This is totally unsubstantiated.knot wrote:It's too exploitable. People are much less responsible with other people's money. In a welfare state, a significant amount of people will compete to be the biggest victim and to get the most out of the system. That's why Muslims flock to welfare states. They see themselves as perpetual victims (even though it's obvious they are the source of their own problems), and they have no scruples about leeching off infidels either. Cut back on the welfare and they will instead have to compete on the free market, and they end up being much better assimilated
The waiting list thing isn't substantiated from my understanding, and it's not like people are required to get the public option for health care. If you're worried about the wait-list, than get private health insurance. But the option should be there to get healthcare for people who can't get the private insurance, because a long-waiting list is better than no health care at all (not that I'm buying the waiting list argument anyway).knot wrote:Neither system is flawless. On public healthcare people die while being on a long waiting list, or from receiving treatment of lower quality. Overall I favor the American system because it seems to keep people more personally accountable for their own health problems (which are often self-inflicted)
It's not ethical to say, "Your health problems are self-inflicted, so fuck you, we're not going to help you get better."
Source?knot wrote:Actually it's the opposite. In countries where attitudes towards Muslims have been the most positive (e.g. Sweden and England) , you have the highest number of Muslims leaving for ISIS (per capita). I'm not sure it means much of anything though
Christians don't unanimously hate the KKK. Donald Trump, the republican front-runner, wouldn't condemn the KKK in an interview.knot wrote:ISIS is much more Islamic than the KKK is Christian. Christians unanimously hate the KKK whereas Muslim attitudes towards ISIS are more mixed. What's the biblical foundation for killing blacks anyway?
But why does that matter? How does the higher percentage of Muslims supporting ISIS make it more Islamic?
I don't know what the Biblical foundation is, but they justify it with the Bible (which does endorse slavery).
That's what it sounds like when you say we shouldn't empathize with people.knot wrote:I'm not throwing morality out, but just trying to envision how much death and misery there will be in the future if the west keeps embracing Islamic theocracy.
It has an extreme right-wing bias.knot wrote:What's wrong with the Daily Telegraph? I don't know anything about the paper, it just came up when I googled for Muslim statistics. Left-wing newspapers tend to avoid statistics about Muslims, and if they do use statistics they won't adjust for per capita... *cough* TYT
Not sure what you're referring to with TYT.
.knot wrote:"The future doesn't belong to..." sounds very menacing to me. Is it just a benign idiom in English? Why would one of the most powerful people in the world use those terms if what he meant was just "I don't like it when you guys draw Mohammed"
Are you serious? Do you actually think the President supports prosecuting people who draw Mohammad cartoons?
He clearly just meant it's wrong to mock religion.
America has freedom of speech and expression. There's no way he was saying we should prosecute people who draw cartoons.
It's completely irrelevant when it comes to addressing the terrorism.knot wrote: It's highly relevant, but yeah, the sample size does in fact have to be larger than 1
What's the arbitrary sample size where it becomes relevant, exactly?
If there are more Christian/right-wing terrorists than Muslim terrorists in America, which there are, we should spend more resources fighting the Christian/right-wing terrorism. I just don't understand how you can disagree with that.
