- 5,051
- Netherlands
I have.
Work, vacation or study?
I have.
How was your impression of the process and your stay?
It's a question of morals and not much more though isn't it?Because it targets a demographic group regardless of their agency and indicates that they think they should live their lives in closeted denial. If you're unable to see how this is prejudicial then I'm not sure I can explain any further.
I don't think that logic holds up....the fact is the Gallup poll (to the best of our knowledge) wasn't included in the analysis.UKMikeyIt only gives one poll (actually two) as examples and doesn't limit its conclusions to those two polls exclusively.
It's still not a direct comparison, even if you believe it to be homophobic.UKMikeyInstead it's saying that they think homosexuals should be denied several basic human rights which are freely available to other groups.
How is that not homophobic?
I think it's the same as they would against adulterers, or maybe those engaging in pre-marital sex.You don't think it shows any prejudice at all? Really?
How so?Christ on a bike! This is the intelligence thing all over again!
"My world view isn't supported by reality so reality must be wrong."
No, targetting homosexual people specifically is homophobia and should be when judged by anyone's moral standard.It's a question of morals and not much more though isn't it?
The article said that many previous polls were inaccurate. Are you saying that it said the ten year old Gallup poll was accurate or that it was one of those many previous polls? How is it illogical to infer the latter?I don't think that logic holds up....the fact is the Gallup poll (to the best of our knowledge) wasn't included in the analysis.
If you can't define intelligence, you can't measure intelligence. Simples.In the intelligence debate I showed differences in IQ, difference in brain (and other organ) metrics, differences in admission criteria to universities, differences in social development and the response was "define intelligence"
If we look at the countries that are most "gay friendly" we see that the top 10 are all (100%) Christian majority nations.
The bottom 10? 70% are Islamic majority.
Do you think he may be fudging the figures?You might be fingering the wrong problem.
You don't think it shows any prejudice at all? Really?
I think it's the same as they would against adulterers, or maybe those engaging in pre-marital sex.
I dunno, maybe it's because homophobia is such a strong word it doesn't sit easily with me to classify a good proportion of the world's population as such.Boy, it's hard picking up on these threads weeks later...
No, targetting homosexual people specifically is homophobia and should be when judged by anyone's moral standard.
Fair point, it wasn't an illogical conclusion. But even if it's one of the "bad polls", what is that saying about Muslim communities?UKMikeyThe article said that many previous polls were inaccurate. Are you saying that it said the ten year old Gallup poll was accurate or that it was one of those many previous polls? How is it illogical to infer the latter?
That picture implies there are differences between human groups....If you can't define intelligence, you can't measure intelligence. Simples.
IQ tests don't measure one's intelligence, they measure one's ability to take IQ tests.
"But 'intelligence' is in its name!" Yeah, and DPRK stands for Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea...but it's not democratic, it's not for the people and it's not a republic. The K is the only honest bit.
What's more, an IQ test can't be administered equally across all populations as it relies heavily on "formal education" (whatever that is) and intelligence exists independently of "formal education".
University admissions evaluations also don't test intelligence, rather, best case scenario, whether a candidate is likely to be able to continue the education they've already received. But then you've got considerations for how much money someone is willing to spend and/or how they look and how difficult their name is to pronounce relative to those already accepted and/or in attendance.
"These people are biologically, physiologically and/or visibly different from those people, so they must possess different levels of intelligence" isn't the sort of due diligence expected of those in the scientific community by those in the scientific community. Why should it fly here?
If you can't define intelligence, you can't measure intelligence.
This all started from UKMikey saying younger Muslims and those brought up outside Muslim dominated areas were holding more liberal views towards homosexuality. Where does this enlightening attitude come from? Especially in a country that is almost 60% Christian....Of course, if you want to play data tables then there are some significant Christian countries "at the bottom", grrr, that includes Russia (big, first world, orthodox Christian). There's the Vatican City, head of the implementation of Roman Catholicism. You've also got heavily Christian parts of the USA (some larger than the countries that they've snuggled in next to). It looks like the problem's more about fundamentalism than it is about religion.
You might be fingering the wrong problem.
There are Christian nations in the bottom 10, in fact they are the remainder to the 70% Muslim nations (30%). I don't think that constitutes fudging.Do you think he may be fudging the figures?
I don't think it's fair - personally I think it's stupid.UKMikeyI like how homosexuals are supposed to be "only" as sinful as adulterers or those indulging in pre-marital sex even though unless same-sex marriage is a thing, the only way they can stay on the right side of a god they may or may not believe in is to abstain completely. Because of an accident of birth. Sounds fair and legit.
It illustrates built-in bias in testing.That picture implies there are differences between human groups.
so the question is islam whats my views on it .
my answer is : less chance it will kill me than christian extremists
Statistically if you live in North America, he is correct.Kinda depends on where in the world you live.
Statistically if you live in North America, he is correct.
Would you care to share those statistics?
Statistically terrorist in the USA are more likely being christians. That is what Novalee, I think, was referring to.
edit: spelling correction
Kinda depends on where in the world you live.
Are those terrorists Christian more or less by coincidence, or are they extremist Christians carrying out their attack for "religious" reasons?
Parenthetically, the text in your graph is so small as to be unreadable.
That depends. Statistically a north american is more likely to die from a terrorist that is christian. Also there are more hatecrimes against muslims then hatecrimes by muslims. But essentially it does not matter for the statistical chance to be murdered by a christian vs muslim if the terrorist motivation where because of religious or not. It only matters what religion the terrorist is.
Here is the source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States
and another
A 2017 report by The Nation Institute and Center for Investigative Reporting looked at the terrorist incidents in the US between 2008 and 2016.[7] It found:[8]
115 Far right inspired terror incidents. 35% of these were foiled (meaning no attack happened) and 29% resulted in fatalities. These terror incidents caused 79 deaths.
63 Islamist inspired terror incidents. 76% of these were foiled (meaning no attack happened) and 13% resulted in fatalities. These terror incidents caused 90 deaths.
19 incidents inspired by left-wing ideologies and eco-terrorism). 20% of these were foiled (meaning no attack happened) and 10% resulted in fatalities. These terror incidents caused 7 deaths.
From your Wikipedia source:
So assuming all the left-wing and right-wing terrorists combined were Christian, we still have Islamic terrorists killing more than the non-Islamic terrorists. This is in direct contradiction to your assertion that in America one is more likely to be killed by a Christian than Islamic terrorist.
From your Wikipedia source:
So assuming all the left-wing and right-wing terrorists combined were Christian, we still have Islamic terrorists killing more than the non-Islamic terrorists. This is in direct contradiction to your assertion that in America one is more likely to be killed by a Christian than Islamic terrorist.
You also have to take into account the percentage of the population in this country that are affiliated with which religion, if you have 100,000 Christians and 100 Muslims and the Christians are responsible for 100 incidents and the Muslims are responsible for 20 incidents even though there were actually more incidents committed by the Christians the Muslims are actually for their numbers in the population a more violent people.
The above example if you accounted for every member of the compared religions and assign each member was capable or possible to cause the event in question then there were 100,000 total incident opportunities available to the Christians while only 100 total incident opportunities available to the Muslims. So comparison between the two groups the percentage of incidents between the two groups by the available population numbers the Muslims are by far the most violent and the most likely to be responsible for the incidents even though the overall numbers they committed fewer incidents.
This goes for any types of incidents or behaviors that are attempting to singling out a group of people whether it be race, religion or ideology within a population to assert or compare one group to another based off of the criteria selected to compare the groups. You have to take the numbers of the group into consideration when looking at the group and percentage of incidents they are responsible for.
And that probability will change depending on where you are in the world and the makeup of the population. I am sure in Iraq and Afghanistan the probability of Higher instances of Murder would be by someone of the Muslim religion than one of the Christian religion.Its about the propability of someone being murdered by a christian terrorist or a muslim terrorist.
What about Tibet and Xinjiang?That's a big question, there are a lot of aspects of the process and the stay. Overall I was surprised about the similarities between Chinese life and the US. I guess I was expecting something more foreign. I knew part of my trip would be in central China, and when I found out I would be taking a domestic flight for example, I didn't know whether to expect goats on the plane, a dirt runway, and a pilot sitting on a crate.
But no, of course there's an airfield of 747s, airport security that has basically the same rules and procedure as the US, terminals, concourses, and a McDonald's inside security. Of course. I guess I approached it with far fewer assumptions than many people do.
The thing is, there are no McDonalds in North Korea (although maybe that will change). I don't love McDonalds (or American fast food, or whatever), but the option is just not there. The option of eating at all is barely there. North Korea has a single (mostly empty) international airport serviced by 2 airlines with 4 total international destinations. Travel into and out of the country is tightly controlled. In China, you can tune in to CNN, BBC and CNBC (though granted not everything they broadcast makes it to Chinese citizens, censorship of those stations is of course a thing). CNN is not a thing for North Koreans. You get your news from North Korean Central Television, and that's it.
I'd wager none of us on this website have been to North Korea. It is wildly more controlled than China.