Why not?

The vast majority of them would never turn from their teachings and embrace whatever disco_stu would have them embrace.

Considering the problems we're having that revolve around carrying capacity I don't see why we can't kill two birds with one stone?

1/3 of the planet (roughly) needs to perish.

I would argue the religions dont really promote your gerbil theory exactly. Both organizations obviously want more followers either through conversion or creation of new ones, but once each reach a certain size there will inevitably be conflict.

Just like the other natural disasters I listed (especially disease and famine).

[Edited on May 1, 2013 at 10:44 AM. Reason : -]

5/1/2013 10:41:51 AM

i will check back in a few pages after the smart people have gotten bored with destroying you

good day

5/1/2013 10:42:53 AM

"Smart people" advocate a smaller world population.

They also tend to disapprove of religion.

I can think of no easier way to satisfy both than a massive war consuming them.

Simple premise.

And to think, all this hostility just because of a harmless technicality on page one! For shame.

[Edited on May 1, 2013 at 10:50 AM. Reason : -]

5/1/2013 10:49:29 AM

Quote :

"1/3 of the planet (roughly) needs to perish."

Citation needed seriously. Are you just pulling this out of thin air or what?

5/1/2013 10:53:07 AM

Well total number of adherents to various world religions isnt exactly hard to find. Let me tell you about Google-

Actually 1/3 of the planet would only represent Christianity ceasing to exist, and since Islam would equate to roughly the same figure, I thought 2/3 might be a little greedy.

4.5 billion between the two of them. Out of 7 billion? Eh...

What we need is firm numbers of the "well I guess I identify as Christian" types, or the ones who wouldnt participate in this hypothetical war (everyone likes Quakers).

Or maybe the horror of 2 billion perishing would be enough to snap the rest of these retards out of their daze? Maybe then we would have peace and harmony?

At the very least maybe atmospheric CO2 would level off at 400ppm?

5/1/2013 10:58:44 AM

Thin air, got it.

I don't accept that billions of people need to die and I think that we have vastly more problems of inequality and distribution than we have overpopulation. I don't think they'll be "solved" as long as we have sovereign countries but I could be proved wrong.

5/1/2013 11:00:26 AM

I did make a mistake in my previous post regarding number of Muslims.

I combined them and Hindus.

So, top three then?

And yes, the CIA World Factbook is such bullshit.

[Edited on May 1, 2013 at 11:04 AM. Reason : -]

5/1/2013 11:03:52 AM

Freedom math!

5/1/2013 11:50:43 AM

Quote :

"I don't accept that billions of people need to die and I think that we have vastly more problems of inequality and distribution than we have overpopulation. I don't think they'll be "solved" as long as we have sovereign countries but I could be proved wrong."

Indeed. Most of the vast population growth follows the line of things like industrial agriculture. As much as the upper classes like to shop at Whole Foods and bitch about antibiotics in feed and corn in everything it sure does support a lot of life.

Fuck a starving African kid if my kid risks getting MRSA.

5/1/2013 12:20:44 PM

Hmmmm, turns out Bill Maher was right about Muslims.

http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf




The highlight is only 75% of Muslims are against suicide attacks. Time to stop being PC and calling it just a "fringe" movement that supports Islamic terrorism.

5/1/2013 1:15:49 PM

Quote :

"Q.90 Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets arejustified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason,this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified? Often justified /Sometimes justified/Rarely justified/ Never justified/ (VOL.) DK/Ref Muslim Americans % % % % % Apr 14-Jul 22, 2011 1 7 5 81 6 Jan 24-Apr 30, 2007 1 7 5 78 9 "

5/1/2013 1:36:06 PM

Quote :

"A median of more than half of those who say they enjoy Western entertainment also say that it hurts morality in their country."

Haha, yes. The way they treat women (for example) or criminals is extremely enlightened. It's definitely the Eminem and Justin Bieber contributing to their vices/social decay.

[Edited on May 1, 2013 at 2:10 PM. Reason : -]

5/1/2013 2:09:50 PM

You're such an Islamophobe, Shrike.

5/1/2013 2:24:46 PM

It's interesting that the two countries most directly impacted by U.S. violence (Afghanistan and Pakistan) are the most supportive of "extremism". We're raining down fiery freedom from the sky on a weekly basis, though. Why don't they like us yet?

5/1/2013 2:46:53 PM

to compare the violent Muslims to peaceful Americans:
Poll: 29% Think Armed Rebellion Might Soon Be Necessary
http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2013/guncontrol/

(for Republicans its 44%)

5/2/2013 10:20:31 AM

well that's terrifying

5/2/2013 10:24:23 AM

Quote :

"(for Republicans its 44%)"

If there's still going to be Republicans/Democrats afterwards then it sounds like a pretty lame armed revolution.

5/3/2013 12:14:08 PM

[Edited on May 3, 2013 at 12:32 PM. Reason : DP]

5/3/2013 12:30:45 PM

How about rational and reasonable vs irrational and crazy? (of course, the irrational and crazy would have two sides (right and left) that would be fighting against each other, in addition to fighting against the unified rational and reasonable)

5/3/2013 12:31:47 PM

I don't understand that at all. Are you implying that there are no reasonable conservatives? Why would there not be both left and right in both categories?

5/3/2013 12:48:58 PM

Sorry, I didn't write that well (as usual). But no, i was not saying that there are no rational conservatives. I was saying that I hope there would be three sides. 1) The crazy irrational "right-wingers", 2) the crazy irrational "libtards", and 3) the rational and reasonable moderates in the middle (i would hope that this unified side would include rational folks from both the right and the left, fighting together for the common good)

[Edited on May 3, 2013 at 1:03 PM. Reason : ]

5/3/2013 1:00:14 PM

You'd think, but atheism (ostensibly a rational and reasonable movement) has been in an internal struggle for 2 years now over feminism. Granted, I'd label that a non-rational ideology intruding in a rational space, but there it is. I'm starting to wonder whether it's possible to get rid of all the crazy.

5/3/2013 1:07:14 PM

Quote :

"The highlight is only 75% of Muslims are against suicide attacks. Time to stop being PC and calling it just a "fringe" movement that supports Islamic terrorism."

Being okay with suicide attacks is not the same as supporting Islamic terrorism, any more than being okay with the use of bombs makes you supportive of US Imperialism.

Quote :

"Why would there not be both left and right in both categories?"

Why would you assume they appeared in equal proportions in both categories?

[Edited on May 3, 2013 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

5/3/2013 2:07:43 PM

The answer to the question is yes.

5/3/2013 2:16:35 PM

Quote :

"Why would you assume they appeared in equal proportions in both categories?"

Did I say they would be equal?

5/3/2013 2:42:27 PM

Quote :

"Being okay with suicide attacks is not the same as supporting Islamic terrorism, any more than being okay with the use of bombs makes you supportive of US Imperialism."

Uh, the question pretty clearly states "suicide bombing and other violence against civilians".

Quote :

"You're such an Islamophobe, Shrike."

And I'm a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge racist too

[Edited on May 3, 2013 at 3:01 PM. Reason : :]

5/3/2013 3:01:07 PM

I'd say the majority of Americans are okay with violence against civilians as well, we call it collateral damage and shrug it off as a grim necessity of war. I think you'll find far more than 25% of Americans agreeing that Dresden and Hiroshima were justified.

[Edited on May 3, 2013 at 3:07 PM. Reason : .]

5/3/2013 3:06:35 PM

see: US drone program

5/3/2013 3:08:21 PM

5/3/2013 3:09:29 PM

Is the percentage of Americans who want to turn the middle east into a sheet of glass higher or lower than the percentage of Muslims who think violence against civilians is sometimes justified?

5/3/2013 3:12:19 PM

Collateral damage from a drone strike against a legitimate military target is a little different than blowing yourself up in a crowded cafe or bus. End result may be the same but intent matters. They are definitely supporting Islamic terrorism by saying suicide attacks targeting civilians are ok.

^^The problem with chemical weapons is that they are uncontrollable and literally only good for killing massive amounts of people. You can't conduct a precision strike with serin gas.

[Edited on May 3, 2013 at 3:18 PM. Reason : :]

5/3/2013 3:17:42 PM

Quote :

"Collateral damage from a drone strike against a legitimate military target is a little different than blowing yourself up in a crowded cafe or bus. End result may be the same but intent matters. They are definitely supporting Islamic terrorism by saying suicide attacks targeting civilians are ok."

I imagine that most muslims would prefer drone strikes on soldiers/politicians over suicide bombings of civilians. But the fact is, most muslims of the world live in shit holes, and they don't have access to drones, or tanks, or anything really, so they support suicide bombing. At least, I imagine that's their reasoning.

V Good point too. Just as we say "collateral damage" with drone strikes, they may say "collateral damage" with suicide bombings

[Edited on May 3, 2013 at 3:34 PM. Reason : ]

5/3/2013 3:24:55 PM

they target soldiers plenty

5/3/2013 3:25:58 PM

I never saw the word "targeting" in that question either, you just added that.

5/3/2013 3:45:44 PM

Quote :

"You can't conduct a precision strike with serin gas."

Unlike drones, bombs, and artillery shells, right?

5/3/2013 3:46:31 PM

Against/targeting, the report uses the two words interchangeably. You're splitting hairs here. It's pretty clear what they were asking. Although who knows, a lot of respondents probably didn't understand English so maybe something was lost in translation. I think it's pretty clear though that a significant minority of Muslims support what we call terrorism.

Quote :

"Unlike drones, bombs, and artillery shells, right?"

Right.

5/3/2013 3:59:12 PM

Probably a larger percentage of americans support invading foreign lands and dropping bombs on them, knowing there's massive collateral damage to innocent civilians. Is that really any different? Are you splitting hairs by claiming that suicide bombs are "terrorism", while dropping bombs from planes and drones is "warfare with collateral damage"?

But anyways, I'm not defending Islam. I find it just as silly, if not sillier than Christianity.

[Edited on May 3, 2013 at 4:18 PM. Reason : ]

5/3/2013 4:16:45 PM

Quote :

"I never saw the word "targeting" in that question either, you just added that"

in which question, the survey question? you're right, it said "targets".

5/3/2013 4:18:22 PM

ITT we compare a sovereign nation of people with an entire religion. Seems legit.

5/5/2013 10:32:43 AM

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157067/views-violence.aspx





http://www.gallup.com/poll/148763/muslim-americans-no-justification-violence.aspx





The highlight is that, with the exception of Mormons, less than 75% of Christians are against targeting civilians. Time to stop being PC and calling it just a "fringe" movement that supports American and particularly Christian terrorism.


[Edited on May 6, 2013 at 8:55 AM. Reason : .]

5/6/2013 8:48:43 AM

time to invade Utah!

5/6/2013 8:56:21 AM

Start in Colorado, then hit Utah, then skip over to the Northwest. Cakewalk.

5/6/2013 8:57:42 AM

Quote :

"The highlight is that, with the exception of Mormons, less than 75% of Christians are against targeting civilians. Time to stop being PC and calling it just a "fringe" movement that supports American and particularly Christian terrorism."

LOL, I completely agree. Calling any religion except maybe Jainism or something a "religion of peace" is a joke, especially the Abrahamic Three. Still think comparing a religion to a country is dumb though.

[Edited on May 6, 2013 at 9:36 AM. Reason : clarity]

5/6/2013 9:35:08 AM

I think it's interesting to note that Atheists are pretty much alone (except Muslims) in majority-opposing violence against civilians when a government does it. Perhaps members of other religious groups are prone to a broader authoritarianism?

[Edited on May 6, 2013 at 11:29 AM. Reason : .]

5/6/2013 11:29:07 AM

I don't think that graph is necessarily positive for muslims. We'd need to see how it has changed over time.

It's very likely the primary reason they oppose gov. targetting civilians, is that the vast majority of civilians our gov. kills are muslim. If this is the case, that indicates perhaps an anger or resentment amongst the community.

5/6/2013 11:47:20 AM

By the same logic, would that suggest that so many Christians are okay with killing civilians because most of the civilians killed lately are non-Christian?

Also, how does the Atheist opposition make sense under that logic?

[Edited on May 6, 2013 at 12:42 PM. Reason : .]

5/6/2013 12:41:20 PM

these broad conclusions only make sense if these religious groups were remotely uniform, and muslims are not. there is way too much cultural and ethnic diversity among muslims to make that kind of conclusion.

5/6/2013 12:47:53 PM

moron's post is obviously the explanation for those numbers.

I'm very surprised to see other explanations presented here.

5/6/2013 1:00:24 PM

I wouldn't say it's obvious at all, if anything it's borderline racist as it implies that Muslims don't have philosophies or principles and just form opinions based entirely on self (group identity, no less) interest.

It's kinda like folks who say blacks just vote Democratic because WELFARE DOLLAS

[Edited on May 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM. Reason : .]

5/6/2013 2:14:25 PM

No. You can assume that plenty of Muslim people are motivated by principles or whatever just like plenty of people in the other groups are motivated by their principles. But everybody knows that the civilians that get killed so often are Muslims, and other Muslims aren't happy about it, specifically because it's happening to people of their faith. So also:

Quote :

"Str8Foolish: By the same logic, would that suggest that so many Christians are okay with killing civilians because most of the civilians killed lately are non-Christian?"

Yes.



You've interacted with other human beings before, and surely you've noticed that most of them suck when it comes to this stuff. So please...it's ridiculous to suggest that Muslims are somehow immune to the foolishness.

5/6/2013 6:14:19 PM