58
   

Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

 
 
vikorr
 
  3  
Reply Sun 23 Jun, 2019 05:03 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Showing that a study is highly flawed due to a highly-flawed methodology is not at all meaningless.
It certainly is when:
- there are multiple other studies saying the same thing or worse; and
- you have no studies to back up your own position (which amounts to 'it wasn't that much')

Don't forget, this started with you criticising the number of 400,000...without ever giving a figure of your own or source of your own.

My own statements have been far more honest than your own:
- the figures are higher than the Iraqi and UN figures
- there's a range
- it depends on how you measure, and what you measure
- there are flaws in each of the studies with regards to the way they are carried out
- but each are done in different ways, and arrive at 'similar' (range) conclusions

Your reaction to these studies is to scream 'I don't like it, I don't like it' and stick your head in the sand.

Quote:
Those studies all count deaths that were not caused by American action.
Do you understand the word 'caused'? It's like saying the collapse of Building 7 wasn't caused by the planes crashing into the WTC (and therefore must be the result of some other action). 'Caused' is actually a grey word in english (as there are direct, and indirect causes - it is the indirect cause concept that causes it's greyness). It's easier and clearer to use, Responsibility, and Contributing circumstances, or repercussions (which word effectively deals with causal outcomes - the result of direct and indirect causes).

In any event, you can keep sticking your head in the sand about repercussions of U.S. actions, but that is still what it is - sticking your head in the sand.

Quote:
That is incorrect. There is nothing dishonest about pointing out the flaws in a study's methodology.
Nothing at all...unless the motivation is to avoid something...like providing a figure that shows the 400,000 is wrong. According to other studies, it could even be worse. Apparently you don't even like the Iraqi or UN count, which is lower. But you don't have anything, other than your own words and beliefs, to show otherwise, do you.

Quote:
I reject the notion that we bear any responsibility when a bunch of Muslims kill each other.
And for the second time, I never said you do. I very much understand the concept of personal responsibility for crimes, just as I understand that there are contributing factors that influence the decision to commit those crimes. That is what I was talking about - which is clear, except that you failed to quote the part that clarified that.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 Jun, 2019 08:48 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
It certainly is when:
- there are multiple other studies saying the same thing or worse; and
- you have no studies to back up your own position (which amounts to 'it wasn't that much')

I disagree. I think it is legitimate to criticize a flawed methodology.


vikorr wrote:
Don't forget, this started with you criticising the number of 400,000...without ever giving a figure of your own or source of your own.

I have not forgotten.


vikorr wrote:
My own statements have been far more honest than your own:

My statements are made with 100% honesty.

It's not possible to have greater than 100% honesty.


vikorr wrote:
Your reaction to these studies is to scream 'I don't like it, I don't like it' and stick your head in the sand.

I have not hidden from anything. I am addressing your points.


vikorr wrote:
Nothing at all...unless the motivation is to avoid something...like providing a figure that shows the 400,000 is wrong.

If an accurate figure existed, I would not avoid it.

The only reason why I don't mention such a figure is because it does not exist.


vikorr wrote:
According to other studies, it could even be worse.

Studies that measure "something other than the results of US action" do not say anything about "the results of US action".


vikorr wrote:
Apparently you don't even like the Iraqi or UN count, which is lower.

I may well not like them. But off hand I am not even sure what counts you are referring to.


vikorr wrote:
But you don't have anything, other than your own words and beliefs, to show otherwise, do you.

I do have something. I have the clear fact that the IBC tally is a highly-flawed overcount.


vikorr wrote:
And for the second time, I never said you do. I very much understand the concept of personal responsibility for crimes, just as I understand that there are contributing factors that influence the decision to commit those crimes. That is what I was talking about - which is clear, except that you failed to quote the part that clarified that.

Much of the death toll that you are trying to blame us for, came from Muslims killing each other without any help from the US.


vikorr wrote:
Do you understand the word 'caused'? It's like saying the collapse of Building 7 wasn't caused by the planes crashing into the WTC (and therefore must be the result of some other action).

When Muslims choose to kill other Muslims, we are not responsible for that in any way.


vikorr wrote:
You can keep sticking your head in the sand about repercussions of U.S. actions, but that is still what it is - sticking your head in the sand.

Muslims choosing to massacre each other is not a repercussion of US action. Those Muslims are responsible for their own actions.
vikorr
 
  3  
Reply Sun 23 Jun, 2019 09:30 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
I think it is legitimate to criticize a flawed methodology.
It is, which I said was fine. This doesn't change the gist of what you were replying to.

Quote:
Much of the death toll that you are trying to blame us for, came from Muslims killing each other without any help from the US.
I don't believe in blame, and haven't used it. A more unproductive concept in the english language hasn't yet been invented yet, that I know of.

A difficulty appears to arise from your use of non-interchangeable words in the English language, without your understanding the differences. Blame, is not the same as Responsibility, is not the same as Caused, is not the same a Repercussions, is not the same as Contributing Circumstances.

Until you can grasp the differences (or perhaps intentionally changing the words used so as to change the nature of the discussion), this discussion is probably pointless, because you don't want to understand it.

As I said, sticking your head in the sand.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2020 01:57 am
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/17/teacher-decapitated-in-paris-named-as-samuel-paty-47

Quote:
Teacher decapitated in Paris named as Samuel Paty, 47

A history teacher decapitated outside his secondary school in a Paris suburb on Friday after he showed a caricature of the prophet Muhammad to his pupils has been named.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Oct, 2020 12:50 am
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/30/mahathir-mohamads-abhorrent-comments-on-nice-terrorist-attack-condemned-by-australian-pm

Quote:
Australian PM Scott Morrison says former Malaysian PM’s remarks on French terrorist attack were ‘absurd’

Scott Morrison has labelled as “absurd and abhorrent” statements by Malaysia’s former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad that Muslims have a right to “kill millions of French people”, following the terrorist attack in Nice that left three people dead.

On Thursday, a man armed with a knife beheaded a woman and killed two other people at a church in the city of Nice. Hours later police killed a man who threatened passers-by with a handgun near the southern French city of Avignon, and in Saudi Arabia a man was arrested after attacking and injuring a guard at the French consulate in Jeddah.

In a long string of tweets, Mahathir wrote about cultural clashes between the western and Islamic world, and condemned the French president, Emmanuel Macron, for linking Thursday’s attack to Islam.

He wrote that “Muslims have a right to be angry and to kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past” in a post that was subsequently removed by Twitter.

“But by and large, the Muslims have not applied the ‘eye for an eye’ law. Muslims don’t. The French shouldn’t,” Mahathir said.
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2020 12:28 pm
@QKid,
I could. But you could find such verses under "Verses of Violence" in the ReligionOfPeace website.

As for a peaceful country, probably Bangladesh is okay? Statistically, the more rural a Muslim country is, and the less they have to contend with other religions, the more peaceful they are. They tend to do okay in remote areas where they herd animals. But if resources become scarce, they have to fight with other people over land and religion.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Nov, 2020 06:06 pm
Seems that someone has done studies on one of my previously mentioned concerns - that not openly discussing an issue that causes concern, can lead to reinforcement/entrenchment of concernes (and obviously as an extension, to radicalisation). This study was in relation to coronavirus and vaccine confidence, but the same principle applies to any group of people who hold "questions or concerns that are batted away, where they feel like they are being treated as stupid".

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/22/the-guardian-view-on-coronavirus-and-vaccine-scepticism-time-to-act
Quote:
Yet the problem is not merely disinformation, but why it is believed. Prof Larson, who runs the Vaccine Confidence Project at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, warns that simply dismissing rumours can entrench them. When people’s questions or concerns are batted away, and they feel they are being treated as stupid, doubts can grow and vaccine ambivalence turn to scepticism and outright refusal.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/30/2021 at 06:07:36