Quote from: DAS B00T 2016 on March 24, 2016, 04:09:39 PM

I refuse to accept that anti-natalism will be how the white race disappears. I refuse it. We're better than just giving up.

Read the mood, will ya?

I'm pretty much stuck in this shitty world, now.

Might as well laugh while I'm here.

Quote from: gatsby on March 24, 2016, 09:03:02 AM

I really wonder what language I would have spoken had the Muslim conquests of the Levant never happened.  Ew maybe Turkish gross

Islam helped the Turks conquer the Levant. It took down a Sassanid Persia and much of a Byzantine empire that were crippled by decades of brutal and extensive warfare. This is how the Arabs, now united, were able to defeat forces larger and more advanced than theirs (although not as large and advanced as Arab historians want you to think). Later, Turks BTFO the Arabs.

Had this not happened, it would be unlikely that either empire would fall so soon, and one or both might have had the chance to recover fully.

You'd probably speak some more developed form of Aramaic, maybe Greek if your family was upper-class.

You seem to have a pretty good grasp of history, tbf.

What are your main areas/periods of interest?

Truthfully, adults can seek and maintain relationships with whomever they please.

Of course. I'm certainly not going to argue polyamory ought to be illegal, or anything like that. Merely. . . "Not encouraged".

and I see no point in maintaining traditions for the sake of tradition.

The changing structure of families away from the nuclear model--especially the rise in single-mother households--can account for more than the increase in U.S. poverty since 1980 than has actually occurred. This isn't a case of preserving tradition for the sake of tradition.

Sometimes I question whether progressives actually stop and think why an institution like monogamous, heterosexual marriage has endured for so long. It feels like, all too often, the onus is shifted onto conservatives to justify why we should keep such traditional institutions; those wishing to make the change ought to put up or shut up, instead of just laughing and sneering at those of us who think that maybe we shouldn't be so rash to tear down institutions which have been central parts of our society for centuries.

Send me a PM tomorrow reminding me to respond to this if I don't get around to it. I didn't sleep last night so I really can't be arsed to trawl through a word document full of sources/respond in full to you.

I will say, however:

No offence, but this is a fundamental misunderstanding of causation/correlation confusion.

No, it isn't. I didn't even begin to imply any kind of causal factor here. I actually don't even know what you think I think the causal factor is here, or how it relates to stereotypes. Are you implying that I think high crime rates among blacks are the result of criminals simply being black? Because I don't. Literally all I'm pointing out is that stereotypes are pretty accurate perceptions of correlations. At no point did I even slightly suggest that X group commits Y act because they are X group.

ever notice how, while the vast majority of these violent perpetrators come from the Middle East, there are vastly large sums of Muslims elsewhere in the world? Less than 40% of the world's Muslim population lives in the Middle East, with incredibly large pockets living in India and Indonesia, but you don't nearly as often hear about radicalization of the religious sectors in those countries bombing churches or executing women.

No, but why are you limiting the problem solely to violent fundamentalism? We already know a worrying number of Muslims, even in the West, hold views about gays or women or even democracy which simply aren't compatible with our liberal society. Is the Middle East, as a region, uniquely suited to producing insurgencies and militant groups? Yeah, I wouldn't dispute that. But it doesn't follow that there are no other problems with a large section of the global Muslim community.

There have been problems historically with all of the other religions, too. Were I living through the Reformation, I would no doubt be railing against the tribalism of Christianity and weeping over the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. We don't live in a world, however, where Christianity has a unique problem with producing people who hold incredibly violent and illiberal world views. Is this inherent to Islam? No, certainly not. In fact, I would argue a big piece of the puzzle is the manipulation of religion by authoritarian states in the Middle East to suit their agenda. Nevertheless, due to reasons involving the scripture, theology and history of Islam it does seem to have a unique ability to produce these kinds of people.

And, fuck, I'm not even saying it's a majority. I'm don't even believe the conveyer belt theory of terrorism. It's just a bigger problem within Islam than it currently is with any other religion (not to suggest Christian extremists don't exist; groups like anti-Balaka and the LRA should considered as warped in their worldview as al-Qaeda or the Taliban, but they just don't command our attention because they aren't a significant security threat).

and especially recent problems with invasions by western powers

The literature really doesn't support this theory of blowback. Does foreign policy contribute to terrorism in the sense it adds to terrorists' grievances? Yeah, it gives them a narrative to work with. But by and large that narrative is only really effective within the already-existing radicalised community. Drone strikes--even failed ones--demonstrably lead to a reduction in the lethality of terrorist attacks, Palestinian support for attacks on Israel has been falling, even through Operation Cast Lead, all of the 7/7 bombers were radicalised before the invasion of Iraq, the direction of causality strongly runs from Israeli casualties leading to Palestinian casualties and not vice versa.

If foreign policy is the cause of terrorism, how come most Muslims do not like bin Laden or al-Qaeda? It's fairly clear our foreign policy doesn't necessarily entail the creation of significant grievances among Muslim communities, so we have to question why some of them respond the way that they do. Obviously, we're dealing with a highly irrational and fanatical side of the Muslim population.

And let's be honest, these are exactly the people who are going to be trying to establish caliphates and Talibanised regimes across the Middle East whether or not we get involved. It's certainly a lot easier for them if we don't, and it makes the lives of those under them a hell of a lot worse. At some point, our foreign policy must be motivated by our values--which cannot be compromised. If our values entail stopping the establishment and spread of insurgencies seeking to overthrow their government--particularly democratic ones--then so be it.

Muslims, especially those uneducated in their religion and in their daily lives in general, are much easier to twist to the whim of groups like ISIS and their more violent interpretation of the Quaran.

See, it's comments like this that show you don't know what the evidence says. The relationship between education and terrorism is not very tight at all, and if anything runs in the direction opposite to what you suggest. Radicals tend to come from more affluent backgrounds than the working classes of their society. And, of course, we should expect this. While it's not unlikely that working-class people bombarded with propaganda could become radicalised, it's a hell of a lot more likely that they're just like working-class people anywhere else, and just want to get the fuck on with their lives with some degree of security.

And in case anyone is to come out and say, "well, the quaran just encourages violence at its core," then a reminder to you that Jihad simply means "struggle in the ways of Allah." The Bible has just as many violent, classist, and sexist messages as the Quaran does, but it is, obviously, less often interpreted in those ways.

The fact that it simply means "struggle in the ways of Allah" is not a point in the Qur'an's favour. That's a ridiculously ambiguous definition, and could lend itself just as easily to violence as peace. And, indeed, part of the problem with the Qur'an is the fact that it's so much shorter and less 'open to interpretation' than the Bible; there's much less wiggle-room.

You're also correct, the Bible (or, at least the Old Testament) does indeed have violent, classist and sexist passages. But this is irrelevant. I don't really care what the Bible says--at least outside of metaphysical, epistemological and moral discussion--but I care what Christians are doing. And, as I said, right now the scale of Christian fundamentalism and its associated effects isn't quite on the same level as Islamic fundamentalism.

I simply say that attempts to demonize or force out all immigration simply aid to the message and goal of groups like ISIS at its core. ISIS wants to play off of the fear of middle eastern culture and of Islam in order to say, "look, they're the bad guys. They're the evil ones. We need to get revenge on them for what they're done."

Two points: nobody except those on the far-right are arguing for the demonisation or expulsion of immigrants. Secondly, I don't care what ISIS wants, and neither should you. These people will create grievances against you where none really exist; let nobody forget that one of the greatest UN diplomats who ever lives, and several Australian tourists in Bali, were murdered by al-Qaeda because a Western coalition wouldn't allow the Muslim-majority Indonesia to commit genocide in the Christian-majority East Timor.

I don't care what they want; I only care about the most effective way to destroy them.

The majority of my argument, at its core, is that the demonization of all muslims for the act of the radical few is as ridiculous as pointing at a snowflake and saying "look, climate change can't be real" or pointing at a rapist and saying "look, all men are terrible."

Except literally nobody here has ever made the argument that all Muslims are horrible people and deserve to be demonised. You are presenting a strawman argument, quite literally.

No one said that Christianity was terrible at its core back when the KKK and white supremacists were lynching people left and right - because it's much easier to try and apply this sort of logic to a foreign or minority group.

That's because it's quite difficult to justify the murder of other races on Biblical scripture. The main justification that was used was the passage which stated God created the light before the dark; compare this to Islamic fundamentalists, who have no shortage of passages to justify their murder of infidels.

It's also worth noting that racial violence and the KKK is not quite the same as ideological warfare, based on fundamentally differing values.

stereotypes because

It's a shame stereotypes tend to be mad accurate then.

Furthermore, a majority of this board seems to support Trump's temporary Muslim ban, and that is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen in my life, so allow me to address that for a moment.

I literally haven't seen a single person here support that, and would expect only the 'usual suspects' like Midget, Cadenza and PSU to support that. They certainly don't represent conservative opinion on this board, and it's definitely not what I, Mordo, Turkey etc. believe.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on March 23, 2016, 07:23:57 PM

Quote from: Decimator Omega on March 23, 2016, 07:23:07 PM

Nice title change. I'm taking my likes back.

I could always PM you a picture of "my friend" snorting coke?

Who's "your friend" exa-

Oh god I think I know what you're talking about >.<

Pls no.

Only a faggot would think of that before they thought of the obvious.

Lol, you're disgusting man.

I think that sort of thing would be against the rules, but I'm not sure.

I was originally going to ask whether it would be, but then I couldn't be bothered and thought fuck it.

Like once or twice a day.

I plan on improving my diet, though, so that'll probably change.

India doesn't have a huge rape problem just because of Hinduism, for example.

No, but it does have a massive problem with social stratification, which is a hangover from the Vedic period.

You're totally beyond the pale in terms of shit-eating stupidity if you think religions can have no effects on the socio-cultural outlook of a population (and by extension, have bad effects). In the same way I'm pretty sure Hinduism is responsible for India's current issues with class, I'm also fairly sure Islam is at least partly responsible for enduring patriarchy in Muslim communities.

The reformation, renaissance, enlightenment etc DID NOT MAKE CHRISTIANITY ANY MORE OR LESS INHERENTLY VIOLENT THAN IT WAS BEFORE. CHRISTIANITY ESTABLISHES A GENUINELY PEACEFUL WORLDVIEW THAT WAS LATER ADAPTED FOR VIOLENCE AND WARFARE BY THE RULING ELITE. ALMOST ALL OF THE EARLY SAINTS WERE PACIFIST MARTYRS AND THEOLOGIANS.

I'd be interested to know if you have any historical evidence for this position? Not so much the early saints being pacifists, but the co-option of Christianity as a justification for warfare by the ruling elite.

Quote from: Jocephalopod on March 22, 2016, 07:09:05 PM

NSFW

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=112_1458660549
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6f0_1458652897

On mobile so it wont load, what does it show?

Debris. Injured people. Bodies. People leaving the airport, apparently dazed. Human suffering.

It looks like a warzone.

greetings from /r/the_donald

huehue nice meme

I swear to God I only go there ironically.