Politically Incorrect Idea to Reduce Radical Islamict Recruiting

[TAHAWK]

Wrong neighborhoods?

[st0ut717]

My 0.02

I am a vet that did multiple tours in the mid east and spent many months in gulf region nations. additionally i am coming from a non religious point of view.

This thread is using islam and muslims as if it is one religion. it is not. Sunni and Shia among many others this is a very important details. if you do not understand why then you need to do serious research. Like why isnt Saudi Arabia or turkey fighting ISIS. But Iran is.

 

For those of you who are Christians. i have read nothing in the new testament that allows you to have a call for violence against anyone.

 

I leave you with this one story from an acquaintance of mine from Bahrain. As he was showing me his Mosque. He was displaying the art and craftsman ship of the mosque which was very impressive. Then he told me of the rituals for worship.

"Here is where we men will pray and in this room is where the woman and children will pray. and your western whores will be allowed if they cover them selves." I had many other conversation with the avg. joe on the street. When I left the region my thoughts where and still are. Well at least they hate each other more then they hate us.

[Rick_in_CA]

Yeah, I really hate all those right wing anti-vaccination nutbags,

 

Yah, people like Michelle Bachmann and Donald Trump bug me almost as much as left leaning people like Jenny McCarthy and (insert Hollywood idiot of your choice here). Unfortunately, anti-vaccination hysteria crosses the political divide.

 

or those conservative anti-science homeopathic medicine whackjobs.

Yah' date=' they bug me too. Especially when they got control of the DNC and got those anti-science planks into the party platform. Wait, that was the RNC, my bad. Plus it really bugs me about all those anti-science liberals that are getting elected to public office. Wait, I'm thinking of republicans again (Rick Perry, Todd Akin, the majority of congressional republicans). Which probably explains why there are so few republican scientists.

 

And what about those conservative feminists who keep saying 20% of women are raped even though the liberal Bureau of Justice Statistics says it's .06%--

You are reading the studies wrong. The recent study by the National Institutes of Justice' date=' the Department of Defense and the CDC reported that 18.3% of women in the US will be raped in their lifetime, while the .06% appears to be the rate of attacks in a given year for college age females that attend college.

 

Since when is the Bureau of Justice Statistics liberal? Because it reports facts?

 

or even worse' date=' the conservative feminists who say facts don't matter at all.

Huh? Did you read the article you linked too? I don't see where it says anything about "feminists say facts don't matter" (but maybe I missed it).

 

Or you know what really gripes me are those conservative gender studies folks who say gender roles are fluid social constructs then turn around and say people who don't conform to them need to change their physical sex characteristics.

 

It's clear that leftism is the paradise of fact.

I'm not sure what you are referring too here (I'm not up on the latest in "gender studies"). But yes, there are a bunch of wackjobs on the left, but how many are taken seriously by the left leaning mainstream, and how many get elected to high office?

[JoeBob]

99 - Are you able get up off the floor and see your keyboard yet?. (as in ROFLMAO) Thanks for the humor.

 

 

[TAHAWK]

Famous right-wing magazine, Time, critiques CDC's "inflated" rape statistics: http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/

 

DANGER. ACTUAL JOURNALISM WARNING

 

Then there's USA Today, whatever it is: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/09/22/rape-cdc-numbers-misleading-definition-date-forced-sexual-assault-column/16007089/

 

********************

All superior people are liable to twist truth in service of "greater truth." After all, left or right, they just know better than the ordinary run of mortals. The ends justify the means.

 

********************

 

Who is taken more seriously, Sharpton or Linbaugh? Let's see, which was invited to speak at a national convention?

[Rick_in_CA]

Famous right-wing magazine' date=' [i']Time[/i], critiques CDC's "inflated" rape statistics: http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/

 

DANGER. ACTUAL JOURNALISM WARNING

 

Then there's USA Today, whatever it is: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/09/22/rape-cdc-numbers-misleading-definition-date-forced-sexual-assault-column/16007089/

 

Sure you can criticize the CDC study (and many people on both sides of the spectrum do), but if you claim that the Bureau of Justice Statistics says the a woman's chance of getting raped in her lifetime is 0.6%, then that is flat out wrong. At best you are ignorant of the what the BJS says (they report that for a specific subgroup of woman, there is a 0.6% chance of getting raped in a single year - not in their lifetime. I am assuming the 0.06% was a typo and the poster meant 0.6%), or at worst are deliberately misrepresenting what the BJS is reporting.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Who is taken more seriously' date=' Sharpton or Linbaugh? Let's see, which was invited to speak at a national convention?[/quote']

 

How is that a criterion for being taken seriously? They're both ignorant egoists.

[TAHAWK]

 

How is that a criterion for being taken seriously? They're both ignorant egoists.

 

And one spoke at a national political convention. (^___^)

[TAHAWK]

 

Sure you can criticize the CDC study (and many people on both sides of the spectrum do), but if you claim that the Bureau of Justice Statistics says the a woman's chance of getting raped in her lifetime is 0.6%, then that is flat out wrong. At best you are ignorant of the what the BJS says (they report that for a specific subgroup of woman, there is a 0.6% chance of getting raped in a single year - not in their lifetime. I am assuming the 0.06% was a typo and the poster meant 0.6%), or at worst are deliberately misrepresenting what the BJS is reporting.

 

 

I made no such claim, did I?

[Rick_in_CA]

I made no such claim, did I?

 

No you didn't, but it looked like you were responding to my reply to Scouter99's point:

 

And what about those conservative feminists who keep saying 20% of women are raped even though the liberal Bureau of Justice Statistics says it's .06%--

 

I apologize if I misunderstood your intent.

[Scouter99]

Which probably explains why there are so few republican scientists

Oh, boy, after a few semesters of history of science, don't even get me started. Party affiliation didn't stop these dogmatic dopes from centuries of belief in the aether, an indiscernible subtle fluid dreamed up (very anti-scientifically) to fill the gaps in Newton's mechanical universe, which denied the existence of vacuums, and was still championed in the 1920s. Or then there's phlogiston, the magical substance in everything but, ya know, never existed. Aristotle's geocentric universe which is blamed on medieval/Renaissance Christians but was embraced by ancient pagan Greeks despite the 4th century BC Pythagorean view with evidence that the earth was not the center of the universe. Lets see, celebrated by many as the inventor of Chemistry, Paracelsus also claimed he could create the man-like "homunculus" by cooking up a mixture of blood, semen, and horse crap. What else, oh, the humors. The Philosopher's Stone, which the celebrated president of the French Academy was searching for even as the academy was formally separating chemistry and alchemy. I particularly like Charles Darwin's assertion that once we get politicians and people beyond their childish ick-factor, if we just began to breed incestuously we can create super humans after the 9th generation. Yeah, scientists are the most rational people I can think of.

 

You should give Thomas Kuhn a read.

 

99 - Are you able get up off the floor and see your keyboard yet?. (as in ROFLMAO) Thanks for the humor.

Thank you, thank you, I'm here every Thursday. Tip your waitstaff.

 

I apologize if I misunderstood your intent.

I think you understood perfectly well but won't simply admit that idiocy knows know political affiliation. There is no party of reason, of science, or anything like.

[Rick_in_CA]

I think you understood perfectly well but won't simply admit that idiocy knows know political affiliation. There is no party of reason, of science, or anything like.

I wish that was the way it still was. True, no party has a monopoly on idiocy, and historically both parties were basically reasonable. But in recent times, things have changed. The Republican party has become the party of stupid and dishonesty. I am not saying that the Democrats are somehow saints or immune to dumb, they clearly are not. It's just that the recent Republican party has embraced ignorance, lies and crazy to an amazing level. There are still some Republicans that are trying to fight the good fight, but too many have embraced the dark side.

[JoeBob]

Which probably explains why there are so few republican scientists.

 

Rick: you need to use credible sources if you want to be taken seriously. At least read the articles you choose to link.

 

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/scientists_hate_the_gop_for_a_reason/?utm_source=huffpost_politics&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article

 

The high points:

1- 56% of the AAAS self-identify as Democrats.

 

2- AAAS is a liberal lobbying group for the Democratic agenda.

http://www.aaas.org/about-aaas

 

3-"I would wager that the partisan affiliation of scientists in the US military, in the energy , pharmaceutical and finance industries would look starkly different than that of AAAS."

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/12/political-afilliations-of-scientists.html

 

4- Hint: More than 95% of the DNC will not be Republican either...

 

[CalicoPenn]

There are plenty of Republican scientists. Unfortunately, Republican politicians rarely listen to them either, unless what the scientist says is in alignment with their worldview. They're particularly good at dismissing out of hand the opinions of a 99% majority opinions in favor of a 1% opposing opinion, or in ignoring scientists working in a field of study while embracing scientists that don't even work in related fields. I'm still amazed at how many people listed as scientists that say climate change is a myth are MD's and DVM's. Who knew Medical Doctors and Veterinarians had the time to become experts on climate. When it comes to science and scientific studies, Republican politicians are like cops that would put an all points bulletin out for a red car after a bank robbery on the word of a witness when 99 out of 100 witnesses say the get-away car was blue.

 

Phlogiston? Aether? Humors? Really?? That's supposed to be a critique of modern science? It's easy (and a cheap shot) to make fun of what scientists came up with 100, 200,, 500, etc. years ago when viewed through the lens of what we are capable of now. How much of these ideas would have made the light of day if scientists of those times had the same kind of equipment we have now. Science advance - and when it does, it changes the world. 120 years from now, someone might create a similar list and wonder with glee how Science could have been so dumb to believe in String Theory.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Party affiliation didn't stop these dogmatic dopes from centuries of belief in the aether' date=' an indiscernible subtle fluid dreamed up (very anti-scientifically) to fill the gaps in Newton's mechanical universe, which denied the existence of vacuums, and was still championed in the 1920s.[/quote']

 

Since light appeared to be made up of waves, lumininferous aether was proposed to explain the medium that held it, as waves (as they knew them) needed something to "wave". It wasn't a stupid proposal, and it wasn't anti-scientific, and was discarded soon after the M-M experiment.

 

Or then there's phlogiston' date=' the magical substance in everything but, ya know, never existed. [/quote']

 

If you want some human endeavor that gets everything right from day one, about all you can choose from are thousands of mutually-contradictory religions that make such a claim.

 

Science has millions of old and discarded explanations; that's how knowledge advances. You seem to think that's some kind of fault.