How Muslims handle rape charges.

[bu villain]

We're of a like mind when it comes to religion in general, but i dont see how you're not drawing a comparison to muslims of today to the crusading christians of the past. The modern day christian has been subdued and learned to cope with the ever changing society around them. They still grumble from time to time, but ultimately, they're pretty tolerant of nonchristians. Muslims are very anti-western culture and theyre at war with our way of living. If you had a to put a % on it, what % of the world's genocide do you think is on behalf of Islam? The media should do more to show the world how Muslims treat women and children. It scares me to try and understand the reasoning for being tolerant of this radical and violent religion.

I do think modern day jihadists are similar in many ways to the crusaders of the past. Over time they too will become more subdued and tolerant. I believe it is inevitable and the jihadists are already far outnumbered in the Muslim world. I don't have a problem calling out mistreatment of women and children, the only issue I have is that you blame the religion rather than the individuals when most people who claim the religion are peaceful. While by sheer numbers, many muslim are violent and intolerant, your statements usually imply that most Muslims are this way. That is the issue I am taking.

[Sinfix_15]

I do think modern day jihadists are similar in many ways to the crusaders of the past. Over time they too will become more subdued and tolerant. I believe it is inevitable and the jihadists are already far outnumbered in the Muslim world. I don't have a problem calling out mistreatment of women and children, the only issue I have is that you blame the religion rather than the individuals when most people who claim the religion are peaceful. While by sheer numbers, many muslim are violent and intolerant, your statements usually imply that most Muslims are this way. That is the issue I am taking.

I'm just more into preserving the way of life that myself, you, my friends and family enjoy than i am being tolerant or accepting of other countries. The fact that someone like the boston bombers were able to travel back and forth between countries while plotting a terrorist attack and then successfully pull off that attack is very alarming to me. Especially in light of the fact that our government has open access to everyone in america..... It's like they said in the past... "when you start exchanging freedom for safety, you're no longer free or safe".... the spying didnt stop the terrorist attacks, even though we gave up a freedom to keep us safe from terrorists attacks.


Edit... i said we gave up a freedom, correction... a freedom was taken from us.

[bu villain]

I'm just more into preserving the way of life that myself, you, my friends and family enjoy than i am being tolerant or accepting of other countries. The fact that someone like the boston bombers were able to travel back and forth between countries while plotting a terrorist attack and then successfully pull off that attack is very alarming to me. Especially in light of the fact that our government has open access to everyone in america..... It's like they said in the past... "when you start exchanging freedom for safety, you're no longer free or safe".... the spying didnt stop the terrorist attacks, even though we gave up a freedom to keep us safe from terrorists attacks.


Edit... i said we gave up a freedom, correction... a freedom was taken from us.

Yes it is alarming but as you know, freedom is dangerous so we will always be somewhat vulnerable to attacks unless you only believe freedom is a privilege reserved only for Americans. I would also like to generally preserve our way of life but the jihadists feel the same and see America as interfering with their way of life. It's true, we are. We have a global influence and it is very disruptive to societies whose fundamental values haven't changed much that much in hundreds of years. Now of course we believe our values are better because they are OUR values and so we will continue to act on those. The question then becomes how best to convert others and minimize the backlash. You seem to think antagonizing other cultures is the way. I think you catch more flies with honey.

[Sinfix_15]

Yes it is alarming but as you know, freedom is dangerous so we will always be somewhat vulnerable to attacks unless you only believe freedom is a privilege reserved only for Americans. I would also like to generally preserve our way of life but the jihadists feel the same and see America as interfering with their way of life. It's true, we are. We have a global influence and it is very disruptive to societies whose fundamental values haven't changed much that much in hundreds of years. Now of course we believe our values are better because they are OUR values and so we will continue to act on those. The question then becomes how best to convert others and minimize the backlash. You seem to think antagonizing other cultures is the way. I think you catch more flies with honey.

Given the accuracy of what you just said..... why is so impossible for politicians to understand that? Or, assuming they do understand it.... which i think they do, give me the reason for manipulating tragedy to push useless legislation?

[bu villain]

Given the accuracy of what you just said..... why is so impossible for politicians to understand that? Or, assuming they do understand it.... which i think they do, give me the reason for manipulating tragedy to push useless legislation?

Its not that politicians don't understand, it's that many citizens would rather have safety than freedom and believe they can trade one for the other. The politicians are trying to enact the will of that group of people.

[Sinfix_15]

Its not that politicians don't understand, it's that many citizens would rather have safety than freedom and believe they can trade one for the other. The politicians are trying to enact the will of that group of people.

come on................................... please dont tell you believe what you just said.......

So the government is just an unbiased neutral observer who acts solely on the will of the people and does not push in any direction?

[bu villain]

come on................................... please dont tell you believe what you just said.......

So the government is just an unbiased neutral observer who acts solely on the will of the people and does not push in any direction?

I didn't say they were unbiased, they are usually very biased toward getting reelected. Some politicians believe they can trade freedom for security and are willing to do so, just as many of their constituents do. Others don't believe that but will act like they do because they want to get reelected. Very few politicians are willing to do something they believe in even if they know their constituents feel the opposite.

[Sinfix_15]

I didn't say they were unbiased, they are usually very biased toward getting reelected. Some politicians believe they can trade freedom for security and are willing to do so, just as many of their constituents do. Others don't believe that but will act like they do because they want to get reelected. Very few politicians are willing to do something they believe in even if they know their constituents feel the opposite.

rationalize the spying program to me...... since polls are showing that almost all of America strongly oppose it.

[.blank cd]

rationalize the spying program to me...... since polls are showing that almost all of America strongly oppose it.

This is why it's so hard to decipher a point from you. You move from subject to subject like they're the in the same topic expecting to draw a conclusion from the new topic about the old one

Stay. On. Topic.

[bu villain]

rationalize the spying program to me...... since polls are showing that almost all of America strongly oppose it.

Simple! They didn't think they would get caught.

[Sinfix_15]

This is why it's so hard to decipher a point from you. You move from subject to subject like they're the in the same topic expecting to draw a conclusion from the new topic about the old one

Stay. On. Topic.

He said the government is acting on behalf of the people and doing things to gain support for elections......

So i asked him to justify the most controversial program in the current time that almost all americans would vote against.

This is on topic.... you're just too simple minded to understand the connection. Step away, men are talking.

[Sinfix_15]

Simple! They didn't think they would get caught.

So what can we learn from their rogue actions? This doesnt really support your will of the people argument. If they were acting on behalf of the people, they wouldnt need to hide anything from the people. If the will of the people is paramount, then why isnt government completely transparent?

[bu villain]

So what can we learn from their rogue actions? This doesnt really support your will of the people argument. If they were acting on behalf of the people, they wouldnt need to hide anything from the people. If the will of the people is paramount, then why isnt government completely transparent?

This is nuanced so let me try to explain a little better. Politicians number one priority is to get reelected. Depending on the circumstances, this can manifest itself in several ways but I will discuss the two I have already brought up.

1. One way is to take positions their target voters agree with, even if they don't personally agree with it. This could be generally referred to as "will of the people" but is more accurately called "will of the target group of voters". The target group changes depending on the circumstances such as politicians taking more extreme positions in primaries than in general elections. It's also important to note that very few politicians target group is the whole US.

2. Another way is to implement action that will have a result the public likes but hide the nefarious means to get the result. The NSA program is an example of this. Everyone is happy as long as terrorists are caught but if it turns out the tool that was used to catch them is also spying on them, they aren't so happy. If no one ever found out about the NSA program, voters would have remained ignorant and happy that some terrorists were caught.

So the government isn't transparent because many politicians target groups have conflicting views. Transparency would prevent them all from trying to satisfy different groups at simultaneously. Also it aids in their ability to take actions with popular ends but questionable means of getting there.

[Sinfix_15]

This is nuanced so let me try to explain a little better. Politicians number one priority is to get reelected. Depending on the circumstances, this can manifest itself in several ways but I will discuss the two I have already brought up.

1. One way is to take positions their target voters agree with, even if they don't personally agree with it. This could be generally referred to as "will of the people" but is more accurately called "will of the target group of voters". The target group changes depending on the circumstances such as politicians taking more extreme positions in primaries than in general elections. It's also important to note that very few politicians target group is the whole US.

2. Another way is to implement action that will have a result the public likes but hide the nefarious means to get the result. The NSA program is an example of this. Everyone is happy as long as terrorists are caught but if it turns out the tool that was used to catch them is also spying on them, they aren't so happy. If no one ever found out about the NSA program, voters would have remained ignorant and happy that some terrorists were caught.

So the government isn't transparent because many politicians target groups have conflicting views. Transparency would prevent them all from trying to satisfy different groups at simultaneously. Also it aids in their ability to take actions with popular ends but questionable means of getting there.

During the last major terrorist attack, which wasnt prevented by the NSA spying program, the spying program was being used to spy on political opponents while simultaneously allowing a terrorists plot to go under the radar. Is it possible that the government's affection for programs such as this is based on the ability to manipulate elections and retain power than it is keeping americans safe? Is it within the government's range of abilities to override the constitution which was designed to limit the government's range of abilities based on the notion that theyre doing it in our best interest? Given the history of government, is it even feasible to believe that the government is acting selflessly on our behalf with this program?

[bu villain]

During the last major terrorist attack, which wasnt prevented by the NSA spying program, the spying program was being used to spy on political opponents while simultaneously allowing a terrorists plot to go under the radar. Is it possible that the government's affection for programs such as this is based on the ability to manipulate elections and retain power than it is keeping americans safe? Is it within the government's range of abilities to override the constitution which was designed to limit the government's range of abilities based on the notion that theyre doing it in our best interest? Given the history of government, is it even feasible to believe that the government is acting selflessly on our behalf with this program?

Rather than answering each question individually I will say this. Yes, the government can abuse power for political gain. No disagreement there. I do however believe what is in the governments best interest is not always opposed to the people's interest though.

[Sinfix_15]

Rather than answering each question individually I will say this. Yes, the government can abuse power for political gain. No disagreement there. I do however believe what is in the governments best interest is not always opposed to the people's interest though.

Thank you for agreeing that i'm right.

[bu villain]

No need to thank me. My opinion doesn't change depending on whether you agree with it or not.

[Sinfix_15]

No need to thank me. My opinion doesn't change depending on whether you agree with it or not.

Now that we've put that topic behind us....

your thoughts on Chris Christie saying that "libertarianism is a dangerous idea"

All of these politicians swear to uphold the constitution and then attack it when they gain power.

[bu villain]

Now that we've put that topic behind us....

your thoughts on Chris Christie saying that "libertarianism is a dangerous idea"

That's a very loaded statement. Dangerous to who or to what? Democracy is still considered a dangerous idea in many parts of the world. I can see how libertarianism is a "dangerous" idea but that doesn't mean we shouldn't think about it, explore it, or implement certain aspects of it.

[Sinfix_15]

Our tax money is currently aiding the same muslim terrorists who did this. Nothing gives me a bigger sense of pride than knowing that my country's leaders send billions of dollars in aid to other countries that hate me, you, our friends, wives, daughters and everything we stand for.

[bu villain]

Our tax money is currently aiding the same muslim terrorists who did this. Nothing gives me a bigger sense of pride than knowing that my country's leaders send billions of dollars in aid to other countries that hate me, you, our friends, wives, daughters and everything we stand for.

I'm not familiar with this case. Who are the people who did this? Which muslim terrorist groups exactly are we sending aid to?

[Sinfix_15]

I'm not familiar with this case. Who are the people who did this? Which muslim terrorist groups exactly are we sending aid to?

Syrian rebels.

[bu villain]

The syrian rebels are a diverse group and not exactly a coherent one. I certainly wouldn't classify them as a whole as Muslim terrorists. Everyone knows the Syria situation is difficult and complicated, why oversimplify it?

[Sinfix_15]

The syrian rebels are a diverse group and not exactly a coherent one. I certainly wouldn't classify them as a whole as Muslim terrorists. Everyone knows the Syria situation is difficult and complicated, why oversimplify it?

You made my point for me.............

and you also indirectly mentioned another government problem that has become an epidemic.

We dont know who the Syrian rebels are... some good, some bad, some terrorists, some al queda... a "diverse group" as you worded it..... yet the government is content raining money on them and hoping that some lands in right spot. This is something they do often. I'm tired of the government reaching in my pocket for money to gamble with. The government is ok with using my money to send guns to a "diverse group of incoherent rebels" without having any clue who they are while at the same time discriminating against american gun owners who actually pay the money needed to keep a functioning government who is supposed to defend our rights, not the foreign countries.

[bu villain]

Again I think you are oversimplifying. Not giving the Syrian rebels support is more of a gamble than giving them some level of support. Global politics is not a game you can abstain from. It affects us whether we like it or not. It is in the US's interest to have democratic governments in the Middle East. That is why we are getting involved, not because we want to protect Syrian rights. We can and do try to vet the groups we give money to but it is impossible to ensure that none of it will end up in the hands of people we don't want it to. Sometimes people are your enemy in one arena and your ally in another and you shouldn't cut off your nose to spite your face.

PS. Thanks for bringing up american gun owners as if that is at all relevant.

[Sinfix_15]

Again I think you are oversimplifying. Not giving the Syrian rebels support is more of a gamble than giving them some level of support. Global politics is not a game you can abstain from. It affects us whether we like it or not. It is in the US's interest to have democratic governments in the Middle East. That is why we are getting involved, not because we want to protect Syrian rights. We can and do try to vet the groups we give money to but it is impossible to ensure that none of it will end up in the hands of people we don't want it to. Sometimes people are your enemy in one arena and your ally in another and you shouldn't cut off your nose to spite your face.

PS. Thanks for bringing up american gun owners as if that is at all relevant.

So its in our best interest to support a group of rebels mixed in with terrorists who are attempting to overthrow a government?

Can you please explain to me how this benefits me or secures our safety? are Syria's weapons more stable in the hands of a terrorists mixed group of rebels or their own government?

Does our government extend this same ideology to its own citizens? should american citizens be equip to overthrow their own government in the event of tyranny?

should we also be sending weapons to Egypt so they can topple the muslim brotherhood?

[bu villain]

So its in our best interest to support a group of rebels mixed in with terrorists who are attempting to overthrow a government?

Can you please explain to me how this benefits me or secures our safety? are Syria's weapons more stable in the hands of a terrorists mixed group of rebels or their own government?

Sure. Syria is no friend to the US. The Assad regime is strong allies with Iran who as you know has an adversarial relationship with us. Getting Assad out, weakens Iran. I wouldn't consider weapons in the hands of Assad "stable" as they are known weapons trading partners with places like Iran, North Korea, and Russia. As more democracies are established in the middle east, we put more pressure on the autocratic regimes in places like Iran and diminish the power of the anti US zealots.

Does our government extend this same ideology to its own citizens? should american citizens being equip to overthrow their own government in the event of tyranny?

This is not an ideology, it is a practical issue. There is no reason our domestic policies should be the same as our foreign ones but last I checked, the vast majority of the government believes citizens should be able to own guns so that's not really an issue anyways.

should we also be sending weapons to Egypt so they can topple the muslim brotherhood?

I see no reason to.

[Sinfix_15]

Sure. Syria is no friend to the US. The Assad regime is strong allies with Iran who as you know has an adversarial relationship with us. Getting Assad out, weakens Iran. I wouldn't consider weapons in the hands of Assad "stable" as they are known weapons trading partners with places like Iran, North Korea, and Russia. As more democracies are established in the middle east, we put more pressure on the autocratic regimes in places like Iran and diminish the power of the anti US zealots.

When was the last time a foreign government launched a strike on american soil?

When was the last time a terrorist launched an attack on american soil?

We have volatile relationships with a number of countries.... when was the last time any of them attacked us?



I ask again, are weapons ****more**** stable in the hands of syrian rebels mixed with terrorists than they are the syrian government???

[bu villain]

When was the last time a foreign government launched a strike on american soil?

When was the last time a terrorist launched an attack on american soil?

We have volatile relationships with a number of countries.... when was the last time any of them attacked us?

Terrorists often plan and operate in countries that are sympathetic to them. Just because a governments name isn't on the attacking group, doesn't mean they don't enable them.

I ask again, are weapons ****more**** stable in the hands of syrian rebels mixed with terrorists than they are the syrian government???

I honestly don't know the answer to that question. I wouldn't consider either situation stable and that's not the only relevant question when it comes to whether or not we should aid the Syrian rebels anyways. That's just one piece of the pie.

[Sinfix_15]

Terrorists often plan and operate in countries that are sympathetic to them. Just because a governments name isn't on the attacking group, doesn't mean they don't enable them.

So you assume that some portion of terrorists are acting on behalf of a government?

Based on this assumption, you still feel it's in our best interest to aid a group of rebels who are attempting to overthrow their government? Please help me understand the benefit of this. Are we just trying to cut out the middle man and arm the terrorists ourselves? If a government attacks us, we have a legal course of action to hold them accountable, seeing as how the government is subject to laws. Is it not better to maintain that structure than it is to strengthen the nameless, faceless, "terrorism" in the "war on terrorism"? If nothing else, at least we know who are enemy is with the syrian government standing. Also, isnt our purpose to install democracy and follow the democratic process? how does arming rebels and promoting anarchy accomplish this?

[bu villain]

So you assume that some portion of terrorists are acting on behalf of a government?

No I am not saying this. I am saying some governments try to fight terrorists in their own country, others do not.

Based on this assumption, you still feel it's in our best interest to aid a group of rebels who are attempting to overthrow their government? Please help me understand the benefit of this. Are we just trying to cut out the middle man and arm the terrorists ourselves? If a government attacks us, we have a legal course of action to hold them accountable, seeing as how the government is subject to laws. Is it not better to maintain that structure than it is to strengthen the nameless, faceless, "terrorism" in the "war on terrorism"? If nothing else, at least we know who are enemy is with the syrian government standing. Also, isnt our purpose to install democracy and follow the democratic process? how does arming rebels and promoting anarchy accomplish this?

You are under the mistaken assumption that I believe we need to support the rebels. I'm actually far too ignorant of all the complexities to say for sure. I was merely presenting some of the reasons why many people, both democrat and republican, think we should. You already seem to have a handle on the reasons we shouldn't so there was no need for me to present those arguments. What I do feel informed enough to say, is that what happens will have consequences for the US and there are risks no matter what we do.