Just in case some on here might not hear about this....
- Thread starter TheCainer
- Start date
Re: There it is again
"Alleged Christian pastor" - lol. Yup, I'm making it all up. I'm really a closet Muslim (ask my good friend Barack...).
I have no qualms comparing my faith to Islam. Islam, for example, is very much a text-based religion. The Quran is divine (not, incidentally, Mohammed). Christianity on the other hand is a person-based religion, it is built on the life and teachings of Jesus.
You have provided zero evidence to support the assertion that Christians are not as violent as Muslims. Rather, you want to pick and choose the exact dates of comparison and want everyone to accept what you say simply because you say it. It doesn't work like that - in discourse you need to produce evidence.
You have none.
"Alleged Christian pastor" - lol. Yup, I'm making it all up. I'm really a closet Muslim (ask my good friend Barack...).
I have no qualms comparing my faith to Islam. Islam, for example, is very much a text-based religion. The Quran is divine (not, incidentally, Mohammed). Christianity on the other hand is a person-based religion, it is built on the life and teachings of Jesus.
You have provided zero evidence to support the assertion that Christians are not as violent as Muslims. Rather, you want to pick and choose the exact dates of comparison and want everyone to accept what you say simply because you say it. It doesn't work like that - in discourse you need to produce evidence.
You have none.
Either you think Christianity is a better influence on a society or you think Islam is a better influence on a society. It should be obvious, based on history, that Christianity is better.
OK, I'll take that bait.
The one thing that seems obvious to me is that a Christian society will think that Islam is a bad influence, and an Islamic society will think that Christianity is a bad influence.
From a neutral point of view, I think it can be argued either way whether "Islam" or "Christianity" is a better influence on society. To me any strong religion is capable both of great good and of great evil. Based on the value system I live in, here in the U.S., I'd likely pick Christianity, because it matches up better with my values and customs. But i don't see that as an "obvious" answer.
I would like to hear your reasons why you picked Christianity.
OK, I'll take that bait.
The one thing that seems obvious to me is that a Christian society will think that Islam is a bad influence, and an Islamic society will think that Christianity is a bad influence.
From a neutral point of view, I think it can be argued either way whether "Islam" or "Christianity" is a better influence on society. To me any strong religion is capable both of great good and of great evil. Based on the value system I live in, here in the U.S., I'd likely pick Christianity, because it matches up better with my values and customs. But i don't see that as an "obvious" answer.
I would like to hear your reasons why you picked Christianity.
The one thing that seems obvious to me is that a Christian society will think that Islam is a bad influence, and an Islamic society will think that Christianity is a bad influence.
Other than the fact that Muslims, by the millions, want to move to (at least nominally) Christian societies. Weird, huh?
Meanwhile, who the hell wants to move to Islamic societies? Well, besides those in the West who are devout Muslims and want to wage violent jihad in places like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
I would like to hear your reasons why you picked Christianity.
The entirety of history. Also, that Christian-guided societies are more likely to be free and prosperous. As Winston Churchill said Islam is a retrograde force.
Other than the fact that Muslims, by the millions, want to move to (at least nominally) Christian societies. Weird, huh?
Meanwhile, who the hell wants to move to Islamic societies? Well, besides those in the West who are devout Muslims and want to wage violent jihad in places like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
I would like to hear your reasons why you picked Christianity.
The entirety of history. Also, that Christian-guided societies are more likely to be free and prosperous. As Winston Churchill said Islam is a retrograde force.
So we get "free" and we get "prosperous." Let's discuss.
What does it mean to be "free?"
Free to vote?
Free to move about?
Free to worship as you please?
Free to criticize the government?
Free to seek an education?
What does it mean to be "prosperous?
Does it mean your country is rich?
Does it mean you personally have the opportunity to be rich?
Does it mean low infant mortality, high literacy, long life spans, a chicken in every pot? Some other types of statistics that an advanced society values or should value?
What does it mean to be "free?"
Free to vote?
Free to move about?
Free to worship as you please?
Free to criticize the government?
Free to seek an education?
What does it mean to be "prosperous?
Does it mean your country is rich?
Does it mean you personally have the opportunity to be rich?
Does it mean low infant mortality, high literacy, long life spans, a chicken in every pot? Some other types of statistics that an advanced society values or should value?
Wow
I hope everyone who visits this board has read all the comments in this thread. Between you, qazplm, gr8, kescwi, and pastorjoeboggs the responses show a clear pattern of denial and avoidance. There have been semantic complaints about the words "irrelevant" and "import". There has been, naturally, charges of "racism" even though Muslim is not a race. There have been the inevitable attempts to tear down Christianity. And now you want to discuss what I really meant by the words "free" and "prosperous"? You guys will do anything--anything!!!--to avoid making a judgement about Islam/Muslims that might end up making something that represents the West look better. Anything to avoid having to confront the reality that Equality is not the highest truth. Anything to avoid coming to the conclusion that maybe, just maybe, Islam is a bad influence on people and that maybe, just maybe, shouldn't import Muslims.
The basic answer to your questions is "Yes". But why are you even asking them? Are you really incapable of determining which societies are freer and more prosperous? No, I don't think you are.
I hope everyone who visits this board has read all the comments in this thread. Between you, qazplm, gr8, kescwi, and pastorjoeboggs the responses show a clear pattern of denial and avoidance. There have been semantic complaints about the words "irrelevant" and "import". There has been, naturally, charges of "racism" even though Muslim is not a race. There have been the inevitable attempts to tear down Christianity. And now you want to discuss what I really meant by the words "free" and "prosperous"? You guys will do anything--anything!!!--to avoid making a judgement about Islam/Muslims that might end up making something that represents the West look better. Anything to avoid having to confront the reality that Equality is not the highest truth. Anything to avoid coming to the conclusion that maybe, just maybe, Islam is a bad influence on people and that maybe, just maybe, shouldn't import Muslims.
The basic answer to your questions is "Yes". But why are you even asking them? Are you really incapable of determining which societies are freer and more prosperous? No, I don't think you are.
Re: Wow
You know the point, so your feigned indignation is noted for what it is.
The point is that there are Christian societies that are "free" and "prosperous," and there are those that are not.
There are Muslim societies that are "free" and "prosperous," and there are those that are not.
I think if you look at the world today, there are more of the former than the latter. 1200 AD? 1400 AD? Even 1600 AD? Different story.
What will the world look like in 2200? 2400? Will be interesting. Does Islam just need to evolve for another 500 years like Christianity did in order to rid itself of some extreme bad habits?
Some of this does in fact depend on how you define "free." For example I would agree that Western (not Christian per se) societies are more flexible on the freedom to worship concept than most Islamic ones. Democracy? There are some fine examples of working Islamic democracies, but many other examples where culturally democracy won't stick no matter the religion.
You know the point, so your feigned indignation is noted for what it is.
The point is that there are Christian societies that are "free" and "prosperous," and there are those that are not.
There are Muslim societies that are "free" and "prosperous," and there are those that are not.
I think if you look at the world today, there are more of the former than the latter. 1200 AD? 1400 AD? Even 1600 AD? Different story.
What will the world look like in 2200? 2400? Will be interesting. Does Islam just need to evolve for another 500 years like Christianity did in order to rid itself of some extreme bad habits?
Some of this does in fact depend on how you define "free." For example I would agree that Western (not Christian per se) societies are more flexible on the freedom to worship concept than most Islamic ones. Democracy? There are some fine examples of working Islamic democracies, but many other examples where culturally democracy won't stick no matter the religion.
Let's get one thing crystal clear - America is NOT a Christian society. You can't even begin to make that argument. Nothing about our government or society as a whole lines up with the person or teachings of Jesus.
Muslims may want to move to America, but that's because America is America, not because it is somehow Christian.
Read your New Testament - if we were living in a society that actually modeled itself after Jesus, do you really think people would be flocking to be a part of it?
Muslims may want to move to America, but that's because America is America, not because it is somehow Christian.
Read your New Testament - if we were living in a society that actually modeled itself after Jesus, do you really think people would be flocking to be a part of it?
Yeah, and he doesn't seem to understand the statement about "can't carry on a rational discussion with irrational people." Someone who doesn't care that he's perceived as a racist isn't worth my time discussing any longer. I have this mental image of GMM and hunk that they have never left Lebanon, IN, and in fact spend most of their time hunkered in their basements listening to and reading things that only agree with their perceptions of the world, rather than actually challenging what they think. Two of the more intellectually irresponsible people on here who do more harm to conservatism than good.
Yeah, as if Western societies weren't influenced by Christianity in any way. What a foolish post on your part. There's a reason the term "Christendom" exists. Just because Western societies have gotten more secular in the past few decades does not mean that the centuries of Christian influence suddenly disappeared.
EDIT: BTW, do you also react the same way when someone uses the terms "the Muslim world" or "a Muslim country"?
This post was edited on 9/22 2:09 PM by GMM
EDIT: BTW, do you also react the same way when someone uses the terms "the Muslim world" or "a Muslim country"?
This post was edited on 9/22 2:09 PM by GMM
You weren't talking about influence. You were explicitly talking about people want to move from Muslim societies to a Christian society. The clear implication is that you view American society as somehow Christian. It is not, and therefore your comparison is invalid.
Incidentally, while Christian moral principles certainly influenced the early formation of America, most of the founding generation were not at all who evangelical Christians and conservatives want to pretend they were. Many were deists, and those who were not were not at all in line with modern evangelicalism.
Incidentally, while Christian moral principles certainly influenced the early formation of America, most of the founding generation were not at all who evangelical Christians and conservatives want to pretend they were. Many were deists, and those who were not were not at all in line with modern evangelicalism.
Re: lame cop out
Qaz, you are the last person on here that can use the cop out argument. Since a debate with you often begins with you claiming a poster stated something they never said or posted, then you argue against that made up point, all the while ignoring the original point said poster made.
Anyway, there are about 1.7 billion Muslims in the world,make up a majority of people in about 50 countries. A lot of people no doubt. Here are some pretty far left and neutral organizations that have some pretty damning numbers in concern with Muslims that either sympathize or support attacks on infidels and the west. When you add to this that Turkey is apparently allowing ISIS to move black market oil through Turkey to help fund its operations-well, if true that is a pretty large and strategically important country that oks these actions. Big issue.
This post was edited on 9/22 4:10 PM by Purdue97
Looking like a lot have bad intentions
Qaz, you are the last person on here that can use the cop out argument. Since a debate with you often begins with you claiming a poster stated something they never said or posted, then you argue against that made up point, all the while ignoring the original point said poster made.
Anyway, there are about 1.7 billion Muslims in the world,make up a majority of people in about 50 countries. A lot of people no doubt. Here are some pretty far left and neutral organizations that have some pretty damning numbers in concern with Muslims that either sympathize or support attacks on infidels and the west. When you add to this that Turkey is apparently allowing ISIS to move black market oil through Turkey to help fund its operations-well, if true that is a pretty large and strategically important country that oks these actions. Big issue.
This post was edited on 9/22 4:10 PM by Purdue97
Looking like a lot have bad intentions
Re: lame cop out
It is troubling that there are any Muslims that support attacks or support ISIS, just as it is troubling that there are any Christians that support people like Fred Phelps. If Turkey is guilty of what you are alleging, that presents a significant problem that needs to be addressed. However, it should be noted that Turkey is generally known as being a place where Christians and Muslims coexist in relative peace.
I wonder - and this is a legitimate question of mine - how much of that support is tied to a weariness with Western intervention in the Middle East/Muslim world. Perhaps another way of phrasing it would be to ask, "If the US weren't so intent on policing the region and, in doing so, importing Western culture (intentionally or not), would those more neutral Muslims slide towards indifference and a 'let sleeping dogs lie' attitude?"
Thanks for bringing actual evidence to the conversation.
It is troubling that there are any Muslims that support attacks or support ISIS, just as it is troubling that there are any Christians that support people like Fred Phelps. If Turkey is guilty of what you are alleging, that presents a significant problem that needs to be addressed. However, it should be noted that Turkey is generally known as being a place where Christians and Muslims coexist in relative peace.
I wonder - and this is a legitimate question of mine - how much of that support is tied to a weariness with Western intervention in the Middle East/Muslim world. Perhaps another way of phrasing it would be to ask, "If the US weren't so intent on policing the region and, in doing so, importing Western culture (intentionally or not), would those more neutral Muslims slide towards indifference and a 'let sleeping dogs lie' attitude?"
Better man than me. I can't handle either of those two, and MSNBC makes my skin crawl. John Stewart is about as left-leaning as I can really tolerate on a near-daily basis. Bulk of my news and editorial comes from the WSJ every day: definitely right-leaning op/ed and focused on financial markets, but I find the US/World news parts are mostly balanced.
I think most all American TV news is garbage anymore. You have a couple networks that have decided to pander to their
teams (Fox and MSNBC) and another that just wants to become the next TMZ (CNN).
Btw, Jon Stewart is OK, but John Oliver's show is brilliant. Oh, and there are fewer guest to temp you to change the channel . .and no commercials.
Re: Wow
What's more, can you name a Muslim nation which approaches the U.S. in it's prosperity and freedom?
Additionally, can you name a reason which would point you to thinking the Muslims would be more "free and prosperous" than Judeo-Christian nations? In other words, is there any reason why the U.S. would be a greater nation under Sharia law than Judeo-Christian laws? Would it be the extermination of gays? Their (mis?)treatment of women?
db, it's an effort in futility, but can you name a more "free and prosperous" Christian society than the U.S.?
What's more, can you name a Muslim nation which approaches the U.S. in it's prosperity and freedom?
Additionally, can you name a reason which would point you to thinking the Muslims would be more "free and prosperous" than Judeo-Christian nations? In other words, is there any reason why the U.S. would be a greater nation under Sharia law than Judeo-Christian laws? Would it be the extermination of gays? Their (mis?)treatment of women?
Re: So..........
Those verses I believe are from the book of Samuel (Old Testament). That applies to the Jewish faith & family as Christ had not come at that time. The nation of Israel had been delivered from bondage in Egypt and constantly was fighting for preservation and that God would deliver them. I also would assume not all conflicts were defensive but, I am not a Biblical scholar. Study Abraham and his sons Issac and Ishmael in Genesis and a better working of the future evolves between Islam and Christianity. It is all lineage linked. However, my point is Jesus enters in the New Testament and (whether you believe in him is not my debate) preached turning the other cheek and not to live a fighting or warrior like life. He was NOT opposed to anger as in the temple when he turned the table over the people practicing usury. The New Testament doesn't show many if any instances where conflict was encouraged to settle things. I see a little confusion when people imply the Bible (again Old Testament) encourages physical fighting to settle conflict.
I infrequently read the discussion board but, I do like to read the opinions and views of all.
This post was edited on 9/23 10:31 PM by threeeputtt
This post was edited on 9/23 10:34 PM by threeeputtt
In no way is my observation on those verses meant to argue or demean. Perhaps Pastor Joe can add or correct if he sees something different.
Those verses I believe are from the book of Samuel (Old Testament). That applies to the Jewish faith & family as Christ had not come at that time. The nation of Israel had been delivered from bondage in Egypt and constantly was fighting for preservation and that God would deliver them. I also would assume not all conflicts were defensive but, I am not a Biblical scholar. Study Abraham and his sons Issac and Ishmael in Genesis and a better working of the future evolves between Islam and Christianity. It is all lineage linked. However, my point is Jesus enters in the New Testament and (whether you believe in him is not my debate) preached turning the other cheek and not to live a fighting or warrior like life. He was NOT opposed to anger as in the temple when he turned the table over the people practicing usury. The New Testament doesn't show many if any instances where conflict was encouraged to settle things. I see a little confusion when people imply the Bible (again Old Testament) encourages physical fighting to settle conflict.
I infrequently read the discussion board but, I do like to read the opinions and views of all.
This post was edited on 9/23 10:31 PM by threeeputtt
This post was edited on 9/23 10:34 PM by threeeputtt
Re: So..........
In the New Testament, it is pretty clear from the story and tradition that Jesus was ultimately a pacifist and that violence has no place in the Kingdom of God Jesus preaches. What Bible scholars and pastor have had to wrestle with for 2000 years is the reality that we are not yet fully in that kingdom and the question of just war. It's somewhat complicated, but I would agree that ultimately Jesus teaches nonviolence (in spite of the unavoidable presence of the violence of the Old Testament).
On a side note, you brought up the story of Ishmael. There is an part of that story that has always intrigued me. Even though Ishmael is not the son chosen by God to fulfill the promise, Abraham is concerned for Ishmael's future and asks God about it - "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing" (Genesis 17:18). In response, God says, "And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him" (Genesis 17:20). Here's the question - If Islam traces its lineage back to Ishmael, does that mean that God has promised to bless Muslims?
I think you're on the right track with this. The one caveat I would say is that, while the Old Testament does primarily speak to Jewish faith, it is still claimed by Christians as part of our Scripture. That means that we still believe that, somewhere in stories about war and violence, God's word can be found. We read the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament, to be sure, but we do value the Old Testament.
In the New Testament, it is pretty clear from the story and tradition that Jesus was ultimately a pacifist and that violence has no place in the Kingdom of God Jesus preaches. What Bible scholars and pastor have had to wrestle with for 2000 years is the reality that we are not yet fully in that kingdom and the question of just war. It's somewhat complicated, but I would agree that ultimately Jesus teaches nonviolence (in spite of the unavoidable presence of the violence of the Old Testament).
On a side note, you brought up the story of Ishmael. There is an part of that story that has always intrigued me. Even though Ishmael is not the son chosen by God to fulfill the promise, Abraham is concerned for Ishmael's future and asks God about it - "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing" (Genesis 17:18). In response, God says, "And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him" (Genesis 17:20). Here's the question - If Islam traces its lineage back to Ishmael, does that mean that God has promised to bless Muslims?
Re: So..........
"Here's the question - If Islam traces its lineage back to Ishmael, does that mean that God has promised to bless Muslims?"
As Ishmael was not the favored son I am not certain God blesses the Muslim faith once Mohammed shows up as they don't accept Jesus other than as a prophet. I realize some may find that objectionable but, that is how I understand it-strictly an opinion. However, it is not for me to judge that so I don't ponder on it.
I agree with you in stating the Christian faith embraces the Old Testament also. Prophecy validates 100's of years before Christ was born which is rather chilling. How did they know about these things? Or, simple things like stating the earth was round long before the world knew it (I think that is in Isaiah somewhere talking about round and encircled).
This post was edited on 9/24 11:23 AM by threeeputtt
"Here's the question - If Islam traces its lineage back to Ishmael, does that mean that God has promised to bless Muslims?"
As Ishmael was not the favored son I am not certain God blesses the Muslim faith once Mohammed shows up as they don't accept Jesus other than as a prophet. I realize some may find that objectionable but, that is how I understand it-strictly an opinion. However, it is not for me to judge that so I don't ponder on it.
I agree with you in stating the Christian faith embraces the Old Testament also. Prophecy validates 100's of years before Christ was born which is rather chilling. How did they know about these things? Or, simple things like stating the earth was round long before the world knew it (I think that is in Isaiah somewhere talking about round and encircled).
This post was edited on 9/24 11:23 AM by threeeputtt
Re: Wow
what do you mean by free? Prosperous? Sweden and Norway and Germany have a higher standard of living and better economies and they are nominally Christian (although really agnostic is the biggest grouping at this point).
Is an unfettered right to an abortion freedom? What about full freedom for gay marriage? Or is it just speech that counts? What about laws against searches and seizures?
America, #1 is a nice aspiration, and I wouldn't live anywhere else, but I certainly have eyes and can see we aren't actually number 1 in everything, in fact, there's plenty we aren't even in the top ten (education, health care are two big examples).
what do you mean by free? Prosperous? Sweden and Norway and Germany have a higher standard of living and better economies and they are nominally Christian (although really agnostic is the biggest grouping at this point).
Is an unfettered right to an abortion freedom? What about full freedom for gay marriage? Or is it just speech that counts? What about laws against searches and seizures?
America, #1 is a nice aspiration, and I wouldn't live anywhere else, but I certainly have eyes and can see we aren't actually number 1 in everything, in fact, there's plenty we aren't even in the top ten (education, health care are two big examples).
Re: Wow
America has long been the most free and prosperous nation in the world, leading the way in medical advances, technological innovation, etc.
Be careful, you're going to sound like a tea party conservative seeking to actually govern by the constitution and limit government. On second thought...
#1 in everything? Not sure how the goal post was moved to that point.
America has long been the most free and prosperous nation in the world, leading the way in medical advances, technological innovation, etc.
Be careful, you're going to sound like a tea party conservative seeking to actually govern by the constitution and limit government. On second thought...
Re: Wow
so, you say I moved the goal post, then you type how we have "long been the most free and prosperous nation in the world leading the way in...then you list two things plus "etc" insinuating a host of other things.
How does leading the way in medical advances make us either the most free or prosperous? How does leading in tech innovation make us either?
Simple question, how are we the most prosperous and how are you measuring prosperity? Per capita income? We're 9th. (or 6th depending on how you calculate it). What about median household income? Nope, not number 1 there either.
Is it simply overall GDP? I don't think so, but yeah we are number 1 there. I think per capita makes more sense quite frankly (or median). We aren't remotely number 1 in income equality.
You talked about medical advances. So are we number one in longevity? Nope, 34th. How about quality of life? Nope, 5th (or 28th depending on how it is calculated).
What about education? Surely if we lead in tech innovation we must lead in education? Nope, we all know that isn't true, at least at any level below university.
I have no idea how you pulled that last sentence out of what I typed, I literally don't get your point there, nothing I typed has anything to do with conservative or liberal or even types of government, but simply trying to suss out exactly how you are defining your terms like "prosperous" or "most free" which you still haven't done.
How are you measuring "most free?" Based on what? Speech? I might buy that one, hard pressed to find a place in the world more permissive. Religion? Not so sure there, I think there are other places as open in that respect as us. What about homosexual rights? Abortion rights?
To make a long story short, we certainly are much closer to the top than the bottom in those areas, but there are other nations just as close, if not closer in both respects...not all of them Christian, not all of them even Western.
so, you say I moved the goal post, then you type how we have "long been the most free and prosperous nation in the world leading the way in...then you list two things plus "etc" insinuating a host of other things.
How does leading the way in medical advances make us either the most free or prosperous? How does leading in tech innovation make us either?
Simple question, how are we the most prosperous and how are you measuring prosperity? Per capita income? We're 9th. (or 6th depending on how you calculate it). What about median household income? Nope, not number 1 there either.
Is it simply overall GDP? I don't think so, but yeah we are number 1 there. I think per capita makes more sense quite frankly (or median). We aren't remotely number 1 in income equality.
You talked about medical advances. So are we number one in longevity? Nope, 34th. How about quality of life? Nope, 5th (or 28th depending on how it is calculated).
What about education? Surely if we lead in tech innovation we must lead in education? Nope, we all know that isn't true, at least at any level below university.
I have no idea how you pulled that last sentence out of what I typed, I literally don't get your point there, nothing I typed has anything to do with conservative or liberal or even types of government, but simply trying to suss out exactly how you are defining your terms like "prosperous" or "most free" which you still haven't done.
How are you measuring "most free?" Based on what? Speech? I might buy that one, hard pressed to find a place in the world more permissive. Religion? Not so sure there, I think there are other places as open in that respect as us. What about homosexual rights? Abortion rights?
To make a long story short, we certainly are much closer to the top than the bottom in those areas, but there are other nations just as close, if not closer in both respects...not all of them Christian, not all of them even Western.
Re: Wow
When it comes to medicine I'll gladly take my surgeries in the USA and use USA docs. Don't know what rankings someone uses or methodology but figures lie and liars figure in many stats.. Is medical care too expensive, cumbersome and not fair? Yup. But, it is completely fair elsewhere either?
This post was edited on 9/24 11:05 PM by threeeputtt
When it comes to medicine I'll gladly take my surgeries in the USA and use USA docs. Don't know what rankings someone uses or methodology but figures lie and liars figure in many stats.. Is medical care too expensive, cumbersome and not fair? Yup. But, it is completely fair elsewhere either?
This post was edited on 9/24 11:05 PM by threeeputtt
Re: Wow
Healthcare in the US is the best if you can afford it or afford to be insured for everything. I think most would say the issue is the system isn't "fair."
Healthcare in the US is the best if you can afford it or afford to be insured for everything. I think most would say the issue is the system isn't "fair."
Re: Wow
Infant mortality rates? Quality of life? Longevity? I mean if we are the best shouldn't we be at the or at least the top in some of these?
Yes if you have enough money its great...you think that's not also true in England or Germany or France or Sweden?
Infant mortality rates? Quality of life? Longevity? I mean if we are the best shouldn't we be at the or at least the top in some of these?
Yes if you have enough money its great...you think that's not also true in England or Germany or France or Sweden?
Re: Wow
Infant mortality can have a link in drug usage and abuse of other things like alcohol. I haven't researched it but, I would surmise ou0r country is one of the most obese/overweight in the world. these alone skew stats.
Infant mortality can have a link in drug usage and abuse of other things like alcohol. I haven't researched it but, I would surmise ou0r country is one of the most obese/overweight in the world. these alone skew stats.
Re: Wow
so other countries don't use drugs? In Europe?? They don't drink alcohol? France is in the top 10. The Netherlands is 20th. We're 47th.
No, infant mortality is pretty clearly correlated to access to prenatal care, diet, and the overall health of the mother and THOSE things are pretty clearly correlated to income levels and access to health care.
Obesity skewing the stats for infant mortality? Really? You don't believe that access to health care, or our health care system has anything to do with it (things that clearly DO affect it) but you do believe that obesity does?
Based on what? In what way does being overweight cause higher infant mortality rates to such a level as to "skew the stats alone?"
We are, arguably, number 1 in obesity at least among first world nations. We are not last in infant mortality. We are 47th. Which is pretty far from being "the best." It ain't because a bunch of fatties are skewing the stats, it's because compared to other first world countries, our poor have much less access to healthcare, particularly pre-natal care, and because their diets are less, and possibly other factors such as smoking.
so other countries don't use drugs? In Europe?? They don't drink alcohol? France is in the top 10. The Netherlands is 20th. We're 47th.
No, infant mortality is pretty clearly correlated to access to prenatal care, diet, and the overall health of the mother and THOSE things are pretty clearly correlated to income levels and access to health care.
Obesity skewing the stats for infant mortality? Really? You don't believe that access to health care, or our health care system has anything to do with it (things that clearly DO affect it) but you do believe that obesity does?
Based on what? In what way does being overweight cause higher infant mortality rates to such a level as to "skew the stats alone?"
We are, arguably, number 1 in obesity at least among first world nations. We are not last in infant mortality. We are 47th. Which is pretty far from being "the best." It ain't because a bunch of fatties are skewing the stats, it's because compared to other first world countries, our poor have much less access to healthcare, particularly pre-natal care, and because their diets are less, and possibly other factors such as smoking.
Re: Wow
LOL @ myself. Yup, I lumped infant mortality with the general issue of health care. No question there is room for improvement but, I refuse to put our system as low as you indicate. While I haven't traveled much beyond Europe and Canada and Mexico, my observation while there and the people I know and interact with.......well, I will keep my USA product.
LOL @ myself. Yup, I lumped infant mortality with the general issue of health care. No question there is room for improvement but, I refuse to put our system as low as you indicate. While I haven't traveled much beyond Europe and Canada and Mexico, my observation while there and the people I know and interact with.......well, I will keep my USA product.
spot on. Particularly the part in bold. Sometimes I wonder if CNN is just trying to turn to a tabloid in broad daylight. I lean left unabashedly and even I struggle to watch MSNBC, sounds like echo chamber. I listen to Fox news occasionally for comic relief. I do read the NYTimes religiously.
Re: Wow
our apalling medical stats doesn't speak to the quality of our system for those who can afford it but rather about the inequality of access to the healthcare system, education and finance. Basically we have poorer outcomes because we have more poorer people that are left on the sidelines.
Re: lame cop out
I would say the more neutral Muslims as you put it, are quite indifferent to the USA. They go about their daily lives, celebrate their religous belief, and could not care much about the USA. That was my experience with most of them. They were polite, even showed great hospitality, but you could tell they would rather be left alone.
However, it is this indifference that also enables the radicals to have the numbers that they reportedly have in the surveys, lets them pursue their beliefs of martyrdom, attacking the west, etc. They are indifferent to the USA, but indifferent to their brethren that would like/want to attack the west as well.
I will say I was surprised at the numbers in those polls. I figured the number to be closer to 5-10% across the board(that support attacking the west, etc). Keep in mind even at my 10% number we would still be talking 170 million people with beliefs of attacking the west/martyrdom, etc. According tot those surveys, the number is in the 500-600 million area. Like it or not GMM has a legit point when he says this is a pretty big problem.
I would say the more neutral Muslims as you put it, are quite indifferent to the USA. They go about their daily lives, celebrate their religous belief, and could not care much about the USA. That was my experience with most of them. They were polite, even showed great hospitality, but you could tell they would rather be left alone.
However, it is this indifference that also enables the radicals to have the numbers that they reportedly have in the surveys, lets them pursue their beliefs of martyrdom, attacking the west, etc. They are indifferent to the USA, but indifferent to their brethren that would like/want to attack the west as well.
I will say I was surprised at the numbers in those polls. I figured the number to be closer to 5-10% across the board(that support attacking the west, etc). Keep in mind even at my 10% number we would still be talking 170 million people with beliefs of attacking the west/martyrdom, etc. According tot those surveys, the number is in the 500-600 million area. Like it or not GMM has a legit point when he says this is a pretty big problem.
So, obesity doesn't affect our healthcare? Not in rates, not is extra heart problems, morbidity and mortality? Nothing?
Latest posts
-
-
-
A Revolution of Common Sense - A Seminal Shift in Values- Latest: New Pal Boiler
-