Gyroscopic Investing

Pointedstick wrote: I knew a few Muslim families growing up. They were throughly Americanized, with a slight Muslim flavor to them, in much the same way that a second-generation Indian immigrant might make a lot of curry and wear traditional Indian garb for family events from time to time. Totally non-threatening. That was many years ago, though. I don't think I've ever knowingly met an actual Muslim since then. But if I think about it, the kind of Muslim who would really scare me is one who clearly has more loyalty to his religion than the other aspects of his life, given how violent Islam can be these days and how many seemingly seductive avenues for radicalization abound online. To me this is a different ballpark from a rigid, extremist Christian or Jew or Hindu or Buddhist or whatever because those religions don't have the violent global terrorist connection. I've known a lot of very devout Christians and Jews who clearly had more loyalty to their religion than their country or even their family, but none of those people ever really gave me the impression that they would murder people over it the way extremist Muslims do.

Desert wrote: But then I realized that atheists are the most successful murderers in history.  That was a slightly depressing time in my life!

dualstow wrote: PS, that's why I think the original texts have very little to do with it.  Of course the Christians had their Crusades (insert Reub-Obama comment here ;-)), and the Muslims were once a heck of a lot more tolerant of Christians and Jews, both called "The People of the Book." This was, of course, when they were naming stars and inventing chemistry and algebra.

Desert wrote: But then I realized that atheists are the most successful murderers in history.  That was a slightly depressing time in my life!

MachineGhost wrote: What exactly IS a prophet supposed to mean under Islam?  You don't really hear that as an important touchstone in Judaism or Christianity.

madbean2 wrote: I'm not nearly as qualified to speak for Islam as I am Christianity but I believe Mohammed saw himself as both Apostle and Prophet and also claimed to be the very last one that God would send.

MachineGhost wrote: What do you think will happen when the "Christ consciousness" reincarnates?

Simonjester wrote:

Benko wrote:

2.  Spiritually Sufism has wonderful writings (see e.g. Tales of the Dervish) and I've been told that Sufism is part of Islam, but from a quick web search apparently that is controversial.    Hafiz is a wonderful (and wonderfully irreverent) spiritual poet, again perhaps related to islam. 

glad somebody mentioned Sufism, i didn't know there was debate about it being Islam or not.  When i was younger i read a bunch of Sufi story's and descriptions of their mystical practices (Dervish dancing) and found it fascinating beautiful and on par with any spiritual practice, in most ways superior to all the faith based "believer" religions.

Simonjester wrote: great story, also a great allegory for religion, and description of how people mess up or loose the message and adopt something different in its place.. if those tribes got together on the internet and debated the subject, i suspect it would seem a bit like our figuring out religion thread...

moda0306 wrote: Benko,

"We" have been taking action, in the form of secretive, undeclared dirty wars all over the world causing far more innocent deaths than "terrorism" has to us. So I guess I wonder what is in a general thought process that we need to do other than what we are already doing.

My preferred action would be to simply stop Islamic immigration. I can't think of much more that doesn't end up being more of a cost than a benefit and a slap in the face to the rule of law and having a transparent government.

Desert wrote: Levitating a cow from a distance is nothing to sneeze at.

Desert wrote: Levitating a cow from a distance is nothing to sneeze at.

Mountaineer wrote: Re. Sufi-ism.  I studied Gurdjieff's teachings for quite a while - has a Sufi connection.  His system (as presented and/or modified by some others like Bennett and Ouspensky) has some very good points, especially for organizational development.  However, it also has many really bizarre points such as his reported "strengths" - like being able to levitate a cow from a distance.  I came to the conclusion he was mostly a quack and one strange dude, although he probably did really believe he had a mission.  One can learn from anyone if you keep an open mind - sometimes what to do, sometimes what not to do, sometimes just for entertainment.

http://ggurdjieff.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gurdjieff

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: Re. Sufi-ism.  I studied Gurdjieff's teachings for quite a while - has a Sufi connection.  His system (as presented and/or modified by some others like Bennett and Ouspensky) has some very good points, especially for organizational development.  However, it also has many really bizarre points such as his reported "strengths" - like being able to levitate a cow from a distance.  I came to the conclusion he was mostly a quack and one strange dude, although he probably did really believe he had a mission.  One can learn from anyone if you keep an open mind - sometimes what to do, sometimes what not to do, sometimes just for entertainment.

http://ggurdjieff.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gurdjieff

... Mountaineer

madbean2 wrote: Since U.S. culture is nearly identical to Canada's this would seem to disprove the "they hate us for our freedoms" theory.

madbean2 wrote: Unsurprisingly America had the greatest unfavorability rating among all countries, followed by Great Britain. France came out pretty good. Interestingly Canada had one of the lowest unfavorability ratings. Since U.S. culture is nearly identical to Canada's this would seem to disprove the "they hate us for our freedoms" theory.

dualstow wrote:

madbean2 wrote: Unsurprisingly America had the greatest unfavorability rating among all countries, followed by Great Britain. France came out pretty good. Interestingly Canada had one of the lowest unfavorability ratings. Since U.S. culture is nearly identical to Canada's this would seem to disprove the "they hate us for our freedoms" theory.

I know it's a worldwide poll, but the fact that so many choose to live in the U.S. must count for something.

dualstow wrote:

madbean2 wrote: Unsurprisingly America had the greatest unfavorability rating among all countries, followed by Great Britain. France came out pretty good. Interestingly Canada had one of the lowest unfavorability ratings. Since U.S. culture is nearly identical to Canada's this would seem to disprove the "they hate us for our freedoms" theory.

I know it's a worldwide poll, but the fact that so many choose to live in the U.S. must count for something.

Libertarian666 wrote: I don't "choose" to live in the US. I have to live in the US, as there is no viable alternative for me at present.

MachineGhost wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: I don't "choose" to live in the US. I have to live in the US, as there is no viable alternative for me at present.

Why does anyone "have" to live in the US?

moda0306 wrote: If we're setting the precedent that "having no viable alternatives" means we are not "free," then we have to liberalize our view of "freedom" away from the negative rights violations view held by anarcho-capitalists and libertarians.  Does a child have "viable alternatives" if they work a factory job and get no education as a child?  No.  So they are a "slave" to their wage because they must eat to survive.

But if we're going to take the "negative rights" view of freedom, we can't complain about having "no viable alternatives" as a violation of our rights, because nobody owes us "viable alternatives" in the absence of our ability to pay for it via economic exchange.

Or am I viewing this juxtaposition incorrectly??