dialamah

At least I did some research. Feel free to find research that demonstrates how much better the "punishment" model preferred by the US, Canada and the UK work. Agree. And look what happens if there is any suggestion that we, as taxpayers, contribute to the economic well-being of the poorest among us. Conservatives especially tend to scream bloody murder if they think their tax dollar might be used to better society through helping individuals. They're much happier spending more tax dollars keeping people poor, locked up and incapable of getting a job. Part of that is the lack of judgement of and more acceptance for ex-cons among Norwegians, exactly the opposite of what you demonstrate here.

The article commented on the reaction of people to the 21 years Anders Brevik for killing 77 people, including many children, in 2011. People in Norway, including the parents of the murdered kids, were satisfied justice has been done; people outside of Norway were critical. Norway can extend his sentence in 5 year increments if, after 21 years, they think he is still a danger. When countries focus on actual rehabilitation, society is safer and costs are reduced. Revenge may be sweet, but it's also costly.

So you have no ideas or opinion on what a better system looks like and just think bitching makes you look.smart. Figures. BTW, Norway has the lowest crime rate of all countries, the fewest of its citizens in prison and the lowest recidivism rate. They impose short sentences in comfortable surroundings and focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. Seems to work; unfortunately, we in Canada are still barbaric enough to think thay treating people like animals and imposing harsh punishments will somehow inspire them to behave better.

On crimes or criminals? Do you have a recommendation for a criminal justice system that Canada should emulate to reduce crime here? Here's a list of countries by "Intentional Homicide" per 100,000 people. Here's a list of countries by 'rape' per 1,000,000 people. A few countries score better than Canada, so maybe there is some takeaway for our politicians to consider. What do you think?

I found this, but no updates so who knows?

What you fail to realize is that solitary confinement creates serious mental health issues in people. The become more easily frustrated and angry, more prone to violence and less able to cope in the real world, regardless of how badly they want to do better or how much they regret their crime. Consider that people who spend more than a couple of years in prison, even without solitary confinement, have difficulty adjusting. Something as simple as shopping for food can become overwhelmingly difficult simply because there are so many choices. Many people come out of prison with PTSD due to the innate violence of prisons. People are changed in prison, sometimes in significant ways and usually not for the better. The lharsher the prison environment is, and the longer sentences are, the less successful the "rehabilitation" effect becomes. People come out of prison and recieve little support to address any psycological issues, can have trouble finding a job, trouble establishing and maintaining relationships, and are subject to a lot of negative reaction when people find out they're an ex-con. People who think more time, and more solitary confinement will make crime go away or create "better citizens" are clueless about the actual effects of prison on people.

They made a mistake, they found it, admitted it and corrected it. If only the orange-haired president you worship had as much honesty or character. And of course we can now expect this from you and your ilk: Again, if only you engaged in the same amount of skepticism when it comes to the daily lies spouted by Trump and his toadies.

Sunni Muslim leaders reject Wahhabism. http://maktabah.org/blog/?p=3619&fbclid=IwAR0eCgL5Q8vDMDswEirQg-m-RyMmYkAo9cE8wK-YB-Lu7-3XJ2xs_eZhUto

Canada, fifth best country to raise kid; attributes considered were: care for human rights, family-friendly, gender equality, happiness, income equality, level of safety, well-developed public education system and well-developed health care system. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/06/us-news-world-report-2018-top-10-best-countries-to-raise-children.html United States didn't even make the list. "For the countries that rose to the top of this year's rankings, it is once again clear that military vigor and economic power are no longer the key determinants to a country's brand success," Y&R Global CEO David Sable said in a statement."

I often feel pessimistic about the world in general and think Canada is holding its own against a world that is increasingly unstable. Perhaps that will change over the next few years, who knows? Is there a country you would prefer to live in, somewhere?

True also. So what is so objectionable about talking about the good choice, instead of focussing on the bad choice?

Clearly, you are missing the point I am trying to make. For the third time you said, and I quote: It seems these non-taypayers vote in sufficient numbers to incentivize governments to pay attention to them. I am saying that non-taxpayers do not make up a large enough voting block to warrant such a claim. People who pay income-tax but who do not quite make the "middle-class" cut-off still pay income tax and are a growing demographic in Canada. They, combined with people who do make the middle-class cut-off make up a much larger voting block to whom politicians must pay attention. Incentives and subsidies are "sold" to the largest block of voters, which are taxpayers, whether they make $40,000 or $250,000 or several million. Everybody wants these and can be "bribed" by politicians, regardless of their wealth and income. Suggesting that the non-taxpayer is somehow at fault for behaving exactly as everyone else makes no sense.

Doesn't actually change my argument because I am using middle-class as describing taxpayers, whether they make $40,000 or $250,000 or more. I can see how that could be confusing to you. So the dividing line is between taxpayers and non-taxpayers if this statement of yours is anything to go by: It seems these non-taypayers vote in sufficient numbers to incentivize governments to pay attention to them. If 30% of Canadians pay no (income) taxes, than 70% do and the 70% is a larger, much more significant voting block than the 30% of non-taxpayers. My argument is that criticizing 30% of the population for the direction the other 70% takes us doesn't make sense, and that non-taxpayers are not a significant enough block for politicians to really target. Perhaps, for the purposes of your argument, you should make the dividing line somewhere other than taxpayer and non-taxpayer. If, for example, the line were drawn at annual incomes above and below $80,000, the below $80,000 group might constitute a large enough voting block for politicians to pay attention to, and offer goodies and subsidies.

I think I do. I also see what's happening in the real world:. Governments promise tax breaks to the largest voting block, which are referred to as "Middle Class" - the category that 70% of Canadians put themselves in. That translates to 46% of the vote. Raising minimum wage a few dollars an hour or giving those on social assistance an extra hundred per month is not going to turn those people into tax payersand they are still going to only represent 16% of the vote. Consequently it is the middle class taxpayer that the politicians sell to; any benefit to non-taxpayers is minimal and they know it. I do not disagree with this, but I am talking about taxpayers and notn-taxpayers, not the standard of living obtained on the same income in different geographical areas. The assertion was made that those who pay no taxes are catered to by politicians, and vote entirely based on self-interest, thus having a negative effect on economic policy. Eg:. It seems these non-taypayers vote in sufficient numbers to incentivize governments to pay attention to them. I am pointing out that non-taxpayers make up the smallest voting block and cannot compete with the taxpayer voting block. If they could, welfare, disability and minimum wage would all be higher. I would suggest that goodies offered to the poorest in our country are actually sold to the lower and midde-class taxpayers for votes, because people are generally fair-minded and most Canadians believe helping others is one of our values. If I get a benefit, I will feel better about it if those poorer than me also get a benefit. The only people who regularly object to giving goodies to everyone, not just themselves, seem to be a particular type of fiscal conservative, often with an upper-middle-class income. So how weird is it that the poorest, least likely to vote or have influence on policy, are criticized for "voting for goodies", to the point that some on this board have suggested they not be allowed to vote at all?

I am overgeneralizing here? Hmmmm.. Let's try math, instead. The claim is that about 30% of people don't pay taxes, so "they are voting for goodies" because tax policies don't affect them. Of that 30%, 54% won't vote, based on StatsCan "home ownership" metric. So, the proportion of people who are supposedly significantly impacting policy is about 16% of the population. StatsCan says that 66% of employed people vote; I assume that this group includes the 70% of people who do pay taxes, vs the 30% who do not. That is about 46% of the population. I fail to see how 16% of the population is responsible for the way in which the country votes, regardless of where they live. I also suspect politicians are well aware of this, such is why disability, welfare and minimum wage rates remain so low. The people who live in that degree of poverty are not a large enough voting block. Yes, the "middle class". People who are employed and who pay taxes. If the claim was that the middle class, especially the lower middle class, was aware of and voting in response to promised "goodies" in large enough numbers to affect economic policy, I would find that at least a plausible argument. Rich people and corporations also support economic policies that benefit them and are arguably more successful at influencing policy, so why some think it's only a problem when people at the low end of the economic scale do is a mystery.

Low income people tend not to vote, so the right-wing claim that they "vote for goodies" is wrong. Highest turnout is among those who have money and good-paying jobs so it's certainly not "people who don't pay taxes" who decide who'll govern. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-001-x/2012001/article/11629-eng.htm#a6 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/middle-class-politics-who-belongs-to-this-vote-rich-group-1.2939750 https://voxeu.org/article/low-voter-turnout-increasing-household-income-may-help

Having recently been accused of being an "apologists" and of working against Muslim reformers, I decided to do a little bit of research to see where my views feel into "apologists" and working against reformers. I found this blog by Faisal Saeed al Muttar, in which he attempts to define genuine criticism of Islam vs. anti-Muslim bigotry. He identifies six different groups as follows: Muslim Conservatives Muslim Moderates Muslim Reformers Pseudo-Liberal Apologists Genuine Critics of Islam Pro-Christian Right Anti-Muslim Groups Far-Right Jewish Groups I did not consider the first three at all; I'm not Muslim so they do not apply. I am also not far-right, nor Jewish, so my only two choices are the Pseudo-Liberal Apologists and Genuine Critics of Islam. So, which am I? It seems I share several characteristics of what he describes as "Genuine Critics of Islam": (Genuine critics of Islam) think that there is a connection between some interpretations of the religion and bad or violent behavior. They share many agreements with Muslim Reformers. They care about issues such as women’s rights and LGBT rights. They are acutely aware of extremist groups in the Muslim world and around the globe and see a clear link between violence and some interpretations of the fundamentals of Islam. They view Islam itself as a major reason human rights are poorly upheld in most majority-Muslim countries. Most are also very critical of Christianity but are likely to argue that the Enlightenment has had a “buffering” effect on Christianity that Islam has yet to undergo, leaving Islam in need of enlightenment or reformation. I agree with this; it is the interpretation of Islam that is the primary problem, that Christianity is equally as oppressive/violent, but has been modified through growth of secularism and that Islam needs reforming. I have posted all of these opinions. I have highlighted the one item that I may not entirely agree with: I think these governments have the same goal (absolute control of the people) as any secular oppressive government, and have the added "benefit" of being able to use religion to support their oppression. He also says about genuine critics of Islam: They tend to differentiate between Islam as a set of ideas and interpretations and Muslims as people. Often, they mostly rely on statistics from organizations such as Pew and Gallup to resist making generalizations about Muslims as a whole. I do this, often, in these forums. _________________________________________________ Here is his description of Pseudo-Liberal apologists: (They) agree with Moderate Muslims’ argument that terrorist groups such as ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Boko Haram have nothing to do with Islam and are either a result or a creation of Western imperialism. Pseudo-Liberal Apologists tend to agree that Islam is a peaceful religion and that those who speak out against it are motivated by racism, hatred of minorities or the “other,” or hold a neoconservative imperialist agenda and desire to kill all Muslims and steal resources from Muslim-majority countries. They tend to think that the greatest enemy of world peace is Western capitalism, a view they share with many Moderate and Conservative Muslims. I agree that the political factor is significant in terms of the growth of terrorists groups; I think I do not clearly state that I also recognize how interpretation of the Quran and certain Hadiths give them permission to pursue violence with God's approval. "Islam is a peaceful religion" is a difficult one. I think these are just words, that Islam promotes peace just as much as it promotes violence and that it is the individual who decides which Islam they will follow. I do not think that *everyone* who speaks out against Islam is racist, hates minorities or the "other" or even wants to kill Muslims. I think most people are informed by easy-to-access media and know very little about Islam, quite possibly don't know any Muslims and are understandably concerned due to terrifying media stories, whether fake, semi-true or absolutely true. So, on this forum, I try to post positive Muslim stories to offset all the negative media. At the same time, I think it's important to call out those who promote the message that Muslims are inherently violent and backward, and that they cannot/will not change. I tend to believe that Capitalism is significantly responsible for violence around the world. It may or may not be the 'greatest threat to World Peace"; I am not sure. _____________________________________________ Here is how he describes Far-right Anti-Muslim types; I have bolded the attitudes I've seen expressed on this forum and to which I have objected: (They) believe that there is a cosmic war between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. They tend to view all Muslims as fanatics and terrorists. Some of them consider the prophet of Islam to be the Antichrist and may believe there is a connection between Islam and satanism. They generally hold negative views about other immigrant or minorities too; Ann Coulter is a prominent example of this tendency. They usually view fundamentalism as the only true form of Islam, going so far as to accuse Muslims who are not fundamentalists of lying or of practicing Taqyia (lying in defense of the faith). Many in this group trade in utterly counterfactual conspiracy theories—for example, that all Muslim Americans want to impose Sharia law or want to convert Europe into “Euro­Arabia.” They operate on a platform of fearmongering, pressing for agendas that have nothing to do with human rights or secular liberal values but rather with imposing their own theocracies or authoritarian views on the rest of us. ______________________________________ So I would describe myself primarily as a 'Genuine Critic of Islam", with a tendency toward "Pseudo-Liberal Apologists". Anyone else willing to define themselves against these definitions?

My message gives Muslims a choice: They can live peacefully with others, pursue a moderate or even a progressive lifestyle and still worship Allah. This is supported in the Quran. Your message gives them no choice: They must be murderers if they want to worship Allah successfully; this is the only choice the Quran offers. Which message do you suppose is safer for Western nations? Or even for Muslims? If we are going to use analogies from Nazis and Jews, I would say I'm Oskar Schindler and you are part of Himmler's anti-Jew propaganda machine.

September 11, 2016 you said: Islam is a dangerous ideology due to its promise of great reward for violence perpetrated in the name of Allah. Martyrdom and Jihad combine together to make a potent carrot over the stick that would be one's mortality. What's worse, is that apparently peaceful Muslims can suddenly turn 'radical' and act on the Quran's orders...Allah's orders. A scenario where a Muslim puts himself into enough sin that he would surly be going to the Hell-fires...but cleanses away the sin by becoming a Shahid is not out of the question. May 23, 2017: A Muslim follows Islam. The Infidel is Islam's enemy. The Quran ORDERS Muslims to fight the Unbeliever until ALL religion is for Allah. May 9, 2017: All Muslims are suspect because their holy book orders them to fight the unbeliever. September 3, 2017: Muslims practice Islam. If you don't practice Islam...you're not a Muslim. Islam is from the Quran and Hadiths. No other source is needed.  Your message is very clear: Islam tells Muslims to kill unbelievers; if they do not kill unbelievers, they are not Muslims. These are the arguments you use to dismiss any teaching of Islam that might be used to promote 'moderate' Islam, or reform of Islam.

Didn't you claim at some point that you'd studied about Islam and were some kind of minor expert, compared to me - an ignorant and naive person, influenced by my sister and having no real understanding of Islam? I am surprised you are unaware of these verses. "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews as well as Muslims. Of the people of Moses there is a section who guide and do justice in the light of truth. (Quran 7:159) And We caused Jesus, the son of Mary, to follow in the footsteps of those (earlier prophets), confirming the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah; and We sent him the Gospel, wherein there was guidance and light, confirming the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah, and as a guidance and admonition unto the God-conscious. (Quran 5:46) Verily, those who have attained to faith [in this divine writ], as well as those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Christians, and the Sabians - all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds-shall have their reward with their Sustainer; and no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve. (Quran 2:62) Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of God all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous. (Quran 3:113-114) And there are, certainly, among the People of the Book, those who believe in God, in the revelation to you, and in the revelation to them, bowing in humility to God. They will not sell the Signs of God for a miserable gain! For them is a reward with their Lord, and God is swift in account. (Quran 3:199) God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in the religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just.” (Surat al-Mumtahana, 8) Extremists count on people essentially ignorant of what the Koran says about Jihad, Jews and unbelievers to recruit their "soldiers". That is why most terrorists in Western countries are either recent converts or second and third generation home grown actors. Every time someone makes the claim that the Koran requires the killing of others, while ignoring or dismissing every instruction against killing, they simply support this interpretation that supports radicalization. No "apologists" deny the verses in the Koran that support violent extremism (or patriarchy); "apologists" simply choose to spread the message that Islam gives a different and more peaceful choice, just as all religions do. I think that's a heck of a lot better message, both for Muslims and non-Muslims. Especially since nobody is unaware of the violence engaged in by certain Muslims and Islamic governments.

Fair enough. Just don't claim to speak for moderate Muslims while supporting extremist statements made by the likes of DoP.

1. Yeah, you do. When it's been pointed out that Muslims aren't actually out killing their unbelievering neighbours wholesale, you say "They aren't really Muslims" or that "They haven't got the call yet" and that "taqqiya" means they are lying if they say they think murder is wrong. 2. I notice you haven't explained why Eyeball is still posting, even though he's interacted with Muslims recently. Worried that your usual answer will demonstrate who really is cornered and lying? 3 and 4. Just too stupid to respond to. You have a sweet day, DoP. Hope the bogeyman doesn't get you.

I look forward to you chastising DoP when he posts "Muslims are commanded by Allah to kill unbelievers, and if they don't believe that, they are not real Muslims". Because you've said you don't mean "all" Muslims when you make your disparaging remarks about them, so surely you'll want to correct your friend and buddy when he says "all" Muslims are murderers, practicing or not.

Conversations I had with DoP, the poster you are so in tune with, before you ever arrived on this forum went essentially like this: DoP: Muslims must kill Jews/unbelievers because it says so in the Koran, verse blah blah. Me: Yes, but it also says not to kill Jews/unbelievers, cause verse blah blah. DoP: That verse doesn't count, only the verse instructing Muslims to kill Jews/unbelievers counts. Me: What about all the Muslims who don't kill Jews/unbelievers because of verse blah blah? DoP: They aren't really Muslims. Real Muslims kill Jews/unbelievers or they are waiting to. So what "point" exactly am I missing here, Goddess? That all Muslims are incipient killers of non-Muslims? Is that the message of the Muslim reformers you claim I am ignoring? I don't know how many different times that basic conversation played out till I relegated DoP to the stupid pile. With Taxme, with Altai, with Betsy - all holding extreme beliefs barely connected to reality. You recognize that in Altai and Betsy for sure, maybe Taxme, I dunno. But not in DoP. Why is that?