Biggus wrote:

It sounds like you have understood nothing of my point of view throughout this discussion.
Time and again I've stressed that ISLAM ITSELF the ideology is the problem not individuals.

It does not aid our comprehension when you say this yet conflate peaceful protesters with terrorist bombers.

I've understood perfectly what you have said on here Biggus.

From what you have written I see that you do not, will not and cannot see people as individuals which I believe shows a complete lack of tolerance and respect, you see ALL Muslims as a threat, as exemplified when you advocate "strict monitoring" for the "peaceful" and asking the "moderate" to examine their consciences.

Over a billion individuals  cannot be solely defined by their faith and reduced into being lumped into the three neat little categories that you've drawn up in order to be dealt with as you advocate.
That you don't see that is scary, particularly when you seem to think you are being reasonable.

You repeatedly say that we don't understand you Biggus, well it's your responsibility to be more clear then, make yourself understood.

This is a superb essay by Joseph Stiglitz on debt crises and how the world could respond to them.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/greece-eurozone-austerity-reform-by-joseph-e--stiglitz-2015-02

Given the amount of distress brought about by excessive debt, one might well ask why individuals and countries have repeatedly put themselves into this situation. After all, such debts are contracts – that is, voluntary agreements – so creditors are just as responsible for them as debtors. In fact, creditors arguably are more responsible: typically, they are sophisticated financial institutions, whereas borrowers frequently are far less attuned to market vicissitudes and the risks associated with different contractual arrangements.

Biggus wrote:

Yes I did Burnsy, there are indeed some moderate Muslim voices, but you are guilty of generalisation if you do not accept that there are many other Islamic voices which are not so moderate.....
I don't know if you wish to quote numbers etc but understand this- Islam is not a culture which has a democratic tradition, apostasy is punishable so I don't know if you will get truthful answers to any survey.

…

Freedom of speech is paramount it is the very basis of the exploring society which we love, without freedom you have nothing.
So for me if freedom is threatened I don't give a fuck who's insulted.

By making baseless accusations about a group of non-violent protesters—calling them child slavers or bombers—you're jeopardising their rights of assembly and free speech yourself. Lord knows your own rights aren't in any danger.

And by conflating terrorists with Muslims protesting in the street about blasphemies against Mohammed, and indeed with all Muslims, as you have more or less continually done in this thread, you're the one making dangerous generalisations.

The arguments you're making aren't going to protect the things you hold dear about Western civilisation, your partial freedoms, the liberal-mindedness of our society, or the safety of public places. They're going to threaten those things and divide your community.

By the way, I'd rather be an advocate of justice than an advocate of human rights—and I detest the use of rights rhetoric to deny justice to anyone.

The system is broken. The amount of credit I have available to me (all from reputable companies) is ridiculous. There's no way I'd be able keep my head above the water if I were to take it all up.

Agreed. At the street level it's predatorial, especially considering easy credit inflates asset markets (usually real estate), with no real world value for borrowers who purchase at those inflated prices.

Meanwhile financial institutions are still allowed to be 97% leveraged meaning their tail risks continue to be underwritten by public funds. The moral hazards for senior bank officials are unbelievable. If they're not enthusiastically encouraging bad lending, it's cartel pricing on interest rates or manipulating Libor.

Of all vested interests, the finance lobbies have the tightest grip on our governments though.

Credit is an essential utility in this world, but it desperately needs to be globally re-regulated, and as Stiglitz says, there needs to be an orderly process for when things get out of hand. Meanwhile, it'd be jolly nice if major financial institutions would stop pushing the barrow of failed austerity policies.

Just read the article in full, makes some very valid points.

Burnwinter™ wrote:

This is a superb essay by Joseph Stiglitz on debt crises and how the world could respond to them.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/greece-eurozone-austerity-reform-by-joseph-e--stiglitz-2015-02

Given the amount of distress brought about by excessive debt, one might well ask why individuals and countries have repeatedly put themselves into this situation. After all, such debts are contracts – that is, voluntary agreements – so creditors are just as responsible for them as debtors. In fact, creditors arguably are more responsible: typically, they are sophisticated financial institutions, whereas borrowers frequently are far less attuned to market vicissitudes and the risks associated with different contractual arrangements.

No groundbreaking insights per se but a well written essay nonetheless. Try and tell that to any German so called economist though, they'd hound you out of the country with torches and pitchforks - to Germans, debtors are always the guilty party, no matter how bad the creditor fucks up.

The mistaking of debt and guilt is a deep rooted problem in Germany though, evident by us having only one word for both terms, Schuld. Greece's new finance minister Yanis Varoufakis touched on this a couple of times:

Thus Herr Schäuble sees the Eurozone crisis as one of public debt. This is not unrelated to the German for debt – Schuld – meaning guilt.  In stressing this in his Genealogy of Morals Nietzsche also observed that there was a tendency in Germany among strong creditors to demand penitence from weak debtors for their debt-guilt and to punish them if they did not seek redemption.

http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2013/07/26/debt-guilt-and-german-history-a-reply-to-wolfgang-schauble-by-stuart-holland/

Yup. You don't have to be a card-carrying Keynesian to appreciate the depth and candour of Stiglitz's writing.

That etymological collision in "Schuld" is fascinating, although I don't think it's reasonable to make generalisations about Germans as individuals, rather than the present German state. Looks as if "guilt" and "gold" may be etymologically related as well, though that's a bit murky.

The condemnation of debtors is hardly confined to Germany though, it has been very fashionable in all European analysis in recent years—especially back during the worst of the eurozone debt crisis, when everyone was slating the "PIGS" nations. Now that austerity has demonstrably been disastrous, the pundits aren't so keen.

Of course the rest of Europe and the world aren't free of blame either, I'd still say the German government was at the forefront of the austerity train, at least in Europe. It's not like that here since just the crisis either - wages have been actually regressing in the last two decades, all under the premise of keeping labour unit costs low and competitiveness high.

You'd think they've learned their lesson after deflation started popping up everywhere in Europe, but no - the pundits and those in power are still as keen on austerity as ever here in Germany, putting spin on an alleged recovery of Greece because of the slight growth in GDP, completely ignoring rampant unemployment and the deflation that is choking the life out of the country. And as soon as someone appears with a plan for recovery by getting rid of the austerity measures taken before, the German politicians and media have no better idea than to make ludicrous claims about him being anti-Semitic or ridicule him for his lack of a fucking tie.

Biggus' dilemma could be easily solved here in the western world; we'd start by easily identifying all Muslims to everyone by, say, making them wear a patch of some sort on their clothes. Then we would all be better prepared to actually see suspicious behavior and could sooner inform the police, right? Then it is only a matter of planning and logistics to provide 'patch free' buses, trains, libraries etc. Could work!

I don't have a dilemma Rex, I know my enemy I'm not trapped in some Hamletesque conundrum like some, unable to apply their 20 year old geopolitical stance to modernity.

I'll post again on this topic after the next Koran inspired atrocity.

The creditor part can be explained by greed and pressure to please the markets (who are driven by greed). Greed is at the heart of it all.

Biggus wrote:

I'll post again on this topic after the next Koran inspired atrocity.

See how many Muslims you can pick out from here maybe.

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014 

I had no idea about this when I posted the above, but there's been a tragic event today. A family of Muslims living in North Carolina has been killed by a white gunman.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chapel-hill-shooting-three-young-muslims-gunned-down-in-north-carolina-at-their-family-home-10037734.html

People are claiming online that the killer was a fervent atheist and opponent of organised religion, who posted messages supporting Richard Dawkins on social media. 

With any luck a few more people might work out that neither scripture nor scepticism alone is a determining cause of violence.