Which group ruins the world more

Yeah, that place out 'there'. Anything not really Cambodia related should go here.

Who destroys the world more - the unemployed and homeless ugly poor, or the beautiful rich ?

The poor
2
25%
The rich
6
75%
 
Total votes: 8
User avatar
juansweetpotato
Expatriate
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:45 pm
Reputation: 75

Re: Which group ruins the world more

Post by juansweetpotato »

peppermintpaddy wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 11:56 pm
juansweetpotato wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 9:10 am
peppermintpaddy wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 3:57 am without a doubt....muslims ,be they rich or poor.
Please take care out there as you seem to be susceptible to slight of hand.
and you seem to be susceptible to verbal diarrohea....by the way ,its sleight of hand,if you're gonna be a smartarse ,learn to spell.
I'm really quite undecided on which group does more harm - that's why I asked the question. But I'm 99.999% sure it's not the muslims. Far more of them have been killed by 'Christians' than the other way round by some horrific figure. There are radicals in both parties.

Back to the OP, maybe we can better approach the question by asking how much each group swindle each year?

Let's include the people below the poverty line, that's about one billion.
The people right on the edge, just enough to keep above water most of the time, and estimate their numbers as being another billion.
You could also include all the people claiming unemployment and housing benefit too, as they would likely add to the figure if their benifits were withdrawn. Not sure how many of them there are.

Google says the EU breakdown is this

File:Structure of social protection expenditure, EU-28, 2012 (¹) (% of total expenditure) YB16.png

Image
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics ... )_YB16.png

Anyone else in the ugly group worth adding in?

The unemployment rate is apparently 9.7% across the EU 2017.
Economy of the European Union
Trade organisations WTO, G-20, G7
Statistics
GDP $16.518 trillion (nominal, 2016) $19.973 trillion (PPP, 2016)
GDP growth 1.9% (2016) 2.2% (2015)
GDP per capita $32,384 (Nominal) (2016) $39,212 (PPP) (2016)
"Can you spare some cutter for an old man?"
User avatar
vladimir
The Pun-isher
Posts: 6077
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 6:51 pm
Reputation: 185
Location: The Kremlin
Russia

Re: Which group ruins the world more

Post by vladimir »

peppermintpaddy wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 11:56 pmand you seem to be susceptible to verbal diarrohea....by the way ,its sleight of hand,if you're gonna be a smartarse ,learn to spell.
You misspelled diarrhoea and missed a hyphen on smart-arse. You typed 'its' (possessive, incorrect) instead of 'it's'. You also incorrectly spaced the comma after btw, and smartarse (sic)...

One should also not generally start a sentence with a conjunction (and)..but if one does, one should observe the only unbreakable rule of syntax/grammar in the English language: every sentence begins with a capital letter.

Just saying. :stir:
Jesus loves you...Mexico is great, right? ;)
User avatar
phuketrichard
Expatriate
Posts: 16790
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 5:17 pm
Reputation: 5733
Location: Atlantis
Aruba

Re: Which group ruins the world more

Post by phuketrichard »

isn't a lot of this spelling shit a difference between us and uk?


And or spell check settings ? ( US/UK) ? does it fucking matter as long as everyone gets it??
In a nation run by swine, all pigs are upward-mobile and the rest of us are fucked until we can put our acts together: not necessarily to win, but mainly to keep from losing completely. HST
User avatar
cptrelentless
Expatriate
Posts: 3033
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 11:49 am
Reputation: 565
Location: Sihanoukville
Korea North

Re: Which group ruins the world more

Post by cptrelentless »

eriksank wrote:
peppermintpaddy wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 3:57 amwithout a doubt....muslims ,be they rich or poor.
I have just read an interesting article on Trump's policy changes in Somalia:

By declaring parts of Somalia an “area of active hostilities,” Mr. Trump gave the Department of Defense authority to approve strikes without going through an Obama-era vetting process, which potentially lowers the bar for tolerance of civilian casualties.

My own bar for tolerance of civilian casualties is also lowered, especially when they occur, not in Somalia, but in other places such as Manchester, UK. By the way, the Manchester guy, Salman Abedi, was from Lybia. I somehow suspect that his beef must have been related to a similar, but earlier "policy change". I guess that it must have been his own and rather explosive way of getting even. Dunno what happened there. By the way, the Queen condemned the Manchester bomb attack as 'wicked', but it is not her call any longer. With Salman Abedi being obliterated and dead now, the question will have to be assessed on the Day of the Last Judgment, by the Almighty himself.

The Code of Hammurabi

When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.

196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. [ An eye for an eye ]
197. If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken.
200. If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out. [ A tooth for a tooth ]



There was apparently a name change at some point, from "Bel" to "Allah":

And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the wrongdoers. Quran, Sūrat l-māidah, 5:45.

There is certainly a real price tag attached to lowering the bar for tolerance of civilian casualties. With the Trump policy changes, I eagerly await with amazement the severed arms and legs to be flying around again. Still, as long as it is not your own arms and legs, it is not really an issue, is it? ;-)
Think you'll find that most religions originating from the Middle East are based on Sumerian ideas, what with them being first to write it down. Ironically enough Islam is cribbed directly from Judaism, cribbed itself from the Sumerian legends like The Epic of Gilgamesh. Both created as a nationalistic focus rather than a moral guide, hence the rules being stolen verbatim. Can the non-religious have morals? Of course. As social apes we suppress the wants of the individual for the benefit society. It's hard wired. All societies on earth consider murder and theft to be bad things, for example.
eriksank
Expatriate
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:25 am
Reputation: 24

Re: Which group ruins the world more

Post by eriksank »

cptrelentless wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 3:14 pmCan the non-religious have morals? Of course.
Yes, but the non-religious crowd cannot agree on them. That is why non-religious morals are pointless. They do not coordinate essential patterns of behaviour. Since scriptural rules are also the rule set that coordinates sexual behaviour between man and woman, the non-religious crowd cannot even agree on how to organize reproduction. Hence, they are a dead end, as they tend to die out.
cptrelentless wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 3:14 pmAs social apes we suppress the wants of the individual for the benefit society.
Seeking society's benefit would be goal-based morals. Hypothetical imperatives. Those are not allowed in morality. All morality must be categorical and never seek to attain any particular goal. Morality is really something else. Particular behaviours are simply forbidden onto us, as this has been revealed to us by the scriptures, and that is all there is to it.
cptrelentless wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 3:14 pmAll societies on earth consider murder and theft to be bad things, for example.
Killing enemies of the faith or confiscating their assets do not fall under the definitions for "murder" or "theft". The scriptures describe that behaviour as being heroic. ;-)
User avatar
StroppyChops
The Missionary Man
Posts: 10598
Joined: Tue May 06, 2014 11:24 am
Reputation: 1032
Australia

Re: Which group ruins the world more

Post by StroppyChops »

eriksank wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 3:55 pm
cptrelentless wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 3:14 pmCan the non-religious have morals? Of course.
Yes, but the non-religious crowd cannot agree on them. That is why non-religious morals are pointless. They do not coordinate essential patterns of behaviour. Since scriptural rules are also the rule set that coordinates sexual behaviour between man and woman, the non-religious crowd cannot even agree on how to organize reproduction. Hence, they are a dead end, as they tend to die out.
cptrelentless wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 3:14 pmAs social apes we suppress the wants of the individual for the benefit society.
Seeking society's benefit would be goal-based morals. Hypothetical imperatives. Those are not allowed in morality. All morality must be categorical and never seek to attain any particular goal. Morality is really something else. Particular behaviours are simply forbidden onto us, as this has been revealed to us by the scriptures, and that is all there is to it.
cptrelentless wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 3:14 pmAll societies on earth consider murder and theft to be bad things, for example.
Killing enemies of the faith or confiscating their assets do not fall under the definitions for "murder" or "theft". The scriptures describe that behaviour as being heroic. ;-)
I'll say this for you, you put in far more effort than the usual troll.
Bodge: This ain't Kansas, and the neighbours ate Toto!
User avatar
juansweetpotato
Expatriate
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:45 pm
Reputation: 75

Re: Which group ruins the world more

Post by juansweetpotato »

cptrelentless wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 3:14 pm
eriksank wrote:
peppermintpaddy wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 3:57 amwithout a doubt....muslims ,be they rich or poor.
I have just read an interesting article on Trump's policy changes in Somalia:

By declaring parts of Somalia an “area of active hostilities,” Mr. Trump gave the Department of Defense authority to approve strikes without going through an Obama-era vetting process, which potentially lowers the bar for tolerance of civilian casualties.

My own bar for tolerance of civilian casualties is also lowered, especially when they occur, not in Somalia, but in other places such as Manchester, UK. By the way, the Manchester guy, Salman Abedi, was from Lybia. I somehow suspect that his beef must have been related to a similar, but earlier "policy change". I guess that it must have been his own and rather explosive way of getting even. Dunno what happened there. By the way, the Queen condemned the Manchester bomb attack as 'wicked', but it is not her call any longer. With Salman Abedi being obliterated and dead now, the question will have to be assessed on the Day of the Last Judgment, by the Almighty himself.

The Code of Hammurabi

When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.

196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. [ An eye for an eye ]
197. If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken.
200. If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out. [ A tooth for a tooth ]



There was apparently a name change at some point, from "Bel" to "Allah":

And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the wrongdoers. Quran, Sūrat l-māidah, 5:45.

There is certainly a real price tag attached to lowering the bar for tolerance of civilian casualties. With the Trump policy changes, I eagerly await with amazement the severed arms and legs to be flying around again. Still, as long as it is not your own arms and legs, it is not really an issue, is it? ;-)
Think you'll find that most religions originating from the Middle East are based on Sumerian ideas, what with them being first to write it down. Ironically enough Islam is cribbed directly from Judaism, cribbed itself from the Sumerian legends like The Epic of Gilgamesh. Both created as a nationalistic focus rather than a moral guide, hence the rules being stolen verbatim. Can the non-religious have morals? Of course. As social apes we suppress the wants of the individual for the benefit society. It's hard wired. All societies on earth consider murder and theft to be bad things, for example.
In principle yes, but it depends on who does what to whom. Most of the time, it's not very wise to be poor. Eg Cambodia.

Does everybody really know it's wrong?, or just not very wise..

Let's not mention war with all that murder and pillage. It sometimes seems that murder and theft are quite ok, just so long as you can get away with it.

Don't forget to doff your cap to the next incredibly sexy rich person you see.

I always like to give the wealthy the benifit of the doubt. Don't you?
Last edited by juansweetpotato on Sat May 27, 2017 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Can you spare some cutter for an old man?"
eriksank
Expatriate
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:25 am
Reputation: 24

Re: Which group ruins the world more

Post by eriksank »

StroppyChops wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 4:07 pmI'll say this for you, you put in far more effort than the usual troll.
I did not invent the core requirement for morality:

It is morality's form that matters and not its content.

This meta-requirement was famously discovered by Immanuel Kant in his 1788 Critique of practical Reason:

Kant concludes that the source of the nomological character of the moral law must derive not from its content but from its form alone. The only appropriate rule is the rule whose content is equivalent to its form, the categorical imperative. To follow the practical law is to be autonomous, whereas to follow any of the other types of contingent laws (or hypothetical imperatives) is to be heteronomous and therefore unfree. The moral law, in Kant's view, is equivalent to the idea of freedom.

Image

Immanuel Kant was simply a genius.

Morality is a set of arbitrary but consistent and axiomatically revealed rules that either survive and get transmitted from generation to generation, or else don't.

That is why new moral inventions are always preposterous. They haven't proven whatsoever that they can manage to survive from generation to generation. When you listen to non-religious people, atheists, you can hear rules that they have invented recently, or even just on the spot. That is another reason -- besides all the other ones that I have already mentioned -- why atheist morality is utterly ridiculous. Atheist morality is an impossibly inferior practice. It is something undocumented, self-defeating, and liberally concocted by the idiots for the idiots. I spit on it.
User avatar
juansweetpotato
Expatriate
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:45 pm
Reputation: 75

Re: Which group ruins the world more

Post by juansweetpotato »

Kant is all very well in the west, but what about out here?
Image

We need a fourth option at very least.
I'm guessing you don't like cog psychology?
Last edited by juansweetpotato on Sat May 27, 2017 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Can you spare some cutter for an old man?"
User avatar
StroppyChops
The Missionary Man
Posts: 10598
Joined: Tue May 06, 2014 11:24 am
Reputation: 1032
Australia

Re: Which group ruins the world more

Post by StroppyChops »

eriksank wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 7:12 pm
StroppyChops wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 4:07 pmI'll say this for you, you put in far more effort than the usual troll.
I did not invent the core requirement for morality:
Spoiler:
It is morality's form that matters and not its content.

This meta-requirement was famously discovered by Immanuel Kant in his 1788 Critique of practical Reason:

Kant concludes that the source of the nomological character of the moral law must derive not from its content but from its form alone. The only appropriate rule is the rule whose content is equivalent to its form, the categorical imperative. To follow the practical law is to be autonomous, whereas to follow any of the other types of contingent laws (or hypothetical imperatives) is to be heteronomous and therefore unfree. The moral law, in Kant's view, is equivalent to the idea of freedom.

Image

Immanuel Kant was simply a genius.

Morality is a set of arbitrary but consistent and axiomatically revealed rules that either survive and get transmitted from generation to generation, or else don't.

That is why new moral inventions are always preposterous. They haven't proven whatsoever that they can manage to survive from generation to generation. When you listen to non-religious people, atheists, you can hear rules that they have invented recently, or even just on the spot. That is another reason -- besides all the other ones that I have already mentioned -- why atheist morality is utterly ridiculous. Atheist morality is an impossibly inferior practice. It is something undocumented, self-defeating, and liberally concocted by the idiots for the idiots. I spit on it.
Yes, yes, that's all very (yawn) entertaining... do go on.
Bodge: This ain't Kansas, and the neighbours ate Toto!
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Big Daikon, Clutch Cargo, Felgerkarb, Freightdog, IraHayes, Majestic-12 [Bot], Old8404, xandreu and 582 guests