On a separate topic: Obamacare's new premiums have been released. I mentioned months ago that come October there would be a reckoning and here it is: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-10-24-17-03-27 I'm pretty sure that this isn't what Americans who listened to Obama thought that they would be getting when this hair-brained plot was hatched. If you are unfortunate enough to be put in this marketplace you are essentially paying for an unaffordable service, that doesn't cover you unless you are in a catastrophic situation and your only recourse is to pay a penalty to the IRS for remaining uncovered.
I'm sure it's not the only reason, although it undoubtedly contributed. It's like the arguments surrounding free speech. Sure, it can encourage dangerous people, but I don't like the idea of restricting freedom and the availability of relevant data in the name of being safe. Nor do I trust anyone(barring certain military necessities) to determine what information is safe and what is not. I know there's feminists and leftists who are taking a more critical examination of the situation, but there are a lot who are just knee jerk responding, and enough that they have real influence. From my viewpoint there are a lot more on the left being extremely selective in trying to prove it's all about racism. Those articles you linked are perfect examples of that, and frankly don't appear all the nuanced to me. You can say I'm quote mining, but this is the tone throughout all four of those. Wait, what? They argued against the immigration policies for these reasons, and now that these things are happening they aren't supposed to use them to back their arguments? I would get this if we were talking about isolated incidents, or numbers in line with the local population. The lack of respect for women is not a 'portrayal'. That is an unfortunate part of their culture. These articles are nothing but a spin to try to turn the discussion into a demonetization of their political opponents. That last article is even titled: [QUOTE]Cologne sex attacks: If feminists and liberals remain silent, xenophobes will write their own history[/QUOTE] The irony is off the fucking charts. Why is it so hard to believe that people's rationale is the rationale they're saying instead of transforming it into racism and (a support of?) rape culture? What is up with the constant hatred towards people that mostly share their own values in defense of people who share so few? If they care about these issues (and I think they are very often wrong) how is all the slander and obsessive shaming supposed to help? That's not directed at you, I just find the mentality of the media-sphere far left so misguided.
I'm on a tablet now and it's tough to quote... Re: religion encouraging young men to violence and martyrdom. You might be putting the wagon before the horse. Religion doesn't start out as an edict that the people follow; it has for its entire existence been a way to explain the world prior to the scientific method, and simultaneously government the world before democracy. Religion saw a problem - large groups of dangerous young men - and tried to fix it. Force marriage early. Condemn sex outside of the union because sexual activity causes strife otherwise. Insist that EVERYONE marry to avoid large groups of disenfranchised people. Etc. To say that religion started it all is untrue. Religion developed as a way to control the problem. That as a society we may have evolved to a point where we don't require religion to fix anything, and in fact religion often makes a problem worse, is perhaps true. Moving to your next point, though...if you don't want to engage the extremists or the moderates in a way that is sensitive and encourages dialogue, what method do you suggest? Naked aggression and war? Because we're trying that and it isn't working. I would think getting as many people involved with the discussion is the best way to go, rather than not caring if I alienate someone with how I speak. And, again, a non-group member spearheading change in a group will never work. I have a few points, as do you, but to really swing big change you need the members within the group to advance it . The only other way is to try and eradicate it from the outside using coercion or violence, and trying to coerce or kill ALL Muslims sounds a touch too genocide-y for me.
Why engage with extremists at all? I know it doesn't come off as being socially enlightened and all that, but I vote for just leaving them the fuck alone and don't engage at all. And don't let them engage with us.
When it was originally hatched it had a public option that would create a government health insurance entity to compete with the private sector and would provide comprehensive coverage. The private health insurance sector donates substantially to the senate so he couldn't get it passed. Pulling the public option essentially made the bill a warped version of what he discussed on his campaign - outrageously expensive and limited coverage. Pre-existing conditions are pretty much the only reason someone would sign up for Obamacare, or if they're poor and need to rely on tax payer funding. It's no wonder it's been such a failure. Nobody with options is going to choose that shit. Off the top of my head, I think we're the only country to ever try such a hybrid, and safe to say it wasn't a success. It did expand coverage across the board. More Americans are insured now than ever, but it is in serious need of reformation or replacement.
I just don't get the political mentality and when I say what I am about to say, this isn't meant to poke Obama in the chest. I actually really want to see people taken care of. But why try to win this battle if you know you are going to lose the war? Why not go back to the drawing board and find a way to make it better or get closer to the public option the first time? This has failed so spectacularly it will now be THAT much harder to convince the American public to go along with it because they have a really bad taste in their mouths.
I think after he realized his ideas were never going to come to fruition, it became sort of a legacy thing. Every president wants to be remembered. In fairness, it did increase coverage for many Americans that were without, albeit in a very inefficient manner. The HSA/tax write off plans for the middle class that are being discussed sound like good ones, but it doesn't address how you provide to people with pre-existing conditions. You would have to mandate that private insurers take them on, which they definitely don't want to do, and feeds back into the same problem.
He can be left with the legacy of a civil organizer / shitty non-existent first term senator / orchestrator of the worst medical act ever. I honestly don't think it is the government's job to supply insurance and sure as hell shouldn't penalize me if I choose to not purchase your horrible insurance. I swear I think we need a do-over after November. I'm stuck with choosing between an arrogant ass who acts like he is 14 or a totally corrupt bitch who should be in prison if the whole system wasn't fucked. I am from and live in Mississippi which happens to border Arkansas. I personally know people that know the Clintons. Trump doesn't have enouh money he claims to have have me vote for that bitch.. I actually liked Bill.
I'd be all for this, if their idea was to leave US alone. Unfortunately, the extremists are the most (only) dangerous part of the whole demographic. If you can somehow engage them, you can maybe (at best) work on changing their outlook. At worst, they've announced themselves so now you know someone you have to keep your eye on. I like solving problems, and in my experience telling someone that they're totally wrong rarely has a positive outcome, especially when it comes to matters of faith. A better way has to exist, and I can't say for certain that the "better way" is therefore open war.
I never said religion started it all. Telling young men that they can only have sex within certain confines, that those confines include multiple wives and sex slaves, and they will get all the celestial pussy they want if they die for their religion seems like a shit way to control their urges, and a great way to control women, but I never said religion started it all. I said I agree that young men who don't get laid cause violence, and the above edicts exacerbate the problem. How it started seems pretty irrelevant to me, since we're all collectively alive, right now, dealing with the problem, today. Would you agree that speaking respectfully and honestly about the things in religion that "perhaps" make the problem worse can help reform the behavior of its followers? To the degree it's feasible, I think we should capture the young brainwashed extremists and make an effort to rehabilitate them. And I think we should shoot the old mullahs who brainwash the young men in the head. The "moderates" are tougher to deal with because they're a wide ranging group. Some would never commit violence themselves but agree with those who do, and nevertheless subjugate the women and minorities within their communities. But this is the difference between what we're saying: you keep focusing on the extremists, while I'm focusing on the people whose lives are hell because of the extremists and their culture at large. The women who want monogamy, the little girls who want education, all of them who don't like being raped or getting stoned as punishment for being raped, the gays who want to live honestly, the reformers and atheists who want to speak freely -- in terms of the global community, I literally think these are the most important people on Earth, and we should do all we can to give them a megaphone. Yet it seems like you're saying I'm wrong to agree with them.
I'm not saying you're wrong to agree with them, I'm confused about what methods you think the world community should be using and what you think should be done. If you were Emperor of The World, what edict or action would you take to fix this problem? Earlier, I suggested not using language that would offend people of the faith you're talking to. I was not suggesting we worry so much about offending extremists. I was more suggesting that we engage moderates and rationale people who WANT the weeds ripped out of their religion. In my opinion, parts of any religion could be cancerous, but if you make it seem like the entire thing is bad then even the faithful who know about the cancer will likely stop listening to you. Forgive me, I must have misunderstood. I thought you were implying that religion was contributing to the problem through its doctrine and practices. I took your post to mean that religion was to blame for encouraging young men to envision virgins in heaven and keeping harems here on Earth, rather than religion developing as a way to explain behaviours that were already happening. I must have misread it. To your point, though, yes...we are stuck with the mess now. I still haven't heard how you would eradicate the problems, apart form cultural isolation or military violence. Certainly it could. It's probably one of the only tools that we have right now. I just don't know how effective non-faithful voices are. For example, if Putin gave a talk about the poverty rate in Alabama, would anyone really take him seriously? Even if he was 100% correct with his data? Or would we have a big group laugh and say, "You've never been to Alabama, and YOUR country has crazy economic despair and poverty, and don't you dare fucking tell US how to govern!" Because that's the same way I imagine members of a religion hearing non-believers voices when they presume to voice an opinion. Take Sam Harris, for instance. I assume you've read/listened to him. I think you even used the same Janeism example that he does. Harris has been an eloquent, thoughtful, vocal critic of Islam for some time now. Personally I've never heard him say a thing I didn't ultimately agree with, even though I think he toes the line of trolling sometimes*. Not too many people in the Muslim community hold up his treatises and use them as examples of areas that need reform, though, despite him being one of the most well-reasoned opinions on the subject. I think for reform to meaningfully take hold in Islam, you almost need the Imams of Mecca to issue an edict like the Pope would from Rome. If THAT happened, we'd see broader change. Or an outright worldwide civil war within the religion. *Harris doesn't troll in a typical YouTube-commentor or Milo fashion. I think he can't resist replying when he knows he's right, and he spends more time trying to reason with the crazies on the internet than he should.
Heres some important factors to keep in mind relating to terminology. These are the basic levels of extremist in Islam, but they do paint with a wide brush. Each subsequent group possesses the beliefs of the previous one: Liberal Muslims: Either non-practicing or lapsed. They support western moderate or (relatively) progressive ideas. Moderate Muslims - Muslims who are practicing, but dont believe in the literal interpretation of the Quran or approve of any use of violence to achieve Sharia Law. Very wide range here. Fundamentalists - Conservative Muslims who believe that the Quran is to be interpreted literally. Islamist - Conservative Muslims who want a Islamic theocracy imposed on society with Sharia Law. They condone any means to achieve this end short of violence, at least publicly. But many do condone the violence without actually engaging in it. Jihadist - Islamists who think violence is the only means to achieving Islamic political and cultural society (ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc.)
Where does the term, "Islamic," come into play? Is it referring only to Islamists, or is in reference to the entire faith?
This nicely illustrates my point. We were just now occasionally using the wrong words to discuss the members of a religion, and we're simultaneously arguing that non-believers have a legitimate voice in internal reform of the faith. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *shoots self in temple*
Telling people in the West, who agree with these minorities, that they shouldn't be so vocal in their agreement, seems like the opposite of a megaphone to me. So let's say women, gays, reformers and atheists within Muslim cultures think they should be free. How is me saying I also think they should be free offensive to anyone but the people subjugating them? I also never said the entire thing is bad. I was stating it outright, actually. It is. Secular/atheist men, who also rape and cause violence, don't tend to do so because they think they'll be rewarded when they die. Hang on, you also said it was an attempted solution to the problem. I think it's more of a way to control women, but I also think its initial reasons are irrelevant today. Besides saying in my last post that we should shoot brainwashing mullahs in the head, you're the only one to bring up military violence so far. As for cultural isolation: What about Maajid Nawaz, Ayan Hirsi Ali, Gad Saad, Sarah Haider, Ali Rizvi and Faisal Saeed AlMutar? Liberals in the West have banned them from speaking and said disgusting, full blown racist things about them, all because they say what I'm saying. Given the platform they have, and the shit they deal with (including credible death threats), what chance do you think people who agree with them living in Muslim societies have? Isn't that reason enough to double down on giving those people any megaphone we can? From your recollection, which came first: the Pope saying gays and atheists can get into heaven, or the minorities within the Catholic religion speaking loud enough to force him to?
I'm not sure what your ultimate goal is here, and the discussion is turning into one of those eye-glazing back-and-forths that I have warned others about in the past on other topics. You were the one, way back, who said that you couldn't understand why anyone would differentiate between a religion and the acts of extremists within that religion, and when I clarified why I personally do it you shifted and said you weren't even talking about religion. Either I'm distracted while reading this, or you're hell-bent on being contradictory for its own sake. The only points I was trying to make were: - The religion of Islam needs reformation, and it must come from within. Outside voices can help and offer valid facts and counsel; ultimately I can't see anyone outside the religion influencing the leaders of that religion in any kind of significant way. - I think it's wise to differentiate between a doctrine and people who use the doctrine for violence. Even if a religion has a violent or unsavory outlook, there are enough religious people in the world to prove that adherence to a faith does not itself guarantee violence. Alienating the entire religion with poor use of language doesn't help anyone. This is where the mainstream media in the West is failing abysmally. The response to threats from extremists or jihadists should not be to stop printing cartoons or to stop letting Muslim critics post or to bow to the crazies and their lunatic demands. At the very least, the big corporations should have the balls to run the controversial content. Now, how come they won't? Well, because any editor or publisher who does will have to check under his car before he starts it for the rest of his life. I'm at a loss for how to deal with an adversary who is not concentrated in a particular geographic area, and who is governed by allegiance to an idea rather than a state. To make it worse, the goal of the majority of jihadists is a caliphate, so if you brought the situation to war it would be their heart's desire come to fruition. Someone smarter than me will have to come up with a solution that defeats the bullies in a way that doesn't trigger guerilla attacks on random targets for the rest of eternity.
Dude. I mean, really? You know I have a 'back' button on my browser too, right? From "way back" to last page: You may be differentiating between religion and its extremists now, but you were clearly attempting to differentiate between religion and culture way back then. We mostly agree. But you haven't clearly explained why vocally agreeing with the reformers within Islam, and doing what we can to make their voices heard, is a bad thing. Based on the rest of your post, I'm starting to think you don't really care to.
I think that vocally agreeing with reformers within Islam and pushing for their voices to be heard is a GREAT thing. Its probably the only thing someone outside the religion can do. I just don't think that those outside people talking are going to hold much influence on the religion one way or the other. In terms of actually fixing the problems within both the culture of the religion and within its doctrine, I don't have a meaningful answer of something that would work really well. Like people have said, all you can do is open a discussion and encourage a dialogue. That's small comfort when bombs are going off, though. I can also understand why an individual would shy away from taking a stand, given how violent the reaction can be. Even here, on this small board, I'm aware that if somehow my joke a few pages back equating Mohamed with Donald Trump became known and my real name linked to my screen name here, I'd probably get credible death threats. I'm afraid I don't have an answer on how to simultaneously stand up for people's rights in this instance without risking violence directed at you. I think they're one in the same. There are way too many Muslims in the world who are peaceful, so when you talk about acts of violence you aren't necessarily talking about the religion, you're talking about the people within the religion who were raised in a particular culture. So I don't think differentiating between religion vs. culture is mutually exclusive from religion vs. extremism. Again, I'm not sure what your overall point is. Like you said, we agree on most things. It feels like you're dragging this into a constant back-and-forth for...what? I'm not seeing you make whatever point it is you're arguing about. Do minorities within Islam need a bigger voice? Yes. Can/should critics outside the religion be vocal about the religion? Yes. Does Islam have some doctrines that are abhorrent to how we live in our Western society today? Yup. Will major change be affected from without? In my opinion, no. Honestly, what else is there to discuss?
Not sure how you keep missing this, but my main point is to refute your assertion that there is a distinction between religion and culture. There isn’t. In any country, religion is some part of the culture. In some countries, religion IS the culture, almost to the exclusion of anything else, and it affects even those who want nothing to do with it. In actual theocracies, one could argue it’s beyond the culture. And when that religion and its founder explicitly condones child rape, polygamy, adulterer-stoning and homosexual/apostate/atheist murdering, the people in those and other categories need all the help they can get. I don’t think arguing on a message board is gonna get a woman a divorce from rapist husband, but I do think there’s value in promoting people like Sam Harris and those I named two posts ago, because the abused minorities in those societies see and write to those people, and they are gutted to find out that liberal Westerners try to shut them down because they're "outsiders" who "shouldn't say anything offensive". At the very least, I feel compelled to explain to my fellow spoiled Westerners why they are wrong. This “so when you talk about acts of violence you aren't necessarily talking about the religion” bullshit really annoys me too, since, along with all the violence that happens for other reasons, there is also religiously mandated and instructed subjugation and violence happening every day. When otherwise intelligent people deny this fact, it kinda grosses me out.