Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Statistics, comparisons, contradictions


Recommended Posts

US gives more than 5000 trucks of weapons since 2014 to PYD the Syrian arm of a World recognized atheist/christian terror organization PKK. 


About 2000 terrorists from various Western countries who want to partipicate in PKK are trained in Texas and been sent to Syria.


https://www.yenisafak.com/dunya/pkknin-teksas-kampi-2873646
https://tr.sputniknews.com/ortadogu/201807171034321668-ypglile-abd-verdigi-silahlari-karaborsa-satiyor-iddiasi/

Edited by Altai
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The U.S. has a population of 1% Muslims [Islam in the United States] where Turkey has 0.2% of Christian churches [Turkey's Declining Christian Population], all denominations.  There are 2106 tota

No, I used the percentages and so did not need to use the actual numbers of all people. When you use stats relating to percentages on both sides, there is no need to specify the actual number. If you

Altai's ignore list is now the main project being undertaken by the great publishing houses of Ursa Minor.

I think that if you look at religious persecution worldwide, you will find far more persecution of Christians than of Muslims, if that is what Altai is trying to disprove.  Please don't misunderstand me: Any religious persecution is wrong, but if you're trying to say that Muslims get a rougher deal than Christians, you need look no further than Pakistan:

Muslim extremist violence against Christians[edit]

Christians in Pakistan report being targeted by Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan.[34][35][36]

On August 9, 2002 gunmen threw grenades into a chapel on the grounds of the Taxila Christian Hospital in northern Punjab 15 miles west of Islamabad, killing four, including two nurses and a paramedic, and wounding 25 men and women.[37] On September 25, 2002, unidentified Muslim gunmen shot dead six people at a Christian charity in Karachi's central business district. They entered the third-floor offices of the Institute for Peace and Justice (IPJ) and shot their victims in the head. All of the victims were Pakistani Christians. Karachi police chief Tariq Jamil said the victims had their hands tied and their mouths had been covered with tape.[38] On December 25, 2002, several days after an Islamic cleric called for Muslims to kill Christians, two burqa-clad Muslim gunmen tossed a grenade into a Presbyterian church during a Christian sermon in Chianwala in east Pakistan, killing three girls.[39]

After the Karachi killings, Shahbaz Bhatti, the head of the All Pakistan Minority Alliance, told BBC News Online, "We have become increasingly victimised since the launch of the US-led international War on Terror. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the international community to ensure that the government protects us."[40]

In November 2005, 3,000 militant Islamists attacked Christians in Sangla Hill in Pakistan and destroyed Roman Catholic, Salvation Army and United Presbyterian churches. The attack was over allegations of violation of blasphemy laws by a Pakistani Christian named Yousaf Masih. The attacks were condemned by some political parties in Pakistan.[41] However, Pakistani Christians have expressed disappointment that they have not received justice. Samson Dilawar, a parish priest in Sangla Hill, said the police have not committed to trial any of those arrested for committing the assaults, and the Pakistani government did not inform the Christian community that a judicial inquiry was underway by a local judge. He said that Muslim clerics still "make hateful speeches about Christians" and "continue insulting Christians and our faith".[42]

In February 2006, churches and Christian schools were targeted in protests over publication of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons in Denmark, leaving two elderly women injured and many homes and much property destroyed. Some of the mobs were stopped by police, but not all.[43] On June 5, 2006, a Pakistani Christian stonemason named Nasir Ashraf was working near Lahore when he drank water from a public facility using a glass chained to the facility. He was immediately assaulted by Muslims for "polluting the glass". A mob gathered and beat Ashraf, calling him a "Christian dog". Bystanders encouraged the beating, saying it was a "good" deed that would help the attackers get into heaven. Ashraf was hospitalized.[44][45] In August 2006, a church and Christian homes were attacked in a village outside of Lahore in a land dispute. Three Christians were seriously injured and one reported missing after about 35 Muslims burned buildings, desecrated Bibles and attacked Christians.[46] Based, in part, on such incidents, Pakistan was recommended by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) in May 2006 to be designated as a "Country of Particular Concern" (CPC) by the Department of State.[46]

In July 2008, a mob stormed a Protestant church during a prayer service on the outskirts of Pakistan's largest city, Karachi, denouncing the Christians as "infidels" and injuring several, including a pastor.[47]

The 2009 Gojra riots was a series of violent pogroms against Christian minorities by Muslims.[48] In June 2009, International Christian Concern reported the rape and killing of a Christian man in Pakistan, for refusing to convert to Islam.[49] In March 2011, Shahbaz Bhatti was killed by gunmen after he spoke out against Pakistan's blasphemy laws. The U.K. increased financial aid to the country, sparking criticism of British foreign secretary William Hague. Cardinal Keith O’Brien stated, "To increase aid to the Pakistan government when religious freedom is not upheld and those who speak up for religious freedom are gunned down is tantamount to an anti-Christian foreign policy."[50] The Catholic Church in Pakistan requested that Pope Benedict declare martyrdom of Shahbaz Bhatti.[51]

At least 20 people, including police officials, were wounded as 500 Muslim demonstrators attacked the Christian community in Gujranwala city on April 29, 2011, Minorities Concern of Pakistan has learnt.[52] During a press conference in Karachi, the largest city of Pakistan, on May 30, 2011, Maulana Abdul Rauf Farooqi and other clerics of Jamiat-Ulema-e-Islam quoted “immoral Biblical stories” and demanded to ban the Bible. Maulana Farooqi said, “Our lawyers are preparing to ask the court to ban the book.”[53]

On September 23, 2012, a mob of protesters in Mardan, angry at the anti Islamic film Innocence of Muslims, reportedly "set on fire the church, St Paul's high school, a library, a computer laboratory and houses of four clergymen, including Bishop Peter Majeed." and went on to rough up Zeeshan Chand, the pastor's son.[54][55] On October 12, 2012, Ryan Stanton, a Christian boy of 16 went into hiding after being accused of blasphemy and after his home was ransacked by a crowd. Stanton stated that he had been framed because he had rebuffed pressures to convert to Islam.[30][56]

In March 2013, Muslims attacked a Christian neighborhood in Lahore, where more than 100 houses were burned after a Christian was alleged to have made blasphemous remarks.[57] On September 22, 2013, 75 Christians were killed in a suicide attack at the historic All Saints Church in the old quarter of the regional capital, Peshawar.[58]

On February 14, 2014 Muslims stormed the Church building and attacked school property in Multan. They were led by Anwar Khushi, a Muslim gangster who struck a deal with the local people's spokesperson. They seized the Church property and displaced the people and deprived them of their building.

On 15 March 2015, two blasts took place at a Roman Catholic Church and a Christ Church during Sunday service at Youhanabad town of Lahore.[59] At least 15 people were killed and seventy were wounded in the attacks.[60][61]

On March 27, 2016, at least 70 were killed and over 340 wounded when a suicide bomber targeting Christians celebrating Easter attacked a playground in Lahore. The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for the bombing.[19][62][63][64][65]

On December 17, 2017, a bomb killed nine and injured fifty-seven.[66] The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant took responsibility.[67]

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2018 at 5:48 AM, Zeitgeist said:

I think that if you look at religious persecution worldwide, you will find far more persecution of Christians than of Muslims


US crimes alone against Muslims would multiply 100 times 1000 times 10000 times 100000 times any crime against something else in the World.  Yesterday they have murdered at least 17 civilians in Dair Ez-Zor by an airstrike and 21 other civilians 2 days ago in another region. Dont even mention other non-Muslim crimes against Muslims. You are criminal people which is not compareble with anything else.

Edited by Altai
Link to post
Share on other sites

In Ireland, totally 212.417 crimes are committed in the second quarter of 2018 and average 850.000 crimes a year. When we consider Ireland has 4.8 million population, this means 1 of every 5 Irelander is a criminal. HORRIBLE. Maybe I read it wrong, so even if it is an annual statistic, this mean 1 of every 20 Irelander is a criminal, is this less horrible ? I dont think so. 

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-rc/recordedcrimeq22018/

Edited by Altai
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Altai said:


US crimes alone against Muslims would multiply 100 times 1000 times 10000 times 100000 times any crime against something else in the World.  Yesterday they have murdered at least 17 civilians in Dair Ez-Zor by an airstrike and 21 other civilians 2 days ago in another region. Dont even mention other non-Muslim crimes against Muslims. You are criminal people which is not compareble with anything else.

No. Around 3000 civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in the World Trade Centre attacks.  How many thousands of Muslims were killed by the Taliban for religious crimes in Afghanistan?  What about Shiite attacks on Sunnis in Iraq?  What about the reverse?  Muslims killing Muslims and Muslims killing non-Muslims. You seem big on providing statistics for your other claims, so provide them for your claims above.  While there was no doubt collateral damage (unintended killing of civilians) in Afghanistan after 911, Afghans were safer under the Soviets and later on under NATO and coalition occupation than they were under the Taliban, who made spectacles of executions. How many civilians are killed in the Saudi led sect attacks in Yemen?  How about Syria’s civil war?  How about ISIS’s religious executions of locals in all of the territories they occupied?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

No. Around 3000 civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in the World Trade Centre attacks.  How many thousands of Muslims were killed by the Taliban for religious crimes in Afghanistan?  What about Shiite attacks on Sunnis in Iraq?  What about the reverse?  Muslims killing Muslims and Muslims killing non-Muslims. You seem big on providing statistics for your other claims, so provide them for your claims above.  While there was no doubt collateral damage (unintended killing of civilians) in Afghanistan after 911, Afghans were safer under the Soviets and later on under NATO and coalition occupation than they were under the Taliban, who made spectacles of executions. How many civilians are killed in the Saudi led sect attacks in Yemen?  How about Syria’s civil war?  How about ISIS’s religious executions of locals in all of the territories they occupied?  


Okay, Christians have killed about 60-65 million people in WW2. As I said you are not comparable with any other things. If you stop your conspiracy theories, I will keep posting some informations, real informations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Altai said:


Okay, Christians have killed about 60-65 million people in WW2. As I said you are not comparable with any other things. If you stop your conspiracy theories, I will keep posting some informations, real informations.

WW2 was a war started by an atheist-nihilist regime, Nazi Germany.  Allied powers took up the noble cause of fighting this dark force that would happily have marched through Turkey, the Middle East, Persia, and North Africa, murdering what it deemed inferior races, taking resources, and oppressing local populations.  Be thankful it was eliminated and hope that the same happens to ISIS. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2018 at 9:23 AM, Zeitgeist said:

WW2 was a war started by an atheist-nihilist regime, Nazi Germany.  Allied powers took up the noble cause of fighting this dark force that would happily have marched through Turkey, the Middle East, Persia, and North Africa, murdering what it deemed inferior races, taking resources, and oppressing local populations.  Be thankful it was eliminated and hope that the same happens to ISIS. 

You are arguing fine against Altai's position with nice depth of response.

On this post response, though, I partly agree and disagree. The Nazis are only 'Nihilist' with respect to realities about success in power relations. With Social Darwinism, they agree that nature tends to favour no one and is "nihilistic" in this respect. But they more support the concept that IF God is dead, then people would still recreate it. For the National Socialists, they believed that success of any prosperity belonged to those who HAVE an ethnically strict and isolated support system based STRONGLY in RELIGION, ....NOT atheism. They admired the strength of those who defined themselves BY their Nationality and ironically, to the very strength of the Jews as the strongest version they believed MADE them economically most successful/prosperous. This was a big reason for their Anti-Jewish stance. They believed the Jew would never adapt due to the nature of their strong religious belief as the 'chosen ones' (a form of 'superiority' belief) and so both wanted to ADOPT to that strength and annihilate the Jew as THE major competing Nationalism in opposition to outsiders that included German-Nationalist. As such, they wanted to STRENGTHEN RELIGION for the Aboriginal Germans, and get them united by a common religious root.

In light of this, I personally believe that RELIGION is the problem, and today's defence of 'culture' using legislative means by ANY religion IS a bigger problem. We need to recognize that the problems occurring in the world often result from REAL economic disparities but that the means of securing POWER for most political ideologies USE religion, culture, and ethnicity, ....all forms of strong motivating mechanisms for ACTION that appeal with more power, just as other forms of ART have more emotional impact on us as individuals.

Religion, not Atheism, is the threat because it is like placing our artistic heroes in power rather than the intellect. The philosophical Nihilists recognized this. STRENGTH favors those non-intelligent and most emotive factors for the masses

Altai is just wrong to make comparisons statistically at all, because all religions are used to justify non-intelligent behaviour everywhere. It's deluding to think that because religion ALSO features good things that they ONLY serve this. To compete for which religion causes more problems is like arguing why Rap is more problematic than Country music. Both have their virtues and vices. Both relate MORE to some ethnically identified and generally segregated subpopulation. But neither causes the INITIAL underlying conditions associated with those pluaralities. They only act as a smoke screen and falsely distract us from the real problems. 

Edited by Scott Mayers
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

You are arguing fine against Altai's position with nice depth of response.

On this post response, though, I partly agree and disagree. The Nazis are only 'Nihilist' with respect to realities about success in power relations. With Social Darwinism, they agree that nature tends to favour no one and is "nihilistic" in this respect. But they more support the concept that IF God is dead, then people would still recreate it. For the National Socialists, they believed that success of any prosperity belonged to those who HAVE an ethnically strict and isolated support system based STRONGLY in RELIGION, ....NOT atheism. They admired the strength of those who defined themselves BY their Nationality and ironically, to the very strength of the Jews as the strongest version they believed MADE them economically most successful/prosperous. This was a big reason for their Anti-Jewish stance. They believed the Jew would never adapt due to the nature of their strong religious belief as the 'chosen ones' (a form of 'superiority' belief) and so both wanted to ADOPT to that strength and annihilate the Jew as THE major competing Nationalism in opposition to outsiders that included German-Nationalist. As such, they wanted to STRENGTHEN RELIGION for the Aboriginal Germans, and get them united by a common religious root.

In light of this, I personally believe that RELIGION is the problem, and today's defence of 'culture' using legislative means by ANY religion IS a bigger problem. We need to recognize that the problems occurring in the world often result from REAL economic disparities but that the means of securing POWER for most political ideologies USE religion, culture, and ethnicity, ....all forms of strong motivating mechanisms for ACTION that appeal with more power, just as other forms of ART have more emotional impact on us as individuals.

Religion, not Atheism, is the threat because it is like placing our artistic heroes in power rather than the intellect. The philosophical Nihilists recognized this. STRENGTH favors those non-intelligent and most emotive factors for the masses

Altai is just wrong to make comparisons statistically at all, because all religions are used to justify non-intelligent behaviour everywhere. It's deluding to think that because religion ALSO features good things that they ONLY serve this. To compete for which religion causes more problems is like arguing why Rap is more problematic than Country music. Both have their virtues and vices. Both relate MORE to some ethnically identified and generally segregated subpopulation. But neither causes the INITIAL underlying conditions associated with those pluaralities. They only act as a smoke screen and falsely distract us from the real problems. 

I appreciate your support of humanism, but religion, or rather the sense of the sacred, seems to be part of the human psyche.  It’s archetypal. So how do we deal with this?  If the state bans religion, as happened for periods under communist regimes, people tend to deify the state and the state uses this misplaced authority (consider Lenin or Mau).  Any kind of official state atheism tends to trample on religious freedom.

Also, while I support the separation of church and state, I don’t think we should hurry to dismiss cultural traditions, including religious ones, that support human rights and our democratic institutions, especially as they are certain to be challenged by believers of much harsher and more vehement faiths that oppose our cultural values.  We have to deal in the real world where religion still has much currency, even if some think it’s all pure mythology. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I appreciate your support of humanism, but religion, or rather the sense of the sacred, seems to be part of the human psyche.  It’s archetypal. So how do we deal with this?  If the state bans religion, as happened for periods under communist regimes, people tend to deify the state and the state uses this misplaced authority (consider Lenin or Mau).  Any kind of official state atheism tends to trample on religious freedom.

Also, while I support the separation of church and state, I don’t think we should hurry to dismiss cultural traditions, including religious ones, that support human rights and our democratic institutions, especially as they are certain to be challenged by believers of much harsher and more vehement faiths that oppose our cultural values.  We have to deal in the real world where religion still has much currency, even if some think it’s all pure mythology. 

[NOTE BEFORE READING: This post seems to digress away from Altai's thread here. I did not intend this but want to give notice to any potential reader and Alai personally. I link it back to the issue of statistical problems at the end but believe that this is all still relevant. Should the administrators feel this is potentially "hi-jacking", I ask that this at least be preserved in a distinct thread with a link for the value of this if it should be asked for removal in respect to Altai. I will save a copy just in case. Thank you.]

 

I'm for that separation of church and state, something that most don't realize is NOT in our own Canadian Constitution. I also do not support laws that ban religion in the same way as one's right to artistic EXPRESSION. The reason for the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution's mention about freedom of speech would not warrant mentioning also that the country should make no laws regarding religion if this wasn't logically implying that religion itself is an ARTISTIC EXPRESSION. In other words, I agree that we cannot make laws that ban religion, culture, or language, etc, from the people but that regarding LAW-MAKING, specifically, we can not allow governments to force PARTICULAR kinds of interpretation of culture, religion, ....or 'art' (as a more generic term for it all)...by making laws to conserve, preserve, nor especially, constitutionalize what is intrinsically subjective interpretations about what is 'good' EXPRESSION versus the 'bad'. 

As such, even the U.S. today has already broken their own Constitutional amendment many times over since its incarnation. It has been (and still is) being interpreted BY RELIGIOUS people in power (by all parties) that the law only condemns making laws against religions in particular.

For the left, they believe it is alright to have "hate-laws", for instance, exceptions to the freedom of expression. Also, they promote a right to make laws that act to balance out population clusters based upon cultural, religious, and even artistic, basis. For the right, they believe that if the majority HAVE a particular representation of particular religions, the ideals FROM or THROUGH their churches are justly right to make laws from. BOTH extremes (including all others in between), have the larger inclusive agreement that at least RELIGION, itself, has some just foundation to the moral foundations of their country's origins. So, for instance, while they may not overtly clarify it, there is a default anti-atheist agreement: that such thinking would lead to a scary Nihilistic outcome.

Note that while the Soviet Union and China have banned the prior official religions, they remained at minimal, a form of religion based solely on the meaning of their own ideal of Communism: an ideal FUTURE WORLD where we all live in a heaven on Earth. The religious part comes from the fact that "Communism" is only the end goal. To get there though requires the present living people to agree to any set of SACRIFICES for that future's children. Where is the logic in presuming that the future's condition (rather than the present) is worthy of sacrifice unless you have some sort of religious belief that you extend your own 'consciousness' through your progeny? That is, while I might love my children today, how can you think there is something more special to consider for some future non-existing progeny that may itself never exist. An asteroid could come by and completely annihilate the world precisely as that ideal might be reached. Then what would that sacrifice mean. The only way that those country's could function through the temporary period of Republican Socialism to set the stage for that ideal future would require some form of INCENTIVE of 'hope' that nothing BUT religious, cultural, or artificial manufacturing could serve to get to that end. In other words, some form of religion in those (anarchic-type) societies need to be MANUFACTURED still. This is why even Hitler's Nazis opted to favor the formal Nihilist concepts. They only differed by the Communists in strategy.....they embraced religion AS required without pretence of it being non-essential. 

An example of what we CAN do is to recognize when and where religious ideals creep into politics and stop enabling lawmaking that utilizes these with clarity. An excellent example of this is our Canadian "Bilingual" laws. How can this NOT be interpreted logically as a bias to favor a superiority belief about one or both of these languages? If there is no actual bias, we'd require to either have ALL languages as 'official' or none. We cannot have none because this is our means to effectively communicate the laws we make collectively. But then we have to choose only ONE 'official' language, whether this be arbitrarily selected or forcefully assigned at some initial period. It doesn't impose upon others to demand they cannot express themselves but that they have to be the ones to TRANSLATE their expression to the official one if their appeal is to be about laws that affect us all. This is identical to the nature of selecting 'official' universals for science and math. What value would it be to allow the official status of measurements to be in distinctly SEPARATE optional languages? For instance, what universal value (over vice) would it be to allow people independently to select two distinct sets of symbols and their bases for the integers (0, 1, 2, 3, ...etc) based upon choice? 

Of course we DO have value to USE different symbols or bases for numbers but we still have the capacity to universally link them without confusion. We might select to have BOTH Imperial measures with Metric ones. But if we have some LAW that demands uniquely of more than one but not all, we'd require the responsibility to either make ALL people learn both (or all of the finite set of) languages to communicate or a means of EACH to have the legitimate capacity to translate themselves without requiring the faith to trust others to do this translation. [Without one's own capacity to KNOW how to directly translate can lead to problems when people of different systems communicate because we'd have to have FAITH in the MEDIUM of TRANSLATION to act.] This would be like if the Chinese opted in law (as a kind of World Individual) to refuse to use the Arabic numerals for their own traditional symbols. Their 'traditional' symbols MAY be in base 3, (or like the Babylonians, base-60!). While we can be SURE that translation is possible, by faith or by learning both languages, having the 'freedom' to EXCLUSIVELY select ONLY ONE as a law, ISOLATES those people from a 'freedom to understand' the laws made in alternate languages without faith.

I went into depth on this latter example because it points out that while there CAN be means of allowing select ARTISTIC expression as an OFFICIAL concept of a select finite set of symbols, the cost increases negatively against those who only speak one or none of the official languages (any others). This logically PROVES that our Canadian Bilingualism is biased to a form of artificial favoritism FOR those who either (a) speak both (a form of elitist favor to linguistic variety of those who can afford transitions between the two or more official languages) OR (b) speak in the language that favors their culture in the language they already speak. Those laws are thus "cultural" (and 'religious' given a belief that the select languages SHOULD be preserved intrinsically). 

Those who speak neither have a rightful beef against the arrogance of not also allowing their OWN language to be 'official'. This leads to demanding segregate laws that preserve their own languages in select communities they hold plural power in. It also ADDS the means to ISOLATE them because those children who learn their own limited community language are biased by default to be less competitive elsewhere without the added investment in learning the other 'official' languages. AND worse, it biases OUTSIDERS from entering those communities that now have successful religious/culture law that allow them that isolation. 

Is this sufficient as an example? I could use more. This is not what appears as a religious but nevertheless is in an indirect and hideous way. To balance the problems against the particular ONE 'official' language that would likely impose the cultures and religions that those language origins are more relative to, you have to include prevention of allowing those cultures OF the origin of that official language from being imposed in law: EXAMPLE, A law that requires reverence to the Engand's Queen, ....a law that requires all students be required to be taught Shakespeare uniquely as a prerequisite to pass language arts, ....a law that rewards some superior reverence to English simply because it might be 'official', etc.

I hope you like reading because I feel I have to add another example....

The fear that human rights would be imposed upon is already one that exists with laws that permit cultural laws. It also actually ENHANCES violation by how positive corrective laws used to 'balance' seemingly unfair real problems through affirming SPECIFIC laws FOR peoples BASED upon cultural definitions. The laws to balance out some apparent injustice between the sexes, for instance are often actually caused DUE to gender cultural ignorance of perception about what the real problem is. If more women are biased of pay using a statistic that measures CEO salaries as paying men way more, it is MORE likely due to the nature of women's culture of 'femininity' that those majority of women hold by default of themselves and the nature of the expectant 'masculine' dominance of a CEO position.

But 'femininity' (treating it to mean, 'the artistic interpretation of what more women in the past held') is NOT OWNED by the nature of one being literally female. That the words relate are accidental to the culture. As such, MEN who are also 'feminine' are also likely to fit into the same class of those who don't get CEO high salaries. See how the ARTISTIC interpretation of the perspective of the problem itself is skewed? For an illustration of the absurdity of those who think that women (not merely effeminate people of any sex) are being treated anti-humane, should we not also demand laws that put an equal amount of women in the prison system to make it 'fair'? Why is no one complaining that there is an inhumane treatment of men over women to the interpretation of what qualifies as a 'crime'?  

The reality that the kind of crimes we treat as most vile are those that are 'masculine' is also a cultural factor. That men are more likely to do this is based upon EMBRACING specific cultures in prior social or political laws of the past through time. We tend to treat this by inappropriately making 'laws' (cultural or legal) that target men as perpetrators and women as victims when, again, the crimes are actually DUE to culture/religious assumptions of the past. The solution that many embrace as 'humane' for this problem is often: "Never ever should any man ever hit a woman!" with the implicit sexist bias that assumes that only men, rather than "masculine culture" is the cause. Here "masculine culture" does NOT mean men even though this may have been traditional. A law that appropriately (and unbiased to any 'culture' nor 'sex') is to have a law that asserts, "Never ever should anyone ever hit another person." THIS would be non-cultural, non-religious, and non-sexist, as a law. 

The laws made today tend to reflect bias when they address a problem that is based upon a logical factor (like that getting hit is abusive) get confused as a religious and illogical one (that only women can be abused when hit) precisely because of a prior religious one of some traditional past (that men should be selected for their physical dominance by women) and by illogical connections (like that given the majority of those hurt are women who get hit by men MEAN that all men ARE MEAN by their intrinsic nature and all women subjects of intrinsic victims of only men.) If this is too confusing to address in depth, than would it not be simpler to just keep laws that address non-cultural interpretations of the nature of abuse? 

To RECONVENE to this thread by Altai, much of the problems often resort to those interpretations of statistics that get get abused by inappropriate logic. I already begun threads here and elsewhere about the problems of statistics (and think even Altai may have borrowed this idea for her own here). A stat that says, using the last example above, "2/3 of all women in their lifetimes will experience some form of abuse", implies that non-women represent an exclusive privilege in opposition because of its very exclusion of a stat representing all people. It might be also true that "2/3 of all men in their lifetimes will experience some form of abuse." In that case, that missing detail implies a biased agenda to favor the class 'women' at the expense of men should this be an appeal to alter laws. It then represents a kind of 'religious' belief that is also implicit: "No women deserves abuse, uniquely" (and thus that, "Men are incapable of abuse or are irrelevant to require laws where they potentially are.") 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

[NOTE BEFORE READING: This post seems to digress away from Altai's thread here. I did not intend this but want to give notice to any potential reader and Alai personally. I link it back to the issue of statistical problems at the end but believe that this is all still relevant. Should the administrators feel this is potentially "hi-jacking", I ask that this at least be preserved in a distinct thread with a link for the value of this if it should be asked for removal in respect to Altai. I will save a copy just in case. Thank you.]

 

I'm for that separation of church and state, something that most don't realize is NOT in our own Canadian Constitution. I also do not support laws that ban religion in the same way as one's right to artistic EXPRESSION. The reason for the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution's mention about freedom of speech would not warrant mentioning also that the country should make no laws regarding religion if this wasn't logically implying that religion itself is an ARTISTIC EXPRESSION. In other words, I agree that we cannot make laws that ban religion, culture, or language, etc, from the people but that regarding LAW-MAKING, specifically, we can not allow governments to force PARTICULAR kinds of interpretation of culture, religion, ....or 'art' (as a more generic term for it all)...by making laws to conserve, preserve, nor especially, constitutionalize what is intrinsically subjective interpretations about what is 'good' EXPRESSION versus the 'bad'. 

As such, even the U.S. today has already broken their own Constitutional amendment many times over since its incarnation. It has been (and still is) being interpreted BY RELIGIOUS people in power (by all parties) that the law only condemns making laws against religions in particular.

For the left, they believe it is alright to have "hate-laws", for instance, exceptions to the freedom of expression. Also, they promote a right to make laws that act to balance out population clusters based upon cultural, religious, and even artistic, basis. For the right, they believe that if the majority HAVE a particular representation of particular religions, the ideals FROM or THROUGH their churches are justly right to make laws from. BOTH extremes (including all others in between), have the larger inclusive agreement that at least RELIGION, itself, has some just foundation to the moral foundations of their country's origins. So, for instance, while they may not overtly clarify it, there is a default anti-atheist agreement: that such thinking would lead to a scary Nihilistic outcome.

Note that while the Soviet Union and China have banned the prior official religions, they remained at minimal, a form of religion based solely on the meaning of their own ideal of Communism: an ideal FUTURE WORLD where we all live in a heaven on Earth. The religious part comes from the fact that "Communism" is only the end goal. To get there though requires the present living people to agree to any set of SACRIFICES for that future's children. Where is the logic in presuming that the future's condition (rather than the present) is worthy of sacrifice unless you have some sort of religious belief that you extend your own 'consciousness' through your progeny? That is, while I might love my children today, how can you think there is something more special to consider for some future non-existing progeny that may itself never exist. An asteroid could come by and completely annihilate the world precisely as that ideal might be reached. Then what would that sacrifice mean. The only way that those country's could function through the temporary period of Republican Socialism to set the stage for that ideal future would require some form of INCENTIVE of 'hope' that nothing BUT religious, cultural, or artificial manufacturing could serve to get to that end. In other words, some form of religion in those (anarchic-type) societies need to be MANUFACTURED still. This is why even Hitler's Nazis opted to favor the formal Nihilist concepts. They only differed by the Communists in strategy.....they embraced religion AS required without pretence of it being non-essential. 

An example of what we CAN do is to recognize when and where religious ideals creep into politics and stop enabling lawmaking that utilizes these with clarity. An excellent example of this is our Canadian "Bilingual" laws. How can this NOT be interpreted logically as a bias to favor a superiority belief about one or both of these languages? If there is no actual bias, we'd require to either have ALL languages as 'official' or none. We cannot have none because this is our means to effectively communicate the laws we make collectively. But then we have to choose only ONE 'official' language, whether this be arbitrarily selected or forcefully assigned at some initial period. It doesn't impose upon others to demand they cannot express themselves but that they have to be the ones to TRANSLATE their expression to the official one if their appeal is to be about laws that affect us all. This is identical to the nature of selecting 'official' universals for science and math. What value would it be to allow the official status of measurements to be in distinctly SEPARATE optional languages? For instance, what universal value (over vice) would it be to allow people independently to select two distinct sets of symbols and their bases for the integers (0, 1, 2, 3, ...etc) based upon choice? 

Of course we DO have value to USE different symbols or bases for numbers but we still have the capacity to universally link them without confusion. We might select to have BOTH Imperial measures with Metric ones. But if we have some LAW that demands uniquely of more than one but not all, we'd require the responsibility to either make ALL people learn both (or all of the finite set of) languages to communicate or a means of EACH to have the legitimate capacity to translate themselves without requiring the faith to trust others to do this translation. [Without one's own capacity to KNOW how to directly translate can lead to problems when people of different systems communicate because we'd have to have FAITH in the MEDIUM of TRANSLATION to act.] This would be like if the Chinese opted in law (as a kind of World Individual) to refuse to use the Arabic numerals for their own traditional symbols. Their 'traditional' symbols MAY be in base 3, (or like the Babylonians, base-60!). While we can be SURE that translation is possible, by faith or by learning both languages, having the 'freedom' to EXCLUSIVELY select ONLY ONE as a law, ISOLATES those people from a 'freedom to understand' the laws made in alternate languages without faith.

I went into depth on this latter example because it points out that while there CAN be means of allowing select ARTISTIC expression as an OFFICIAL concept of a select finite set of symbols, the cost increases negatively against those who only speak one or none of the official languages (any others). This logically PROVES that our Canadian Bilingualism is biased to a form of artificial favoritism FOR those who either (a) speak both (a form of elitist favor to linguistic variety of those who can afford transitions between the two or more official languages) OR (b) speak in the language that favors their culture in the language they already speak. Those laws are thus "cultural" (and 'religious' given a belief that the select languages SHOULD be preserved intrinsically). 

Those who speak neither have a rightful beef against the arrogance of not also allowing their OWN language to be 'official'. This leads to demanding segregate laws that preserve their own languages in select communities they hold plural power in. It also ADDS the means to ISOLATE them because those children who learn their own limited community language are biased by default to be less competitive elsewhere without the added investment in learning the other 'official' languages. AND worse, it biases OUTSIDERS from entering those communities that now have successful religious/culture law that allow them that isolation. 

Is this sufficient as an example? I could use more. This is not what appears as a religious but nevertheless is in an indirect and hideous way. To balance the problems against the particular ONE 'official' language that would likely impose the cultures and religions that those language origins are more relative to, you have to include prevention of allowing those cultures OF the origin of that official language from being imposed in law: EXAMPLE, A law that requires reverence to the Engand's Queen, ....a law that requires all students be required to be taught Shakespeare uniquely as a prerequisite to pass language arts, ....a law that rewards some superior reverence to English simply because it might be 'official', etc.

I hope you like reading because I feel I have to add another example....

The fear that human rights would be imposed upon is already one that exists with laws that permit cultural laws. It also actually ENHANCES violation by how positive corrective laws used to 'balance' seemingly unfair real problems through affirming SPECIFIC laws FOR peoples BASED upon cultural definitions. The laws to balance out some apparent injustice between the sexes, for instance are often actually caused DUE to gender cultural ignorance of perception about what the real problem is. If more women are biased of pay using a statistic that measures CEO salaries as paying men way more, it is MORE likely due to the nature of women's culture of 'femininity' that those majority of women hold by default of themselves and the nature of the expectant 'masculine' dominance of a CEO position.

But 'femininity' (treating it to mean, 'the artistic interpretation of what more women in the past held') is NOT OWNED by the nature of one being literally female. That the words relate are accidental to the culture. As such, MEN who are also 'feminine' are also likely to fit into the same class of those who don't get CEO high salaries. See how the ARTISTIC interpretation of the perspective of the problem itself is skewed? For an illustration of the absurdity of those who think that women (not merely effeminate people of any sex) are being treated anti-humane, should we not also demand laws that put an equal amount of women in the prison system to make it 'fair'? Why is no one complaining that there is an inhumane treatment of men over women to the interpretation of what qualifies as a 'crime'?  

The reality that the kind of crimes we treat as most vile are those that are 'masculine' is also a cultural factor. That men are more likely to do this is based upon EMBRACING specific cultures in prior social or political laws of the past through time. We tend to treat this by inappropriately making 'laws' (cultural or legal) that target men as perpetrators and women as victims when, again, the crimes are actually DUE to culture/religious assumptions of the past. The solution that many embrace as 'humane' for this problem is often: "Never ever should any man ever hit a woman!" with the implicit sexist bias that assumes that only men, rather than "masculine culture" is the cause. Here "masculine culture" does NOT mean men even though this may have been traditional. A law that appropriately (and unbiased to any 'culture' nor 'sex') is to have a law that asserts, "Never ever should anyone ever hit another person." THIS would be non-cultural, non-religious, and non-sexist, as a law. 

The laws made today tend to reflect bias when they address a problem that is based upon a logical factor (like that getting hit is abusive) get confused as a religious and illogical one (that only women can be abused when hit) precisely because of a prior religious one of some traditional past (that men should be selected for their physical dominance by women) and by illogical connections (like that given the majority of those hurt are women who get hit by men MEAN that all men ARE MEAN by their intrinsic nature and all women subjects of intrinsic victims of only men.) If this is too confusing to address in depth, than would it not be simpler to just keep laws that address non-cultural interpretations of the nature of abuse? 

To RECONVENE to this thread by Altai, much of the problems often resort to those interpretations of statistics that get get abused by inappropriate logic. I already begun threads here and elsewhere about the problems of statistics (and think even Altai may have borrowed this idea for her own here). A stat that says, using the last example above, "2/3 of all women in their lifetimes will experience some form of abuse", implies that non-women represent an exclusive privilege in opposition because of its very exclusion of a stat representing all people. It might be also true that "2/3 of all men in their lifetimes will experience some form of abuse." In that case, that missing detail implies a biased agenda to favor the class 'women' at the expense of men should this be an appeal to alter laws. It then represents a kind of 'religious' belief that is also implicit: "No women deserves abuse, uniquely" (and thus that, "Men are incapable of abuse or are irrelevant to require laws where they potentially are.") 

Okay, you've said a lot.  Instead of addressing your arguments point by point, I'll try to resolve them by clarifying some "rules of the game", the game being the nature of our being in the word, the human condition so to speak.  By way of doing this I hope to bring the conversation back to the issue of statistics and how they are used, the subject of this thread.

There are really only three things fixed points around which things lie: facts, values, and ideas.  We rely on science and statistics because they are true.  However, what we choose to make a focus in the science that we do, either in the pure or applied sense (what we build), and which statistics we choose to create, highlight or analyze, depends entirely on our values (what we care about).  So much of what we have created in our cultural institutions, including laws and public policy, depends entirely on our values.  We adjust our policies/laws based on what we care about.  What we care about changes based on what we learn from facts and ideas about the world.  The challenge of course is ensuring that we have real facts and that if certain facts have been selected, we know the reasons for this.  This is where critical thinking comes in, the importance of knowing the purpose of a text, the agenda of the author.

Swirling around these facts and values are different ideas about what actions can be taken and ideological viewpoints (religious, philosophical, and political).  We have to navigate this marketplace of ideas and so-called truths (real and otherwise).  I have no illusions that there are many so-called truths that are nothing more than perspectives, some with little or no basis in reality.  The world is full of sophists and snake-oil salesmen.  We're kidding ourselves if we think that our political parties and religions don't play in this muck.  Yet we need to form public policy to govern and psychology teaches us that the religious impulse and belief are part of the human identity.  So in this world of competing narratives about the word, both political and religious, where everyone has a vote (democracy being the fairest system of governing we've so far imagined), we have to support the opinions, ideologies, and beliefs that, based on scientific research and statistics, give humanity the best outcomes.  What's scary is that people will kill others and do very unhealthy things sometimes in the name of religion or political ideology, with an idea that some greater future purpose justifies bad behavior in the present (ends justify the means).  We likely won't get rid of ideology and religion as long humanity exists, so we have to work with them, even if it's by demonstrating mere tolerance.  The answer, in my view, is to look at the healthy practices in the existing culture and to continue to allow such practices.  I also think it's of critical importance to forbid beliefs/practices that are damaging to healthy cultural practices.  New ideas will and should come forward to challenge thinking.  Successful new ideas eventually change practice, especially as they are born out by scientific fact over time. 

We also absolutely have a right to protect culture.  When you criticize aspects of a country's cultural identity such as bilingualism, you have to ask yourself what the impact would be of removing such policies.  How many people are impacted and who is this serving?  If it's serving newcomers who as of yet have no stake in the country, have not paid taxes or helped build the infrastructure and institutions upon which we rely, that is not serving the interests of the country.  Why do so?  To make ourselves more palatable to individuals who may have no regard for the country's traditions or people?  Or worse, we may find ourselves accommodating people who actively seek to dismantle the institutions that have allowed us to thrive and given us cohesion.  Multiculturalism is a positive outward looking idea.  Tolerance of different views, if they are positive or at least unharmful, is important.  I do not believe in taking a wrecking ball to culture or traditions without a damn good reason.   

One other important item.  I realize that even the idea of what is "healthy" is subject to cultural construction, but only to an extent.  Some practices will always be scientifically healthier than others.  It's like the idea that gender identity is just a social construct.  Yes socialization has impact, but brain research has proven that there is a biological basis for gender just as psychology has shown that there are certain universal human values.  Think of archetypes and the "Hero's Quest" at the centre of every culture's mythology.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites

Daily 213 cars are stolen in Canada, 100 cars are stolen in Germany, 63 cars are stolen in Turkiye. Canada's situation is much worse when the populations are compared.


https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/12-581-x/2018000/cri-eng.htm
https://www.dw.com/en/burglary-rate-in-germany-hits-15-year-high/a-19151006
https://www.tasit.com/otomobil-haberleri/analiz/turkiyede-gunde-63-oto-hirsizligi-yasaniyor

Edited by Altai
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Altai said:

Daily 213 cars are stolen in Canada, 100 cars are stolen in Germany, 63 cars are stolen in Turkiye. Canada's situation is much worse when the populations are compared.


https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/12-581-x/2018000/cri-eng.htm
https://www.dw.com/en/burglary-rate-in-germany-hits-15-year-high/a-19151006
https://www.tasit.com/otomobil-haberleri/analiz/turkiyede-gunde-63-oto-hirsizligi-yasaniyor

Are you trying to indicate that somehow people in Turkey have a greater sense of well-being and the society is better functioning based on these car theft comparisons?  What is your point?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2018 at 2:19 PM, Zeitgeist said:

Okay, you've said a lot.  Instead of addressing your arguments point by point, I'll try to resolve them by clarifying some "rules of the game", the game being the nature of our being in the word, the human condition so to speak.  By way of doing this I hope to bring the conversation back to the issue of statistics and how they are used, the subject of this thread.

There are really only three things fixed points around which things lie: facts, values, and ideas.  We rely on science and statistics because they are true.  However, what we choose to make a focus in the science that we do, either in the pure or applied sense (what we build), and which statistics we choose to create, highlight or analyze, depends entirely on our values (what we care about).  So much of what we have created in our cultural institutions, including laws and public policy, depends entirely on our values.  We adjust our policies/laws based on what we care about.  What we care about changes based on what we learn from facts and ideas about the world.  The challenge of course is ensuring that we have real facts and that if certain facts have been selected, we know the reasons for this.  This is where critical thinking comes in, the importance of knowing the purpose of a text, the agenda of the author.

Swirling around these facts and values are different ideas about what actions can be taken and ideological viewpoints (religious, philosophical, and political).  We have to navigate this marketplace of ideas and so-called truths (real and otherwise).  I have no illusions that there are many so-called truths that are nothing more than perspectives, some with little or no basis in reality.  The world is full of sophists and snake-oil salesmen.  We're kidding ourselves if we think that our political parties and religions don't play in this muck.  Yet we need to form public policy to govern and psychology teaches us that the religious impulse and belief are part of the human identity.  So in this world of competing narratives about the word, both political and religious, where everyone has a vote (democracy being the fairest system of governing we've so far imagined), we have to support the opinions, ideologies, and beliefs that, based on scientific research and statistics, give humanity the best outcomes.  What's scary is that people will kill others and do very unhealthy things sometimes in the name of religion or political ideology, with an idea that some greater future purpose justifies bad behavior in the present (ends justify the means).  We likely won't get rid of ideology and religion as long humanity exists, so we have to work with them, even if it's by demonstrating mere tolerance.  The answer, in my view, is to look at the healthy practices in the existing culture and to continue to allow such practices.  I also think it's of critical importance to forbid beliefs/practices that are damaging to healthy cultural practices.  New ideas will and should come forward to challenge thinking.  Successful new ideas eventually change practice, especially as they are born out by scientific fact over time. 

We also absolutely have a right to protect culture.  When you criticize aspects of a country's cultural identity such as bilingualism, you have to ask yourself what the impact would be of removing such policies.  How many people are impacted and who is this serving?  If it's serving newcomers who as of yet have no stake in the country, have not paid taxes or helped build the infrastructure and institutions upon which we rely, that is not serving the interests of the country.  Why do so?  To make ourselves more palatable to individuals who may have no regard for the country's traditions or people?  Or worse, we may find ourselves accommodating people who actively seek to dismantle the institutions that have allowed us to thrive and given us cohesion.  Multiculturalism is a positive outward looking idea.  Tolerance of different views, if they are positive or at least unharmful, is important.  I do not believe in taking a wrecking ball to culture or traditions without a damn good reason.   

One other important item.  I realize that even the idea of what is "healthy" is subject to cultural construction, but only to an extent.  Some practices will always be scientifically healthier than others.  It's like the idea that gender identity is just a social construct.  Yes socialization has impact, but brain research has proven that there is a biological basis for gender just as psychology has shown that there are certain universal human values.  Think of archetypes and the "Hero's Quest" at the centre of every culture's mythology.

[Thank you for your response. I like your style of writing and believe you are intellectually fair and likely meaningful non-biased.]

 

I'm being very specific about what I mean when I use the word, "law" and "lawmaking" and "particular culture", etc. That is, I'm against the government being permitted powers to make laws for or against any PARTICULAR religion, culture, personal preferences regarding gender, etc. These concepts collectively are summarized as "art". They are ARBITRARY behaviors that belong to individuals, and when LAWS are made for or against SPECIFIC forms of ART, this power by governments are against FREEDOM OF SPEECH for some subset of the population that government is representing. The bias of power favors GROUPS of which those most powerful in money or popularity can rule OUT those individuals who desire different forms of ART.

Therefore, our "Multicultural" label is itself misleading because it does NOT favor ALL individual 'cultures' (their ART) and biases select cultures those IN POWER simply don't like. The rhetoric and misuse of things like statistics among a whole set of other manipulative behaviors are also enhanced and escalated when governments have power to affect specific cultures and who, as people themselves, have the non-democratic power to IMPOSE their own religious/cultural beliefs directly through those laws. 

Note how the "Multi-" in "Multiculturalism" demonstrates a kind of statistic abuse: it purposely blurs the meaning of the quantity of cultures it supports. It is not true that ALL cultures are supported and yet not lying in that the quantity that they do support is at least more than one. It's fuzzy and places the greater burden on individuals who lack conforming to those specific favored cultures set in law to defend their own expressions against those laws. You can be deemed "racist", or "sexist" or a "hater" by the LAWS created regarding culture because those in power making them get to dictate the VIRTUE as well as VICE of those who speak against them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

[Thank you for your response. I like your style of writing and believe you are intellectually fair and likely meaningful non-biased.]

 

I'm being very specific about what I mean when I use the word, "law" and "lawmaking" and "particular culture", etc. That is, I'm against the government being permitted powers to make laws for or against any PARTICULAR religion, culture, personal preferences regarding gender, etc. These concepts collectively are summarized as "art". They are ARBITRARY behaviors that belong to individuals, and when LAWS are made for or against SPECIFIC forms of ART, this power by governments are against FREEDOM OF SPEECH for some subset of the population that government is representing. The bias of power favors GROUPS of which those most powerful in money or popularity can rule OUT those individuals who desire different forms of ART.

Therefore, our "Multicultural" label is itself misleading because it does NOT favor ALL individual 'cultures' (their ART) and biases select cultures those IN POWER simply don't like. The rhetoric and misuse of things like statistics among a whole set of other manipulative behaviors are also enhanced and escalated when governments have power to affect specific cultures and who, as people themselves, have the non-democratic power to IMPOSE their own religious/cultural beliefs directly through those laws. 

Note how the "Multi-" in "Multiculturalism" demonstrates a kind of statistic abuse: it purposely blurs the meaning of the quantity of cultures it supports. It is not true that ALL cultures are supported and yet not lying in that the quantity that they do support is at least more than one. It's fuzzy and places the greater burden on individuals who lack conforming to those specific favored cultures set in law to defend their own expressions against those laws. You can be deemed "racist", or "sexist" or a "hater" by the LAWS created regarding culture because those in power making them get to dictate the VIRTUE as well as VICE of those who speak against them. 

Well you seem to be aware of something the philosopher Michel Foucault noted at least a few decades ago: Knowledge is power. Conversely therefore, those in political power who control the political discourse, but also those who dominate the media, are able to impose certain narratives about the world, which are hard to resist by virtue of their ubiquity.  Nevertheless, a well-informed people who dig deeper than the dominant cultural narratives and research hard scrabble facts will eventually enter the popular discourse because of the power of their ideas.  People can make a difference.

I do think it's important to recognize that not all narratives are created equally.  Yes we can look to the facts of science and statistics to form our opinions as much as possible, but in some cases we can have very different and opposing opinions about how to proceed politically after reviewing the same data points/science.  Opinions can vary greatly among even very well-informed people reviewing very scientific "factual" data.  This is where cultural narratives come in, the stories we create about our social groups and nation through folklore, mythology, and even religion (consider the Old Testament stories of the Jews, the early formation of the Church in Christianity, the descendants of Ismael in the Koran, the Church of England, etc.).  The reason that many religious stories hold so much power, going back to some of our earliest stories, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, is that they speak to human nature in the same way that a great Shakespearean tragedy resonates with people.  Religion is the collective wisdom of a culture through storytelling.  There is certainly danger in orthodoxy that doesn't consider different interpretations or recognize value in the myths of different cultures, but that doesn't mean we should disregard these great stories.  The Bible is the most important book in western culture for many good reasons.  It informs many of our laws and social mores.  Most atheists would recognize that many of our cultural values are reflected in religious traditions and have at least to some extent derived from them.  Having said that, we live in a dynamic world where opinions and interpretations change.  There may well come a day where mainstream culture looks at these religious stories as nothing more than great stories.  That doesn't necessarily reduce their power or importance.

I do think it's important to recognize that not all cultural myths are created equally.  Not all are as universally true or particularly helpful to the stability and healthy functioning of a society, especially a multicultural, 21st century society.  We need to look at science and statistics as litmus tests.  We have to consider the impact or potential impact of accepting or rejecting certain narratives, especially if such narratives represent a very real threat to the culture, values, or very existence of a people.  We need to respect the traditions and collective wisdom of a culture, and we need to appreciate that to some extent the existing culture will always hold a privileged place in a society unless or until better ideas are embraced by the society.  This can only happen through the strength of our arguments, supported by facts, and considering the headwinds of the power brokers who dominate the society's narratives.  I would just caution people to be wary of revolutions and any acts or views that cause unnecessary hardship for people.  I realize that the larger groups and majority will tend to dominate and that their needs will usually carry the day politically in a democracy, but that's why we have to have constitutions and laws like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to protect minority rights.

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since 2017, at least 7 journalists are murdered in Europe who investigates critical issues.

https://www.euronews.com/2018/10/08/six-journalists-killed-in-europe-since-the-start-of-2017


2zghydy.jpg


Dr.Kelly,  was murdered before the invasion Iraq because he reports that Iraq has no mass destruction weapons.

Edited by Altai
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Altai said:

Since 2017, at least 7 journalists are murdered in Europe who investigates critical issues.

https://www.euronews.com/2018/10/08/six-journalists-killed-in-europe-since-the-start-of-2017


2zghydy.jpg


Dr.Kelly,  was murdered before the invasion Iraq because he reports that Iraq has no mass destruction weapons.

That’s a claim worth investigating.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

France and European media ignores the huge riot in France. Turkish journalist makes news of the riots deliberately been shot in the leg with a smoke bomb capsule by police. When Western backed artificial Gezi Park riot was happened in Turkiye, media organs from all Western countries were making live broadcasts for 7/24. 

https://www.sabah.com.tr/gundem/2018/11/24/fransada-a-haber-muhabirine-saldiri

Edited by Altai
Link to post
Share on other sites

Between 1905-1920, about 523.000 Turkish civilians mostly women, children and elders are murdered by Armenian terror groups while all Turkish men were at war fronts. 


1910 Muş (10 murdered),
21 February 1914 Kars-Ardahan (30.000 murdered),
1915 Van (44 murdered), 
1915 Van (150 murdered), 
1915 Bitlis (16.000 murdered),
1915 Muş (80 murdered),
1915 Bitlis-Hizan (113 murdered),
1915 Van (5200 murdered),
February 1915 Haskay (200 murdered), 
February 1915 Dutak (3 murdered),
April 1915 Bitlis (29 murdered),
April 1915 Muradiye (10.000 murdered),
April 1915 Van (120 murdered),
May 1915 Van (20.000 murdered),
July 1915 Muş-Akçan (19 murdered), 
August 1915 Müküs (126 murdered), 
9 May 1915 Bitlis (40.000 murdered),
9 May 1915 Bitlis (123 murdered), 
15 January 1916 Terme (9 murdered), 
1 April 1916 Van-Reşadiye (15 murdered),
May 1916 Muş (500 murdered),
8 May 1916 Bitlis (10.000 murdered), 
8 May 1916 Pasinler (2000murdered),
8 May 1916 Tercan (563 murdered), 
11 May 1916 Van (44233 murdered), 
11 May 1916 Malazgirt (20.000 murdered), 
11 May 1916 Bitlis (12 murdered),
22 May 1916 Van (1000 murdered), 
22 May 1916 Köprüköy-Van (200 murdered), 
22 May 1916 Van (15.000 murdered), 
22 May 1916 Van (8 murdered), 
22 May  1916 Van (8.000 murdered), 
22 May 1916 Van (80.000 murdered),
22 May 1916 Van (15.000 murdered), 
23 May 1916 Of (5 murdered), 
23 May 1916 Trabzon (2086 murdered), 
23 May 1916 Van (300 murdered),
25 May 1916 Bayezid (14.000 murdered), 
June 1916 Van-Abbasaga (14 murdered), 
June 1916 Edremit-Vastan (15.000 murdered), 
6 June 1916 Satak-Serir (45 murdered), 
6 June 1916 Satak (1150 murdered), 
7 June 1916 Müküs-Serhan (121 murdered), 
14 August 1916 Bitlis (311 murdered), 
1919 Sarıkamış (9 murdered), 
1919 Tiksin-Ağadeve (5 murdered), 
1919 Nahçivan (4.000 murdered), 
6 January 1919 Zarusat (86 murdered), 
21 January 1919 Kilis (2 murdered), 
22 January 1919 Antep (1 murdered),
25 January 1919 Kars (9 murdered),
26 February 1919 Adana-Pozantı (4 murdered), 
18 May 1919 Osmaniye (1 murdered), 
13 June 1919 Pasinler (3 murdered), 
3 June 1919 Iğdır (8 murdered), 
July 1919 Sarıkamış (803 murdered), 
July 1919 Kurudere (8 murdered), 
July 1919 Sarıkamış (695 murdered), 
4 July 1919 Akçakale (180 murdered), 
5 July 1919 Kağızman (4 murdered), 
7 July 1919 Kars-Göle (9 murdered), 
8 July 1919 Mescitli (4 murdered), 
8 July 1919 Gülyantepe (10 murdered),
9 July 1919 Kağızman (6 murdered), 
9 July 1919 Kurudere (8 murdered), 
11 July 1919 Mescitli (20 murdered), 
19 July 1919 Bulaklı (2 murdered), 
19 July 1919 Pasinler (2 murdered), 
24 July 1919 Kars-Kağızman (9 murdered), 
August 1919 Muhtelif köyler (2502 murdered), 
15 August 1919 Erzurum (153 murdered), 
15 August 1919 Erzurum (426 murdered), 
September 1919 Allahüekber (3 murdered), 
9 September 1919 Ünye (12 murdered), 
14 September 1919 Sarıkamış (2 murdered), 
November 1919 Adana (4 murdered), 
11 November 1919 Kahramanmaraş (2 murdered), 
6 November 1919 Ulukışla (7 murdered), 
7 December 1919 Adana (4 murdered), 
1920 Göle (600 murdered), 
1920 Kars (3945 murdered), 
1920 Haramivartan (138 murdered), 
1920 Nahçivan (64.408 murdered), 
1920 Nahçivan (5307 murdered), 
February  1920 Kars civari (561 murdered), 
1 February 1920 Zarusat (2150 murdered), 
2 February 1920 Suregel (1150 murdered), 
10 February 1920 Çildir (100 murdered), 
28 February 1920 Pozantı (40 murdered), 
9 March 1920 Zarusat (400 murdered), 
9 March 1920 Zarusat (120 murdered), 
16 March 1920 Kağızman (720 murdered), 
22 March 1920 Suregel-Zarusat (2000 murdered),
6 April 1920 Gümrü (500 murdered), 
28 April 1920 Kars (2 murdered), 
5 May 1920 Kars (1774 murdered), 
22 May 1920 Kars (10 murdered), 
2 July 1920 Kars-Erzurum (408 murdered), 
2 July 1920 Zengebasar (1500 murdered), 
27 July 1920 Erzurum (69 murdered), 
May 1920 Kars-Erzurum (27 murdered), 
Agustos 1920 Oltu (650 murdered), 
August 1920 Kars-Erzurum (18 murdered), 
15 October 1920 Bayburt (1387 murdered), 
20 October 1920 Göle (100 murdered), 
17 October 1920 Pasinler (9287 murdered), 
18 October 1920 Tortum (3700 murdered), 
19 October 1920 Erzurum (8439 murdered), 
26 October 1920 Kars civarı (10693 murdered), 
October 1920 Aşkale (889 murdered), 
1 December 1920 Kosor (69 murdered), 
3 December 1920 Göle (508 murdered), 
4 December 1920 Kosor (122 murdered), 
4 December 1920 Kars-Zeytun (28 murdered), 
4 December 1920 Sarıkamış (1975 murdered), 
6 December 1920 Göle (194 murdered), 
7 December 1920 Kars-Digor (14.620 murdered), 
14 December 1920 Sarıkamış (5337 murdered),
29 November 1920 Zarusat (1026 murdered), 
December 1920 Erivan (192 murdered), 
1921 Nahçivan (12 murdered), 
1921 Bayburt (580 murdered), 
1921 Arpaçay (148 murdered), 
1921 Karakilise (6000 murdered), 
1921 Karakilise ( 6000 murdered), 
February 1921 Zenibasar (18 murdered), 
21 November 1921 Pasinler (53 murdered), 
21 November 1921 Erzurum (1215 murdered), 
1918 Hınıs (870 murdered), 
1918 Tercan (580 murdered),
March 1922 Kahramanmaraş (4 murdered)


Source: https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=8QoNONBC5K8C&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=523000+turks+murdered+by+armenians&source=bl&ots=64zoK9JWEq&sig=YPZh4O5FQhwLLnZFtgTgOjv1GP4&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi0q5z8k-_eAhWsDsAKHcc3CDQQ6AEwDHoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=523000 turks murdered by armenians&f=false

Edited by Altai
Link to post
Share on other sites

France faces the same artificial protest theater that staged in different countries. 

The standing man in Turkiye Gezi Park protests. and what a coincidence, here we have a sitting man in France protests. 

2vwiaza.jpg  im5l4j.jpg

Graffiti of a man throwing flowers in Turkiye Gezi Park protests, ohh look at that a man throwing flowers in France protests. 

f4mhih.jpg 14v5ks8.jpg

Most famous one, red wearing woman in Gezi Park clashes trying to provoke police, and by a "coincidence" another red wearing woman in Paris trying to provoke the crowd. 

k9vurr.jpg  212hjq1.jpg

Edited by Altai
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2018 at 7:36 PM, Zeitgeist said:

Well you seem to be aware of something the philosopher Michel Foucault noted at least a few decades ago: Knowledge is power. Conversely therefore, those in political power who control the political discourse, but also those who dominate the media, are able to impose certain narratives about the world, which are hard to resist by virtue of their ubiquity.  Nevertheless, a well-informed people who dig deeper than the dominant cultural narratives and research hard scrabble facts will eventually enter the popular discourse because of the power of their ideas.  People can make a difference.

I do think it's important to recognize that not all narratives are created equally.  Yes we can look to the facts of science and statistics to form our opinions as much as possible, but in some cases we can have very different and opposing opinions about how to proceed politically after reviewing the same data points/science.  Opinions can vary greatly among even very well-informed people reviewing very scientific "factual" data.  This is where cultural narratives come in, the stories we create about our social groups and nation through folklore, mythology, and even religion (consider the Old Testament stories of the Jews, the early formation of the Church in Christianity, the descendants of Ismael in the Koran, the Church of England, etc.).  The reason that many religious stories hold so much power, going back to some of our earliest stories, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, is that they speak to human nature in the same way that a great Shakespearean tragedy resonates with people.  Religion is the collective wisdom of a culture through storytelling.  There is certainly danger in orthodoxy that doesn't consider different interpretations or recognize value in the myths of different cultures, but that doesn't mean we should disregard these great stories.  The Bible is the most important book in western culture for many good reasons.  It informs many of our laws and social mores.  Most atheists would recognize that many of our cultural values are reflected in religious traditions and have at least to some extent derived from them.  Having said that, we live in a dynamic world where opinions and interpretations change.  There may well come a day where mainstream culture looks at these religious stories as nothing more than great stories.  That doesn't necessarily reduce their power or importance.

I do think it's important to recognize that not all cultural myths are created equally.  Not all are as universally true or particularly helpful to the stability and healthy functioning of a society, especially a multicultural, 21st century society.  We need to look at science and statistics as litmus tests.  We have to consider the impact or potential impact of accepting or rejecting certain narratives, especially if such narratives represent a very real threat to the culture, values, or very existence of a people.  We need to respect the traditions and collective wisdom of a culture, and we need to appreciate that to some extent the existing culture will always hold a privileged place in a society unless or until better ideas are embraced by the society.  This can only happen through the strength of our arguments, supported by facts, and considering the headwinds of the power brokers who dominate the society's narratives.  I would just caution people to be wary of revolutions and any acts or views that cause unnecessary hardship for people.  I realize that the larger groups and majority will tend to dominate and that their needs will usually carry the day politically in a democracy, but that's why we have to have constitutions and laws like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to protect minority rights.

I'm FOR culture and share much of your own stance. But I think that all cultures belong to each of us, though, not 'owned' by specific people proprietorially. I often interpret most of the original scriptures as secular literature collective of the past's science, politics, and history that have devolved to become religiously interpreted after its origins are lost. This is valuable to understand and connect our history universally.

 So I'm not rejecting culture but don't find it appropriate for any government to be allowed to use religion or culture within laws. Take the Catholic Separate School system, for instance, that 'vouchers' taxpayers to opt out of the regular secular school system. Or with respect to crimes of the church for the abuses supposedly imposed upon all Natives, these are due specifically to the the Christian churches but are now protected from prosecution and passed on to the population as though 'we' all own those crimes. 

Government itself IS our shared communal religion. It doesn't require formal traditional religions nor cultures of the past imposed upon our world now to function. Religion and culture laws only KEEP the world in perpetual smoke screens that hide the real problems that prevent them from being repaired.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I'm FOR culture and share much of your own stance. But I think that all cultures belong to each of us, though, not 'owned' by specific people proprietorially. I often interpret most of the original scriptures as secular literature collective of the past's science, politics, and history that have devolved to become religiously interpreted after its origins are lost. This is valuable to understand and connect our history universally.

 So I'm not rejecting culture but don't find it appropriate for any government to be allowed to use religion or culture within laws. Take the Catholic Separate School system, for instance, that 'vouchers' taxpayers to opt out of the regular secular school system. Or with respect to crimes of the church for the abuses supposedly imposed upon all Natives, these are due specifically to the the Christian churches but are now protected from prosecution and passed on to the population as though 'we' all own those crimes. 

Government itself IS our shared communal religion. It doesn't require formal traditional religions nor cultures of the past imposed upon our world now to function. Religion and culture laws only KEEP the world in perpetual smoke screens that hide the real problems that prevent them from being repaired.

I would argue that many of the Judeo-Christian faiths, Catholic, Jewis, Protestant, etc., can play a productive role in society as long as they don’t spew hatred or exclusion.  You can be an atheist and respect the people and values of faith based organizations, just as you can be a religious person and respect atheists who have the well being of society at heart. I would be careful though about severing too many ties with the cultures that created our great institutions, as you may find that they have shoddy replacements.  

Yes there’s a big pile on against the Catholic Church right now related to abuse by some priests and residential schools, but I also know that the Catholic Church has protected the poor and outcast throughout Central and South America and in Africa. Think of people like Archbishop Romero or Bishop Desmond Tutu. 

Also, be careful about how much you buy into the current narrative on residential schools.  Yes some bad things happened in residential schools and the policy of having them at all, by our standards today, is misguided.  At the time, however, they were supported by the public as a means of providing education and welfare to kids who lived far from schools.  It was seen as a social good.  Also, there were many problems on some reserves with alcoholism and abuse.  We don’t like to discuss this but it’s true.  Early on when the reserve system was set up, and no doubt it’s a messy patchwork, there was always a question as to whether such a system should exist. It’s still controversial. 

Sir John A MacDonald, our first PM, has been accused of genocide because he opposed the idea of indigenous people being provided with food, clothing, etc. He was saying that government shouldn’t get into the business of taking care of one group’s food, housing, etc., because it creates a moral hazard of welfare dependence and is unsustainable. Was he wrong?  Now his statues are being removed. My point is that we should be careful not to rewrite history too quickly because of a vocal perspective that may not tell the whole story. We risk casting unfair judgment and forgetting the reasons for other perspectives.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...