Religion of Peace

[pimpdave]

I'm not sure when the points get tallied, exactly. Maybe they already have, maybe they are currently, maybe the grand total is still aggregating.

[BigBallinStalin]

I suspect the TPDS.

[the carpet man]

is this 'ironic' racism or something?

[pimpdave]

Pretty sure anyone can be Muslim. Are you being ironically racist by suggesting it's limited to only one kind of people?

[GabonX]

The basic tenet and common ground of most religions is peaceful coexistence,...

Ugh, stopped reading there. This is just a stupid thing that idiots say because they want it to be true. New age bull shit..

Some religions advocate peace, while others have Gods of war. Religion is not inherently peaceful or non peaceful.

[GabonX]

This thread is bullshit. Another example of taking a small percentage of people and trying to turn it into something the masses believe in. Shame on you PD

Most Muslims support terrorism. And that is a fact.

[BigBallinStalin]

This thread is bullshit. Another example of taking a small percentage of people and trying to turn it into something the masses believe in. Shame on you PD

Most Muslims support terrorism. And that is a fact.

[Woodruff]

This thread is bullshit. Another example of taking a small percentage of people and trying to turn it into something the masses believe in. Shame on you PD

Most Muslims support terrorism. And that is a fact.

Certainly, it being a fact and all, you have the proof of this fact somewhere? Care to share?

[pimpdave]

Ya know, even if the majority of Muslim people are peaceful and wish only to coexist, their batshit insane religion really does demand otherwise. Which is a really weird dichotomy. But maybe not, most intelligent, educated people grow up realize that religion is bullshit and even though they might nominally be that religion, they don't actually follow it.

Like Christians who become conservatives and start telling the poor to f*ck off.

[ViperOverLord]

Ya know, even if the majority of Muslim people are peaceful and wish only to coexist, their batshit insane religion really does demand otherwise. Which is a really weird dichotomy. But maybe not, most intelligent, educated people grow up realize that religion is bullshit and even though they might nominally be that religion, they don't actually follow it.

Like Christians who become conservatives and start telling the poor to f*ck off.

That's why the USA leads the world in private donations? Way to hold on to your bigotry.

[Symmetry]

If it helps, donating to charity is one of the pillars of Islam.

[pmchugh]

People who use the word "terrorism" immediately show their ignorance.

[Symmetry]

People who use the word "terrorism" immediately show their ignorance.

But wait... didn't you just... erm... ok, I got this, you just used the... but that would mean that... no, I got this one now, because you used quotation marks... wait... ok- with you again... in an ironic sense... just hold on... wait, so people who say that people who use the word... erm... ignorant people are people who...

nah, I lost it.

[aad0906]

That's why the USA leads the world in private donations? Way to hold on to your bigotry.

You quote the wrong graph but it is true that the USA leads the world in private donations. A reason for that might be that European countries provide more in government developmental aid paid for by taxes. Europeans feel that a large (much larger than the USA...) part of their taxes/GNI is given to foreign countries as aid so they feel they don't have to contribute that much themselves.

Despite being European, I prefer the US way of picking which charities to donate to yourself rather than have politicians decide for you who they are going to aid. I always wondered why Europe gave money to Zimbabwe to build a new airport, in doing so saving the Zimbabwean government money they could then spend on wars instead.

[Dukasaur]

People who use the word "terrorism" immediately show their ignorance.

Whereas some of us prefer to keep our ignorance in reserve, to be pulled out when the enemy least expects it!

[ViperOverLord]

That's why the USA leads the world in private donations? Way to hold on to your bigotry.

You quote the wrong graph but it is true that the USA leads the world in private donations. A reason for that might be that European countries provide more in government developmental aid paid for by taxes. Europeans feel that a large (much larger than the USA...) part of their taxes/GNI is given to foreign countries as aid so they feel they don't have to contribute that much themselves.

Despite being European, I prefer the US way of picking which charities to donate to yourself rather than have politicians decide for you who they are going to aid. I always wondered why Europe gave money to Zimbabwe to build a new airport, in doing so saving the Zimbabwean government money they could then spend on wars instead.

I could've looked for a graphic on govt/private combined but it wasn't the point I was trying to make. I agree though that private donations is easily the best way. Govt. and corporate sponsorship of charities are often a means of embezzlement.

[Symmetry]

That's why the USA leads the world in private donations? Way to hold on to your bigotry.

You quote the wrong graph but it is true that the USA leads the world in private donations. A reason for that might be that European countries provide more in government developmental aid paid for by taxes. Europeans feel that a large (much larger than the USA...) part of their taxes/GNI is given to foreign countries as aid so they feel they don't have to contribute that much themselves.

Despite being European, I prefer the US way of picking which charities to donate to yourself rather than have politicians decide for you who they are going to aid. I always wondered why Europe gave money to Zimbabwe to build a new airport, in doing so saving the Zimbabwean government money they could then spend on wars instead.

I could've looked for a graphic on govt/private combined but it wasn't the point I was trying to make. I agree though that private donations is easily the best way. Govt. and corporate sponsorship of charities are often a means of embezzlement.

As are private donations. Government and corporate sponsorships, however, often come with some kind of oversight. Private donations are often a great thing, but private individuals don't necessarily have the ability to know exactly where their money is going. Governments and corporations don't always either, but they are better equipped to do so, and often have structures in place to make those kind of checks.

[Symmetry]

Ya know, even if the majority of Muslim people are peaceful and wish only to coexist, their batshit insane religion really does demand otherwise. Which is a really weird dichotomy. But maybe not, most intelligent, educated people grow up realize that religion is bullshit and even though they might nominally be that religion, they don't actually follow it.

Like Christians who become conservatives and start telling the poor to f*ck off.

That's why the USA leads the world in private donations? Way to hold on to your bigotry.

Hmm, ok, seems like you trolled us well and good on this one VOL. I should have looked at your link a little more carefully.

[everywhere116]

That's why the USA leads the world in private donations? Way to hold on to your bigotry.

You quote the wrong graph but it is true that the USA leads the world in private donations. A reason for that might be that European countries provide more in government developmental aid paid for by taxes. Europeans feel that a large (much larger than the USA...) part of their taxes/GNI is given to foreign countries as aid so they feel they don't have to contribute that much themselves.

Despite being European, I prefer the US way of picking which charities to donate to yourself rather than have politicians decide for you who they are going to aid. I always wondered why Europe gave money to Zimbabwe to build a new airport, in doing so saving the Zimbabwean government money they could then spend on wars instead.

I could've looked for a graphic on govt/private combined but it wasn't the point I was trying to make. I agree though that private donations is easily the best way. Govt. and corporate sponsorship of charities are often a means of embezzlement.

Government anything is going to be more wasteful than a privately run anything, but government charities have one thing going for them: They actually have the means to enforce their own rules about where the money is going. The receiving country has to abide by the rules of the giving country/ies, and that will mean less domestic corruption. NGOs have none of that. They have to follow the rules and systems set up by the receiving country, which are more often than not designed to steal everything they can get. You will still have the problem of removing the burden of feeding the populace from the regime, though, allowing them to buy more weapons.

The poverty/corruption complex is an interesting one, indeed. One begets the other, and trying to remove one is hindered by the presence of the other. I always thought of it as trying to solve a difficult Sudoku puzzle where you could solve one square of numbers if you just knew the number of some other location, but you can't get that number unless you solve the square. Very infuriating.

One strategy I thought would be interesting to try would be to outlaw any type of aid to a corrupt or a group of corrupt countries. The logic being that without the foreign aid the government would not be able to feed the people, leading to a civil uprising and a new regime that might be more willing to allow the US/Europe to build them from the ground up. Although I can see some problems with this, mainly because it would be unpopular and requires a persistence that I don't believe short-sighted democratic governments would be able to apply.

[pimpdave]

Government anything is going to be more wasteful than a privately run anything,

No it's not.

Privately run prisons are more expensive the taxpayers. Missions run by Blackwater as opposed to our military are way more expensive. Halliburton somehow managed to charge way more than the Army Corps of Engineers would have for all projects overseas and domestic. Private insurance is way more expensive that government insurance. And the list goes on and on.

People love to say that as if it's some immutable law of the universe and it just isn't. Corporate run stuff is full of waste, constantly full of waste.

[everywhere116]

Government anything is going to be more wasteful than a privately run anything,

No it's not.

Privately run prisons are more expensive the taxpayers. Missions run by Blackwater as opposed to our military are way more expensive. Halliburton somehow managed to charge way more than the Army Corps of Engineers would have for all projects overseas and domestic. Private insurance is way more expensive that government insurance. And the list goes on and on.

People love to say that as if it's some immutable law of the universe and it just isn't. Corporate run stuff is full of waste, constantly full of waste.

It's a general rule. I haven't heard about the cost/benefits of these examples, though. Do you have anything that I can use to read more about it?

[pimpdave]

It's a bullshit rule made up by corporations. It's not a "general rule" at all. It's a complete lie.

And I'm not going to spoon feed you. You're the one making the assertion that the government is full of waste, so you provide the data showing the corporate takeover of the above services have reduced waste (they haven't).

[everywhere116]

It's a bullshit rule made up by corporations. It's not a "general rule" at all. It's a complete lie.

And I'm not going to spoon feed you. You're the one making the assertion that the government is full of waste, so you provide the data showing the corporate takeover of the above services have reduced waste (they haven't).

Here are two papers I pulled on privatization, both of which argee that privatization increases efficiency. Here are two excerpts, one from the abstract of the first, the other from the conclusion of the second:

It focuses on traditional privatization efforts involving firms in competitive markets. It shows that privatization improves firms' financial and operating performance, yields positive fiscal and macroeconomic benefits (proceeds are saved rather than spent, transfers decline, and governments start collecting taxes from privatized firms), and improves overall welfare.

Research now supports the proposition that privately owned firms are more efficient and more profitable
than otherwise-comparable state-owned firms. There is limited empirical evidence, especially from China,
that suggests that non-privatizing reform measures, such as price deregulation, market liberalization and
increased use of incentives, can improve the efficiency of SOEs, but it also seems likely that these reforms
would be even more effective if coupled with privatization.

...

We know that privatization “works,” in the sense that divested firms almost always become more efficient,
more profitable, increase their capital investment spending, and become financially healthier. These results
hold for both transition and non-transition economies, though the results vary more in the transition
economies.

I can also vouch for the teachings of every econ class I've ever taken.

As for Haliburton and prisons, you brought them up, you back them up. I was hoping this would be an opportunity to learn about the intricacies of two industries. It still could be...if you cooperate.

[pimpdave]

Please stop purposefully derailing this thread.

[notyou2]

The basic tenet and common ground of most religions is peaceful coexistence,
but it's obvious that ignorance knows no religious boundaries.

The intelligence of the people is highly exaggerated and zealots in all cultures
seem to have little difficulty exploiting human emotions and spiritual voids.

THIS