Total posts: 1,201
-->
@Stephen
- Stephen, have you ever been in a Muslim country?Yes.
- I don't think so, but which?
I invite you to come visit, maybe we can discuss over a cup of tea.No.
- That's cold, man. You don't like tea?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What tautologies...?This oneDefinition:God is a Necessary (necessarily existent) Singular (simple & unique) Absolute (with absolutely free will) & Transcendent (distinct from all creation) being, from the scriptural definition of Allah in Chapter 112 of the Quran.
- LOL! No it isn't. Seriously?! -_-
Let's try this.Definition:God is a Necessary (necessarily existent) Singular (simple & unique) Absolute (with absolutely free will) & Transcendent (distinct from all creation) being, definition of the FSM courtesy of The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti MonsterNow I did not look in The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster I just copied your text but the FSM is perportedly all those things so even if the wording is different than yours let's consider this an approximation. Now does this deffinition necessitate the flying spaghetti monster? If the definition is not enough then logicallyArgument:1. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed) exists. [ evident ]2. This contingent being has a cause of its existence. [ follows from 1. ]3. The cause of its existence is something other than itself. [ follows from 1. & 2. ]4. This cause must either be a contingent or a non-contingent -necessary- being. [ law of excluded middle ]5. Contingent beings solely are not sufficient for the existence of a contingent being. [ follows from 3. ]6. This cause must include a necessary being. [ follows from 4. & 5. ]7. Therefore, a Necessary being (a being such that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists. [ follows from 1. & 7. ]8. Two necessary distinct beings exist. [ assumption ]9. A difference between the distinct necessary beings exists. [ follows from 8. ]10. This difference is either necessary or contingent. [ law of excluded middle ]11. If the difference is necessary, then three necessary beings exist. [ absurd! ]12. If the difference is contingent (has a cause or an explanation for its existence), then at least one of the two necessary beings is contingent (has a cause or explanation for its/their existence). [ absurd! ]13. Therefore, a necessary being is one (i.e. unique). [ follows from 10. & 11. & 12.]14. Similarly, a necessary being is simple (i.e does not have parts) [ substitute "necessary beings" with "parts" in 9. ]15. Therefore, the necessary being is Singular (i.e. unique & simple). [ follows from 13. & 14. ]16. The sum of all contingent beings is not singular. [ evident ]17. Therefore, the sum of all contingent beings is Distinct from the necessary being. [follows from 15. & 16. ]18. Therefore, the necessary being is Transcendent from the sum all contingent beings. [ follows from 17. ]19. The sum of all contingent beings is contingent (not necessary, i.e. not identical to the necessary being). [ follows from 15. & 17. ]20. The sum of all contingent beings is contingent on a necessary being. [ follows from 2. & 3. & 6. & 19. ]21. The necessary being is the sole cause of the existence of the sum of all contingent beings. [ follows from 15. & 20. ]22. The attribute to cause the sum of all contingent being exists (Will). [ evident from 19. ]23. All contingent beings are equally non-existent prior to existence. [ evident ]24. The Will is Absolutely Free. [ follows from 22. & 23. ]25. Therefore, a Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being exists. [ follows from 7. & 15. & 18. & 24. ]C. Therefore, the FSM exits. [ as defined in The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster]I see no reason to accept the Quran and deny The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
- It's the strictly the same thing, you defined FSM as God is defined in the Quran. You can't accept one & deny the other, for they are one & identical The demonstration establishes that a Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being exists. This being just happens to be identical to God as defined in the Quran. Calling this being 'FSM' or '007' or '&(!%&)!' does not change the meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
1. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed) exists. [ evident ]
If this is true why are all gods the creation of men.
- Non-sequitur. Do you have an objection?
Created:
I'm not sure what you're referring to by the latter part of your comment, or even what your point is.
- My point was, if you have grievances & feel treated unfairly, that should help you understand others more, not dismiss & denigrate them. Injustice feels just as bad for everyone. Don't do unto others what you accuse others of doing unto you.
You're right. Palestine and Israel get along just fine. India and Pakistan are the best of buddies. Where is the harm?
- Israel is an occupying force. Pakistan (& India) comprise numerous different peoples, Pashtu, Sindh, Penjab...etc. The conflict is a political one born out of post-colonialism (like many other conflicts around the world), not an ethnic one. Plenty other places with peace too. But seriously, imagine in Australia having 'Native' communities in their own territories with their own rulers & rules & laws & systems, 'White' communities, 'Indian' communities, 'Chinese' communities, 'Muslim' communities,,, & so forth, accordingly ; all under one flag, one nation, with an overarching government (Australia is a federation already) with representatives from all communities, everybody is happy. What do you think?
Ah so you engage in the authoritarian jam-down, too. Great. You didn't make an argument here or refute anything I said. You're literally just appealing to authority (some imagined authority, mind you, because you're still too retarded to post sources to support your arguments) and hoping people won't notice. Pathetic.
- I made no arguments, true. There is nothing to argue against, you've stated inaccuracies. I simply suggested that you look more into this, you'll find plenty. Slavery brutality is a well documented & recorded history. You have to understand the *extreme* prejudice & callousness Whites had at the time against other races, & most of all the Black race, that's what led to things like the Holocaust. It doesn't leave a lot of room for kindness to your own property.
RACIST .... RACIST (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/174).
- Wut????
Whites, in general, were some of the kindest slave owners. Blacks grew taller than Whites, due to better nutrition. Black slaves worked about 400 less hours per year than the average free (White) farmer. In 2015, non-slaves were able to pick cotton at about 95% of the same rate the Black slaves did. Corporal punishment data is incredibly difficult to find, which is funny because you said that Whites were "brutal" -- provide evidence, please. I have the facts here. You only have your feelings hurt (https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/slavery-in-the-united-states/).
- Yes, I've read the article. I see everything you quote comes from this website. Facts!... It's probably talking about the condition of slaves in the North. Some of things mentioned in the article were accurate, such as working conditions between chattel slavery for Blacks & labor slavery for Whites, in that the former got it bad, but the latter got it worse. But claims of kindness & wellbeing as a norm is an exaggeration. Indeed there were kind slavers, Jefferson is one. But the norm as documented in the South was not such -with the exception of Utah. Slaves were prohibited from learning otherwise punished, along with those who attempt to teach them. They were often brutalized & subjugated... Runaway slaves executed or branded & tortured..etc! Maybe there is an alternative narrative to this alternative hypothesis?
Meanwhile, Arabs did nothing to end slavery.
- Well, you see, we have fundamentally different understanding of what 'slave' is. Western style slavery was never a thing in Islam, to even end it. A slave in Islam is someone in a contractual or non-contractual (Qin, Mudabbar, Um Walad, Mawla) patronage with his master, in which the latter is legally responsible for the maintenance & protection of the former, while the former is responsible for his service to the latter in that which benefits him but does not harm himself ; anything beyond that is no business of the master. A contractual patronage can be in the form of Mukharaja (the slave contracts his master or another employer for a wage against a service) ; or Mukatada (the slave contracts the master over working to buy back his freedom). Non-contractual patronage comes in many forms too...etc. To illustrate the difference, slaves made up two of the 4 ruling factions of the Ottoman empire, the military (Janissaries) & the harem (eunuchs & concubines). Slaves in the Ottoman empire were generals & commanders & officers. Even further, many Muslim dynasties who founded states were slaves, such as the Mamluk dynasty of India or the Mamalik Sultanate in the Middle East. So, we don't really share the same concept of 'slave'.
Yeah, Whites not being allowed to form racial groups is "fringe". It only affects all of Whites (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/915).
- How are Whites not allowed to form groups, that's a constitutional right?!!!
Created:
Droves of Muslims don't belong in Europe. They don't integrate, breed more than the natives and then push for Sharia --
- What do you mean exactly they don't integrate? & what do you mean by 'push for Sharia'? Muslims comprised at one point or another 1/4th European population for over a millennia, before they were all literally purged out of it by death or expulsion. I don't know if history is gunna repeat itself, but "belong" is a matter of perspective. There aren't that many Muslims in the EU (2-4%), even if they breed like rabbits it'll take decades & decades to even get to 10%, which is an average number in terms of immigrant population in the world. That said, Muslims in Europe are, for the most part, citizens who grew up in Europe, so for all intents & purposes they do belong in Europe, the same way you belong in Australia, because you were born there. Had you been born in Turkey, you'd be a Turkish citizen as well.
- this is covert invasion. Your slanderous terms mean nothing.
- Slanderous terms? Alright, but invasion involves force & armies & weapons & occupation...etc. It should be something like if Indonesia decided to expand down-under & came & bombed the sh*t out of beautiful Sydney, & threw the country in complete chaos. This is quite different from non-Whites born & living there. I would understand if new settles start to take over the natives, to dominate or displace them, to the point where they actually feel invaded, like what happened with the Palestinians & the Jews. But this is faaaar from being the case.
You constantly deflect onto the plight of Muslims, whenever I bring up the problems of White people.
- On the contrary, my plight is simple: injustice is not a monopoly. White people have problems, so do other peoples, a fact which our terrorist gunmen failed to appreciate, but I'm hoping you will. Had he realized that, he would not have committed what he did. What would you characterize as the biggest problems facing White people? What do you think about Colonialism? How do you envision the future of Muslims in Europe & Australia? Would you befriend or marry a Muslim? What is it you're most proud of from your heritage?
Add to that the fact that you don't think White people are demonized, and that racial hatred against Whites "isn't worth discussing", and these words of solidarity become obviously fake.
- Yes, I don't think White people are demonized as a whole. It's -mostly- White people on other White people, namely the progressive leaning side against the far-right & similar ideology. Of course I don't agree with this, it is indeed an unfair injustice. What isn't worth discussing, as I stated, is the comparison Muslim/White which seems absurd to me, as it is. One thing I can say is that in academia & entertainment especially -a heavily progressive world- the White male heterosexual religious figure has become a somewhat of a trendy nemesis. This really hasn't got anything to do with Whites people demonized, it's simply what the Western culture at large has attained at the moment in its goal to destroy the old paradigm symbolized by this nemesis.
"Too caught up in this Whiteness" lol. Being racially impartial is what got Whites into trouble in the first place. When Whites engaged in real politics (i.e. mostly racial), they got what they wanted: White spaces, more land and big empires.
- Are you referring to Colonialism? I don't think 'Whites' have ever been racially impartial. The notion is indeed so alien to me, maybe this is a Western thing, the Romans did it too. A race driven civilization, as opposed to tribe or religion or ethnicity or even dynasty. But indeed, Europeans procured the torch of civilization, created a miracle & established empires -which crumbled shortly before them (in historical terms), for they were rooted in racism & oppression. What did last long though is the ideals & spirit they spread, of virtue & justice & knowledge & the common good.
In fact, I might not be being caught up in Whiteness enough...
- Hahaha! That's nostalgia, I get it. But the thing is, the world has changed so much, & not in the favor of Whites. It was a glorious run, but civilizations & empires rise & fall. Probably the biggest catalyst of European decline is population, & our terrorist nutter knew it. Back then, 4 in 10 people were White. That's half the world population once you omit isolated populations. Now it's 1 in 9, & declining further in coming decades to 1 in 15 or less. Imagine when 1 in 2 people was White, the strong one can easily dominate the weak other. But with 1 in 15 people, where the others are getting stronger & stronger, it's impossible for the one to dominate the others, if any of them. Whites are becoming a rare breed, it's actually sad. I'd honestly rather have more White Europeans in the world than Blacks. Maybe now you know what you do. Didn't you wanna have a big family with lots of children? There is your answer.
Created:
Which is heavily influenced by the Jews (https://imgur.com/a/pZYfNMC).
- Holy shiz! This is a known fact, but DAYUMN! Even Fox News still manages to be the most pro-Israel among the bunch. WT*!!! Who knows, the people running the show here might also be Jewish, like in DDO.
It's quite the opposite? Racial hatred of White people isn't worth discussing? Is that why we have terms such as Whiteophobia, and not Islamophobia? Is that why SJWs, who reflect the current political norm pushed by media, attack people for being Muslims, and not White?
- Exactly! "Whiteophobia" in a White country by who?! Other White people? SJWs who are also mostly White supposedly "attacking" other Whites? There is no "Whiteophobia" or "Blackphobia", because that's called Racism. I'm talking about deaths & bombs & invasions, & you're talking about SJWs?! What you characterize as demonization of White people is none other than White people not agreeing with your position, which is ironically demonizing other peoples... This is why I say it's not worth discussing. This is like me complaining about Islamophobia in Turkey when other Muslims don't agree with me.
When were White people demonised as a whole? (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/915). This is a list I compiled in a couple of hours -- it's by no means comprehensive.
- I don't really get it. Why don't you explain it to me then. People generally feel more comfortable with their likes. I don't agree with the equal opportunity vs equal outcome formula, or gender & racial diversity (in representative positions), but what does that have to do with "no White groups" & "White pathology"? There should be nothing wrong with being proud of your heritage -for just cause, you have no identity if you aren't. But unfortunately the designation 'White pride' has been highjacked by neo-Nazi KKKs to incite racism, as opposed to celebrate White heritage. So this is just a meaningless game of labels, there is plenty of occasions & ways & groups & holidays & festivals in which White can celebrate their heritage & history. If I hold an ISIS flag & call it 'Islamic pride', no one is gunna take too kindly to that. In fact, it is White people themselves who destroyed much of their culture & history & heritage, & replaced it by a whole lot of emptiness & soullessness. If Whites truly care about their heritage, they should revive it, & celebrate it in its full glory. Shouting "White pride" isn't it. The Chivalry, the Mores, the poetry, the faith, the Honor, the faithfulness. God...
I'm sorry to break your racially hateful narrative of 'White people aggressors, Muslims victims'. I guess you'll have to come up with something more nuanced than 'the West bad'.
- I never said either things. First, the narrative West vs. Muslims in the context in which it is brought up (invasion & oppression) is evidently not "racially hateful" - this feeling shared not only by Muslims in all their nations, but by virtually all peoples of the World, from China to South Africa. For a reason. Second, West =/= White people. When I say West I evidently mean the geopolitical entity, not the people themselves, who come from all walks of life, from saints to villains. Third, when invasions & bombs & the deaths of millions are involved, it is decidedly not "racially hateful". The West has indeed inflicted a lot of suffering to a lot of peoples -& also spread a lot of good, you may not like it, but it is what it is. All feelings are fleeting, but the feeling of bearing injustice. If you can not bear injustice done to your people, how do you expect others to bear injustice done to them by your people (an even greater injustice). So, what are you gunna do?
Yep. Muslims bomb the Twin Towers and underground stations.
- Exactly! Which caused the death of many Muslims too, & America retaliated by bombing whole countries full of innocent people who had nothing to do with it. Not that this is any relevant to the point you were making.
Criticising Muslims is banned throughout the world (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-12/europe-illegal-criticize-islam).Nuff said.
- LOL! I don't know about the story, but man, you're starting to sound like Stephen. Damn! That is clearly a false claim, & it's decidedly not the case in any European country. A good chunk of content on this very Forum is criticizing Islam, & in copious abundance in countless news outlets & all social media & mainstream media, some can't even shut up about it. That's a fact. On the other hand, many Muslims have been arrested in Europe for inciting violence or criticizing Jews... I don't know why a government official who's supposed to represent the people should get away with it over & over & over.
Created:
I want a White ethnostate that doesn't persecute Whites for being White (unlike Australia).
- Alright. Why a *White* ethnostate? How does Australia persecute Whites for being White? (that's difficult to believe, since it's an overwhelmingly White majority country). What about the Aboriginal natives? Would you rather have a rich diverse Australia or a poor White Australia?
Your insult missed the mark because it doesn't comment on reality.
- That was not meant as an insult...
Mathemagics is not the truth. Nobody wants to see you twist a simple calculation into quantum physics maths, outside of comedic purposes.
- It's pretty basic maths...
You can't dispute the results because they're correct lol. Whites, as a whole, are a positive impact on the U.S. economy. You can divide it into lower classes versus upper classes, but nobody important cares because sane people aren't Communists, and race is primacy in regards to politics. People would rather import a whole bunch of people their own race, than another, and the literal cost is just one of the reasons why.
- I'm not disputing the results because they are patently expected. I don't need fallacious methods & dubious data to get there. When you're running a $1.1Tr budget deficit, it is necessarily bound to be reflected on the population, in some groups more than others, especially with a full order of magnitude in wealth gap. This, however, does not relate to the economy. As I said, if you omit millionaires, even Whites are gunna horde a good chunk of that fiscal deficit. This does not necessarily mean these White folks are a negative impact on the economy. On the contrary, many argue that it is the Middle Class that drives economic growth, not the Upper Class. The Upper Class is usually more geared towards Capital, while the Middle Class is usually more geared towards Labour. The latter creates real value, while the former just creates market value. You seem to be under the impression that I'm trying to "trick" you or something, I'm not. It is what it is.
You haven't provided any numbers to show that the US is rich enough to "spend" money like this.
- Please refer to previous posts. The US economy is larger than all the EU's combined, despite having 60% the population. Having the USD as the global reserve currency & petrodollar, enables the USA to print as much USD as it wants, with little repercussions. Basically, the USD is traded like a real commodity -like buying actual gold, for as long as countries around the world continue to buy more USD -for reliability or convenience.
Also, can you please tell me why the U.S. needs should "spend" money importing people who drain the U.S. economy?
- Most immigrant ethnicities (save those from Latin America) have a higher average income than Whites, even the Syrian immigrants. Maybe the US shouldn't or doesn't need to import more people, but this is irrelevant to the topic at hand regarding Blacks & Hispanic in the US. I do believe it's in the long-term economic interest of the US to import more immigrants -not for any diversity bullsh*t, but to accumulate human capital, or otherwise significantly raise fertility rates.
You literally said "struggling", and now you're arguing against your own statement hahahaha
- Nope, din't, but you did my friend... As per usual, attacking me & hardly addressing what I say.
It's wonderful how "most advanced" is a clearly defined term that doesn't narrow Europe down to three countries that fit your narrative, rather than give a true average of Europe. Amazing.
- I'm not sure what you're on about here, but YES indeed, the US healthcare spending per capita is by far the highest in the world, dwarfing all other countries. Amazing ain't...
Firstly, I'm talking about Africans AND Muslims, rather than just Muslims. So, your comparison is already flawed from the get-go.
- This does not make your point any more valid, which has yet to address what I said btw. Having Blacks (&/or Muslims) doesn't imply having a budget deficit. Japan's deficit is 3 times France's, yet has virtually no Blacks (or Muslims).
Secondly, you didn't provided any rebuttal to the Youtube video, other than laughing at the fact it's a Youtube video. The Youtube video actually is heavily cited work (you are allowed to cite the things you say, fyi). But your ad hom is obviously more convincing than cited work, so well done on the debunking.
- I watched about 5 min of that video, no citation founded, just a load of foaming at the mouth rants. The guy sounds really angry, Coming from France, he ain't got the faintest clue what he is talking about. I lost a couple IQ points just listening to it. If this is your standard of "heavily cited" -shockingly low standards (no offense)-, then you probably need to reassess your positions.
The fact that you ask this question proves that you don't have more than 135 I.Q.
- It was a serious question. I like discussing & arguing with you because you voice what you believe & justify what you believe, & you are not a slave to the mainstream bs. That warrants respect. But I get it, you don't like negros & spics (no offense to these wonderful people) & I'm guessing Mozlems too (or moose-limbs as they like to call us), you don't like them roaming in what you see as your White territory. & I have the sneaking feeling that even if Black Americans have higher IQ & higher income than Whites, it would't matter. Case in point, you don't like kikes either (no offense to our Jewish brothers), they do have a higher IQ & higher income than Whites. I don't know if this qualifies as racism, it doesn't matter. My question is, beyond all these guises of IQ & whatnot that don't really matter, what is the rationale the basis the foundation the idea that drives your beliefs about Whiteness & ethnic purity? Would you befriend or marry a non-White person? Do you believe all European ethnicities are equally White & equally welcome?
Created:
It functions as an I.Q. test lol. Does it have to say 'this is an I.Q. test' for you to believe it is one? XD
- Well, not quite. There are many types of IQ tests -specialized or general. Although they corroborate each-other overall, different tests may lead to quite different sets of scores. The designation 'IQ Score' doesn't actually refer to a score, rather a statistical distribution along a Bell curve (the one that looks like a hill) in which the Mean (average, 50% on each side) is 100 & the SD (standard deviation) corresponds to 15 points, i.e moving away 1 SD on either side of the curve covers 68% of the distribution, 2 SD covers 95%. That, whatever the set of scores in whatever distribution, is forced into this fixed distribution. To avoid the obvious inconsistencies that arise from this, tests are thus unified following base distributions, & sometimes new participants are made to take older tests... all still not enough, reason why many IQ based studies lead to vastly different conclusions, despite the statistical nature of the subject. There is no reason to believe the distribution of AFQT is reconcilable with a standard IQ curve.
Your first point isn't supported by any data. You're just guessing. You've provided nothing to say that low I.Q. people are more likely to join the army than high I.Q. people.
- Aside from the incredible intuitiveness of this 'guess', the fact that Blacks are overrepresented -to the point where there are almost as many female Black soldiers as White counterparts, implies that the mean corresponds -at most- to that of the Black distribution, for otherwise Black males would have 20 times more chance at getting accepted in the army over White male, & Black females 50 times more chance, which is patently absurd (given Whites population is 5 times Black's, & 80 IQ => 10% of Whites & 40% Blacks, & that Black males & females are overrepresented by ~2 & ~5 times respectively) [https://www.cfr.org/article/demographics-us-military]. I simply can not fathom any worldly reason that would account for a 50-times disparity!
Your second point relies on your first point, and since your first point is just a guess, we can't agree with its conclusions. Also, you say that there are as many female Black soldiers as White soldiers in the army, and of course, again, there is no citation. Please stop wasting everyone's time by pretending your guesses are axiomatic.
- 'Evident' is the word.
Lol are you attempting to insult me for believing in I.Q? Haha
- You seem to be having a lot of fun, that's nice. I wasn't insulting you, I was making the point that maybe you should be more acquainted with IQ stuff since it's such an important subject to you.
Anyway, lets take your (uncited claim) that Western I.Qs have been increasing throughout the 20th Century by 3-5 points. Maximally, 1919-2019 = 10 decades. 5x10=50. 3x10=30. So, WW1 Germans, according to your (uncited) opinion, had roughly an average of 49-69 I.Q. In other words, they were functionally retarded. Since White I.Q. in the U.S is comparable to German I.Q, African 1919 I.Q. (using your beloved Flynn Effect) would have been from 34-53 I.Q. This means that the average African's intelligence could have been classified as "severe mental retardation", and at best "moderate retardation"
- Case in point, if you had been acquainted more with the subject, you wouldn't need a citation. The Flynn shift of 3 to 5 differs among lower & higher scoring groups. With the Flynn effect (1940s to 1990s) Black Americans gained 4-5 points/decade, while White Americans gained 3-4 points/decade... overall, Blacks gained +7 points over Whites.
Perhaps before drawing wild conclusions such as 'Germans had 60 I.Q.', it's best to apply your advocated "ceteris paribus" to your own arguments.
- Not my own conclusions. An illiterate countryman can easily score 70 or less in an IQ test.
Any proof of your I.Q. being higher than 135? Mensa acceptance? Or are you going to rely on the nebulous "it tangibly shows?"
- This college professor made us take an IQ test, I scored 139. Though it wasn't in my native language, & I wasn't as fluent then as I'm now.
I never claimed it was "incapacitating." I claimed that it was too low to be in the military, which is factual. Nice try in twisting my words, though. I guess I'm near enough your unassailable "much higher IQ than 135" intelligence to pick up on your tricks.
- You said below "borderline intellectual functioning". I reckon you have a high IQ yourself, higher if only you stop exposing yourself to these websites & videos. ;-)
I'm not sure "intellectually impotent" is an accurate descriptor. But sure, because there are more Whites than Blacks in the U.S, it's possible that there are literally more 81 I.Q. Whites than Blacks (I haven't crunched the numbers to be sure, wholly because it doesn't matter). This doesn't detract from my point, and it would be nice if you actually started providing data (or at least links that work). But sure.
- Supposing the Black mean IQ is 90, then 35% of Blacks & 15% of Whites would fall under 85. & given Whites are 5 times the number of Blacks, this means 115% more such Whites than Blacks. If the mean IQ is 85, then 50% more said Whites than Blacks (this isn't a matter of data, it's just simple math). Either case, do you still believe all these are under borderline intellectual functioning?
Race is primacy in politics. You are literally arguing against facts. Exceptions prove the rule.
- The great irony here -according to the graph- is that 60% of Whites don't identify with ethnicity/race. So, I'm sticking with what I said, your interests don't necessarily aline with *most* Whites.
Created:
Firstly, the Black-White I.Q. gap has mountains of evidence (http://humanvarieties.org/2013/01/15/100-years-of-testing-negro-intelligence/). The times you might have seen higher or lower estimates is when they test the I.Q. of children. Genetic expression doesn't reach maturity until around the age of 24, and so the environment can greater impact the I.Qs of children than it can adults (aged 24 and up).
- Peaks for older adolescents, & thus adults. High heritability doesn't necessary imply "genetic expression". Regardless, no one is denying the Black-White IQ gap... For the US I seen estimates ranging from 0.7 to 1.1 SD, which is 10 to 17 IQ points. According to the study I cited previously, this gap is expected to shrink in the coming decades to 6.5 IQ points, roughly equivalent to the Black-White gap in the UK today (<0.5 SD).
Secondly, the Flynn Effect is applied to both Blacks AND Whites. In other words, as the Black I.Q. has gone up, so has the White I.Q. All the Flynn Effect shows is that environment can have an impact on I.Q, which I agree with (I.Q. is approximately 80% genetic imo).
- Indeed, but as you probably already know, the Flynn effect is much more marked in low-scoring groups (up to 5 points/decade), reason why the gap Black-White has been shrinking. I know who cited the 80% figure (Jenson), but that is discarded by the scientific community & has long been disproved. It has been proven in so many ways that environmental factors decidedly explain more than half the gap, once accounted for socioeconomic factors. It's probably more 80-20.
Thirdly, even if there were plenty of Black neurologists (citation needed), are they all qualified? It is a well known fact that affirmative action is essentially granting Blacks access to universities they are not qualified for (https://imgur.com/a/sKOntfC). It's not just neurology positions that require filling. Can you show that we'd be okay without White or Asian neurologists?
- This doesn't answer my question, is an outstanding number of neurologists essential for society? The UK has 30 times less neurologists than the US, it's doing just fine [https://www.eaneurology.org/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/Neurology_residency_training_in_Europe_02.pdf]. Greece has roughly the same average IQ as Black Americans, it's not doing too bad either.
(citation needed),
- This is not a debate, it's a discussion. I'm not gunna bother looking for citations unless I'm doubtful about the information. Plus, you don't cite your sources either -images & videos are not citations... ;-) But if you really insist, I shall oblige. I never make stuff up.
It's funny because I knew why the data wasn't accurate before I even read the article. Of course, it took me about 10 seconds to find that this research was done on 17 year olds. Again, genetic expression doesn't reach maturity until the age of 24. So, you're comparing data about 17 year old, who are more affect by environment, with data regarding people ages 24 and up -- not congruent.
- Miss Cassie, had you actually checked the study you wouldn't be saying this, "We use the 17-years-old student group. They will form the later workforce and are the best predictor for the ability level of younger and older adults shaping the society...". & you mean 'heritability' -not particularly "genetic expression", for the former has been shown to yield overall moderate correlation, r=0.2 to r=0.7. You can understand correlation coefficient 'r' as the square root of how much variance is explained by said factor. That is, if heritability explains 4% to 50% of the variance, the corresponding coefficient is r=0.7=squareroot(50%) & r=0.2=squareroot(4%) (respectively). So 4% to 50% does not scream 'definite'...
You were making a point, dimwit xD
- I'm glad you're having a laugh, but maybe it's high time you stop with the childish insults & start with the arguments? Again, you said, "these are not equivalent populations", so are the White & Asian populations in the same sense. What is your point then?
I enjoy how you have no data or proof of your assertions here. It looks really good against the data I provided. Perhaps it's time to do what Keith does and post anecdotes to counter-act data with large sample-sizes, so that we can readily affirm you as not knowing what you're talking about.
- Can I ask what is it you majored in?
In the mean time, sane people are going to side with my data, over your bare assertions.
- Sorry to break it to you, but your data (if valid) does not support your claim...
What are you doing lol. Blacks and Hispanics have a net drain on the US economy. Comparing their income to New Zealand, which has a totally different set of variables (i.e. cost of living, market demand etc.), without addressing those variables, is laughable. This isn't even to mention the fact that you're freely using the word "economy" now, after berating me for using it without explanation as to why I'm allowed to use it.
- First, you still have to establish how Blacks & Hispanics are a net drain in the US economy (a strictly false claim, trust me). Economy =/= budget. Japan runs the third highest deficit in the world, so the Japanese must be a net drain on Japan's economy. China runs the second largest deficit in the world ($600B), the Hun Chinese must also be a net drain on the Chinese economy... yet China is one of the fastest growing economies in the world,,, Just NO! Second, Income = Real GDP/capita, i.e. GDP/capita in PPP (Purchasing Power Parity), a ratio to account for all the variables which may otherwise distort the measure (such as cost of living...). Good thing you noticed, but economists have already thought it out when they come up with these measures. Third, & again, indeed I'm using the word 'economy' to refer to the *actual* economy -unlike you, not the budget or the expenditure...
This is comedy.
- Now I know why I'm laughing... :-D
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You define "first mover and sustainer" as a logical necessity. You call this "first mover and sustainer" god.I define "first mover and sustainer" as a logical necessity. I call this "first mover and sustainer" noumenon.
When an atheist says "your god doesn't exist", you jump to the conclusion that they are denying the logical necessity and call them "illogical".
- If they are, then indeed they are.
They are not denying the logical necessity. They just call it by a different name. The big bang, the unknown, noumenon, Magnum Mysterium.
- Different names don't change the definition itself.
The key problem we are here to explore and hopefully solve is, "(IFF) there must be a creator (THEN) what can we possibly know about it? (AND) which of the mythical gods (if any) best describe the logical necessity?"
- You really don't know what IFF means...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If you have any evidence that is not anecdotal in nature I would be happy to see it. I love to learn. That does not however mean that I am able to believe in things that have not been demonstrated and a definition is not a demonstration.Please explain how you are (more) correct and pga is (less) correct from the perspective of the evidence you each claim to have. He claims to have a book of revealed truth from some god(s) which is purportedly transcendent and necessary and which gives true and accurate prophesy and also that he pga is (more) correct and that you Yessine are (less) correct or perhaps even wrong I'm not sure which.Given that you make very similar claims with evidence that is anecdotal or based on tautologies that have not been demonstrated how shall I possibly choose between christianity or Islam? That is if either is in fact (more) correct since disproving one would in no way prove the other.
- What tautologies...? I already provided the demonstration, which you consistently deleted. One more time:
Definition:
God is a Necessary (necessarily existent) Singular (simple & unique) Absolute (with absolutely free will) & Transcendent (distinct from all creation) being, from the scriptural definition of Allah in Chapter 112 of the Quran.
Argument:
1. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed) exists. [ evident ]
2. This contingent being has a cause of its existence. [ follows from 1. ]
3. The cause of its existence is something other than itself. [ follows from 1. & 2. ]
4. This cause must either be a contingent or a non-contingent -necessary- being. [ law of excluded middle ]
5. Contingent beings solely are not sufficient for the existence of a contingent being. [ follows from 3. ]
6. This cause must include a necessary being. [ follows from 4. & 5. ]
7. Therefore, a Necessary being (a being such that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists. [ follows from 1. & 7. ]
8. Two necessary distinct beings exist. [ assumption ]
9. A difference between the distinct necessary beings exists. [ follows from 8. ]
10. This difference is either necessary or contingent. [ law of excluded middle ]
11. If the difference is necessary, then three necessary beings exist. [ absurd! ]
12. If the difference is contingent (has a cause or an explanation for its existence), then at least one of the two necessary beings is contingent (has a cause or explanation for its/their existence). [ absurd! ]
13. Therefore, a necessary being is one (i.e. unique). [ follows from 10. & 11. & 12.]
14. Similarly, a necessary being is simple (i.e does not have parts) [ substitute "necessary beings" with "parts" in 9. ]
15. Therefore, the necessary being is Singular (i.e. unique & simple). [ follows from 13. & 14. ]
16. The sum of all contingent beings is not singular. [ evident ]
17. Therefore, the sum of all contingent beings is Distinct from the necessary being. [follows from 15. & 16. ]
18. Therefore, the necessary being is Transcendent from the sum all contingent beings. [ follows from 17. ]
19. The sum of all contingent beings is contingent (not necessary, i.e. not identical to the necessary being). [ follows from 15. & 17. ]
20. The sum of all contingent beings is contingent on a necessary being. [ follows from 2. & 3. & 6. & 19. ]
21. The necessary being is the sole cause of the existence of the sum of all contingent beings. [ follows from 15. & 20. ]
22. The attribute to cause the sum of all contingent being exists (Will). [ evident from 19. ]
23. All contingent beings are equally non-existent prior to existence. [ evident ]
24. The Will is Absolutely Free. [ follows from 22. & 23. ]
25. Therefore, a Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being exists. [ follows from 7. & 15. & 18. & 24. ]
C. Therefore, God exits. [ as defined in the Quran ]
Created:
Posted in:
Buying the land won’t work. I propose invading the place and then once invaded, making the continent better wit territory subsidies in exchange for natural resources at a 5:8 ratio.
- Just to be clear, are we talking about realistic scenarios or fantastic ones?
We prevent the oppression of 180 million East Asians(South Korea and Japan) by preventing these areas from being communist by other invaders.
- By invading them instead & killing millions in the process...
If the US promises to help the region and to make it 1st world from a fiscal perspective and has a legit plan to achieve this, then they probably will sign on. If they don’t(low chance), they’ll get invaded and helped out anyway. I don’t see the Africans rejecting US citizenship (under some situations).
- This is done through investment, not invasion. Of course Africans are not reject being invaded!!!
That is the basic plan. The US would invest $500 billion into the continent. They just want something in return for this. China is offering low interest loans and is basically giving money away with nothing in return. They only invested $60 billion in the continent. Under my plan, the US would invest more in jobs such as cutting down trees in the center of the country to make room for farmland. If you live up north, their money may go towards installing solar panels to give the Africans cheap to free electricity. If they live down South, a combination of alternative energy and minerals could be where the investment goes.
- Of course China is getting plenty in return, Africa is geared to become the fastest growing market for the decades to come, it's paramount for China to take stronghold there before anyone else. You don't know much about Africa it seems. Here is an interesting one, America can invest into greenifying the Sahara desert. We are living in a technology driven world, it's not really about minerals anymore.
When have I said that? The US is good at protecting certain regions from authoritarian regimes.
- You mean disobedient* regimes. The number one catalyst of authoritarian regimes in the world is the US itself.
If Africa was part of the US, the US would want Africa to be strong.
- Or they can just invest... why is that such a bad idea? You seem to be under the impression that Investment = Loss. We live in a globalized corporate world, the capital & finance of the world is run mostly by corporations, not states (with few exceptions).
The US doesn’t invest in Africa because Africa is not part of the US. I mean there are food drives, but those barely help. A $500 billion annual investment in exchange for more natural resources would benefit both parties.
- Maybe it should start investing before it's too late.
I was suggesting other resources primarily. Mining helps but only generates some revenue. I was suggesting that the Congo can be mined for trees and the sahara can be mined for sand (which can get turned into glass) which can benefit the economy.
- Sand is mostly used for construction. Regardless, technology >>> mineral resources.
Most of Africa would start out as colonies. Exceptions would be countries that provide enough rights to their locals. The requirements for this are unknown, but places like South Africa would be territories instead of colonies, which give them more rights within congress such as more representation and better trade deals.
- In this case, this is a giant failure, who would wanna be a colony...!
I want to have the African areas start out as colonies. As they become more western in good areas, they move up the chain to territory status. If you live in a territory, you have US citizenship. In order to become a US state, you have to meet some economic requirements. The goal is to get the African colonies to become states when they meet some requirements.
- This is so impossible on so many levels. Once these countries prosper, they can easily take over the US...
I think the US would win against Africa even with China allying Africa. China can barely win in the Korean peninsula, let alone a different part of the world.
- The US is never going to war with China, that's unattainable. Which is exactly why it can not invade allies of China either.
Under the current status quo, the foreign aid barely helps because there is not a lot of foreign aid going there. However, with $500 billion a year, this would help the continent develop.
- It would, in FDI.
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
- I got a notification that you left a response here, I found none. Weird...
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Because they were white Kuffar females of course,
- Millions of those every year in Morocco, how come only two were targeted?
Their murders and beheadings were " allah's will". Yes! Allah, YOUR GOD! delivered these poor white western women into the hands of righteous followers of Allah, Islam and the quran, they simply followed his - Allah's - instructions as written down. These MUSLIM rapists , murdering FILM MAKERS made that quite fkn clear.
- Morocco is 100% Muslim, why aren't they following Islam & raping every white Kuffar females...?
I agree, but you missed out the word MUSLIM. So let me correct that omission for you:
- You mean USA, a girl gets murdered in the woods every other day there (unlike Morocco, once in decades). HORRIBLE!
Because Western governments insist that Islam is a religion of peace and that they - these young women - would have nothing to fear about Muslims or ISLAM, you dozy bellend!
- Stephen, have you ever been in a Muslim country? I invite you to come visit, maybe we can discuss over a cup of tea.
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Um did you ever consider the fact that the average African American I.Q. is 85, in that there literally won't be enough 130 I.Q. African Americans to do harder jobs (neurology, brain surgery, particle physicist etc.)?
- Assuming it is indeed 85 (I've seen lower estimates & higher up to 91), it is still more than the average White American IQ decades ago (80), thanks to the Flynn effect. Plus, there is plenty Black neurologist if that's what you're worried about, & Asian neurologists are wildly overrepresented. Then what? Is less than an outstanding number of neurologists perilous to society?
Not to mention that the White genetic admixture would fade over time, and hence African I.Q. would regress towards a lower mean.
- I've seen studies regarding regressive trends in White population IQ in some European countries the past 2 decades (reverse Flynn effect). But you know the gap White-Black & White-Hispanic has been shrinking for a while, & according to some studies is projected to shrink even more [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4603674/].
These populations are not equivalent.
- The same way the White & Asian population aren't, indeed. Point?
Race is the primary way in which people construct self-identity. It's also the most important thing in terms of voting (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1448?page=5&post_number=110). Most people care far more about race than class.
- In today's America, indeed. This wasn't always the case in the West. Class is much more meaningful though. But then what?
They're a drain on their economies which serves themselves? Okay xD
- The same way Blacks & Hispanics serve the US's economy. Blacks have a higher income on average than people in New Zealand, Spain, Italy, South Korea... & in most European countries...
We wuz kingz.
- Feudal kingz yay ;-) King Canute yay
You didn't look very hard: (https://www.quora.com/Does-the-U-S-military-have-a-minimum-IQ-requirement-for-entry) explains this (https://www.usa.gov/join-military). I found these within 2 minutes.
- I heard this claim many times before, never any proof yet, it isn't quite IQ is it! First, even assuming everything there is true, the AFQT 10th-percentile relates to those enlisted in the first place, who are generally not among the best & brightest, for these tend to look for better prospects than the military. Second, Blacks are overrepresented in the armed forces, especially in the army, as opposed to Whites (there are almost as many female Black soldiers as White soldiers in the army). Assuming this reflects the corresponding distribution, 85 (or 91) average IQ, a 10th-percentile with 15 SD will fall to an IQ of 65 (72).
If your claim about White people in the 1950s is true (citation needed), then fine. The average White person couldn't perform the tasks required by the modern military in the U.S. as for the German I.Q, again, citation needed, but you're really far away from the modern I.Q. of 99 (https://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=2812). In fact, it's so far away that I'm inclined not to believe that book.
- Someone like you who almost swears by IQ should know more about this. No, it's not surprising since Westerns have been gaining IQ points (3-5 per decade) along the 20th century as they've been gaining height. The map doesn't really say much of anything. Comparative IQ is only meaningful on ceteris paribus basis & on variation basis, accounting for all factors & variables.
The real question is how can you not believe this? Do you really think there is no functional difference between 81 and 135 I.Q?
- I never said that. I have a much higher IQ than 135, & it tangibly shows. This does not mean an 81-IQ is incapacitating. According to you, 40% (or 50%) of Black Americans -& by extension 15% of White Americans- are intellectually impotent ; considering their population, this means there are many more such White individuals than Black individuals. Do you still believe that?
Are you aware that 71-84 I.Q. is classified as "Borderline Intellectual Functioning?" (http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iqclassifications.htm).
- Then over half White Americans back then (& 1 in 6 Whites today) were (are) below borderline intellectual functioning.
LOL you're applying individualist thinking to IN-GROUP POLITICS xD'Hey, why are all these Black Conservatives voting for Obama? Don't they know that their political alignment isn't in sinc with the Democrats? They're not ****WARNING:racist:WARNING**** are they?'
- In-group loyalty isn't exclusive to racial identity, it may also extend to religious, ethnic, sectarian, class, national, sexual or political...identity. If you care about your racial identity, it doesn't mean everybody among your race does.
Why do you have an opinion on this topic? It's so thoroughly uneducated. This is literally the Dunning-Kruger effect hahaha
- You have it backwards, Miss Cassie. It seems to me you lost a bunch of IQ points just by exposing yourself to so much of this narrative. Where is the vivacious Zarroette? What do you seek to accomplish now? Black Americans are back to Africa & Hispanic Americans are back to Latin America, then what?
Created:
It doesn't matter if you call us trash, because it isn't grounded in reality. My analogy was accurate; its insulting nature was incidental.
- Every container exudes what it contains. White people are human beings, all human beings are dignified unless otherwise denigrate themselves.
Buddy, it's an average net deficit for racial groups. No one is impressed by you sledgehammering your bachelor degree maths into something so simple. Go and wank yourself off with your maths elsewhere.
- Miss Cassie, attacking me does not make the solution any less false. You don't have to insult me when the truth does not suit you, especially since I did not even bother to dispute the results -but the method. It is known that the average net-wealth of a White household is ten times that of a Black household, & that the US was running a $500B deficit in 2014, which amounts to about -$1.6K per capita. Without any further calculation, it is simply expected that such deficit be reflected on the fiscal impact, more so in some groups (Blacks) than others (Whites) -& even more so in lower classes vs. upper classes.
You really are just wasting my time. You even use the term "economic" in the next paragraph, explaining that all of this is simple "economics 101" (I hope the irony isn't lost on people), and yet you're still harassing me over its usage here. Screw your head on before you waste my time with this stupid, worthless objection that even you implicitly don't agree with.
- This still does not explain how these fiscal measures relate to the economy (a term I use to refer to the actual economy not budget)? You can literally chose countless criteria of sorting different groups in fiscal impact, based on race, religion, class, education, wealth, region, state, age...etc, & end up with "pest" & "drain" groups every time. Then what?... If you chose race & you have a 10-factor difference between Black & White races in terms of net-wealth, of course you're gunna end up with such results, it would be shocking not to... You still have yet to address a single point I made.
Your middle argument is dreadful. Even if the U.S. is rich enough to afford wasting money (a very debatable point), why the hell would you want to waste it anyway? Another stupid argument, and that's assuming your point that the U.S. is rich enough to have this be sustainable.
- I mentioned no such thing. Spending =/= wasting. The US is not just rich enough to afford lower tax rates, it also enjoys being the owner of USD, the reserve currency of the world, which allows it to run a +trillion $ deficit without breaking a sweat, an impossible feat for any other country, In fact, the US is one of the few countries in the world without VAT (value added tax).
Your last argument is inductive and not necessarily true, in that you assume European countries have higher taxes because the economies are struggling.
- Not struggling, just not as rich & don't own USD. The only countries in Europe with a barely higher GDP/capita are Norway, Ireland & Switzerland. The average GDP/capita in the EU is $38K, which makes the US's GDP/capita 65% higher...
Did you ever consider it's because they provide more public services? Perhaps it's due to their genetic, political persuasions? There are so many damn variables, dude. You don't know and you are just guessing -- please stop that.
- Not necessarily. The US spends per capita on healthcare alone twice as much as the most advanced European economies -like France or the UK or Germany. The US's per capita expenditure is higher than France's, despite total expenditure making up only 30% US GDP as opposed to almost half France's GDP.
-_-
- :-)
It's funny because France's budget deficit is almost identical to that of the African (and Muslim) net loss in France (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Q_bWBRrZo&t=410s). Not saying that France's budget deficit is purely because of Africans and/or Muslims, but it makes you think...
- It also makes you think how Germany has roughly the same numbers of Muslims yet boosts the highest surplus in the world... But you did not just reference a Youtube video to prove a point??? -_- -_- -_-
The link doesn't work, but I think my argument is strong enough anyway, and you're almost certainly telling the truth.
- What argument?
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I think the degree to which 'Islamism' (for want of a better word - I am open to suggestions!) is a power struggle with Islam is under appreciated in the west.
- I'm not exactly sure what you mean here?
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Your tone skirts very close to victim blaming, Yass, which doesn't reflect well on you!
- I was there when it happened, it was all everybody talked about for days, all over the news. Very sad, two beautiful innocent students coming to have a good time being brutalized as such & having their lives taken away from them & their families. It was devastating to both the tourist community there & the locals. Plus Marrakech's economy relies a lot on tourism. Everybody was just furious & dumbfounded how could this happen. Moroccans are known for being a very hospitable people, these events are extremely rare there, so this was shocking to everyone. I talked to fellow tourists there, the murderers should be executed for this no doubt, but a girl can not simply go alone to camp at night in the middle of nowhere, anywhere in the world. It's not about victim blaming, but how can you be so stupid.
It is a sad fact that there are few places in the world - if any - where a woman is safe from male predation and religion is not a factor. It would be great if women could walk in safety in Morocco - or in Birmingham, Los Angeles, Spokane, Nairobi or Peking. But they can't. The victims are 'guilty' of no more than naivity or having a misplaced trust in human nature. The perpetrators are the truly guilty.
- Just recently, a dear friend of mine talked to some guy on the internet, he suggested to meet in Seattle, so she booked a ticket & went. The Canadian f*cker raped her. If I ever cross him, I'll torture his as* to the brink of death. But again, this was so so very stupid of her. It's too naive & stupid to put yourself in a situation of easy prey.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
It's plain that this is all about tribe, not religion.
- Absolutely. Tribe & territory, in a cycle of violence.
What happened pales into insignificance compared to clearly tribal-based conflicts such as the hutu/tutsi conflict of the 90s. Pastoralists and farmers in Africa have warred since time immemorial.
- Rwanda has come a long way since then the moment they dropped all alliances with the West. Indeed indeed, Africa is extremely diverse & rich in ethnicities, it will take a miracle to bring them together & settle their disputes.
There are issues in nigeria that are part of the global 'islam v west' conflagration - boko haram is the obvious instance of that - but I don't think the story referred to is related to it.
- True. Boko Haram's victims are virtually all Muslims, the Nigerian people have grown tired of them, hopefully they'll die out.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You really are a boring tit. It is a stone cold fact that muslims have been murdering and raping and butchering it's way across the globe and forcing people to convert to Islam by the sword for centuries and well before there was ever a British Empire or a United States of America. .
- If this is a stone cold fact, then you must have ample evidence for it. I want facts, dates, places, events, of this "convert by the sword" "raping and butchering" for centuries... Like for example this shortlist of events perpetrated by Christian Europeans:
Event (period) - death toll
Invasion of the Americas (C16th-19th) - 137750000
Tai Ping Rebellion (China, 1851-1864) - 100000000
World War II (1939-1945) - 85000000
World War I (1914-1918) - 66000000
Congo Free State colonial war (1885-1908) - 12000000
Thirty Years War (1618-1648) - 11500000
Seapoy Mutiny (1857) - 10000000
Russian Civil War (1917-1922) - 9000000
Reconquista - 7000000
Napoleonic Wars (1804-1815) - 7000000
Indochina War (1945-1975) - 5100000
Korean War (1950-1953) - 5040000
Invasion of Ethiopia (1882-1898) - 5000000
French Wars of Religion (1562-1598) - 4000000
100 Years War - 3300000
Crusades (1095-1272) - 3000000
Post-War Expulsion of Germans (1945-47) - 3000000
Mexican Revolution (1910-1920) - 2000000
Russian-Circassian War (1763-1864) - 1500000
French Conquest of Algeria (1839-47) - 1500000
Algerian War of Independence (1954-1962) - 1500000
Seven Years" War (1756-1763) - 1400000
War of the Triple Alliance (1864-1870) - 1200000
Iraq War (2003-Present) - 1120000
Philippine-American War (1898-1913) - 1120000
Rwandan Civil War (1990-1994) - 1000000
Spanish Civil War (1936"1939) - 1000000
Get used to it, you belong to and support a violent death cult that doesn't think twice about RAPING and then BEHEADING two white Scandinavian young women "because allah willed it" and because "they were enemies of allah". Religion of peace my arse!
- Blahblahblah... I was there in Marrakech when the two girls were killed. It's disheartening really. Morocco with a population of 35 million receives 10 million tourists every year, I wonder why is it that all these years only two girls were killed, who are stupid enough to go hiking in the mountains alone at night, especially in a foreign country. This may be an extremely rare event in a Muslim country like Morocco, but it isn't in your Christian country, where people go missing & get murdered in the woods on a daily & weekly basis. Non-stop! Such violent death cult you must belong to.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
- Refer to previous post. Why are you literally repeating what you just said. You haven't even responded or addressed a single thing I said, as per usual. Insanity is repeating the same things excepting different results.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Muslims have murdered more people - including THOUSANDS of Christians in the last 18 months alone. Deny this fact as much as you like. but it won't change the fact that it is MUSLIMS who are committing carnage on a regular base than any other ideology.
- Your proven fake news aside, let's take a look at conflicts in the 21st century:
Conflict (period) - death toll - instigator.
Second Congo War (1998-2007) - 5400000 - Christian
Iraq Invasion (2003-Present) - 1120000 - Christian
Second Sudanese Civil War (1983-2005) - 1000000 - Christian+Muslim
Somali Civil War (1988 - ) - 500000 - Muslim
Lord"s Resistance Army - 500000 - Christian
Colombian conflict - 500000 - Christian
Syrian Civil War - 470000 - Muslim
Darfur conflict (2003-ongoing) - 460000 - Muslim
Second Burundi Civil War (1993) - 400000 - Christian
Second Liberian Civil War (1999-2003) - 300000 - Christian
Second Chechen War (1999-) - 210000 - Christian+Muslim
Mindanao Conflict (1969-ongoing) - 160000 - Christian+Muslim
Mexican Drug War - 110000 - Christian
Kashmiri insurgency (1989-) - 110000 - Muslim
U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan (2001 " 2002) - 50000 - Christian
Iran-Kurdish - 34000 - Muslim
Turkey/PKK conflict (1984-) - 30000 - Muslim
Yemen civil war - 25000 - Muslim
Boko Haram - 20000 - Muslim
Somali War (2006-) - 10000 - Muslim
9/11 (2001) - 3 000 - Muslim
=> When you do the math, you end up with about 9 million death toll by Christians & about 2 million by Muslims. That's almost five times difference. There you have it, by the numbers. Case closed! Of course it's much worse when you look at the 20th century, or pre-1900.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Just days before the vile, horrific and senseless attack of New Zealand muslim worshipers, this happened:Radical Muslims Murder 32 Nigerian Christians, Torch Church in Brutal Attack (the body count is now over 120)
- What's up with the sensationalist headlines & fake news. AGAIN, Fulani herdsmen are majority Muslim pastoral people whose ancestral lands have been overtaken by Christian farmers. So no, it's not "Radical Muslims" blahblah... Until recently, Nigeria has been ruled by a Christian elite for decades, their discrimination against the Muslim majority is bound to have backlash.
Not a single word about this butchery from the Western mainstream media. Where is the media Coverage!? NO ONE CARES!
- That's a lie. The attacks were reported in the mainstream media [https://guardian.ng/news/suspected-fulani-herdsmen-others-kill-32-in-kaduna-sokoto/], they just didn't receive wide global coverage, for the very simple reason that they did not occur in a Western nation. The same reason why you don't hear of the millions of Muslims who are killed in the Middle East & other places, if it's not in the West, NO ONE CARES!
"Most of the victims were in their homes sleeping when the attacks began … when Muslim Fulani militant herdsmen began their killing spree in Nigeria that lasted four days, Thursday through Sunday evening and into Monday.In only days, a dozen villages in Nigeria’s Plateau state were wiped out. The affected communities surround the city of Jos—known as the epicenter of Christianity in northern Nigeria’s Middle Belt."
- Again with the fakes news. It wasn't a killing spree, it was a clash, in which "at least 86 people have died in central Nigeria after violent clashes broke out between farmers and cattle herders", which was instigated by the Christian farmers, not the herdsmen, "fighting began on Thursday when ethnic Berom farmers attacked Fulani herders, killing five of them.""A retaliatory attack on Saturday led to more deaths." as per usual [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-44597409]. Just months before this attack, "farmers from the Christian Bachama ethnic group stormed four settlements of Muslim Fulani herders in Numan district on Monday, hacking residents and burning homes""so far recovered 30 bodies from the affected villages but the toll is not conclusive as rescue teams are still combing the bushes in the area for more bodies," [https://www.trtworld.com/mea/farmers-kill-at-least-30-herdsmen-in-northeast-nigeria-police-say-12521]
- As I stated in another post, the herdsmen-farmer conflict in Nigeria is a decades long territorial conflict, since the government decided to deprive the Fulani of their lands & centuries old pastoral routes in favor of Christian farmers in the 50s. Since then the successive Christian governments have not resolute to give the Fulani their land back. Even the current government hasn't been successful in doing so, having its bills blocked. Second of all, this Christian victim mentality here is disgusting & shameless. It's a conflict between two sides, wherein Christian farmers are occupying ancestral lands of Muslim majority herdsmen (though not necessarily their fault). If the herdsmen attack the farmers' villages, it is to take revenge on the farmers attacking their villages, & therein the cycle of violence that has been going on for decades -& peaked in recent years. As long as the territorial disputes over grazing lands & water sources are not solved, this conflict will not end.
Christians world wide are the most persecuted, killed and ethnically cleansed religious group on the planet. So far in 2019 there have been 453 terror attacks BY MUSLIMS in which 1,956 people have been murdered.
- Where? By who? 99% of victims of Muslim extremists are Muslims themselves. All life is inviolable, all life is invaluable. But come on!
4,305 Christians were murdered by muslims BECAUSE OF THEIR FAITH in 2018 alone!
- Where was this? All life is inviolable, all life is invaluable. But come on! You know that millions of Muslims were killed by Christians these past years...
WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE? WHERE IS THE OUTCRY FROM THE WESTERN MEDIA.
- Because it didn't happen.
NO ONE CARES! And the reason no one cares is because these poor victims were Christians and not muslims.
- You don't seem to care about the millions of Muslims who have been invaded & bombed & killed by your own people?
Lets keep this outpouring of sadness of these poor innocent victims in Christchurch New Zealand in perspective and proportion and most of all, balanced.
- Well said. Indeed.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
As you may or may not ( more likely the latter) have heard Muslims butchered the whole communities of villages.
- As you may or may not have heard (definitely not), Christians butchered whole villages in Nigeria. [https://www.trtworld.com/mea/farmers-kill-at-least-30-herdsmen-in-northeast-nigeria-police-say-12521]. Plus, Fulani herdsmen are pastoral nomadic people, who are majoritarily Muslim, though not all. So no, it's no "Muslims" blahblah... Until recently, Nigeria has been ruled by a Christian elite for decades, their discrimination against the Muslim majority is bound to have backlash.
"Most of the victims were in their homes sleeping when the attacks began … when Muslim Fulani militant herdsmen began their killing spree in Nigeria that lasted four days, Thursday through Sunday evening and into Monday.In only days, a dozen villages in Nigeria Plateau state were wiped out. The affected communities surround the city of Jos—known as the epicenter of Christianity in northern Nigeria’s MiddleBelt."
- This was a year ago, from a Christian source... not even a news source. Such bias, it's shameless. First of all, the herdsmen-farmer conflict is a decades long territorial conflict, since the government of Nigeria decided to deprive the Fulani of their lands & centuries old pastoral routes in favor of Christian farmers in the 50s. Since then the successive Christian governments have not resolute to give the Fulani their land back. Even the current government hasn't been successful in doing so, having its bills blocked. Second of all, this Christian victim mentality here is disgusting & shameless. It's a conflict between two sides, wherein Christian farmers are occupying ancestral lands of Muslim majority herdsmen (though not necessarily their fault). If the herdsmen attack the farmers' villages, it is to take revenge on the farmers attacking their villages, & therein the cycle of violence, that has been going on for decades -& peaked in recent years. Months before the attacks in the Plateau "farmers from the Christian Bachama ethnic group stormed four settlements of Muslim Fulani herders in Numan district on Monday, hacking residents and burning homes""...so far recovered 30 bodies from the affected villages but the toll is not conclusive as rescue teams are still combing the bushes in the area for more bodies"... As long as the territorial disputes over grazing lands & water sources are not solved, this conflict will not end.
- Aside from all the Christian US aggressions on Muslims causing millions of deaths, there is plenty of Christian on Muslim killing in Africa too. For instance, "Tens of thousands of Muslims flee Christian militias" [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/tens-of-thousands-of-muslims-flee-christian-militias-in-central-african-republic/2014/02/07/5a1adbb2-9032-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html?noredirect=on] "Media Silent As Christian Extremists Slaughter Muslims In Central Africa" https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-19/media-silent-christian-extremists-slaughter-muslims-central-africa... I wonder, why you haven't mentioned these?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Your god is not defined as a necessary being, you claim it is a necessary being and you have no supporting evidence for that claim. Your god is totally contingent on the people who claim it's existence as do all gods, it simply doesn't exist without that.
- Once you define God as a necessary being & proceed to demonstrate the existence of said necessary being, then you can not identify it with a contingent being. That would violate the very law of non-contradiction, it's like saying God is both contingent & non-contingent, which is a contradiction. It's just too embarrassing when retards attempt to sound clever. ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So even though you told me you know the difference between prescriptive and descriptive you actually don't?
- *Sigh*... forget it. A piece of friendly advice, being an atheist doesn't give you magic powers of reason. If you wish to understand, then you need to learn. No offense, but your attempts at being clever are ridiculous. You don't understand the basics of logic, or the slightest bit of philosophy or metaphysics. It's just hard trying to explain things which you don't understand. This discussion would've been much better with just a little bit of understanding. Alas. You kewl doe.
Created:
Do you know what an analogy is?
- It's not an insult. Or do you want me to call White people 'trash' or some denigrating word? No.
I think the sole reason you mentioned the "mathematically flawed" point was to sound smart, not even because it's correct, and particularly since you didn't elaborate. But whatever.
- No, I actually have a bachelor in mathematics. A solution like that will get you an F in maths. I can elaborate if you wish, though I already mentioned the core issue, that is an irregular function was substituted by a step function.
I'm sorry, but having $800 Billion per annum of the U.S. budget drained by Hispanic and African residents, isn't the tiniest bit related to the economy? Am I meant to take you seriously as you attempt some irrelevant, little semantics game?
- Why don't you explain to me how is this related to the economy? You have the floor. To reiterate what I said, if you omit the top earners in the US (i.e. the millionaires) from the tax revenue, White or Black or Hispanic balances will fall below zero, to -$7K & -$13K & -$10K respectively. My point here is that the US is so rich to the point where it can afford to spare the non-millionaires from paying the full budget to fulfill their government expenditure, that would otherwise result in higher taxes, as is the case in most European countries, which all have much higher tax rates than the US.
I expect you to not say that Hispanics and Africans are an economic boom on the U.S. economy, when clearly all they do is drain it.
- Pretty sure that's not all they do. Why is this hard to understand, economics 101. Look at it this way, if there were only Blacks in America, you'd end up with a situation similar to Spain, with roughly the same economy the same income & the same population. Spain's tax revenue is around $500B -slightly less than the tax revenue from the Black population-, about 1/3rd its GDP. This new Black America would be comparable to a European high income country. BUT, since America has a higher standard of living (50% higher than that of Spain), with all the infrastructure & privileges that come with that, the Black population in America enjoys that as well with an extra cost. In this case, the Black expenditure at presumably $875B would represent 47% this new Black America GDP, which is the same rate as France's. So you just need to raise taxes at rates similar to those in France & there shall be no deficit, or as you call it "drain" "loss" "pests'... But there is no need to, because the US can afford to not raise tax rates to any higher levels.
Besides, where did you get your numbers from?
- US Census Bureau, & the World Bank.
Assuming these numbers are correct (we don't know besides you don't cite anything), Hispanics and Africans become net losses when you consider the amount of taxes they pay, decent income or not.
Here you go: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk , I never make up stuff.
- All this is meaningless. You wanna look at this from a racial perspective, which is pointless. You can look at it from a class perspective too, you'll end up with much more shocking results. The lower class will probably run you -$20K per capita, & the upper class +$150K... Therefore, the lower class is a drain on the economy we can do without. This is just as ridiculous.
I'm not saying that remove those people within the hour LOL. What is wrong with you?Africans don't only "pay relatively less taxes that Whites", they pay less taxes to the point of being an economic drain.
- The same way the Spanish & the Germans are an economic drain on their economies?
It is really about votes. It's also about other things.African genetics are just too bad to make a civilisation work to the same degree as White genetics.
- Why? If this were true, we would have heard of White civilizations since ancient times, but we never heard of ancient France or ancient Germany. Most Whites, by their own statement, lived semi-barbaric lives until the high middle ages. With the Renaissance in Italy & the advent of trade, Europe experienced increasing urbanization, & therefore civilization, growing century after century to what it is today. & indeed, there was such a thing as African empires in the past as well, such as the Songhai Empire & the Mali Empire.
I.Q. is merely a facet of it. It's not about being a genius. The U.S. military doesn't allow people in with less than 81 I.Q. (I'm quoting Jordan Peterson). We have levels of I.Q. that are considered functionally retarded. Due to having lower average I.Q, Africans are more likely to be in these I.Q. brackets, and hence be nigh useless to society.
- This may have been true before the 60s, I can't find any source for this at all. & I very much doubt such claim... I read somewhere the average IQ of soldiers in Germany was around the 60. Regardless, if you know anything about IQ, you should know the average IQ of White people in the 1950s was 80 as well.
A White with half a standard deviation below in I.Q. can enter the military. An African American with half a standard deviation below in I.Q. cannot enter the military.
- Do you honestly believe that..? Do you honestly believe 40% to 50% of Blacks are so incapable?
I can't expect my majority racial in-group to have self-interest? Wow.
- The fact is that it already is the majority, an advantage no minority has. & yes, you can not expect Whites to aline their interests with yours. Your interests are not necessarily the interests of all Whites, & I reckon of most Whites.
What's your point in breaking down every sentence I make, making these minor quibbles, and basically ignoring the main point at hand: Saudi is not diverse, especially when compared to Western countries?
- Compared to the US, yes. To most Western countries, nope. The US is exception, by design.
Can you please address that point?
- What exactly is "that point"?
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
No. It's time to stop saying that we can live together, if only we had the right set-up. It's time to put down the pipe and stop dreaming. Multiethnic states don't work.
- In the West they don't yes. They worked in a lot of other places pretty well, such as in the Middle East, or the Indian subcontinent. If each community is left with its own territory & laws & religion & customs, where is the harm? Of course there is a chance that tension may arise, but that happens regardless.
Multiculturalism divides countries and creates tension. It's time to leave the world of forms and deal with the reality.
- That I don't disagree with this.
"The following are areas that have been described as no-go areas in recent years, though in some cases the characterization has been disputed."(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_area#Alleged_and_acknowledged_contemporary_no-go_areas).It took me 20 seconds to debunk your garbage.
- I don't think you actually read the stuff, areas described as no-go zones by people who've never been there. Funny! The others are not in Europe.
Lol are you serious? Blacks should be thanking their lucky stars that not only did U.S. Whites import them into America, but that U.S. Whites were the FIRST and ONLY group to start the end slavery. The African slaves in America would have been slaves anyway in the far worse conditions of Africa. African slaves not only learnt to read in America, DESPITE it being illegal (Africa wouldn't reach similar literacy rates until the 1950s), but their health and nutrition improved. They didn't get whipped around and beaten (except for a few exceptions), but rather worked LESS hours than White farmer counterparts (https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/slavery-in-the-united-states/).
- I've read so much literature on this, it's cute. You might wanna read up more on this subject, probably from non-bias sources. There were indeed some good masters, but that wasn't the norm.
And what do Whites get as thanks for this? They get called racists and discriminatory, when it fact the Whites were the kindest to slaves in the recorded history of slavery.
- If you know exactly nothing about history then yes. On the contrary Cassie, Whites were some of the most brutal & racist slavers history has ever seen. Slaves in the Islamic world & in Asia had far better conditions. But let me get this straight, you want Africans to thank you for being so kind to them for not enslaving them anymore...? Put yourself in their place & tell me with a straight face that this is a sensible thing to expect.
Again, you just deflect and refuse to acknowledge that Whites have genuine problems.
- Alright. What problems exactly?
You think Whites are able to speak out about problems that face White people? I already called you out in a different post wherein you started mocking Whites as "angry babies" for stating problems they face. YOU are part of the problem. YOU are preventing Whites from having peaceful opposition to issues White people face. The fact that you would ask this question is the embodiment of irony.
- Why are you turning on me now! What did I ever do to you... Jokes aside, it seems to me these problems are not White problems, but a White-fringe problems. Because the problems we been hearing from Whites these years, & still do, somehow always boil down to genitals.
I don't have an answer to that question. Whites are quickly having only one thing as an answer, but I don't want that. I won't suggest anything because I don't have an answer, but other Whites will very quickly find an answer (and we both know what that is).
- Alright, what is the core problem then?
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
The media reacts, dare I say, radically different, dependent on the narrative their trying to push.
- Indeed, regardless of narrative, it's still all western media.
When a Muslim terrorised a Lindt cafe in my Sydney, he was labelled as an extremist and not representative of Muslims. When a White person terrorised a Mosque in New Zealand, he was labelled extreme right wing (he's not even right wing), Pewdiepie's subreddit got banned, further gun restriction is being promised, and White people were demonised as a whole.
- Well, you see, it's quite the opposite. It's not even worth discussing. When were White people demonized as a whole??
We are not being treated the same.
- Indeed, one ends with bombing & invasions, the other ends in banning & censorship. Nuff said.
Your reaction is exactly why this won't be the last shooting. You deflect and tell White people to be more "understanding". You say that "other peoples have actually been invaded", as if what is happening to White communities isn't an invasion.
- No it isn't. There are immigrants all over the world. There are more Muslim immigrants in just the MINA region than in all of Europe. 10 of the top 20 net migration countries are Muslim countries, as opposed to just 6 Western countries [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate#World_Bank_]. In the Gulf states, immigrants make up up to 90% the population. I live in Turkey now, immigrants make up 1/10th the population. Invasion is invasion, immigration is not invasion. That's sensationalism.
You label White's reaction as "impulsiveness", when this terrorist attack has been a long time coming. You, and many others, don't take the problems of White people seriously, and this terrorist attack was directly a result of that.
- On the contrary, I understand more than you think. I understand what it is like to feel disenfranchised & humiliated & helpless, & witnessing Muslims perpetrating terrorist attacks letting their rage out. Something must've driven them to such extremes that they could not contain themselves. I'm not deflecting anything, but you are dismissing the grievances of others in the favor of yours. If you have grievances for your people, so do many others. It just so happens the world is not made out of identical humans. Human beings come in diverse groups. White people themselves are extremely diverse as well. Even if Europe was 100% White -as it was pre-WWII, things won't necessarily become suddenly peachy keen -as they weren't. The same impulse that drives the ideal of White Europe, may also drive the ideal of French & English & German... Europe. This unified Whiteness is quite the recent notion, post-WWII... & as there is a long history & heritage of hostility between Whites & Blacks (or Muslims), there is an even wider history of hostility in-between Whites, Frank & Briton & Spaniard & Prussian & Roman... Who are you going to side with then? This is not a perfect world, injustice is a human condition. Ultimately that Muslim terrorist who murdered innocents will be judged by God accordingly, just as will the White terrorists too. Life is inviolable, injustice is not a monopoly.
Again, you're not taking the problems of White people seriously. Calling them "angry babies playing grown-ups" is backing Whites further into a tight corner. I hope this is ignorance on your behalf, but I'm not sure it's better if it's not.
- Yes, angry men are not real men. Real men are big humans, with big minds, & big hearts. The world is greater than any of us, & the universe is much greater, & God is infinitely greater. That Muslim terrorist who murdered a bunch of people crying "this is for Syrians" is a baby too. You are too caught up in this Whiteness, it's understandably confusing you. I'm saying this because I know you are a reasonable & mindful person. Let me ask you, how would you (or your compatriots) feel if your country was invaded (in the real sense) & your wealth plundered (in the real sense) & your fellow countrymen killed while others displaced...? How would you feel if your people were enslaved for centuries & persecuted & oppressed & denigrated...? You get my point. If you feel like your people have been unjustly treated, others may feel just the same way. If you have grievances, others may have as well. If you've been made into a leader of your people, would you turn to justice or vengeance? Justice.
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Lol no you don't understand at all. This is why I've been pining against multiculturalism and multiethnic for so long. I KNOW violence ALWAYS ensues in these types of situations. Very few people want to get tangled in these nasty politics. Very few people actually enjoy bloody, prolonged wars. I'm not one of them.
- That's why I always say there's no better model than the Islamic model of legal pluralism & communitarism, which westerners like to refer to as "second class citizenship"...lol!
All my post was saying is that when you drive Whites into the tightest of corners, when it's becoming kill or be killed, what can they do? Some are so disillusioned that they'll go out with a whimper.
- It's not really that bad...!!! Kill or be killed??? If this is your calling, then you must understand the sensitivities of others once driven into even tighter corners. Other peoples have actually been invaded & bombed & displaced & humiliated on top of it all. Blacks have been persecuted & humiliated for a long time as well. If you dislike injustice done to your people, it feels just as bad to others too. Impulsiveness solves nothing, understanding is key.
Others are so enraged they'll go out with thousands of bangs.
- Sadly, real men, strong, disciplined, devout, humane, virtuous, enlightened & sincere men are few in this age. Only angry babies playing grown-ups left. If Whites may rage, so may others. Then what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok so demonstrate that Islam is right.
- That would take a while. Any specific questions?
Don't just say "this us what Muslims believe" prove it. Why is Allah specifically necessary.
- Refer to previous post, which you conveniently deleted...
Why are Odin and Zeus not necessary.
- God as the singular necessary is *one*, unless Odin & Zeus are identical to Allah, they can not be necessary. Again, refer to previous post.
Do you have any have any objective reason to believe or just a prescriptive definition?
- Forget this nonsense of "prescriptive definition" BS. I'm speaking from philosophical terms, not English literature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) a god is the only thing that exists (AND) this god "made" every "thing" (THEN) such a god MUST have "made" every "thing" out of itself.
- No. God is not material...
Interact: able to communicate with, influence, or even observe in any conceivable way shape or form.
- God is Transcendent in Self, but Immanent in Attributes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Saying 'thing' rather than 'being' leads to a less impressive-seeming conclusion!As an atheist i'm easy with the idea that there's some thing underneath it all, waiting to be discovered. But 'thing' is a lot less loaded than 'being'! There's no reason to think that the 'thing' is in anyway god-like - it's probably more like a law of nature, such the laws of thermodynamics.
- 'Thing' would not the proper word. When we talk of 'existence', we use 'being' from 'to be' as in 'to exist' to denote it. Nothing changes if you use the word 'thing' instead of 'being' though. Both are just labels, the meaning is the same, you might as well say '%^&##)'... As Umar (raa) says, "the fool is he who rejects the name yet accepts the meaning".
No need to suspect the 'thing' answers prayers or has views on women's clothing.
- In Islam, the majority opinion is that there is no issue in referring to God as a 'thing'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
If you mean by god that god people claim to know, then yeah. Contingent means its existence is in the realm of possibility, as it may or may not exist. If it does exist, it must have an explanation for its existence. If it doesn't then it doesn't -which it doesn't, no explanation needed.
- No. Utter retardation. Once you define God as a necessary being & proceed to demonstrate the existence of said necessary being, then you can not identify it with a contingent being. That would violate the very law of non-contradiction, it's like saying God is both contingent & non-contingent, which is a contradiction. It's just too embarrassing when retards attempt to be clever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Intelligence goes without speaking, but where do you find a specific reference to His intelligence in the Bible?
- No, 'Intelligent' is not one of the attributes of Allah as decreed in the Quran, so we do not say God is intelligent. & I'm no expert in the Bible, but Christians do indeed claim God as an Intelligent Omnibenevolent being.
I don't understand. Is Allah not all good and are some of the things done by Allah evil?
- All-Good is not an attribute of God either. In Islam, Good & Evil are relative concepts. God is not contingent on Good. We do not worship God because God is Good, for then in the absence of Good, God deserves no worship, which entails Good is what you worship, not God. God does not have to be Good or Bad, God is not subject to Morality.
How can we worship the same God when what we believe about Him differ? I accept that you call God Allah.
- Beliefs of God =/= God.
The teachings of Jesus state:John 4:22-24 (NASB)22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.24 God isspirit, and those who worship Him must worshipin spirit and truth.”If we are not worshiping God as He truly is then are we not committing idolatry, a false concept of God? If so, then how can you say we are all worshiping the same God if one of us identifies Him as all good in all He does and the other does not?
- Indeed. I guess one of us must be wrong, "To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ." (5:48)
Those underlined points are key/vital truths of Christianity. This brings me to another point - do you have to earn salvation in Islam and how would you know you have achieved a right standing with God/Allah? IOW's, is your acceptance with God/Allah based on what you do?
- You don't earn salvation in Islam, just hope of salvation. We believe salvation rests solely on God's Mercy which we have no power over, while reward after salvation rests on our deeds.
So, when another religion teaches what is contrary to Islam then which one is right/true?
- Islam of course, for it is the last religion & the seal on all religions. When I say Islam approves all religions, I mean they were divinely revealed when revealed, which may not necessarily correspond with how they are practiced today.
Created:
-->
@mustardness
Most everything that follows in this thread is short { narrow } sided, irrespective of relative truth.Nation against nation, religion against religion, tribe against tribe is all a aggregate collection of narrow viewpoints, that, can only lead to the destruction of humanity on Earth.The largest divide of differrence is sexual. i.e. man { Xy } <--><--> woman { Xx }.If man{ Pa-triarchy } were to ever become subservient to woman Ma-triarchy }, humanity would have greater chance of surival.That approach's greatest difficult would be uniting the rich <--> poor divide.The question is how to pull-humanity as united integral set, rather that push-humanity into united integral set.Pulling-IN-ward is the path of least resistance. Will man{ pusher } ever allow woman{ attracter//mass-attracter } to dominant the human landscape on more issues?Woman { nurtures//integrates//pulls-together }Man { pushes apart//disintegrates }
- I wonder, Cassie here has some strong ideas. Maybe she can dominant.
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
+ 1 This is exactly what happens/happened.Not that I condone the murders (I don't at all), but if you're able to ignore that to see the effect of his actions, what this man did is genius. He literally told the media/politicians that they're going to try and censor/purge/unperson right wing people, he literally told them the effects that this will have, and they still did it anyway. It just shows how much he knew about what he was doing. It's a damn shame he couldn't apply his genius in a way that didn't slaughter people who are innocent and just wanted to live their lives, at least for the most part.
- Doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Every time a Muslim terrorist does something, we feel it too... Censoring is better than invading & bombing still. ;-)
But I don't think anyone here has stated how serious the situation is for Whites, so allow me to elaborate:Now, what happens when you have a group of people attacked, who are having their communities destroyed through mass immigration (ghettos and no go zones),
- No such thing as "no go zones", a myth. Come on! You're more intelligent than that. But ghettos are bad indeed.
who are the only ones legally allowed to be discriminated against in the U.S. (in hiring, college applications, government services, loans, in terms of their right to form racially exclusive organisations etc.), who then get told that they deserve all this because of the bogus concept of White Privilege (when divergent evolution explains racial disparities very well), who then are told that they are fundamentally rotten for being White? What happens if you suppress, unperson, call racist, bigots or literally Hitler, deplatform, shun, slander, isolate, fire or assault, anyone who tries to speak out against this?
- Assuming this is true, the other side would suggest Blacks were just as discriminated against a couple decades ago & prior. Maybe they need a little help to find their balance.
What's left for them?
- They are still doing better than most, if not all.
What can they do when every avenue of peaceful opposition is denied?
- What do you mean every avenue of peaceful opposition is denied?
How can they get anti-Whites to stop?
- Good question, how do you suggest this takes place?
Questions:
You're the president, what will you do? Why isn't someone like you religious?
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Your pathetic hatred is merely a reflection of the shooter's hatred. You and he are the cause of this worlds problems.
- You seem to have a lot of hate yourself there fella. Is that why you are disgusted...?
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I'm not an expert, but mohammed died in 632 and by 656 there was open warfare over power in the Muslim world.
- That was a conflict over justice, not over power. Long story.
Yet you wrote:Now, the West lost much of its heritage in tradition & culture & social norms, in the name of 'progress'. Of course the Islamic model is the better model,
- Two unrelated sentences... & 'Islamic model' =/= Islam.
IMO, your posts were very guilty of the 'them and us' mentality that you claimed to decry.
- 'Them & us', yes. 'Them vs. us' no. The object of discussion here is the West, of course I'm gunna refer to the West...
There is no problem that is the west's and other problems that are Islam's.
- You mean Muslims'*... Not necessarily. A lot of common problems sure, but not *all*.
There are only problems that face us all and need us all working together to solve, not playing blame games.
- I wasn't blaming, I was advising. Muslims face loads of problems too, among which a crisis of identity as well. But Muslims aren't the subject here.
Created:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I agree with some of this, but there will DEFINITELY be much more shooters like this. The inter-political divisions within the West pretty much necessitate it. If you've read the manifesto like I have, you've seen his stated goals. He's not wrong about the political state of the West, and our news media and political pundits are doing exactly what he said he wanted them to do. Their response is going to be a purge of right wing people from Twitter, Reddit, and other platforms. They will clamor excessively to it, and the platforms will cave. The decadent, neoliberal ruling class has legitimately gone insane; they seem to think that once they get a gamergater, a Nazi, a trump supporter, and a traditionalist Christian kicked off of twitter those people just... disappear. Out of sight, out of mind. They don't, they fall into the underbelly of the internet, and they all start talking to each other, and as they fall further and further through the cracks the Nazi has a more and more outsized voice among these outcasts. That's just human nature; people who feel cornered are much more receptive to hatred of the outgroup. I'm sure that over the next few months, more and more people are going to be pushed into radicalization echo chambers, and that the alt right will only grow because of this. They also might try to push gun confiscation, which in America will absolutely stoke the very sentiment that they are trying to stamp out.
- I remember talking about this with Skepsikyma on DDO once, the imminent great polarization that is looming in the West, between the Traditional & the Fashionable. Modernity has gone too far, to extremes no civilization has ever even tapped before, it is bound to be rebounded. Something is boiling under the surface, the West is suffering a crisis of soul. They killed god, & killed their soul with him.
I've pulled multiple people out of the worst excesses of these spaces, but it's becoming impossible for me to do so because they simply aren't communicating with the outside world anymore. And they aren't communicating because left wing advocates are intentionally isolating them because they want to pretend that none of this is happening.
- This is not the fault of the Left or the Right. This is a fault of design. The system itself is flawed, & now it's cracking.
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
If a swarm of locusts came and ate large sections of your crops, and then hung around to eat more by the day, would you call them anything nice?
- We are talking about human beings Miss Cassie, not locusts. It's dangerous to be caught in the game of statistics & forget there is an actual person behind each number. What about the big picture thought?
This is what Hispanics and Africans do to the U.S. economy -- both the average Hispanic (-$7,000 USD per annum) and African (-$10,000 USD per annum) are net drains on the economy.
- I'm aware of this little calculation -a mathematically flawed one (substituting an irregular function with a step function). But I'm not here to dispute that, for lack of data otherwise. Assuming these estimates are adequate (which they probably are), they relate to *fiscal* balance by race, which has nothing to do with economy. If we omit the top 5% from the calculation {the top White 5% only is responsible for 1/3rd of all taxes...), Whites would then cost -$7K, Blacks -$13K, & Hispanics -$10K. No surprises there, the net wealth of the average White household is 10 times that of the average Black household. What do you expect..?!
Thus, the U.S. would be financially better off without any Hispanics or Africans, even if it had 100 million shaved off from its total population.I'm not interested in association fallacies. It's an economic fact that Hispanics and Africans are a net drain on the U.S. economy.
- I know you are a bright person, God bless! But you shouldn't just take in whatever conservatives say. Budget relates to Taxes, economy (GDP) relates to Income (real GDP per capita). As you know, the average income of an African American is about $42K, which puts him at a higher income level than the average Italian or the average Kiwi, & on par with the average Korean. The average income of a Hispanic American is about $52K, which puts him at a similar level as the average German or Australian, at a much higher income than in most European countries or Canada or Japan... America is quite a rich country, just so we don't get lost in relative values. Shaving that 100 million from the total population would cost the US a *quarter* of its economy -roughly the economies of Italy & Spain & Australia combined (some of the richest countries in the world with +130 million people). Blacks may pay relatively less taxes that Whites for a lot of obvious reasons, but they are still huge consumers.
Illegals cause other social issues, such decay in societal trust and charity. It's not hard to imagine why you wouldn't want a lower I.Q, unable to legally work, net economic loss criminal in your neighbourhood.
- So, it's not really about the votes. IQ is relative... Whites have a lower IQ than Asians, they are doing fine ; decades ago they had lower IQ than current Blacks, they were still doing just fine. You don't have to be a genius to be a cashier or a garbageman... Should we get rid of all these 'lower' jobs then?
Yeah that's nice. Now it's White majority country that Whites had to conquer. Why is the country, which is still owned by Whites (roughly 75% of the population), not allowed to cater to its people?
- They didn't *have* to conquer it, they did anyways. But indeed, they are the majority among other minorities. That's why you have democracy, so you can cater to the majority & stomp the minorities. You are but one individual, you can not expect the majority (White or otherwise) to agree with you. The House, the Senate & the Presidency often are in the hands of White conservatives. What more do you want?
Right so it still has a racial majority
- No love lost for the Saudis, but less so than the US, 60% vs. 75%.
... and the majority of immigrants are Muslim and/or brown
- As are the majority of immigrants into the US Christian (some 75%). Brown is not a race...
Wow, such diverse immigration and population. Could you please tell me how many White people are immigrating and having their desire for democracy respected?
- Wut...?
How are Atheists treated in Saudi?
- They don't let you in if you don't cross a religious choice in your entry. Once you in, you can go on about your business. Saudi is the country of hypocrisies...
What about vegans who don't want Hilal?
- It's Halal. Halal refers to pure food, which is food acquired & prepared in a lawful way. Pork or impure meat/poultry (brutally killed or distressed or sick or disabled or chocked or dead animals, not slaughtered in the name of God) or alcohol (& any intoxicant) or anything acquired through unlawful means, such as theft or usury or exploitation...etc. Any healthy vegan food is Halal food.
Actually, you don't have to, because my source (something that you could start using, rather than saying random, unsupported things) shows that actually diverse people aren't immigrating to Saudi.
- What is it you're trying to say...? Point?
I enjoy how you source everything you say. Makes for convincing arguments.
- It's a known story... https://www.powwows.com/familys-mount-rushmore-photo-goes-viral/
Hispanic and African immigration into the U.S, legal or not, is objectively bad. That is the topic at hand. Fixing the issue you stated is a red herring because Hispanic and African immigration does not fix it.
- All numbers aside, why are you so against Africans & Hispanics? Aren't they people too (with quite the troubling history)? It's good to have intellectual discipline, of ideas & reason -like you do. But it's way more important to have spiritual discipline, of emotions & virtues. I'm telling you because I think of you as a friend.
Lol mate you've got no idea. Go to the Opera House and the Sydney Harbour Bridge. You won't get harassed by anyone. Meanwhile, in Paris, these African pests will approach you constantly. Rome is even worse.
- Some places are worse than others, indeed.
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Yeah in fact, the money issue isn't as important as the social degradation issue. Hispanics and Africans, as groups, cause lots of social issues. For example, they will block-up and vote against the interests of White People, especially if it furthers their own agendas (e.g. a welfare state). In regards to a White majority country, such as the U.S, this means that you have invaders attempting to undermine and leech from White people. The wall is designed to prevent some of these pests from entering White spaces.
- Damn, what's up with "invaders" "pests"...?! You mean immigrants. So it's a question of constituency & voting potential? Don't illegals have no right to vote? From a big picture perspective, population is key. The US has been able to accumulate such a large population through immigration, even when fertility rates among its White population is below-replacement. People come & go, norms & customs change. Without recent immigration, the US's population may only be +200 million instead of the +300 millions it is today. If the US wishes to compete in the future economic stage it must maintain a large population. in a couple decades 3 other countries (namely, Indonesia, Pakistan & Nigeria) will surpass the US's current population. Without immigration, it's unlikely that the US would've been able to overwhelm the USSR or Japan as it did in the 90s, or compete with the EU. Besides, haven't we heard the same being said about the Irish when they came, & then the Italians as well.
Imagine if I were to enter Saudi Arabia and immediately call for abolishing of Hijab, shouting through a megaphone how bad Sharia is. The whole country would be up in arms. I personally don't want to wear such an annoying garment, but if I was going to go onto Muslim Arab soil, I would respect the culture and the people enough to wear it.
- This would've made more sense if you were talking about a European country, but North America is not a White native territory, virtually everybody there is an immigrant at some point. But again, this isn't an immigration issue at heart, it's a post-modern issue in the West. Despite having a 1/3rd of its population from immigrants, Saudi does not rule by democracy & does not have things like "freedom of speech".
Yet when Africans in Southern America call for the destruction of Dixxie statues, that's just fine. When Hispanics are photographed giving the finger to the Mount Rushmore statues (i.e. the Founding Fathers), there's no problem.
- Those were natives mistaken for Mexican immigrants. Regardless, your contention here touches on a much deeper issue, these are just symptoms. It's the whole system that the West has gotten itself into. But don't you think the African population in particular is a special case with a special history? Personally, I don't agree with either side. What the US needs (& Europe) is competent leadership & some serious reforms. Stopping immigration may have appease some White folks in the short term, but it's not gunna solve a damn thing. On the contrary, the brunt of an aging population will be too much to bear. Japan today has roughly the same GDP it had 25 years ago, a 1/3rd of its population is +60, & they can't get away from it. Ibn Khaldun comments on the stages of civilizations, the stage before the last, that of stagnation, in which the rulers being confident in the system of their predecessors maintain the same methods unable to reform or innovate.
I believe you lived in France at one time. Assuming you went to Paris at one stage, do you remember the Africans harassing people of the streets in Paris with their cheap, overpriced merchandise? It makes it bloody unpleasant to walk down the street, and it badly injures social goodwill and faith.
- I live now in Turkey, but did live in Paris for 7 years, 10 minutes walk form the Eiffel Tour, yes. I actually attempted to sell stuff there myself as an artist to support myself, but I couldn't get permission from the municipality. & I travelled to another 17 countries, all of them with people selling cheap overpriced stuff. It's not a 'Paris' thing or an 'African' thing, it's a tourist thing. & I can tell you, it's way worse than Paris in some of these places. You simply should never buy stuff from tourist areas, with the exception of food. What does that have to do the wall?
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Almost immediately after the death of mohammed, long before significant contact with the west, Islam split and Muslim was killing Muslim.Why? Because there was a power struggle amongst the elite. Because their leaders coveted power, ordinary Arabs found themselves killing and being killed by each other.
- Not quite. You must not know these people, or the history which therein transpired, but whatever.
There's no difference between the west and Islam - we are all the same species with the same fundamental nature.
- Again, the West is a political entity, Islam is a religion. No room for comparison. I don't even know what is it you're objecting to. Any specific thing you're referring to?
There has never been a war over religion.
- Rarely, indeed.
There are only wars for power and control with the sides having different religions.
- Absolutely. As Ibn Khaldun notes, wars result from imbalance in power & loyalty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Prove that bigfoot is contingent on anything.
- If you mean by bigfoot that bigfoot we all know, then yeah. Contingent means its existence is in the realm of possibility, as it may or may not exist. If it does exist, it must have an explanation for its existence. If it doesn't then it doesn't -which it doesn't, no explanation needed.
I'm unconcerned by your cakeshop philosophy.
- You may wanna take up a course or two on Philosophy...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
- These are philosophical terms relating to Sufficient Causation. That is, a thing can either exist necessarily (never failing to exist), otherwise exist contingently (with possibility of failing to exist). In another sense, a thing may either have a cause or explanation for its existence, thus is contingent on that cause or explanation, or not, thus not contingent, hence necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
- As I said, "once proven", entailing it requires demonstration. Demonstration is not what the OP is about. The OP assumes the existence of a 'Creator God' & inquires about its relation to the 'Specific God', to which I answered, it's a relation of identity, as far as Islam is concerned.
- If demonstration is what you seek, we can debate the resolution. Or, here is a layout of what a demonstration may look like:
Definition:
God is a Necessary (necessarily existent) Singular (simple & unique) Absolute (with absolutely free will) & Transcendent (distinct from all creation) being.
Argument:
1. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed) exists.
2. This contingent being has a cause of its existence.
3. The cause of its existence is something other than itself.
4. This cause must either be a contingent or a non-contingent -necessary- being.
5. Contingent beings solely are not sufficient for the existence of a contingent being.
6. This cause must include a necessary being.
7. Therefore, a Necessary being (a being such that if it exists cannot not-exist) Exists.
8. Two necessary distinct beings exist. [ Assumption ]
9. A difference between the distinct necessary beings exists.
10. This difference is either necessary or contingent.
11. If the difference is necessary, then three necessary beings exist. [ Absurd! ]
12. If the difference is contingent (has a cause or an explanation for its existence), then at least one of the two necessary beings is contingent (has a cause or explanation for its/their existence). [ Absurd! ]
13. Therefore, a necessary being is one (i.e. unique). [ & similarly, a necessary being is simple (does not have parts) ]
14. Therefore, the necessary being is Singular (i.e. unique & simple).
15. The sum of all contingent beings is not singular.
16. Therefore, the sum of all contingent beings is Distinct from the necessary being.
17. The sum of all contingent beings is contingent (not necessary, i.e. not identical to the necessary being).
18. The necessary being is the sole cause of the existence of the sum of all contingent beings.
19. The attribute to cause the sum of all contingent being exists (Will).
20. The Will is Absolutely Free. [ all contingent beings are equally non-existent prior to existence ]
C. Therefore, God exits. [ as defined ]
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
- Money aside, why do you support the wall? I've come to realize that it's rarely ever about money, though makes for a good case.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I would point out that historically western elites treated their own masses no better than their colonial conquests.
- In a way, absolutely. Though there was that extra racism & denigration...
The rich and powerful in all societies have much more in common with each other than they do with their own masses.
- Indeed indeed. Though I was referring to culture.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sure, just need land and walls and nukes. Population dont matter.
- Below-replacement rate = eventual extension.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes your definition is prescriptive not descriptive.
- No. A definition is a definition, by definition. Definition is Identity, it's basically saying A = A, a thing is itself.
What is to stop someone from defining Bigfoot as a necessary being? That would be prescriptive. Under those circumstances no unnecessary being can be Bigfoot. Any unnecessary being must necessarily be something else by the stated definition.
- Yes. Or you can identify the One necessary being with 'pink unicorn' or simply '&$)(Q$*$&$Q)'... In this case, 'pink unicorn' & '&$)(Q$*$&$Q)' & 'Bigfoot' refer to literally the same thing, because you identified them to the same thing. It's just a label, a title...
- Defining God as the Singular Absolute Necessary & Transcendent being, is simply identifying God to said being. Once such being is proven to exist, that's what we refer to as God.
Created: