Quote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 01:50:34 PMQuote from: Meta as Fuck on September 20, 2015, 01:38:31 PMQuote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 01:35:53 PMQuote from: Meta as Fuck on September 20, 2015, 01:31:28 PMQuote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 01:26:54 PMdespite the fact that Muslims in our country are far more moderate than many believe (Apparently, all Muslims are terrorists to some here).Muslims in the US are probably more moderate than in Western Europe, but there's still a rather significant problem with fundamentalism even in America. 51pc of mosques have violent texts on-site, and Muslims make up 1pc of the population and 80pc of the terror convictions. Sauce?http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/sharia-adherence-mosque-survey/htmlThe United States has, as of 2010, over 2000 mosques throughout the country. While I get the whole need for sampling size being a small percentage, the study only used 100 mosques in 2011 - which is not even 10% of the total amount.I don't have time to read through the entire website - mind picking out the sections where it shows which texts are used, etc?A sample size of 100 is more than enough for the 2106 mosques in America.
Quote from: Meta as Fuck on September 20, 2015, 01:38:31 PMQuote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 01:35:53 PMQuote from: Meta as Fuck on September 20, 2015, 01:31:28 PMQuote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 01:26:54 PMdespite the fact that Muslims in our country are far more moderate than many believe (Apparently, all Muslims are terrorists to some here).Muslims in the US are probably more moderate than in Western Europe, but there's still a rather significant problem with fundamentalism even in America. 51pc of mosques have violent texts on-site, and Muslims make up 1pc of the population and 80pc of the terror convictions. Sauce?http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/sharia-adherence-mosque-survey/htmlThe United States has, as of 2010, over 2000 mosques throughout the country. While I get the whole need for sampling size being a small percentage, the study only used 100 mosques in 2011 - which is not even 10% of the total amount.I don't have time to read through the entire website - mind picking out the sections where it shows which texts are used, etc?
Quote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 01:35:53 PMQuote from: Meta as Fuck on September 20, 2015, 01:31:28 PMQuote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 01:26:54 PMdespite the fact that Muslims in our country are far more moderate than many believe (Apparently, all Muslims are terrorists to some here).Muslims in the US are probably more moderate than in Western Europe, but there's still a rather significant problem with fundamentalism even in America. 51pc of mosques have violent texts on-site, and Muslims make up 1pc of the population and 80pc of the terror convictions. Sauce?http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/sharia-adherence-mosque-survey/html
Quote from: Meta as Fuck on September 20, 2015, 01:31:28 PMQuote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 01:26:54 PMdespite the fact that Muslims in our country are far more moderate than many believe (Apparently, all Muslims are terrorists to some here).Muslims in the US are probably more moderate than in Western Europe, but there's still a rather significant problem with fundamentalism even in America. 51pc of mosques have violent texts on-site, and Muslims make up 1pc of the population and 80pc of the terror convictions. Sauce?
Quote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 01:26:54 PMdespite the fact that Muslims in our country are far more moderate than many believe (Apparently, all Muslims are terrorists to some here).Muslims in the US are probably more moderate than in Western Europe, but there's still a rather significant problem with fundamentalism even in America. 51pc of mosques have violent texts on-site, and Muslims make up 1pc of the population and 80pc of the terror convictions.
despite the fact that Muslims in our country are far more moderate than many believe (Apparently, all Muslims are terrorists to some here).
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on September 20, 2015, 01:54:39 PMQuote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 01:50:34 PMQuote from: Meta as Fuck on September 20, 2015, 01:38:31 PMQuote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 01:35:53 PMQuote from: Meta as Fuck on September 20, 2015, 01:31:28 PMQuote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 01:26:54 PMdespite the fact that Muslims in our country are far more moderate than many believe (Apparently, all Muslims are terrorists to some here).Muslims in the US are probably more moderate than in Western Europe, but there's still a rather significant problem with fundamentalism even in America. 51pc of mosques have violent texts on-site, and Muslims make up 1pc of the population and 80pc of the terror convictions. Sauce?http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/sharia-adherence-mosque-survey/htmlThe United States has, as of 2010, over 2000 mosques throughout the country. While I get the whole need for sampling size being a small percentage, the study only used 100 mosques in 2011 - which is not even 10% of the total amount.I don't have time to read through the entire website - mind picking out the sections where it shows which texts are used, etc?A sample size of 100 is more than enough for the 2106 mosques in America.Hardly, especially since the mosques sampled barely represent a quarter of he country - 14 or 15 states.
I don't see the problem. He made a very clear distinction between theocratic Muslims and secular Muslims, which I think most would agree that the former is utterly unelectable.
Quote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 20, 2015, 04:13:08 PMI don't see the problem. He made a very clear distinction between theocratic Muslims and secular Muslims, which I think most would agree that the former is utterly unelectable.Any theocratic candidate should be unelectable - no matter the religion.
Quote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 04:21:05 PMQuote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 20, 2015, 04:13:08 PMI don't see the problem. He made a very clear distinction between theocratic Muslims and secular Muslims, which I think most would agree that the former is utterly unelectable.Any theocratic candidate should be unelectable - no matter the religion.Agreed, but if we're talking proportionality here, a Christian theocrat is morally preferable to a Muslim theocrat.
Quote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 20, 2015, 04:23:52 PMQuote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 04:21:05 PMQuote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 20, 2015, 04:13:08 PMI don't see the problem. He made a very clear distinction between theocratic Muslims and secular Muslims, which I think most would agree that the former is utterly unelectable.Any theocratic candidate should be unelectable - no matter the religion.Agreed, but if we're talking proportionality here, a Christian theocrat is morally preferable to a Muslim theocrat.That's still like saying Stalin is preferable to Zedong.
Quote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 04:34:43 PMQuote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 20, 2015, 04:23:52 PMQuote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 04:21:05 PMQuote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 20, 2015, 04:13:08 PMI don't see the problem. He made a very clear distinction between theocratic Muslims and secular Muslims, which I think most would agree that the former is utterly unelectable.Any theocratic candidate should be unelectable - no matter the religion.Agreed, but if we're talking proportionality here, a Christian theocrat is morally preferable to a Muslim theocrat.That's still like saying Stalin is preferable to Zedong.Well his kill count was less tbh.
One religion's kill count was less than the other.
Quote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 20, 2015, 04:47:27 PMQuote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 04:34:43 PMQuote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 20, 2015, 04:23:52 PMQuote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 04:21:05 PMQuote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 20, 2015, 04:13:08 PMI don't see the problem. He made a very clear distinction between theocratic Muslims and secular Muslims, which I think most would agree that the former is utterly unelectable.Any theocratic candidate should be unelectable - no matter the religion.Agreed, but if we're talking proportionality here, a Christian theocrat is morally preferable to a Muslim theocrat.That's still like saying Stalin is preferable to Zedong.Well his kill count was less tbh.One religion's kill count was less than the other.
Quote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 04:52:20 PMQuote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 20, 2015, 04:47:27 PMQuote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 04:34:43 PMQuote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 20, 2015, 04:23:52 PMQuote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 04:21:05 PMQuote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 20, 2015, 04:13:08 PMI don't see the problem. He made a very clear distinction between theocratic Muslims and secular Muslims, which I think most would agree that the former is utterly unelectable.Any theocratic candidate should be unelectable - no matter the religion.Agreed, but if we're talking proportionality here, a Christian theocrat is morally preferable to a Muslim theocrat.That's still like saying Stalin is preferable to Zedong.Well his kill count was less tbh.One religion's kill count was less than the other.Are you genuinely implying Christianity has a higher kill count?
Quote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 20, 2015, 05:02:52 PMQuote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 04:52:20 PMQuote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 20, 2015, 04:47:27 PMQuote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 04:34:43 PMQuote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 20, 2015, 04:23:52 PMQuote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 04:21:05 PMQuote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 20, 2015, 04:13:08 PMI don't see the problem. He made a very clear distinction between theocratic Muslims and secular Muslims, which I think most would agree that the former is utterly unelectable.Any theocratic candidate should be unelectable - no matter the religion.Agreed, but if we're talking proportionality here, a Christian theocrat is morally preferable to a Muslim theocrat.That's still like saying Stalin is preferable to Zedong.Well his kill count was less tbh.One religion's kill count was less than the other.Are you genuinely implying Christianity has a higher kill count?I didn't say which religion is higher, that's for you to decide (And to be honest, I don't really care).
Alsohttp://www.americaisachristiannation.com/has a whole website dedicated to it
Quote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 20, 2015, 05:02:52 PMQuote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 04:52:20 PMQuote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 20, 2015, 04:47:27 PMQuote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 04:34:43 PMQuote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 20, 2015, 04:23:52 PMQuote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 04:21:05 PMQuote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 20, 2015, 04:13:08 PMI don't see the problem. He made a very clear distinction between theocratic Muslims and secular Muslims, which I think most would agree that the former is utterly unelectable.Any theocratic candidate should be unelectable - no matter the religion.Agreed, but if we're talking proportionality here, a Christian theocrat is morally preferable to a Muslim theocrat.That's still like saying Stalin is preferable to Zedong.Well his kill count was less tbh.One religion's kill count was less than the other.Are you genuinely implying Christianity has a higher kill count?I figured Christianity would have a higher kill count in history times given the longer it's been around, the Crusades with all the raping and pillaging, etc, and other shit.
Quote from: Luciana on September 21, 2015, 11:39:42 AMQuote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 20, 2015, 05:02:52 PMQuote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 04:52:20 PMQuote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 20, 2015, 04:47:27 PMQuote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 04:34:43 PMQuote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 20, 2015, 04:23:52 PMQuote from: Fagcicle on September 20, 2015, 04:21:05 PMQuote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 20, 2015, 04:13:08 PMI don't see the problem. He made a very clear distinction between theocratic Muslims and secular Muslims, which I think most would agree that the former is utterly unelectable.Any theocratic candidate should be unelectable - no matter the religion.Agreed, but if we're talking proportionality here, a Christian theocrat is morally preferable to a Muslim theocrat.That's still like saying Stalin is preferable to Zedong.Well his kill count was less tbh.One religion's kill count was less than the other.Are you genuinely implying Christianity has a higher kill count?I figured Christianity would have a higher kill count in history times given the longer it's been around, the Crusades with all the raping and pillaging, etc, and other shit.The largely Sunni Ottoman Empire is reckoned to have slaughtered at least 2 million Armenians during its renown genocide. Not to mention the Gulf War in which Muslim Iraq, in an imperialist act of aggression, invaded Muslim Iran with a resulting (some estimates say) death of 2 million people, racking up the death toll to a cosy 4 million altogether, which is just two of the various different acts of barbarism influenced by Islamic scripture.The Crusades death toll comes in at about 2 million, and that's its highest estimate.
-5 Points for You, Carson
