Yeah because you can’t disprove a negative. I can’t prove to you there is no God but you also can’t prove to me that there isn’t an invisible teapot orbiting the earth right now. Both are slightly outrageous claims and neither can be proven or disproven. But that doesn’t make them equally as likely to exist as not to exist.
Apparently not since you posted a comment attacking people who don’t agree with a study posted without any consideration of the basis for the disagreement.
Because of statements like this:
As per the Forum Guidelines:
Announcing that because one heavily flawed study not being accepted as proof of an extraordinary claim is not accepted as proof undeniable is proof that “certain members” will never accept it is pretty much a breach of all of these and particularly bad when the claim is that Muslims are more homophobic:
If you want to join in with seriously conversations about billions of people then you need to follow the forum guidelines and show the proper courtesy and give the topic the proper gravity.
Hence, why I said it. But thanks for spelling out my point. I guess.
I don’t really see how I’ve broken the forum guidelines.
Didn’t refer to any member with a derogatory term or a name that wasn’t their own.
- Ad-hominem attacks
I’m not personally attacking anyone, merely questioning their stance.
- Responding to a post’s tone instead of it’s actual content
I’d say the tone of this thread is pretty peaceful and I haven’t tried to upset that. I’m very much interested in the content of what is being said.
- Knee-jerk contradiction
I respect what other users are saying and I’m replying in a civilised manner.
- Always be civil
Show me where I’ve been rude, offensive, or hateful.
Like I said the outcome of the study is not my concern. Regardless can you really claim that such a claim is offensive? It was the conclusion of a scientific study. Supporting it is not a confirmation of homophobia/racism/prejudice or anything of the sort.
The comment in which I said that was not flagged.
Well right now you’re attempting to derail a thread to be all about you and your opinions, that’s another breach of the Forum Guidelines right there. Perhaps you should spend less time trying to lecture other people on what they should believe or agree with and consider that perhaps you might need to adjust your behavior.
Again, since you seem unwilling to consider the basics here: The series of events here is not that we have a robust study supported by dozens of other robust studies that provide a solid conclusion with the results replicated over and over again. The series of events is someone made a claim, then someone claimed it was “proven” by studies and provided a flawed study in basis and now you’re trying to derail the thread with insistence it’s a problem with members rather than the failings of the study and the inherently unproveable premise of it (seriously, you can’t study 1.6 billion people in a conclusive manner to see if they are actually homophobic).
So far the net contributions to the conversation based off the claim that Muslims are shown to be more homophobic is pretty much nil other than perhaps some people might learn about the flaws in blindly believing a study without looking into the actual basis of the conclusion.
Well you’re welcome to feel that way but I have no desire to derail this thread or lecture people. We can take this to PM’s if you like.
never mind the fact that one of the most homophobic countries in the world is predominantly christian. being gay there is considered a “sin”.
again, christians being homophobic is conveniently ignored
sargon of akkad… really…
I like how he goes from a Pew research poll of Muslim countries to “All Muslims on the fucking planet.”
Sargon of Fuckwad is an idiot.
why did countries like russia and uganda make it onto the list when those countries are extremely homophobic to begin with, yet countries like canada that are more tolerant of gays are nowhere to be seen.
this list of countries is cherry-picked.
not to mention that russia and uganda are predominantly christian yet still manage to be homophobic.
sargon is a cunt
Don’t call that guy “Sargon of Akkad” - His name is Carl. Heh. Doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.
Secondly, Carlgon is notorious for deliberately miseepresenting studies and ignoring evidence that doesn’t adhere to his preconceived viewpoint. He’s a fucking idiot, I have no idea how he gained so many followers.
Here he is defending mass murderer Elliot Rodger:
i think i do. he tells his idiotic band of followers what they want to hear, which that social justice is to blame for everything and it’s social justice, not patriarchy or white supremacy, that is the cause of society’s problems
The idea that social justice is 100% clean from issues is frightening.
I know it’s easier for you to just blame patriarchy and white supremacy though, while calling everyone who disagrees a Nazi.
Social justice that isn’t 100% clean from issues isn’t actually social justice. Who would argue against basic human rights for all and equality?
To butt in, the idea behind “Social Justice Warriors” is the kind of person who is doing something not because it is right or reasonable but because it is commonly considered to be good. An example from the point of view of alt-rights would be that fighting against racism is considered to be good, so a SJW would rather let a black criminal go than blaming him for what he did, because this could be considered to be racist. Even more, blaming him DOES prove one to be racist in the mind of such SJWs.
I dont share most of the views of the alt right but sadly I know some of such persons.
This is such a loaded straw man.
People like that may exist, but they are not in any way representative of the majority of people on the left. Beyond that the mass majority of Democratic officials that are elected do not say things like you describe.
The “SJW problem” is an imaginary phenomenon used by people to justify garbage behavior…
Might be true, just wanted to point out what concept is referred here. Problems are usually not that simple.
Social Justice is common sense. If you want to defend your rights with any sincerity, you absolutely have to defend the rights of others too.
“Social Justice Warrior” is a catch-all term designed to smear anyone who actually cares about anything. It’s a meaningless buzzword for a non-existent problem, Literally anyone with any left leaning views, or even anyone with a sense of basic compassion, will likely be smeared with this irksome phrase.
Would you mind if anyone called you a ‘SJW’? Because while it is often used as a pejorative, the meaning of this term isn’t insulting at all; People who fight for the social justice.
But some of them are actual Nazis and many of those who aren’t are assisting actual Nazis because of their dependence on institutional support. They are in fact, not that different to the regular people of 1930s-40s Germany who didn’t consider themselves to be real Nazis but were happy to support (actively or passively) enough of the actions for the Nazi Party to assume control. There’s a rather famous poem written about it.
I mean there’s someone liking your post which is blindly defending Carl right after they insisted that people shouldn’t challenge studies even though Carl is notoriously bad at understanding what a study actually says… even when it’s spelled out clearly on the front page.
To make an attempt to steer people back on topic, part of the reason I don’t buy into Atheism > Theism is that institutional dependency can be both secular and still be exceptionally toxic. Particularly when people are in a hurry to believe anything that makes them feel the “other” is wrong and they are right for disliking/fearing/hating the “other”.
Largely how these groups gains Institutional power is by making their prejudices palatable, whether it is by claiming that a holy text foresaw this issue centuries in advance or asking people to just accept this study is proves something and not look too closely at it or making ridiculous attempts to repackage violence as “non-violent” to claim superiority. The other is of course, to try to derail any examination.
Particularly since the backlash to people promoting the ever loose term “social justice” (I’m not even going to define the ever fungible term “SJW” that’s scattershot throughout the world) is generally misdirected anger from people when someone (often accidentally) makes them think about a topic they’ve always had a “default” opinion on.
Innuendo Studios did a great video series on the general backlash, and the Nerdwriter on why it’s particularly bad when people feel they’re being asked to surrender some form of privilege. Upon examination, it’s a lot easier to believe that the other is to blame for all ills (their own, and ours) than to examine the complexity of the the world and the flaws of society.