of Humanity. But it has been very very very much proven that there is DNA differences between the people who stayed in Africa, and those who went away. Again, skin colour comes to mind.
Os is that just a cultural factor as well?
You state that they fail, yet don't realize that this is an assumption? :freak:
Skin color, huh? Worthless. You just keep on making the same outdated and shoddy assumptions. Skin color is not a useful distinction, seriously. A racial category based upon nothing more than the shade of one's skin is utterly worthless, and has been for over a century.
So what are the differences, huh? If most variation is between groups, we are to accept that the most important and decisive variation is what occurs between groups? Sounds like a motivated inference.
While speaking purely in terms of black culture is too simplistic, I think your own divisions here are equally rigid (even when generally speaking). I think culture is something that has many layers, and, as a non-American, I do get the sense that there is some sort of overarching "black consciousness" that is shared by blacks of different backgrounds in America, I guess as a consequence of their shared history/experiences.
Even if we were to take such a thing for granted - which in this era I would hesitate to do - why should it be taken as defining all black cultures? Is individualism the defining trait of all American cultures?
Economics and situation are the only factors here. I can't believe some of you even entertain the idea that skin color could be a factor here.
Skin color? No. Culture? Hell yeah.
Rhyfelwyr
09-23-2013, 20:36
They certainly can, but generally don't.
I know, but I think we agree that that is not down to race.
Well Rhyf, thing is, that you cant compare the cesspool where a community (Great Britain) send their scum (through socioeconomical means) to British white culture at large.
Well I object to the greater part of my family being called scum, but whatever.
Anyway, I think you have the order of things a little confused. Britain does not "send its scum" to the most deprived areas - these "scum" are fostered in those environments. The point is, that environment is key. When separated from that environment, these people are otherwise milky-skinned beacons of Aryan supremacy, living in nice houses and shopping at Waitrose and doing all the things that superior people do.
Note how all the social ills of black communities can exist just as truly in white communities. What do they share in common? Environment. What do they not share in common? Race.
So, immediately, your straightforward approach has been challenged. I want you to offer a proper explanation for that.
Like I said, I used to sympathise with your outlook, but I've changed my opinions through experience, and that is where I am coming from.
I know, but I think we agree that that is not down to race.
Right. It's not genetically hardcoded or anything like that.
Kadagar_AV
09-23-2013, 20:42
You state that they fail, yet don't realize that this is an assumption? :freak:
Skin color, huh? Worthless. You just keep on making the same outdated and shoddy assumptions. Skin color is not a useful distinction, seriously. A racial category based upon nothing more than the shade of one's skin is utterly worthless, and has been for over a century.
So what are the differences, huh? If most variation is between groups, we are to accept that the most important and decisive variation is what occurs between groups? Sounds like a motivated inference.
They don't? Where are the black Nobel prize winners? Where are the thriving black countries? Why is Detroit the first US city to go bananas?
I don't need to make any assumptions to state that blacks fail at community building compared to whites (or whatever).
YOU are the one making assumptions as to why they fail, I just state THAT they fail. As we see pretty much all over the world in every single cultural setting. No?
As to the differences... I already brought up the difference between testosterone levels between blacks and whites. You mean testosterone has no impact on how we function?
And RVG already brought up the mitochondrial DNA differences between ALL blacks and the rest. You claim he is wrong, or that DNA has no impact on the person, and in extension, of course the community he participates in?
Rhyfelwyr
09-23-2013, 20:47
Even if we were to take such a thing for granted - which in this era I would hesitate to do - why should it be taken as defining all black cultures? Is individualism the defining trait of all American cultures?
As an outsider, I feel I am poorly placed to say whether or not a shared ethnic aspect dominates all of America's black sub-cultures. I may well be outdated/wrong, but I'm just going off things like voting patterns, where it seems that black support for the Democrats holds even when they break into more typically Republican social-strata.
Fine. That culture is consumerism, though. Blacks are way better capitalists than whites. What you see in ghettos and black communities that so disgusts you is soon to come to a white community near you, thanks to our lovely economic system. Blacks got it first because they were easy to prey on.
I don't know, I think there is more to it than capitalism gone mad. I know that for blacks in the UK, they often come from cultures where it is seen as unmanly to do non-manual work - which is of course the way to succeed in the modern world. Things like this can still make a big difference. On top of that, blacks in America struggled even to identify with America and its culture, hence I suppose Nation of Islam and the like.
Kadagar_AV
09-23-2013, 20:47
I know, but I think we agree that that is not down to race.
Well I object to the greater part of my family being called scum, but whatever.
Anyway, I think you have the order of things a little confused. Britain does not "send its scum" to the most deprived areas - these "scum" are fostered in those environments. The point is, that environment is key. When separated from that environment, these people are otherwise milky-skinned beacons of Aryan supremacy, living in nice houses and shopping at Waitrose and doing all the things that superior people do.
Note how all the social ills of black communities can exist just as truly in white communities. What do they share in common? Environment. What do they not share in common? Race.
So, immediately, your straightforward approach has been challenged. I want you to offer a proper explanation for that.
Like I said, I used to sympathise with your outlook, but I've changed my opinions through experience, and that is where I am coming from.
Sorry Rhyf, I in no way meant to insult you or your family. But I understand how what I wrote could have been understood that way.
My point is, that ability has a big impact on social standing. Those who "make it" probably move away from there, no?
If you want to take a deprived english area as example, you must compare it to a black area that is deprived within the black norm. You cant compare a deprived english area to all blacks (or all whites).
I hope I made my point more clear now, not to mention non-insulting :)
Montmorency
09-23-2013, 20:54
They don't? Where are the black Nobel prize winners? Where are the thriving black countries? Why is Detroit the first US city to go bananas?
I don't need to make any assumptions to state that blacks fail at community building compared to whites (or whatever).
YOU are the one making assumptions as to why they fail, I just state THAT they fail.
So, it's one thing to say all that, and quite another to say that it's because they're inherently genetically inferior, which is what you are doing. That's a pretty big assumption.
As we see pretty much all over the world in every single cultural setting. No?
Um, no. :inquisitive:
As to the differences... I already brought up the difference between testosterone levels between blacks and whites. You mean testosterone has no impact on how we function?
You mean the one that does not exist (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23354421)?
And RVG already brought up the mitochondrial DNA differences between ALL blacks and the rest. You claim he is wrong, or that DNA has no impact on the person, and in extension, of course the community he participates in?
Um, what? Where are you getting that notion from?
Rhyfelwyr
09-23-2013, 21:02
My point is, that ability has a big impact on social standing. Those who "make it" probably move away from there, no?
I know one guy who made it out and did well for himself legitimately, but only as a consequence of becoming a Christian and having a strong network outside the community to help him. But on the whole, no. The culture sucks you in, you are either going to be a bully or a victim. If you want to "make it", you make it within the rules of that world. Kids want to be the bad boys when they grow up, its just a normal human reaction, young guys are like that, full of testosterone whether black or white.
Now I've never lived in a poor black area, but I get the feeling that the culture is much the same.
If you want to take a deprived english area as example, you must compare it to a black area that is deprived within the black norm. You cant compare a deprived english area to all blacks (or all whites).
I hope I made my point more clear now, not to mention non-insulting :)
I'm not sure what you mean by "deprived within the black norm". Would Easterhouse (in Glasgow) v Soweto be a valid comparison? A poor area in a developed nation v a poor area in a developing nation, just because that is the "black norm"?
I think you should try to negate as many influencing factors as possible, and work from there.
Ironside
09-23-2013, 21:21
It's very similar to Flint in terms of population density. And Flint is a scary mini-Detroit.
Different city mentality. While size influences it, they won't be the same. Take two cities of about the same size and in the same region. The first one calls the second "Little Stockholm" (think New York) as a derogatory, while the second takes it as compliment. Basically, it's an overgrown village vs a regional capital in attitude. Worker cities are different from student cities in attitude, the type of buissness and more stuff I've probably missed. And it sticks around, even quick changes are meassured in decades.
Didn't you read what I posted? Their original culture was destroyed.
But that is not assimilation, assimilation means that they adopt your culture and become like you.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assimilate
to cause (a person or group) to become part of a different society, country, etc.
to adopt the ways of another culture : to fully become part of a different society, country, etc.
If they have their own black american culture that they formed despite the readily available white american culture, then they're not assimilated.
[etc]
I would say that the US is not a good example to use in your arguments, as equal rights for blacks only came about in the 60's - legally - and everyone didn't just stop being racist and intolerant over night...
Papewaio
09-25-2013, 00:31
Australia is worse then the US. Australian aboriginals only got removed from the wildlife census to the human one after a 1967 referendum.
To be more precise aboriginals weren't counted for the purposes of the number of federal reps or division of money to states. It was often more a means for state vs state rivalry then just racism.
Pffffffft, another day the same religion, people who have culture shooting 26 students in their sleep and burning down stuff, you just got to respect that.
Edit, hmmm looks like the estimates were a bit low, looks like people who have culture mutually respected over 50 in their sleep. Leftist people know, for a fact, that islam is peace and an enrichment. But I wonder.
Rhyfelwyr
09-29-2013, 14:04
Kenya is a well-known oasis of "cultural enrichment" and diversity within Africa, precisely because it has a mixture of Christians and Muslims who live peacefully together. The vast majority of Kenya's Muslims (and Muslims in general) are peaceful and live happily together with Christians. This is the "enrichment" that people praise. Nobody AT ALL in the West is suggesting that Al-Shabab's idea of Islam is somehow positive or an "enrichment" of culture.
Fragony, I think that we have all come to such a consensus on this topic (violent Muslims = bad, most Muslims = good), you are simply using provocative language to stir up an argument, because without this to argue about, you lose your main 'thing' on these forums.
They certainly can, but generally don't.
They do. I have seen it all the time in Europe. Britain, France, all the way to the east, Poland, Russia, etc. I have even seen them in America too on TV, in news, tv shows and films.
They all have something in common, they are all poor socio-economically. So I think that is the connection rather than the amount of melatonin in the skin cells.
Leftist people know, for a fact, that islam is peace and an enrichment. But I wonder.
Leftist people know the majority of Muslims are not violent and just normal people hailing from a different more turmoil region of the world. They believe they shouldn't lock people up without a fair trial or shoot them for simply being 'Muslim'.
Kenya is a well-known oasis of "cultural enrichment" and diversity within Africa, precisely because it has a mixture of Christians and Muslims who live peacefully together. The vast majority of Kenya's Muslims (and Muslims in general) are peaceful and live happily together with Christians. This is the "enrichment" that people praise. Nobody AT ALL in the West is suggesting that Al-Shabab's idea of Islam is somehow positive or an "enrichment" of culture.
Fragony, I think that we have all come to such a consensus on this topic (violent Muslims = bad, most Muslims = good), you are simply using provocative language to stir up an argument, because without this to argue about, you lose your main 'thing' on these forums.
I can't deny you got a point there, but it's something I am rather passionate about. You are wrong in the last part though, I have many other bad qualities.
Strike For The South
09-29-2013, 18:33
No crime in the Ozarks?
Is the meth epidemic over?
a completely inoffensive name
09-29-2013, 18:55
This is what the entire thread comes down to.
http://xkcd.com/385/
This is what the entire thread comes down to.
http://xkcd.com/385/
Redicule is 100% normal, but the facts don't change. Denial doesn't have the fortitude to counter reality, and the reality is that muslims are attacking non-muslims. Constantly.
Ironside
09-30-2013, 09:40
Redicule is 100% normal, but the facts don't change. Denial doesn't have the fortitude to counter reality, and the reality is that muslims are attacking non-muslims. Constantly.
And those non-muslims has survived in that country for over a millenia of Islamic rule. So of course we are now seeing the true face of Islam, compared to that false face that lasted for a millenia or more. :dizzy2:
It's a huge imbalance between construction and preservation and destruction. Destruction only needs to win once, while preservation needs to win every day into inifinity.
It's relativily new. But yeah christians were allowed to live there as long as they paid protection-money. But attacks on christians are rampant nowadays. Let's take Egypt for example, 70 churches burned down in the good part of a year. That is happening all over north and central-africa, muslims attacking non-muslims or the wrong muslims. Let's not even begin about the terror-attacks and the genocide in Darfur. But nah, it's all fine, all incidents, nothing fundamentally wrong with the islam.
But nah, it's all fine, all incidents, nothing fundamentally wrong with the islam.
That happened to Christianity too. The history of Europe is like that. Just through the war and the bloodshed, Christianity became far more moderate as a while than Islam currently is. However, there are moderate and lay muslims who don't do any of that. Why should they be persecuted by us for nothing wrong.
It is not Islam, it is peoples attitudes and some people in the turmoil and desperate areas do these things and no one has ever said they are acceptable. The Muslims I know voice displeasure over these incidents, saying it is not even the way of Islam. Should they be rounded up and persecuted by fascists?
You yourself have supported Muslims, you speak about the troubles in Iran, Turkey and other areas of the world. How come you some how discoonect your own efforts with those you are voicing your opinions against, when you are insulting them for things you do yourself.
That happened to Christianity too. The history of Europe is like that. Just through the war and the bloodshed, Christianity became far more moderate as a while than Islam currently is. However, there are moderate and lay muslims who don't do any of that. Why should they be persecuted by us for nothing wrong.
It is not Islam, it is peoples attitudes and some people in the turmoil and desperate areas do these things and no one has ever said they are acceptable. The Muslims I know voice displeasure over these incidents, saying it is not even the way of Islam. Should they be rounded up and persecuted by fascists?
You yourself have supported Muslims, you speak about the troubles in Iran, Turkey and other areas of the world. How come you some how discoonect your own efforts with those you are voicing your opinions against, when you are insulting them for things you do yourself.
I don't want to do anything to them, I know perfectly well that the majority of the muslims only concern is what's for dinner. But I will critisize what I think is wrong, and I think there is something wrong with islam. Sure I support the Iranians and the Turks who share my own humanistic values. Muslims and islam just aren't the same thing for me. Why would I dislike LEN or Mouz. I don't. And I am pretty sure they know that. I am also pretty sure they understand me better than you do.
Papewaio
10-03-2013, 11:57
So in short Fragony equates Islam with the Inquistion.
A religious insitution that is fundamentally wrong and dangerous to the everyday human practitioners.
So in short Fragony equates Islam with the Inquistion.
A religious insitution that is fundamentally wrong and dangerous to the everyday human practitioners.
In a way. But Islamism is rather new. Political islam is from from 1920 or so. Hence the destinction between muslims and islam
Montmorency
10-03-2013, 12:21
I think I get it. Fragony sees political Islam and Islam as equivalent.
Contemporary Islam is inherently political Islam, or something like that.
I think I get it. Fragony sees political Islam and Islam as equivalent.
Contemporary Islam is inherently political Islam, or something like that.
Oh ffs I am not that stupid, I am perfectly aware of the details of the rise of the political islam. Or should we call it nationalism. Would do.
Papewaio
10-03-2013, 23:59
So you are against Islamic facism then?
So you are against Islamic facism then?
Aren't you then? I got nothing against normal muslims, people don't realise how scared they are of these guys. They have a reason to be scared as nobody is going to help them as respect is more important for self-congratulators.
Forgot about the shopping mall but that was yesterday, church is today. I am not 100% sure of that, but islam clearly sucks. And obviously isn't peace. Could be mistaken with the other hundreds of attacks on churches by muslims there are just too many to keep up with
You didn't specify which type of muslim/islam you were referring to in this post.
You didn't specify which type of muslim/islam you were referring to in this post.
The type you seemingly absolutily adore and will always excuse. That one. That really really bad one.
Well before it was:
"islam clearly sucks. And obviously isn't peace"
"I have zero-respect for the islam. I think it's a sck ideoligy"
Now it's: "I got nothing against normal muslims" etc...
Initially, you didn't differentiate between the "normal" muslims and the others... you just said: "islam clearly sucks. And obviously isn't peace"
I think most of us live in a world where there are more than just the "normal" muslims and the type I "absolutely adore and will always excuse"...
Well before it was:
"islam clearly sucks. And obviously isn't peace"
"I have zero-respect for the islam. I think it's a sck ideoligy"
Now it's: "I got nothing against normal muslims" etc...
Initially, you didn't differentiate between the "normal" muslims and the others... you just said: "islam clearly sucks. And obviously isn't peace"
I think most of us live in a world where there are more than just the "normal" muslims and the type I "absolutely adore and will always excuse"...
So where is the ambiguity than, there is nothing there I didn't explain.
Papewaio
10-05-2013, 14:17
Well for most of us in an English speaking country
Islam is to Muslims what Christianity is to Christians.
So it seemed you were saying all Muslims by saying Islam. When you probably meant Islamism which is the fundamentalist political factions. The ism is a huge difference.
What caravel says has actually happened in numerous threads over the past few years.
I always get the feeling that everyone either forgets this or Fragony didn't explain it well enough the last dozen times while he always assumes everybody knows what he means, then phrases it in the wrong generic terms again until I get kinda confused what he means as well. Then he explains it again and so on.
Generally it would help if you voiced your opinions a bit more precise Frags, could avoid a lot of needless discussion that way.
Oh and maybe drop the whole thing about imaginary lefties who like and apologize for terrorism.
What caravel says has actually happened in numerous threads over the past few years.
I always get the feeling that everyone either forgets this or Fragony didn't explain it well enough the last dozen times while he always assumes everybody knows what he means, then phrases it in the wrong generic terms again until I get kinda confused what he means as well. Then he explains it again and so on.
Generally it would help if you voiced your opinions a bit more precise Frags, could avoid a lot of needless discussion that way.
Oh and maybe drop the whole thing about imaginary lefties who like and apologize for terrorism.
I explained the destiction I make very clearly. If you can't see me making it you are just too stupid to be in this discussion anyway. So farewell and goodbye, bon nuit et adieu.
I explained the destiction I make very clearly. If you can't see me making it you are just too stupid to be in this discussion anyway. So farewell and goodbye, bon nuit et adieu.
You didn't get my point, I said that you made the distinction numerous times yet in every new thread people end up thinking that you don't...
You didn't get my point, I said that you made the distinction numerous times yet in every new thread people end up thinking that you don't...
They are free to think that, just as I am free to think they are stupid. There is nothing absolutily not clear about how I see things if you just read what I say instead of suspecting anything else. But feel free to suspect me of anything anyway, those that do are wrong as I am totally harmless, but I was granted with two eyes to see and two ears to hear, and I will keep seeing and hearing and make my own conclusions.
They are free to think that, just as I am free to think they are stupid. There is nothing absolutily not clear about how I see things if you just read what I say instead of suspecting anything else. But feel free to suspect me of anything anyway, those that do are wrong as I am totally harmless, but I was granted with two eyes to see and two ears to hear, and I will keep seeing and hearing and make my own conclusions.
Well, my other point was that this might just happen because you constantly use terminology that is too broad and that noone else uses in the same way you do. Communication is not just about saying something however you want and then expecting others to know exactly what you meant. It doesn't work and that's partially why you have the reputation that you have. You can't say others are stupid because they don't get the ramblings full of connotations and connections which only exist in your brain.
That is the other side of the coin where you could actually improve your posting style if you do not want to continuously be "misunderstood".
This site (http://capcourse-verbalcomm-studentfancymel.blogspot.de/2011/07/effective-communication-welcome-all-to.html) has an explanation of how communication works. Let me quote the important part:
3. Encoding the message – translating communication into an understandable message, utilizing appropriate symbols. The sender must Encode/translate the message to be sent and shared into a form and symbols that the receiver will be able to understand. Encoding involves the selection of words, symbols, sounds, and non verbal movements (gestures) to convey the message content and meaning that the source wishes to transmit and shared with others. Many communication problems can develop at this stage.
If you say "Islam" instead of e.g. "violent political Islam", you shouldn't be surprised if you are misunderstood because you didn't use the proper way to encode your intended message.
And just to be balanced, this is for the people who should've read Fragony's prior explanations:
Your own preconceptions and biases can represent a barrier to communication. Prior interactions with people may have caused you to form opinions about them that may impact how closely you listen to them or how you view their comments and opinions. With strangers you may be impacted by the way they look or their manner of speech and may quickly form opinions that may be inaccurate. Being alert to your own potential for bias can help to avoid this common barrier in communication.
~D
What can I say, life would be empty without any poetry.
Rhyfelwyr
10-06-2013, 14:20
Fragony, I think that we have all come to such a consensus on this topic (violent Muslims = bad, most Muslims = good), you are simply using provocative language to stir up an argument, because without this to argue about, you lose your main 'thing' on these forums.
I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu here...
I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu here...
Can't be me because I am in the Netherland at the moment
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.