SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Journal by DeathMonkey
Islam is no more inherently violent than Christianity, BUT..
If anyone has a basis to say otherwise it's probably Charlie Fucking Hebdo!
Which they didn't actually say, for the record.
Islam is no more inherently violent than Christianity, BUT..
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 24 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all.
-- Thomas J. Kopp
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday August 25 2017, @05:53PM (11 children)
Proportion will likely increase as most of the new population growth will be in Africa (roughly half or a little less - 48% in 2002 - of Africans are Muslims).
Time to get used to it, or try to convert them, pack Mars with atheists, or whatever. They aren't going away.
http://www.sesrtcic.org/event-detail.php?id=953 [sesrtcic.org]
I say unemployed people are more likely to be terrorists. I say unemployment will rise dramatically in the U.S., regardless of religion, as automation takes off. We have to get the population addicted to VR, drugs, and UBI. If we can't do that, we need to wipe them out so the rich capitalists can experience a little more security.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 25 2017, @05:58PM (2 children)
I say unemployed people are more likely to be terrorists.
Desperate + irrational. Not a great combination...
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday August 25 2017, @06:02PM (1 child)
You're right. The Christian unemployed represent a double risk factor and should be treated with extreme caution.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @12:42PM
thou shalt not murder
> cue the JHVH tales in the old testament
if none other than JHVH comes down from the clouds and tells you to murder, and if by some logical impossibility you were able to prove he is genuine and not an impostor/hallucination/mental illness, you still have ample room to debate the order, as a follower of the Word and Example of his son, see mark 9:7.
meanwhile in another religion, wine is forbidden BUT you can have wine in heaven or when you are doing the jihad. This means things are more flexible. This is worse than atheism as atheists refuse religion but adhere to their own value system. Here the value system is formulaic and the behavior opportunistic.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday August 25 2017, @07:35PM
That might depend on what we mean by "terrorist." If we count everybody who dies fighting soldiers who invaded their countries, probably. If we're only counting people who do attacks in countries which have not been invaded by an outside force, I'm actually skeptical. There was a chapter in Super Freakonomics that argued for relatively wealthy educated individuals being more likely to commit terrorist attacks, I believe in the context of Muslim terrorists. It's been a minute since I read it, and I don't feel comfortable making the Stevens' argument for them.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 25 2017, @08:39PM (6 children)
Automation took off centuries ago and that didn't happen. I have a counter-prediction:
By 2050, the US will be back to a labor-friendly place (as it was in the 1950s and 1960s) with the generation born then destined to be wealthier than their parents. Automation will turn out to continue the trend of making human labor more valuable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @01:00AM (3 children)
Previous automation didn't include advanced artificial intelligence techniques. Previous automation was less sophisticated and yet still managed to greatly reduce the amount of jobs available in the areas being automated, so it's not hard to imagine more advanced, more general automation will result in much fewer jobs. I don't know if you expect everyone to become artists or what, but it's not going to happen.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 26 2017, @04:37AM (2 children)
Second, there's Jevons paradox. Automation also serves to make human labor more valuable and hence, more in demand.
Finally, it's worth noting that the developed world has on several occasions artificially destroyed demand for labor, for example, for various minorities in inner cities in the US or the recent past in Greecec. People didn't just not work, they instead worked under the table, say for organized crime or getting paid in cash (depending on the nature of the obstacles). If society chooses to destroy the value of human labor, then sure, it can look like jobs were automated away. The difference will be that people will work outside the law by necessity - routing around the damage done.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @12:29AM (1 child)
It's unlikely that there will be enough of these "some things" to employ everyone.
I've seen no concrete evidence of this, and certainly it doesn't have enough of an effect to employ the hundreds of millions of people who will be unemployed if we attain advanced AI.
Automating jobs away is not really damage. What's damaging is a combination of that and a society that is too ideological to consider things like basic income when it is sorely needed.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 27 2017, @03:33AM
Unless, of course, they're not unemployed.
The huge problem with basic income is that it creates a huge conflict of interest between the beneficiaries of the basic income and the interests of society, particularly in the future. A higher basic income means more today for the beneficiaries, but at the expense of the future society. I don't see any UBI proposal that even acknowledges that, much less comes up with a viable solution.
For example, dividends on the Alaskan Pipeline which are paid out to qualified Alaskan residents as a fraction of revenue on the pipeline. This creates a common interest between voters in Alaska and the performance of the fund and its assets. But a UBI is just a payment which can be gamed to be higher or lower without any connection to the health of the society funding the UBI. Thus, I believe there will be plenty of voters and special interests encouraging the increase of a UBI without regard to its effect on society.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday August 28 2017, @12:19AM (1 child)
History has shown that unemployment does raise, at least for a while with automation. The age of the Luddites saw 70 years, or 3 generations of chronic underemployment. If you were lucky, you got a shit job, whether in a factory or as a servant. This was offset, especially in the new world, by large amounts of land being made available so lots of people became homesteaders or involved in resource extraction.
The automation that happened around the turn of the 20th century saw a much better reaction by society. The workforce was reduced by various means. Child labour laws removed a large chunk of the labour force. The 40 hour workweek split the labour up. Increased wages allowed workers to support more people so woman could become homemakers, old people could quit work instead of dying on the job and such.
We'll see how society reacts to the next splurge of automation, but right now it looks like a cross. Young people going to school for longer and longer but having to go into massive debt to do it (soon probably need a degree to flip burgers) The work week getting longer. Government help for the poor going down hill.
I remember, back in school, the promises of automation. Productivity would go way up, the wealth would be shared and the average person could have a good life working 20-30 hours a week. Now the reality is lots of homeless people, a 1% vacancy rate and homes that need million dollar plus mortgages with the government talking about how to help those unfortunates that only make $80k a year, little well the minimum wage workers making $10 an hour .
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 28 2017, @12:25PM
Compared to what? That era saw worse conditions in the countries that didn't have such automation (such as Russia).
Which let us note, all actually happened. Everyone is in agreement that productivity has gone up. The world's workforce has indeed enjoyed a great share of the wealth with immense gains in income and wealth over most of the world's population. And the average person, working in a low cost part of countries that have low cost parts (the US does, for example), can enjoy a good life working for part time.
1% vacancy rate? Not everyone lives in such areas and I don't have sympathy for those that do. Live somewhere else and your costs go down a lot. We also ignore the financial games that result in a higher vacancy rate than that, such as investors holding or banks holding on to real estate without renting it out (there are various games that one can play for which this works), again without renting that property out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25 2017, @06:15PM (7 children)
No, they don't automatically become an authority on the topic just because some people died.
The question of inherent violence in a particular religion would probably be better answered by someone with expertise in comparative religious studies, total violence by members of a particular religion by a historian, and violent tendencies by a psychologist.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 25 2017, @06:33PM (6 children)
People died because they posted pictures of Mohammed, though. That's a bit different than a random attack and speaks directly to the religious connection.
Again, I disagree with the statement they (didn't really) make but I can definitely see where they're coming from.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 25 2017, @06:37PM
The fact that they regularly attack Christianity for the same kind of nonsense helps a bit too.
It's be different coming from someone who only appears to care about extremist violence when the perpetrator is brown.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25 2017, @07:02PM (3 children)
Does it speak to the inherent violence of the religion?
No, it does not.
Case studies are great to illustrate points, but they fail to generate statistics.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 25 2017, @07:38PM (2 children)
Abdicating your morality to some sky-fairy-interpreter does, inherently, make a person more susceptible to acting immorally based on someone's word.
So, yes, I'd say there is an inherent issue with Christianity and Islam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25 2017, @07:59PM
I was arguing against your assumption that Charlie Hebdo is some authority on comparative religious studies or the inherent violence of religions.
It'd be interesting to see the data, but I'd guess that followers of deontological moral systems would be less likely to compromise than other moral philosophies.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday August 26 2017, @04:18PM
I'd kill you for saying that, by MY sky-fairie says:
"Oh man, i am sooooo high right now. Got any munchies? Ohh man...... i could go for some Jelly Babies"
Yeah. My sky-fairie is as useless as all the rest.
;)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday August 26 2017, @03:37PM
People died because they posted pictures of Mohammed, though.
Yeah yeah, when's the last time you've been to a match [independent.co.uk]? You insult a guy's dog and there's gonna be trouble.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @01:12PM (1 child)
From the article sub-headline:
At the moment, most "terror attacks" (i.e., those that rightfully should be labeled "terror attacks") seem to always have someone of the "radicalized Muslim" background behind them, it is not surprising that the "impression" of "Muslim" === Violent gets built up.
The thing is, if the "law-abiding Muslims" are tired of also being painted with the same broad brush strokes, then they need to get off their asses and start working on cleaning the tiny 0.1% out of their order that create all the bad impressions. How do they do this? Well, given the religious fanaticalism of the 0.1% bad apples the easiest way is to start preaching that committing these kinds of acts is a sentence to hell. And start getting the Imam's to preach this in the mosques. And for the ones that do commit these acts, the preaching should be that they have now gone to hell for their acts.
Once the radical's start hearing that their god will condemn them to hell (and that their brothers have passed on to hell) for these acts instead of sending them to heaven from enough folks, and esp. enough Imams, they too will start to believe this as fact. And once the radical element begins to believe that terrorist acts equals a sentence to hell, all of these terrorist acts will quit being performed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @12:55PM
blaming moderates for the acts of violence is inherently wrong.
Whenever islam gets majority demographically, islamic moderates will side with it though, as they want to "save from degeneracy" the countries whom they obtain asylum from. These actions speak louder than words when evaluating a religion, though.
All the same, if a reaction in the form of a fascist repressive regime occurs, christians and atheists are probably not going to be too displeased of having to choose their totalitarianism instead of a totalitarianism that calls them infidel pigs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @08:16PM (1 child)
Muslims aren't all the same. So if you want to paint with a less broad brush you can look here:
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/#sharia-as-the-official-law-of-the-land [pewforum.org]
There are those who think marrying 9 year old girls is a good idea and there may be some who don't AND are able to come up with a good and convincing resolution for:
https://quran.com/33/21 [quran.com]
vs:
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/63/120 [sunnah.com]
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/67/69-70 [sunnah.com]
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/67/93 [sunnah.com]
https://sunnah.com/muslim/16/81-84 [sunnah.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:27PM
They're able to come up with a resolution, but it's not good or convincing since their precious book is a collection of contradictions and other such nonsense. They - along with all other religious people - should just drop their garbage religions instead of being foolish.