No, no. That wasn't creepy at all.

Sendraks wrote:
Don't ask.
Show.

What common characteristics do you think these people have, when you know that they are drawn to violence and terrorism?

quas wrote:

Sendraks wrote:
Don't ask.
Show.

What common characteristics do you think these people have, when you know that they are drawn to violence and terrorism?

Is it because "they disagree with government policy, hate certain types of people, don’t feel valued or appreciated by society, or think they have limited chances to succeed"?

https://www.fbi.gov/cve508/teen-website ... extremists

LucidFlight wrote:

quas wrote:

Sendraks wrote:
Don't ask.
Show.

What common characteristics do you think these people have, when you know that they are drawn to violence and terrorism?

Is it because "they disagree with government policy, hate certain types of people, don’t feel valued or appreciated by society, or think they have limited chances to succeed"?

https://www.fbi.gov/cve508/teen-website ... extremists

That's like saying poverty leads to crime.
While that's true, it's also completely untrue at the same time.

If indeed poverty leads to crime, then logically it entails that the poorest people are the biggest thieves which doesn't make sense because (1) if you are a big thief, you steal big and thus become rich, and (2) the biggest thieves on this planet are the richest people because the higher your authority level the more opportunity you have to steal, accept bribes, extort money, etc. Hence why we have the term "white-collar criminals" to describe corporate executives and politicians. Concurrently, we are not just talking about stealing, but killing as well. Whereas a poor person might kill to steal/rob, only a head of state can initiate war/genocide to pillage an entire country.

We know, for a fact, that the 9/11 hijackers and other terrorists were not exactly poor and stupid. Some of them have impressive backgrounds: doctors, engineers, architects, etc. In daily life, I do know too many high-salaried engineers being drawn to the hateful socio-political* ideology that is Islam. I wouldn't say they are terrorists or capable of terrorism, because I do know that most of them are not capable of violence. But they are certainly hateful, hateful, hateful, hateful people.

*Which is why I said it's not a religion.

quas wrote:If indeed poverty leads to crime, then logically it entails that the poorest people are the biggest thieves which doesn't make sense because (1) if you are a big thief, you steal big and thus become rich, and (2) the biggest thieves on this planet are the richest people because the higher your authority level the more opportunity you have to steal, accept bribes, extort money, etc. Hence why we have the term "white-collar criminals" to describe corporate executives and politicians. Concurrently, we are not just talking about stealing, but killing as well. Whereas a poor person might kill to steal/rob, only a head of state can initiate war/genocide to pillage an entire country.

That's not logical entailment.

How so?

If you say poverty leads to crime, logically it should entail that the poorer a person is, the more crime he commits, thus the poorest people are the biggest criminals.

when you get a wrong conclusion you need to re-examine your premises...

quas wrote:How so?

If you say poverty leads to crime, logically it should entail that the poorer a person is, the more crime he commits, thus the poorest people are the biggest criminals.

Well, no. Because you then used the word "biggest" to denote "most successful" and "most successful" to mean "becomes rich". That's equivocation. From there you made a number of other further clearly illogical inferences, such as saying that a successful thief would become rich and implying this would have some effect on whether they stole while they were poor, in defiance of the laws of causality.

What "poverty leads to crime" actually means is that the poorer someone is the more statistically likely they are to commit a crime (or be caught doing so).

Now, I guess what you're trying to say isn't what you actually said, and you're trying to say that because there are super successful (and rich) criminals like Bernie Madoff the total amount stolen by poor criminals is less than the total amount stolen by rich criminals. Logically you can say nothing about that, it may or may not be true, you'd just need to do the maths.

You also seem to be saying something similar about the number of people who die as a result of wars compared to the number who die as a result of general homicide. That's certainly untrue of US citizens, and it's a pretty facile comparison anyway as it assumes that there's perfect moral equivalency between casualties of war and homicide victims.

You're doing something similar when you say that Islam is a hateful socio-political ideology and therefore not a religion. The premise is debatable, but the conclusion really isn't, because there's absolutely no mutual exclusivity between the two categories.

If poverty leads to crime, then all poor people are criminals, which they are, in the eyes of the rich.

Thommo wrote:Well, no. Because you then used the word "biggest" to denote "most successful" and "most successful" to mean "becomes rich". That's equivocation. From there you made a number of other further clearly illogical inferences, such as saying that a successful thief would become rich and implying this would have some effect on whether they stole while they were poor, in defiance of the laws of causality.

It's certainly plausible for a career criminal to constantly level up. You know, rags-to-riches.

What "poverty leads to crime" actually means is that the poorer someone is the more statistically likely they are to commit a crime (or be caught doing so).

Agreed.

Now, I guess what you're trying to say isn't what you actually said, and you're trying to say that because there are super successful (and rich) criminals like Bernie Madoff the total amount stolen by poor criminals is less than the total amount stolen by rich criminals. Logically you can say nothing about that, it may or may not be true, you'd just need to do the maths.

I didn't mean to talk about total amount. Just comparing how much a poor and powerless individual can steal versus how much a rich and powerful individual can steal.

You also seem to be saying something similar about the number of people who die as a result of wars compared to the number who die as a result of general homicide. That's certainly untrue of US citizens, and it's a pretty facile comparison anyway as it assumes that there's perfect moral equivalency between casualties of war and homicide victims.

Again, this is not comparing total amount. Just comparing the amount of killing a poor and powerless criminal can do versus the amount of killing that a head-of-state could do by inciting war/genocide.

You're doing something similar when you say that Islam is a hateful socio-political ideology and therefore not a religion. The premise is debatable, but the conclusion really isn't, because there's absolutely no mutual exclusivity between the two categories.

There is a difference. Because what I've noticed is that, the amount of hate and anger that these Muslims had, it's not really religion based. Because religion is antiquated. The violence in the OT (and those religious texts in general), for example, is limited to people already long dead. But if you talk about the present day, the here and the now, there's always someone to hate and to fuck up. That's what Islam has evolved to become these days. (Maybe Islam has always been like that since its inception, I don't know).

I just noticed that the modern-day Muslims these days are passionate about being hateful and angry, in particular they are always thinking of ways, constantly looking for opportunities to fuck up infidels like you and me. That's what they constantly talk about. They are not obsessed with studying their religious texts like this nerdy woman. This woman eventually left, because there's nothing much left for her. She finished reading all those books, what now? Whereas, if she had been full of rage and hatred, there's always going to be current news events that's going to enrage her, always something new and relevant for her to channel her hatred and anger 24/7.



Being a Muslim today means you are constantly checking your Twitter/Facebook news feed for the latest global incidents that would infuriate you. At this very second, it might be about how some random person -halfway across the globe- had drawn Muhammed cartoons. Five seconds later, it's about the latest military casualties in Palestine. Ten seconds later, it's the Myanmar government allegedly genociding the Rohingyans. (You have to be mad because the Rohignyans are also Muslims.) Fifteen seconds later, it says the Saudi government just did airtstrikes on Yemen killing civilians. "Astaghfirullah! Astaghfirullah! Unsee news feed. This is only Satan!" (There is the unwritten rule that, even if you are supposed to be always mad at those who killed Muslims (which Yemenis happened to be), you are only supposed to channel your rage towards infidels.)

quas wrote:

Thommo wrote:Well, no. Because you then used the word "biggest" to denote "most successful" and "most successful" to mean "becomes rich". That's equivocation. From there you made a number of other further clearly illogical inferences, such as saying that a successful thief would become rich and implying this would have some effect on whether they stole while they were poor, in defiance of the laws of causality.

It's certainly plausible for a career criminal to constantly level up. You know, rags-to-riches.

That doesn't really seem relevant. As I recall I objected to you talking about logical entailment and how poor people couldn't be "big thieves" because they wouldn't be poor any more.

It would seem hard to misunderstand what I wrote, since it consisted of just four words.

quas wrote:Being a Muslim today means you are constantly checking your Twitter/Facebook news feed for global news events that would infuriate you. At this very second, it might be about how some random person -halfway across the globe- had drawn Muhammed cartoons. Five seconds later, it's about the latest military casualties in Palestine. Ten seconds later, it's the Myanmar government allegedly genociding the Rohingyans. (You have to be mad because the Rohignyans are also Muslims.) Fifteen seconds later, it says the Saudi government just did airtstrikes on Yemen killing civilians. "Astaghfirullah! Astaghfirullah! Unsee news feed. This is only Satan!" (There is the unwritten rule that, even if you are supposed to be always mad at those who killed Muslims (which Yemenis happened to be), you are only supposed to channel your rage towards infidels.)

It's blatantly obvious that this is a crass overgeneralisation of the most extreme kind, and even if we accepted it (which I don't - and I'm pretty mad about the clear and present ethnic cleansing and mass murder of Rohingya as well) it still wouldn't do any lifting whatsoever in showing that Islam wasn't a religion.

Thommo wrote:That doesn't really seem relevant. As I recall I objected to you talking about logical entailment and how poor people couldn't be "big thieves" because they wouldn't be poor any more.

It would seem hard to misunderstand what I wrote, since it consisted of just four words.

And I said, it's probably plausible that could happen. Stealing your way from rags-to-riches isn't unheard of.

It's blatantly obvious that this is a crass overgeneralisation of the most extreme kind, and even if we accepted it (which I don't) it still wouldn't do any lifting whatsoever in showing that Islam wasn't a religion.

Maybe Islam was a religion. But that's not how it is these days. These days they rarely occupy their minds with the religious aspects of Islam. Because if they actually did that, they would literally go nuts like the poor woman in that video, dementedly muttering "Astaghfirullah! Astaghfirullah!" until her tongue falls off. And then, she would pick up her tongue, superglue it back to inside her mouth, and the process would repeat ad infinitum. Like Sisyphus.

So anyway, in mosques, Muslims these days would rather spend more time discussing global news events that feed into this grievance narrative about how the infidels are oppressing them (By them, I mean, it's USUALLY not them. It could be some random person somewhere halfway across the globe who happened to be a Muslim). Common discussion topics: (1) how there's someone somewhere who had just committed blasphemy (2) how some infidel somewhere just killed some poor muslim somewhere (3) how some infidels are conspiring to deconvert them. (It could be the Christians who goes everywhere evangelizing converting people or the atheist illuminati spreading liberal agendas eg. democracy, freedom of speech/open criticism of religion, sexual liberation, feminism & women rights, LGBT rights, etc).

If you are not aware of this, its because you guys don't live in a Muslim majority area or don't have lots of Muslims in your Facebook/Twitter circle.

quas wrote:

Thommo wrote:That doesn't really seem relevant. As I recall I objected to you talking about logical entailment and how poor people couldn't be "big thieves" because they wouldn't be poor any more.

It would seem hard to misunderstand what I wrote, since it consisted of just four words.

And I said, it's probably plausible that could happen. Stealing your way from rags-to-riches isn't unheard of.

That still doesn't seem relevant.

quas wrote:

It's blatantly obvious that this is a crass overgeneralisation of the most extreme kind, and even if we accepted it (which I don't) it still wouldn't do any lifting whatsoever in showing that Islam wasn't a religion.

Maybe Islam was a religion. But that's not how it is these days.

So you say.

If it wasn't clear, I'm saying otherwise. The second largest religion in the world is still a religion whether or not it has these other qualities.

I am interested though, your expertise in what goes on inside mosques, where does that come from? How often and for how long do you attend? How many different mosques do you attend?

Thommo wrote:That doesn't really seem relevant. As I recall I objected to you talking about logical entailment and how poor people couldn't be "big thieves" because they wouldn't be poor any more.

It would seem hard to misunderstand what I wrote, since it consisted of just four words.

Seems to me the misunderstanding arises out of you thinking that I said "a successful thief would (eventually ALWAYS) become rich"? Realistically, I would think that most of them got caught before they stole enough to get rich. Hence why, most poor people couldn't steal their way to wealth, unlike the already wealthy and powerful who could steal with impunity.

The second largest religion in the world is still a religion whether or not it has these other qualities.

Unlike any other religion, this is the only religion where the followers are not interested in the religious aspects of their religion. They are obsessed with this grievance narrative (about non-believers oppressing fellow believers), because it unites them with a shared tribal identity (us vs infidels), and also gives them a shared sense of purpose (the infidels are fucking us up, we have to seek revenge!) This grievance narrative is something which they talk about constantly amongst themselves.

I don't think you have that in churches. The KKK and some white supremacist groups tried to organise themselves in churches, but it's not that successful and it's long been abandoned, yeah? Anyone knows?

I am interested though, your expertise in what goes on inside mosques, where does that come from? How often and for how long do you attend? How many different mosques do you attend?

I could tell you, but then I would have to kill you... So, anyway, like the woman in the video, I'm a CIA field analyst stationed in Indonistan —the largest Muslim country in the world— to monitor the Muslims so as to gather intelligence on Islamic terrorism and also the political situation (because the Muslims are so political, if you are keeping tabs on them, then you are keeping tabs on the local political situation). My cover story is that I am just a recruiter/headhunter for a talent search firm. To do my job effectively, I have to be networked to as many people as possible so I could match their talents to various companies. Which means I spent way too much time on social media sites stalking people, their conversations, news feeds, etc. Since most of these people happened to be Muslims, I'm effectively monitoring whatever these Muslims are sharing and discussing within their inner social media circles. Also, in Indonistan, the mosques aren't exactly shy. Mosques have loudspeakers installed on rooftops, the idea is to do prayer calls reminding the entire neighbourhood to stop all activities and join prayers. But sometimes, clerics would use the loudspeakers to broadcast their preachings for the entire neighbourhood. And, guess what, they preach the grievance narrative constantly. And they would do that, even in Muslim-minority neighbourhoods. So these loudspeakers would broadcast, about how the Muslims are dwindling because the evil Christian kafirs have been busy deconverting the Muslims, into homes that mostly have Christians inside, secure in the knowledge that this hateful mosque is broadcasting in a Muslim-minority neighbourhood in a Muslim-majority country.

quas wrote:

Thommo wrote:That doesn't really seem relevant. As I recall I objected to you talking about logical entailment and how poor people couldn't be "big thieves" because they wouldn't be poor any more.

It would seem hard to misunderstand what I wrote, since it consisted of just four words.

Seems to me the misunderstanding arises out of you thinking that I said "a successful thief would (eventually ALWAYS) become rich"?

No, it doesn't. The misunderstanding is very simple - you said that something was logically entailed and it wasn't.

I'm genuinely baffled that you could find it so hard to understand what "poverty causes crime" actually means and tie yourself up in such extravagant knots.

quas wrote:

The second largest religion in the world is still a religion whether or not it has these other qualities.

Unlike any other religion, this is the only religion where the followers are not interested in the religious aspects of their religion.

I'm pretty sure you're entirely wrong about this. Why on Earth should anyone take it on your say so that Muslims have no interest in the religious aspect of their religion en masse?

quas wrote:
If you are not aware of this its because you guys dont live in a Muslim majority area

I am not aware of it and I live in an overwhelmingly Muslim majority area so how do you explain that then

Thommo wrote:No, it doesn't. The misunderstanding is very simple - you said that something was logically entailed and it wasn't.

I'm genuinely baffled that you could find it so hard to understand what "poverty causes crime" actually means and tie yourself up in such extravagant knots.

I know what it means. And I understand how that could be true and untrue at the same time.

I'm pretty sure you're entirely wrong about this. Why on Earth should anyone take it on your say so that Muslims have no interest in the religious aspect of their religion en masse?

1. Because the religious aspect is boring. Most people are not of the scholarly/nerdy type.
In fact, most people HATE reading.
You now expect them to read in Arabic (which isn't the native language of most Muslims), and you want them to read in Quranic Arabic?

Imagine how difficult it is learning Greek, for most Christians who are not of Greek descent. And you expect them to learn Koine Greek so they would be able to understand the Christian religious text in its original written language.

2. Why would you want to be bored to death, when there are far more interesting things (like people to hate and to be angry at)?

3. If you just restrict yourself to the religious aspect only, pretty soon you'd be Astaghfillurahing your head off literally.
Because the religious texts are that literallty batshit insane crazy, you'd literally go insane. Just like the woman in that video.

surreptitious57 wrote:

quas wrote:
If you are not aware of this its because you guys dont live in a Muslim majority area

I am not aware of it and I live in an overwhelmingly Muslim majority area so how do you explain that then

Wherever it is that you live, does the local neighbourhood mosque broadcast hate propaganda against you into your home?
In other words, are you in a Muslim majority country?