Do you get this annoyed when people don’t refer to gay-bashing and trans-bashing as “Christian Terrorism”?
The indisputable fact is that more attacks in more places with more casualties happen expressly in the name and cause of Islam than of other religions, today, in 2015, not 1115. There is a big difference between a violent act which a person who happens to be of a religion undertakes than people who undertake a violent act in the name and cause of a religion.
We don’t see groups acting on behalf and in the cause of Christianity, Hinduism, Jainism, Judaism, etc. bombing shit and beheading people on video tape all around the globe. Therefore, “Islamic Terrorism” is apt.
The astonishing thing (if you’ve been watching the Pub debates for comparison) is how they’re all acting like grownups.
O’Malley said "carnival barker."
But, it works either way.
If you don’t see that Christian fundamentalists have bombed abortion clinics or that Catholic school systems have driven gay teens to suicide due to institutionalized homophobia, then you haven’t been paying attention.
You also seem to be ignoring the fact that many of the differences in the impacts of these religions have to do with the cultures in which they’re embedded. Christianity tends to prevail in more advanced western cultures and Islam in older and less enlightened ones. Are you overlooking the fact that cultural differences are at least as important as religious ones?
I am no fan of Islam, but what do you think a term like “Islamic terrorism” does to the reputations of the vast majority of peaceful Muslims? It’s the kind of broad-brush prejudging that is the very essence of prejudice. I’ve only personally known about half a dozen Muslims, but every one of them was a sweet and gentle person, more so than most other people I know of any particular religion. What you claim is “apt” is to brand these people with the stigma of being terrorists.
I thought they did OK. I don’t think anyone “won” or “lost.” Martin O’Malley leans a bit hard on having been a governor, but he’s mostly pretty convincing.
But then, from the transcript, I thought the previous debate had no clear winners and losers, and two candidates just dropped out after that one.
Well, I don’t think O’Malley’s dropping out any time soon; he has to cling the the possibility, however distant, that one of the other campaigns might somehow self-destruct.
Do you have any factual evidence that Catholic school systems drive gay teens to suicide due to institutionalized homophobia? I’ve seen anti-Catholic hatemongers make this claim many times, but never seen them provide any research to back it up.
Generally, religious teens have better mental health and are less likely to attempt suicide than the non-religious, and generally suicide rates are lower among the religious. This study finds that suicide rates are lower than average for Catholics attending Catholic school, higher than average for non-Catholics attending Catholic school but not significantly so.
How often do abortion clinic bombings occur? How many inhabited continents do they frequently occur in? How many big countries and territories do these types control?
I understand not wanting to be unfair, but you also can’t make false equivalences that compare apples to pecans. A spade=a spade.
None of which mentions sexual orientation.
Your third link states a 2-4 times higher rate for non-Catholics attending Catholic schools.
Some particular points that I found of significance in the debate:
Hillary giving props to GWBush for his “we are not at war with Islam” speech.
Sanders comment about how he is not in favor of regime change and unintended consequences. Which does imply a United States preferring to deal with a strongman brutal regime rather than risk instability and the unknown. Not sure what I think or feel about that.
Bernie on tax rates stating “not that much a socialist compared to Eisenhower”
Overall though I am again more comfortable with Bernie than I was previously even though I still prefer HRC. And if he was nominated I believe he could win.
The part that stood out the most to me was when Clinton answered the Wall Street donor question with “9/11”. And the fact the crowd seemed to eat it up.
I’m still not even sure what she was trying to say. That they are just giving her money for helping them rebuild 14 years ago?
So, does that mean his podium is actually his TARDIS?
I thought Galifreyans, being non-human, weren’t permitted to hold political office…
Dubya was of course the worst President of my lifetime, and by no small margin. But the current crop of GOP Presidential candidates are working hard on making him look good, aren’t they?
And this is one of the particulars. GWB didn’t just say this once, he said it a good number of times: that Islam is not the enemy. And this was one thing he did right. I wonder if any of the current GOP candidates would go there. Hillary was smart to cite Dubya on this point.
The past century has produced a number of exceptions to Hobbes’ dictum that even the worst dictator is better than anarchy: Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot for starters. But post-Saddam Iraq lays down a marker for just how vile a dictator can be, yet still be preferable to a failed state.
In situations where there is an alternative with legitimacy and popular support, for instance if the military of a country steps in and refuses to allow the winner of a democratic election to take office, then there is a good argument that we can get in, install the legitimate head of state, and get out again, without making a mess of things. But outside of exceptions of a similar nature, I’m in Hobbes’ and Sanders’ corner: we can always make things worse by intervening - hell, that’s the way to bet.
Haven’t watched much lately eh. He was President of the World there for a bit.
I’m probably more of a history wonk than anyone else. The least hypothesis is that Ike is a convenient Solid Conservative who presided over a government with a high marginal tax rate on the top bracket. He was allowed to: That was before Reagan Christ and Norquist of Tarsus and the dogma of Starve The Beast. Still, it’s a neat little historical in-joke to connect Sanders to Goldwater like that.
The Twitter follow up to her response was appropriate. That was a bad play on her part, fortunately her opponents on the stage weren’t willing to pounce.
Normally the social media integration on these things is just a pointless distraction, but that Twitter response made the point that someone actually in the room should have already made. Either one of here opponents or a moderator. Unfortunately she just responded by repeating basically the same thing, and they moved on.
Well, that’s not actually in the Constitution – and how do we know The Doctor wasn’t born in the United States? (With his resources, he can always arrange to have been. ;))