Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
LucidFlight wrote:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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"?
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.
quas wrote:
If you are not aware of this its because you guys dont live in a Muslim majority area
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'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?
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest