tht's why public education and a free press are essential for a functional democracy.
While I agree with you in principle unfortunately public education has a well documented bias towards the left. Because there is a well known bias it undermines general acceptance and also undermines the mission of educating because so much effort is wasted on PC propaganda. Stated another way - the downside to clearly favoring one side for education is that it loses broad support.
The press while technically still free has been allowed to be consolidated into just a few hands - and is thus no longer free in a real sense. You can thank Bill Clinton for that one (citation below).
The technology needs the road painted correctly. Does your state paint the roads correctly? Is your state EV ready with the edges of its roads painted?
Are your federal and state taxes ensuing the correct painted lines are been used?
Wont someone think of the algorithm that expected a painted road edge?
So much for the future being summarized as "Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads"
I think if the election were held today, trump would win. There are a lot of voters who lap up hos every tweetâ"and rely on that as their source of news and commentery.
I donâ(TM)t understand it and it frightens me, but it allears to be widespread.
I think if the election were hypothetically held today Trump would win because there is no clear opponent. You have several Democrats trying to get into position but so far no clear winner. In the end, the Democrats may well shoot themselves in the foot with a shutdown over illegals. The general public is not in favor is mass immigration and more than they are in favor of huge tax cuts for multi-nationals. It's a competition of who can mess up less sadly and both parties are really good at messing up.
As for tweets being accepted as news, the news became so editorialized on both sides that it resembles propaganda far more than news. Indeed, I think there is a business opportunity for whoever can successfully position themselves as a neutral news source.
complete BS..
Lyft & Uber are parasite entities that attempt to suck profit off the back of "workers". Calling them "contractors", no benefits, using their own vehicles, competing against each other to drive down cost - by the time you factor in all costs and taxes (of which independent contractors pay ALL), these are sub-minimum wage gigs. Driving someone you don't know to a place you aren't going for money isn't "ride share", it's a taxi. period. The drivers are shorted the most and your municipalities are shorted tax revenue so your roads crumble, first responders go under funded and nobody keeps out the “bad” drivers
The only thing under funded about first responders is their pensions - and even that wouldn't be the case if it wasn't for them retiring at nearly full pay at age 50.
As a state California does not believe in looking at increased supply unless it's more illegal aliens. Instead the focus is on conserve / cut back. Supposedly we are going to get nano water filtration as a massive new technology that will be ultra cheap soon. I keep waiting on it.
According to 2nd Thessalonians in the bible if one does not work does not eat. You whiny commie demoncrat terrorists keep touting "What if someone is too disabled to work" Well here's the thing, there is no such thing as being "too disabled to work." Even if there truly were those that are too disabled to work, guess what, can't work falls under don't work so either work or die. Those that are "too disabled to work" are truly "too disabled to live"
LOL, you seem nice.
"When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 23:22
"There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." Deuteronomy 15:11
"If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother." Deuteronomy 15:7
"Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near, so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin." Deuteronomy 15:9
"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern." Proverbs 29:7
"If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." 1 John 3:17-18
Quoting the Bible is fun, eh? It's almost as if you can find passages to justify any point of view, even for an uncaring prick like yourself.
I think both are correct. Everyone should work but they should also have opportunities. Leaving grain in the fields provides opportunity. Getting out there and picking it requires work. Personally, I think it's a great compromise and wish we had more combinations of opportunity plus effort. Most people I know who oppose welfare oppose the aspect where you get something for nothing.
Most of Europe does not have 20% youth unemployment and also much less crime than the US.
The Europeans smugness on crime will go away once you have imported enough minorities to look like the US. The US demographics on crime are *not* evenly spread among the various groups. For example US blacks murder at ~7x the rate of the general population.
Unless they take offense at 'it' - the government revoked a coworker's security clearance and he lost his job for using that pronoun to refer to a trans that didn't like it.
I'm sure that endured 'it' to it's coworkers. This makes them feared and despised. The backlash will be fierce.
When gay people said they didn't want to get attacked for being gay I supported them.
When gay people wanted to get married I supported that.
But now gay people want to force bakers to bake them cakes and trans people want to punish people for 'misgendering' or 'deadnaming' them you know what? They can fuck right off. It's not longer about gaining rights for themselves, it's about taking rights away from other people.
It's still about gaining rights for themselves, it's just that now it's more explicit that they are doing so at the expense of your rights. I agree with your sentiment about not promoting violence (hear that Antifa types) and civil aspects of gay marriage (ie inheritance and such). The rest has been utter rubbish and I expect to see the US splinter over it this century.
He's a trans SJW who often writes about the trials of being a female in IT. To this person ANYONE who doesn't celebrate their flavor of crazy is "far-right" and full of "hate".
So it complains about working in IT - did I read that correctly?
Lets just have CalExit and get it over with. Brown and crew would love nothing more than to be able to determine every facet of how Californians live without the pesky Feds.
Mistrust of the government is a result of propaganda by corporations that want to profit by supplying services that the government could/should provide.
Mistrust of the government is based on them lying to us (citations below) and playing favorites on who they help and don't help (I'm looking at you SBA with your special set asides for everyone but white males). I don't mind the concept of the government stepping in given the right circumstances. I do mind how the government won't be honest and how it has chosen to explicitly discriminate against me.
There used to be this idea of a 'fair' price, but one of my greatest criticisms of the Republican way of thinking is that a 'fair price' is the same as 'the maximum the market will allow'.
I'd really like to see this solved too, but placing blame on one side won't do it nor is it accurate. The public, both D and R, knows that drug companies have bought both D and R politicians off. Both parties are bought off. If not, then why didn't Obamacare deal with drug companies in any meaningful way? The D party had the power but not the will. They talk a good game about helping the people but when you actually look at what they do they have little appetite for the hard work - just like the R party.
You could, in an afternoon, make huge strides in reigning in health care costs with such simple measures as allowing drugs to be imported from outside the US and allowing insurance companies to operate across multiple states. Not hard, but it would mean less profit for drug companies so you will see neither D nor R actually try and fix anything. Both sides have in the last decade had complete control - if they wanted it, it could have happened.
Even the NIHs own paper on this subject indicates that the bulk of money spend on drug development comes from the private sector.
I wonder if that should change. This is a case of where mistrust of the government limits solutions. For example if I thought that it was going to be a data driven meritocracy then I'd be open to the government tackling problems that the private sector seems to either ignore or massively overcharge for. Unfortunately there would be debates on if enough was being done with social engineering concerns (ie hiring quotas, treatments for favored groups over where the data shows a need exists (for example breast cancer vs prostrate cancer)) more than the actual science and process of getting treatments out the door. The sooner the government stops preferred hiring the sooner it can win back some trust from the general population.
If anyone worked in that agency with a sincere desire to protect the American people and inform their national leaders of threats against the country, then that person's motivation is going to evaporate.
I really question how many people are described by this. I still don't see how one can call themselves a patriot when they violate the 4th amendment around the clock.
Not exactly. It would be good news if they had quit because of conscience problems.
There are roles that should cause people to be shunned. I know that for me if someone said they worked for the CIA or NSA I'd avoid them while making lots of sarcastic remarks and I'd tell others as well. I've done this in the past for other jobs that I consider bad for society, like the guy I essentially called scum for operating a pay day loan place. The NSA doesn't have a leg to stand on in terms of being a force for good. Now if they used their massive powers for good then I could get behind them at least a bit more and they could be upgraded to the category of mixed bag instead of purely evil.
There is very little support for abolishing hate speech laws and even less so among thinking people.
Maybe the thinking people haven't thought it through;-) I think it's more a case of which circles you run in. I don't know very many people who support hate speech laws as they see the potential for abuse and know that hate speech is not well defined. As close as I get to wanting anti-hate speech laws is bullying, though the difference is that that has a specific person targeted repeatedly, not general statements which have far less impact.
The "hate speech" laws are designed to crack down on "extremists" but of course they'll be used to crack down on "dissenting opinion" soon enough as the concept of hate speech is ill-defined and open to interpretation.
I think the powers that be consider this a feature not a bug. That's why thinking people, regardless of political leanings, are against hate speech laws.
It would be more fair to say that Mormonism has evolved so that it no longer promotes/tolerates violence nor polygamy, just as modern day Christianity mostly does not (barring of course evangelicals who are pushing for wars in the Middle East in order to start the second coming/rapture/Armageddon).
Where would you get the idea that Christianity promotes violence? I know that's a popular meme but as with so many memes it lacks a basis in facts. Please point me towards the New Testament verses promoting wars, I must have missed them. Along the same lines, please point me towards the New Testament verses promoting polygamy as I must have missed those too.
Where did I say that? I said most Christians don't support violence.
This is the issue for Islam: there are many within it that are resisting efforts to modernize the religion. If you want to fix things you can't demonize Islam, you have to support those within the religion who want to moderate and modernize Islam. Animosity and hatred only feeds those who seek to keep Islam in the past.
You do know that the standard practice for an invading Muslim army is to give the conquered people 3 options: convert, die, or become a slave. That's literally taken out of the Koran, it cannot be attributed to wayward followers. There is no reforming that as it's directly from Mohammed. I'm curious where you got the notion that Islam can be reformed.
The natives of South and Central America would like to have a word with you regarding forced conversions to Christianity. And Christian Crusaders would often kill, enslave, and/or rape the entire population of a sacked city, including other Christians.
You missed the entire point of my post: Christianity evolved past the violence of the Crusades (of course it took plenty of wars, persecutions, and inquisitions for it to do so). Islam needs to be given the time and support to do so as well, and that change needs to come from within.
I think we're somewhat in agreement but I want to clarify on the Crusades. They were a response, albeit delayed and not entirely pure in motive, to the Muslim armies having taken over large chunks of what used to be Christian areas. The popular narrative is that the crusaders came out of nowhere to attack the peaceful Muslims. That's just not accurate. As for the Americas, it wasn't right to force conversions. It also wasn't mandated by Jesus the way that Mohammed mandated that non-Muslims (Infidels) be enslaved / killed. That's a key distinction. I would say it's less a case of Christianity evolved and more a case that it got back to its roots. Islam cannot do this as the roots were always violent. It would take a departure from the teachings of Mohammed to actually get a peaceful Islam.
The multiculturalists are going to be up in arms over this comment. You should respect everyone culture, no matter how abhorrent it may be.
You're showing your age. Once they got the upper hand the language changed from respecting everyone to it's some flavor of ism (ie racism, sexism, nationalism, etc) if you don't agree.
Mark my words, you can tell who does not have the upper hand by looking at who wants to have one set of rules for everyone.
For example if you look at the Civil rights movement in the 60s it was about a common set of rules / drinking fountains / pools / etc for everyone. Now that minorities have the upper hand they are all about exclusive benefits for themselves like quotas, minority only scholarships, preferential hiring and government buying rules, etc. Same for gay marriage. At first it was about having the dame rights as everyone else. Now it's about forcing bakers to bend the knee. If you want to see who has the less dominant position look for who asks for equality or the same set of rules.
No one identified the real problem. Let's not dance around the issue because we're afraid to tell it like it is. The violence is caused by Islam.
This got labeled troll but it's very true that if you show me a majority Islam country I'll show you a shitty country. Yes a country can be crappy without Islam being a factor but when Islam is a factor it's all but guaranteed to be crappy.
It would be more fair to say that Mormonism has evolved so that it no longer promotes/tolerates violence nor polygamy, just as modern day Christianity mostly does not (barring of course evangelicals who are pushing for wars in the Middle East in order to start the second coming/rapture/Armageddon).
Where would you get the idea that Christianity promotes violence? I know that's a popular meme but as with so many memes it lacks a basis in facts. Please point me towards the New Testament verses promoting wars, I must have missed them. Along the same lines, please point me towards the New Testament verses promoting polygamy as I must have missed those too.
This is the issue for Islam: there are many within it that are resisting efforts to modernize the religion. If you want to fix things you can't demonize Islam, you have to support those within the religion who want to moderate and modernize Islam. Animosity and hatred only feeds those who seek to keep Islam in the past.
You do know that the standard practice for an invading Muslim army is to give the conquered people 3 options: convert, die, or become a slave. That's literally taken out of the Koran, it cannot be attributed to wayward followers. There is no reforming that as it's directly from Mohammed. I'm curious where you got the notion that Islam can be reformed.
Slashdot Mirror
nope.
tht's why public education and a free press are essential for a functional democracy.
While I agree with you in principle unfortunately public education has a well documented bias towards the left. Because there is a well known bias it undermines general acceptance and also undermines the mission of educating because so much effort is wasted on PC propaganda. Stated another way - the downside to clearly favoring one side for education is that it loses broad support. The press while technically still free has been allowed to be consolidated into just a few hands - and is thus no longer free in a real sense. You can thank Bill Clinton for that one (citation below).
Citations:
http://www.truth-out.org/news/...
The technology needs the road painted correctly. Does your state paint the roads correctly? Is your state EV ready with the edges of its roads painted? Are your federal and state taxes ensuing the correct painted lines are been used? Wont someone think of the algorithm that expected a painted road edge?
So much for the future being summarized as "Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads"
I think if the election were held today, trump would win. There are a lot of voters who lap up hos every tweetâ"and rely on that as their source of news and commentery.
I donâ(TM)t understand it and it frightens me, but it allears to be widespread.
I think if the election were hypothetically held today Trump would win because there is no clear opponent. You have several Democrats trying to get into position but so far no clear winner. In the end, the Democrats may well shoot themselves in the foot with a shutdown over illegals. The general public is not in favor is mass immigration and more than they are in favor of huge tax cuts for multi-nationals. It's a competition of who can mess up less sadly and both parties are really good at messing up.
As for tweets being accepted as news, the news became so editorialized on both sides that it resembles propaganda far more than news. Indeed, I think there is a business opportunity for whoever can successfully position themselves as a neutral news source.
China just wants your money, not to punish you for voting the wrong way or supporting the wrong people.
While they do want your money, China very much persecutes others. For example if you're a Falun Gong member, or a Christian.
Citations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://www.opendoorsusa.org/c...
complete BS.. Lyft & Uber are parasite entities that attempt to suck profit off the back of "workers". Calling them "contractors", no benefits, using their own vehicles, competing against each other to drive down cost - by the time you factor in all costs and taxes (of which independent contractors pay ALL), these are sub-minimum wage gigs. Driving someone you don't know to a place you aren't going for money isn't "ride share", it's a taxi. period. The drivers are shorted the most and your municipalities are shorted tax revenue so your roads crumble, first responders go under funded and nobody keeps out the “bad” drivers
The only thing under funded about first responders is their pensions - and even that wouldn't be the case if it wasn't for them retiring at nearly full pay at age 50.
Citation:
https://newatlas.com/water-pur...
According to 2nd Thessalonians in the bible if one does not work does not eat. You whiny commie demoncrat terrorists keep touting "What if someone is too disabled to work" Well here's the thing, there is no such thing as being "too disabled to work." Even if there truly were those that are too disabled to work, guess what, can't work falls under don't work so either work or die. Those that are "too disabled to work" are truly "too disabled to live"
LOL, you seem nice.
"When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 23:22
"There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." Deuteronomy 15:11
"If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother." Deuteronomy 15:7
"Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near, so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin." Deuteronomy 15:9
"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern." Proverbs 29:7
"If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." 1 John 3:17-18
Quoting the Bible is fun, eh? It's almost as if you can find passages to justify any point of view, even for an uncaring prick like yourself.
I think both are correct. Everyone should work but they should also have opportunities. Leaving grain in the fields provides opportunity. Getting out there and picking it requires work. Personally, I think it's a great compromise and wish we had more combinations of opportunity plus effort. Most people I know who oppose welfare oppose the aspect where you get something for nothing.
Most of Europe does not have 20% youth unemployment and also much less crime than the US.
The Europeans smugness on crime will go away once you have imported enough minorities to look like the US. The US demographics on crime are *not* evenly spread among the various groups. For example US blacks murder at ~7x the rate of the general population.
Citation:
http://narrative-collapse.com/...
Unless they take offense at 'it' - the government revoked a coworker's security clearance and he lost his job for using that pronoun to refer to a trans that didn't like it.
I'm sure that endured 'it' to it's coworkers. This makes them feared and despised. The backlash will be fierce.
When gay people said they didn't want to get attacked for being gay I supported them.
When gay people wanted to get married I supported that.
But now gay people want to force bakers to bake them cakes and trans people want to punish people for 'misgendering' or 'deadnaming' them you know what? They can fuck right off. It's not longer about gaining rights for themselves, it's about taking rights away from other people.
It's still about gaining rights for themselves, it's just that now it's more explicit that they are doing so at the expense of your rights. I agree with your sentiment about not promoting violence (hear that Antifa types) and civil aspects of gay marriage (ie inheritance and such). The rest has been utter rubbish and I expect to see the US splinter over it this century.
H(Sh)e
You can really save some time and hand wringing by just using the correct pronoun - it
He's a trans SJW who often writes about the trials of being a female in IT. To this person ANYONE who doesn't celebrate their flavor of crazy is "far-right" and full of "hate".
So it complains about working in IT - did I read that correctly?
Lets just have CalExit and get it over with. Brown and crew would love nothing more than to be able to determine every facet of how Californians live without the pesky Feds.
Mistrust of the government is a result of propaganda by corporations that want to profit by supplying services that the government could/should provide.
Mistrust of the government is based on them lying to us (citations below) and playing favorites on who they help and don't help (I'm looking at you SBA with your special set asides for everyone but white males). I don't mind the concept of the government stepping in given the right circumstances. I do mind how the government won't be honest and how it has chosen to explicitly discriminate against me.
Citations:
Vietnam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... NSA http://www.politifact.com/trut...
There used to be this idea of a 'fair' price, but one of my greatest criticisms of the Republican way of thinking is that a 'fair price' is the same as 'the maximum the market will allow'.
I'd really like to see this solved too, but placing blame on one side won't do it nor is it accurate. The public, both D and R, knows that drug companies have bought both D and R politicians off. Both parties are bought off. If not, then why didn't Obamacare deal with drug companies in any meaningful way? The D party had the power but not the will. They talk a good game about helping the people but when you actually look at what they do they have little appetite for the hard work - just like the R party.
You could, in an afternoon, make huge strides in reigning in health care costs with such simple measures as allowing drugs to be imported from outside the US and allowing insurance companies to operate across multiple states. Not hard, but it would mean less profit for drug companies so you will see neither D nor R actually try and fix anything. Both sides have in the last decade had complete control - if they wanted it, it could have happened.
Even the NIHs own paper on this subject indicates that the bulk of money spend on drug development comes from the private sector.
I wonder if that should change. This is a case of where mistrust of the government limits solutions. For example if I thought that it was going to be a data driven meritocracy then I'd be open to the government tackling problems that the private sector seems to either ignore or massively overcharge for. Unfortunately there would be debates on if enough was being done with social engineering concerns (ie hiring quotas, treatments for favored groups over where the data shows a need exists (for example breast cancer vs prostrate cancer)) more than the actual science and process of getting treatments out the door. The sooner the government stops preferred hiring the sooner it can win back some trust from the general population.
If anyone worked in that agency with a sincere desire to protect the American people and inform their national leaders of threats against the country, then that person's motivation is going to evaporate.
I really question how many people are described by this. I still don't see how one can call themselves a patriot when they violate the 4th amendment around the clock.
Not exactly. It would be good news if they had quit because of conscience problems.
There are roles that should cause people to be shunned. I know that for me if someone said they worked for the CIA or NSA I'd avoid them while making lots of sarcastic remarks and I'd tell others as well. I've done this in the past for other jobs that I consider bad for society, like the guy I essentially called scum for operating a pay day loan place. The NSA doesn't have a leg to stand on in terms of being a force for good. Now if they used their massive powers for good then I could get behind them at least a bit more and they could be upgraded to the category of mixed bag instead of purely evil.
Seriously. How do we do it?
I think that's the number one question for Humanity over the next 500 years. It's now or never.
So is it actually now, never, or in the next 500 years?
There is very little support for abolishing hate speech laws and even less so among thinking people.
Maybe the thinking people haven't thought it through ;-) I think it's more a case of which circles you run in. I don't know very many people who support hate speech laws as they see the potential for abuse and know that hate speech is not well defined. As close as I get to wanting anti-hate speech laws is bullying, though the difference is that that has a specific person targeted repeatedly, not general statements which have far less impact.
The "hate speech" laws are designed to crack down on "extremists" but of course they'll be used to crack down on "dissenting opinion" soon enough as the concept of hate speech is ill-defined and open to interpretation.
I think the powers that be consider this a feature not a bug. That's why thinking people, regardless of political leanings, are against hate speech laws.
It would be more fair to say that Mormonism has evolved so that it no longer promotes/tolerates violence nor polygamy, just as modern day Christianity mostly does not (barring of course evangelicals who are pushing for wars in the Middle East in order to start the second coming/rapture/Armageddon).
Where would you get the idea that Christianity promotes violence? I know that's a popular meme but as with so many memes it lacks a basis in facts. Please point me towards the New Testament verses promoting wars, I must have missed them. Along the same lines, please point me towards the New Testament verses promoting polygamy as I must have missed those too.
Where did I say that? I said most Christians don't support violence.
This is the issue for Islam: there are many within it that are resisting efforts to modernize the religion. If you want to fix things you can't demonize Islam, you have to support those within the religion who want to moderate and modernize Islam. Animosity and hatred only feeds those who seek to keep Islam in the past.
You do know that the standard practice for an invading Muslim army is to give the conquered people 3 options: convert, die, or become a slave. That's literally taken out of the Koran, it cannot be attributed to wayward followers. There is no reforming that as it's directly from Mohammed. I'm curious where you got the notion that Islam can be reformed.
citation:
https://www.thereligionofpeace...
The natives of South and Central America would like to have a word with you regarding forced conversions to Christianity. And Christian Crusaders would often kill, enslave, and/or rape the entire population of a sacked city, including other Christians.
You missed the entire point of my post: Christianity evolved past the violence of the Crusades (of course it took plenty of wars, persecutions, and inquisitions for it to do so). Islam needs to be given the time and support to do so as well, and that change needs to come from within.
I think we're somewhat in agreement but I want to clarify on the Crusades. They were a response, albeit delayed and not entirely pure in motive, to the Muslim armies having taken over large chunks of what used to be Christian areas. The popular narrative is that the crusaders came out of nowhere to attack the peaceful Muslims. That's just not accurate. As for the Americas, it wasn't right to force conversions. It also wasn't mandated by Jesus the way that Mohammed mandated that non-Muslims (Infidels) be enslaved / killed. That's a key distinction. I would say it's less a case of Christianity evolved and more a case that it got back to its roots. Islam cannot do this as the roots were always violent. It would take a departure from the teachings of Mohammed to actually get a peaceful Islam.
The multiculturalists are going to be up in arms over this comment. You should respect everyone culture, no matter how abhorrent it may be.
You're showing your age. Once they got the upper hand the language changed from respecting everyone to it's some flavor of ism (ie racism, sexism, nationalism, etc) if you don't agree.
Mark my words, you can tell who does not have the upper hand by looking at who wants to have one set of rules for everyone.
For example if you look at the Civil rights movement in the 60s it was about a common set of rules / drinking fountains / pools / etc for everyone. Now that minorities have the upper hand they are all about exclusive benefits for themselves like quotas, minority only scholarships, preferential hiring and government buying rules, etc. Same for gay marriage. At first it was about having the dame rights as everyone else. Now it's about forcing bakers to bend the knee. If you want to see who has the less dominant position look for who asks for equality or the same set of rules.
No one identified the real problem. Let's not dance around the issue because we're afraid to tell it like it is. The violence is caused by Islam.
This got labeled troll but it's very true that if you show me a majority Islam country I'll show you a shitty country. Yes a country can be crappy without Islam being a factor but when Islam is a factor it's all but guaranteed to be crappy.
It would be more fair to say that Mormonism has evolved so that it no longer promotes/tolerates violence nor polygamy, just as modern day Christianity mostly does not (barring of course evangelicals who are pushing for wars in the Middle East in order to start the second coming/rapture/Armageddon).
Where would you get the idea that Christianity promotes violence? I know that's a popular meme but as with so many memes it lacks a basis in facts. Please point me towards the New Testament verses promoting wars, I must have missed them. Along the same lines, please point me towards the New Testament verses promoting polygamy as I must have missed those too.
This is the issue for Islam: there are many within it that are resisting efforts to modernize the religion. If you want to fix things you can't demonize Islam, you have to support those within the religion who want to moderate and modernize Islam. Animosity and hatred only feeds those who seek to keep Islam in the past.
You do know that the standard practice for an invading Muslim army is to give the conquered people 3 options: convert, die, or become a slave. That's literally taken out of the Koran, it cannot be attributed to wayward followers. There is no reforming that as it's directly from Mohammed. I'm curious where you got the notion that Islam can be reformed.
citation:
https://www.thereligionofpeace...