U.A.E Ruler spends 22 million to put his name in land

Before you objection was that my examples were not people. Now you object that they are physical characteristics of people. If someone is a registered Republican, but they take a position that is not in line with the Republican platform or general Republican ideals (maybe they institute some sort of socialist healthcare program), are they not a Republican.

If Akhmed says he is a Muslim, who are you (or I, or anyone) to challenge that. He can be a Muslim if he wants. In fact, if he says he is a Muslim, and believes it, then I agree with him.

Yes, I would group you with the Buddhists, assuming you believed yourself to be a Buddhist. So far as I know, there is no arbiter of who is or is not a Buddhist (or a Muslim for that matter). Of course there is more to the Islamic identity of the Islamic terrorists than simply claims that they are Muslims and that they are doing it for Allah, but those are the necessary and sufficient conditions. I don't want to use Buddhism in my example, because the lack of a deity makes the analogy convoluted, but if a guy ran onto a bus and started shooting people while yelling "All hail Thor Odinson" I would group him with the Norse terrorists (or possibly the loony comic fanboys). The thing about most religions is that there are no bars to membership and you are what you believe yourself to be. A couple can kick you out (Catholicism and Scientology I think) though as neither a Catholic nor a Scientologist I don't feel bound by the edicts of the Pope or L. Ron Hubbard's estate. A Catholic has a reasonable basis for saying someone who was excommunicated is not a Catholic though. There is no such thing for Islam, so far as I know, so there is no real basis for you or any other Muslim to say that Osama Bin Laden was not a Muslim, even if you disagree with his interpretation of the Quran.

Basically you are objecting to my criteria for what makes a person a member of a religion. Since neither of us have control over the criteria, this is not really an issue that can be solved. It has nothing to do with the *sarcastic spooky gesture*evils of categorization*/sarcastic spooky gesture* though, as I believe I have fairly well demonstrated to you. You may now go about trying to prove I am in poor company because I say someone who calls himself a Muslim is a Muslim.

How do you know Beth has a nose? Maybe my hypothetical Beth didn't in fact have a nose. There you go with you categorizations.

 

Riiiight.

Just to be clear, you haven't demonstrated anything to me other than what you believe. By your methodology, you are forcing Muslims to decide who is and isn't Muslim because someone else having the Muslim tag affects them directly. This causes a whole host of issues since:

1) By Islamic rules, you can't declare someone Muslim or not. People can declare themselves Muslim. That doesn't make it true or verified.
2) It incentivizes the trivialization of labels. I assume you'll be hiding in the bushes when the next Islamic terrorist re-names himself as a converted Jew, and will validate this action by claiming that it is ok to lie to further Islam, and he believes furthering Islam includes making Jews look bad and killing certain people. Then are you going to hold Jews accountable for this person's actions? I didn't think so.

The groups you are referring to have no entry or exit barriers if self-certification is the only criteria.

You've said one thing I agree with: who are we to decide who's Muslim or Buddhist or whatever? That's absolutely correct. In fact the only entity which can logically verify the "Muslimness" of a person is Allah. In the absence of that verification, my view is that we refrain from grouping people based on what they call themselves, whereas you are happy to accept self-certification.

I'm more than happy to group people based on actions. Terrorists are terrorists. Murderers are murderers. I don't care what they call themselves, I only care about how the law deals with their actions.

 

No - you apparently don't understand what trickle down is at all.

No - one is spending; one is investing.

Supply-side:

Give money to rich
They invest in business expansion
Business hires people
That creates demand

Demand-side:

Give money to poor
They buy things
That leads to business expanding

In my example, we have the ideal - the rich person is buying things, creating the circumstances of the latter without needing to force a transfer through government. Supply-side economics is NOT based on "give money to the rich and they will buy things." Everyone agrees that isn't what happens when money moves to the wealthy.

In supply side, you're relying on businesses using money to expand and invest BEFORE the demand exists. In the latter, you're relying on creating new demand to force businesses to expand. They are two very different and completely opposite philosophies. One argues for tax cuts to the rich; the other argues for tax cuts for the poor or stimulus programs.

It's exactly the debate going on in this country right now. Businesses are flush with cash, but they aren't expanding or hiring. They aren't doing so because there is no unfilled demand, so there is no reason to - it's a demonstration of the complete failure of supply-side economics, at least in terms of the particulars of this recession.

 

ok, a, as I pointed out before, most of that money isn't flowing directly to the laborers, who, if Dubai is any example, are usually terribly abused and underpaid.

b, You're trying to argue that the money is already spent, so therefore it cannot be trickle-down, since trickle-down fails at getting the money spent, well no, that's not how it works, it is the same spirit we are dealing with.

Basically, in this case, the infrastructure being invested in is some jackass carving his name into sand. You're justifying his morally repugnant expenditure by pointing out that it creates jobs, and therefore his immense wealth is trickling down to workers. The only difference between you and the Republican Party in this case is that the Republicans are content to assume the rich are spending money, you are content when the rich are actually spending money, both convey an attitude that whenever that money is spent, it's a positive, even though most economists would not argue this is so. Basically, you're congratulating the fruition of trickle-down theory.

Demand-side in this case would be targeting tax breaks for the middle-class or poor, creating subsidies, creating infrastructure that is actually usable and has a purpose such as roads or schools etc., I don't think it quite applies as much to slipping a small amount of migrant labourers who have to suffer under appalling working conditions, a small stipend that they rightly earn.

Anyways, regardless, you're wishing to argue that there is some positive to this economically. Yes, but not as much as there could have been in other expenditures. Morally speaking, it's repugnant. Economically speaking, you're treading water, if not bearing on inefficacy.

 

You are mixing up economics, period.

Trickle down economics is supply side economics. It argues that tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy can shift the aggregate supply curve to the right, increasing employment and decreasing inflation.

Demand side economics is the idea of moving rightward on the aggregate demand curve. You do that by spending period. When people spend more, demand increases. This guy spent (no matter how stupid this is). He put money into the economy. You can argue that it was inefficiently spent but he marginally moved the demand curve to the right. That's the fundamental premise of this though.

This is high school economics. Also I dont even get why you are arguing.

 

No, trickle down economics is associated with supply side, but is not exclusively the property of such. It refers pejoratively to the concept of a rising tide rises all boats.

What I don't understand is why you guys keep on bringing up demand-side or supply-side, to be honest, I am quite aware that this is demand side economics, but the fact of the matter is, it isn't good from a demand viewpoint either in terms of efficiency, as I keep on bringing up.

as much

That is what I am arguing. It speaks to the same philosophy of trickle down, namely "money appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy." Basically, the rich guy spent his money, which is what trickle downers all hope for. The reason why trickle-down isn't as associated with demand-side is because it's harder to justify rich people exclusively creating the demand, however trickle-down does not equal supply-side. It is associated with supply-side.

Not exclusively. Just closely identified.

Notice I never said Major was a proponent of supply-side economics. I have always pressed forward that this is an inefficient use of spending, and an inefficient allocation of the idea of trickle-down...namely the money that the rich spend always benefits society.

yes, but not as much as it could be if it weren't spent on something as inane as this.

Now, the reason why I am arguing is the following. Major is trying to defend this decision economically. Morally, we can all agree this is disgusting, but economically, Major thinks it can be justified. Not so. It is still an inefficient allocation. Even economically speaking, this isn't a desirable action.

I'm all for "hey, everyone has the freedom to make stupid decisions with their money", but I think we need to be honest about it when these decisions are stupid, and not try to justify them with the small benefits that are outweighed by the costs.

Condoning this kind of behavior, in my books, with any viewpoint, isn't something to be desired.

 

I did not say that Muslims can declare someone else Muslim or not. In fact, I pointed out that showtang was trying to declare people not Muslims. I guess you aren't too good at following those Islamic rules.

So you don't believe in categorization, and people that use categories should check history to see what company that puts them in (implying categorization by the way), but you absolutely don't want to trivialize categories? Why try to tie yourself in so many knots trying to refute me instead of just admitting that Islamic Terrorists are Muslims.

Guess what, Islam has no entry or exit barriers. To my understanding, the only thing necessary to become a Muslim is to speak and believe the Shahada as outlined on this helpful web page entitled "How To Become A Muslim."

Since religion is entirely about one's personal commitment, I am perfectly willing to let people self-declare their faith, yes. I suppose your method of no one having a religion until death is fine too, but it seems weird to me.

I'm more than happy to label terrorists that say they are committing terrorist acts in the name of Allah Muslim terrorists. Sure they could secretly be Jews that are committing terrorist acts because their uncle touched their pee pee and they think Captain Sisko is telling them what to do by subspace message from Deep Space 9, but there seems little point to acknowledging such possibilities. One might as well say that nothing is knowable and avoid all discussion.

 

1) You are inferring that yo ucan determine the entire population of Muslims by seeking out those who call themselves Muslims. If you cahnged your mind, please tell us.

2) This is not about categorization. This is about your methodology for categorization. There's no such thing as an Islamic terrorist IMO. There are terrorists and there are non-terrorists. There are 1-2 billion Muslims, most of them very poor, and so they form a higher proportion of terrorist attacks. This has been the case throughout history. The poorest people will engage in terrorism funded/supported by very wealthy people. You have a terriffic knowledge of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, therefore I'm sure you're aware of this cycle as it applied to many many people before Israel was established.

3) No, you are wrong. There are several barriers, most of which are not verifiable by humans, and the majority of which are subject to an extreme amount of interpretation. For example, some believe that you must accept the Quran to be Muslim, and some don't.

But regardless, you're sliding out from the issue. Islam has a barrier to entry or exit, and the gate keeper of that barrier is Allah. Therefore human criteria as a barrier for entry exit is irrelevant, even if you call yourself Muslim, even if you do everything that the Quran and the Hadith asks you.

This concept is essential to Islam and you can ask Muslims about it. God is the one who rules on who is Muslim and who is not (see: most of the Quran). Humans are not allowed to treat people differently based on what they call themselves i.e. StupidMinker's grouping methodology.

4) Cool. I think nothing positive can be achieved by your method, but it may result in many negative outcomes.

The idea is that you treat everyone like you would treat a Muslim, whatever Muslim means to you.

5) How about you just call them terrorists, which allows you to achieve a just outcome for their actions? Clearly, there are possible negative outcomes associated with your grouping/labelling methodology, what positive outcomes are there? Have you seen that fighting terror has benefited from the grouping of liberals, moderates and extremists together? Which countries have done so, and how succesful have they been?

If we look at the Oslo incident, do you think it's fair that everyone who has ever complained about anything government-related should be put in the same group? or do you think it makes sense to isolate the individuals who have shown through actions and words that they are willing to engage in violence?

Is, for example, ATW in the same group as the Oslo terrorist somehow? Why, because he shares anti-immigrant sentiments, and shares the terrorists' views that the government is handling immigrants and asylum seekers and welfare poorly? Does that make ATW responsible as a member of the group? Because if every individual is responsible for their own actions, then it seems like a cosmetically labelled "group", right"? Don't you think it makes more sense to throw OBL and the Oslo terrorist into the same group: Terrorist?

Your question, which I've answered several times, is going to be: why is THAT group ok to create?

The answer is: because that's a group where the criteria is "did you engage in violence in order to terrify and terrorize large groups of people, and possible killed people in the process"?

That's measurable criteria. That's usable criteria. More importantly, that's a group which we need to isolate to defeat. We don't need a "ok, who calls themselves a Muslim" group. That's not only useless, but in fact when isolated, it tends to supply the terrorist group with new members.