Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lachimie)
    On the issue of feminism, Islam brought rights to women waaaay before the suffragettes (dunno how you spell it), women were given their right to own property etc meanwhile in Europe people were debating whether women were actually HUMAN.
    Then how did Mo's first wife own a successful business before he 'found' god?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    It doesn't make people conform when you're throwing them in to ovens... Is genocide a "natural behaviour" too?
    you could argue it is,

    European researchers have proven that the instigators of the grand multicultural enterprise are fighting against Nature. The New York Times reported on a Dutch study that scientifically determined ethnocentrism, the preference for one’s own “in-group,” is natural, chemical, and biological.

    The hormone oxytocin has been called “the cuddle hormone,” because the hypothalamus releases it during sexual intercourse, breastfeeding, and childbirth, among other times. This neuropeptide is known to create a sense of bonding with children, romance between adults, and trust within society. But new research has found oxytocin assures mankind extends sympathy along clearly delimited ethnic lines.

    The New York Times describes “The Dark Side of Oxytocin, the Hormone of Love”:

    The love and trust it promotes are not toward the world in general, just toward a person’s in- group. Oxytocin turns out to be the hormone of the clan, not of universal brotherhood. Psychologists trying to specify its role have now concluded it is the agent of ethnocentrism.

    The finding is the result of extensive testing conducted by a team of Dutch psychologists led by Dr. Carsten K. W. De Dreu of the University of Amsterdam. Their paper, “Oxytocin Promotes Human Ethnocentrism,”was published online just days ago. “Ethnocentrism is a very basic part of humans, and it’s not something we can change by education,” De Dreu concluded.

    The team had Dutch men inhale a puff of oxytocin or placebo 40 minutes before engaging in a series of tests designed to measure their feelings toward in-group and out-group members, “us” and “them.” The psychologists asked them to respond by pressing a button when they saw a pair of names, finding the subjects who received the oxytocin responded more readily when that set included a Dutch name instead of an Arab or German one. The hesitation reflected an aversion to the out-group.

    The group then took two moral dilemma tests, being told they could save the lives of many people by having one person hit by a train. The psychologists varied the name of the sacrificial victim between Dutch, German, and Arab names. As the New York Times phases it,“Subjects who had taken oxytocin were far more likely to sacrifice the Muhammads than the Maartens.”

    Researchers were quick to point out this was not caused by an increased hostility to minorities but a greater loyalty to their own ethnic group
    . But they recognize the hormone’s role in arousing a protective instinct when someone feels threatened by a member of an out-group, such as another ethnicity.

    This study built upon experiments Dr. Dreu administered and analyzed in June. “Our study shows that oxytocin not only plays a role in modulating cooperation and benevolence, but also in driving aggression,” De Dreu said. Over three tests, he found people were less likely to share financial resources with those who belong to an out-group. In an update of the prisoner’s dilemma, students who received oxytocin refused to cooperate with members of an out-group out of fear the other group would break the agreement and despoil their kinfolk. The greater the threat of harm, the more likely the group would preemptively attack the outsiders to protect themselves.

    Giving soldiers a dose of oxytocin “might make them more cooperative towards their comrades, even willing to self-sacrifice,” De Dreu said, “but it should make them more likely to launch a preemptive strike against the competing army, with conflict-escalation being the most likely consequence.”

    Significantly, the same test did not find that increased ethnic solidarity led to unprovoked offenses. Even when offered greater rewards for harming those who had not attacked them, the group resisted. De Dreu wrote,“Results showed that oxytocin drives a ‘tend and defend’ response in that it promoted in-group trust and cooperation, and defensive, but not offensive, aggression toward competing out-groups.”

    So despite the caricature of racially conscious Whites goose-stepping out to liquidate their neighbors, the biological reality is that ethnic solidarity promotes in-group cohesion, altruism, and protection–for “their own kind.”

    The best the Times can muster by way of a refutation is Dr. Bruno B. Averbeck, “an expert on the brain’s emotional processes at the National Institute of Mental Health.” He hypothesizes that effects of oxytocin only apply to in cases in which the individual has no information about the out-group, and once out-groups are a known entity, the brain may rely on a considered judgment rather than its natural, subliminal, and biological inclinations. He expressed surprise when confronted by the facts. “It’s really surprising to me that this neurotransmitter can so specifically affect these social behaviors,” he said.

    This new scientific research shows that the cause of ethnocentrism is hardwired and inescapable. Diversity’s dissidents may not have known the neurological impetus but honest observers have known it borders on a universal constant. Warring against the inner workings of human biology, multiculturalists promote the “anti-racist” regime de rigueur in Western cosmopolitan societies through public school indoctrination, televised propaganda, and sensitivity training. Oxytocin may activate the “Sub-Racism” described by Colin Liddell. Dr. De Dreu’s findings suggest the multi-ethnic cause is hopeless, because people of all races reject it at a subconscious, chemical level. An expanding pool of minority groups diminishes altruism, encourages distrust, and makes social divides deeper and more permanent. Promoting interracial contact means promoting conflict.

    Dr. De Dreu believes this mother bear instinct developed during evolution. He said, “In the ancestral environment it was very important for people to detect in others whether they had a long-term commitment to the group.” This holds more true today, when citizens in the West are increasingly surrounded by highly cohesive, relatively impermeable minority groups nursing a sense of historical grievance against them. The oxytocin works both ways.

    It may be that the only way to prevent a racial conflagration is to use our brains.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    you could argue it is,

    European researchers have proven that the instigators of the grand multicultural enterprise are fighting against Nature. The New York Times reported on a Dutch study that scientifically determined ethnocentrism, the preference for one’s own “in-group,” is natural, chemical, and biological.

    The hormone oxytocin has been called “the cuddle hormone,” because the hypothalamus releases it during sexual intercourse, breastfeeding, and childbirth, among other times. This neuropeptide is known to create a sense of bonding with children, romance between adults, and trust within society. But new research has found oxytocin assures mankind extends sympathy along clearly delimited ethnic lines.

    The New York Times describes “The Dark Side of Oxytocin, the Hormone of Love”:

    The love and trust it promotes are not toward the world in general, just toward a person’s in- group. Oxytocin turns out to be the hormone of the clan, not of universal brotherhood. Psychologists trying to specify its role have now concluded it is the agent of ethnocentrism.

    The finding is the result of extensive testing conducted by a team of Dutch psychologists led by Dr. Carsten K. W. De Dreu of the University of Amsterdam. Their paper, “Oxytocin Promotes Human Ethnocentrism,”was published online just days ago. “Ethnocentrism is a very basic part of humans, and it’s not something we can change by education,” De Dreu concluded.

    The team had Dutch men inhale a puff of oxytocin or placebo 40 minutes before engaging in a series of tests designed to measure their feelings toward in-group and out-group members, “us” and “them.” The psychologists asked them to respond by pressing a button when they saw a pair of names, finding the subjects who received the oxytocin responded more readily when that set included a Dutch name instead of an Arab or German one. The hesitation reflected an aversion to the out-group.

    The group then took two moral dilemma tests, being told they could save the lives of many people by having one person hit by a train. The psychologists varied the name of the sacrificial victim between Dutch, German, and Arab names. As the New York Times phases it,“Subjects who had taken oxytocin were far more likely to sacrifice the Muhammads than the Maartens.”

    Researchers were quick to point out this was not caused by an increased hostility to minorities but a greater loyalty to their own ethnic group. But they recognize the hormone’s role in arousing a protective instinct when someone feels threatened by a member of an out-group, such as another ethnicity.

    This study built upon experiments Dr. Dreu administered and analyzed in June. “Our study shows that oxytocin not only plays a role in modulating cooperation and benevolence, but also in driving aggression,” De Dreu said. Over three tests, he found people were less likely to share financial resources with those who belong to an out-group. In an update of the prisoner’s dilemma, students who received oxytocin refused to cooperate with members of an out-group out of fear the other group would break the agreement and despoil their kinfolk. The greater the threat of harm, the more likely the group would preemptively attack the outsiders to protect themselves.

    Giving soldiers a dose of oxytocin “might make them more cooperative towards their comrades, even willing to self-sacrifice,” De Dreu said, “but it should make them more likely to launch a preemptive strike against the competing army, with conflict-escalation being the most likely consequence.”

    Significantly, the same test did not find that increased ethnic solidarity led to unprovoked offenses. Even when offered greater rewards for harming those who had not attacked them, the group resisted. De Dreu wrote,“Results showed that oxytocin drives a ‘tend and defend’ response in that it promoted in-group trust and cooperation, and defensive, but not offensive, aggression toward competing out-groups.”

    So despite the caricature of racially conscious Whites goose-stepping out to liquidate their neighbors, the biological reality is that ethnic solidarity promotes in-group cohesion, altruism, and protection–for “their own kind.”

    The best the Times can muster by way of a refutation is Dr. Bruno B. Averbeck, “an expert on the brain’s emotional processes at the National Institute of Mental Health.” He hypothesizes that effects of oxytocin only apply to in cases in which the individual has no information about the out-group, and once out-groups are a known entity, the brain may rely on a considered judgment rather than its natural, subliminal, and biological inclinations. He expressed surprise when confronted by the facts. “It’s really surprising to me that this neurotransmitter can so specifically affect these social behaviors,” he said.

    This new scientific research shows that the cause of ethnocentrism is hardwired and inescapable. Diversity’s dissidents may not have known the neurological impetus but honest observers have known it borders on a universal constant. Warring against the inner workings of human biology, multiculturalists promote the “anti-racist” regime de rigueur in Western cosmopolitan societies through public school indoctrination, televised propaganda, and sensitivity training. Oxytocin may activate the “Sub-Racism” described by Colin Liddell. Dr. De Dreu’s findings suggest the multi-ethnic cause is hopeless, because people of all races reject it at a subconscious, chemical level. An expanding pool of minority groups diminishes altruism, encourages distrust, and makes social divides deeper and more permanent. Promoting interracial contact means promoting conflict.

    Dr. De Dreu believes this mother bear instinct developed during evolution. He said, “In the ancestral environment it was very important for people to detect in others whether they had a long-term commitment to the group.” This holds more true today, when citizens in the West are increasingly surrounded by highly cohesive, relatively impermeable minority groups nursing a sense of historical grievance against them. The oxytocin works both ways.

    It may be that the only way to prevent a racial conflagration is to use our brains.
    So I looked that up

    First links:
    http://davidduke.com/nationalism-is-natural/
    http://www.johndenugent.com/english/...cked-dancer-2/
    http://www.whitenewsnow.com/science-...m-natural.html
    https://whitelocust.wordpress.com/20...sm-is-natural/

    Yup totally reputable...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ghaniza)
    Islam was brought to the world by a prophet who alone had to begin this revelation, he couldn't read or write let alone be in the power to forbid slavery all together. He was a man alone
    I thought it was brought by Allah.

    Who is apparently all powerful and knowing etc.....

    Not that powerful then really given his word is supposed to be timeless
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    I thought it was brought by Allah.

    Who is apparently all powerful and knowing etc.....

    Not that powerful then really given his word is supposed to be timeless
    The angels gave the prophet the word of Allah and then the prophet spread the word of Allah to the people,
    Allah didn't go whisper the message in the worlds ears..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    You only have to go on the Britain First facebook to see that, and even if people "only" call Muslims the above, that's OK is it?

    Mister Morality, I think you'll find that it is you who is quite intolerant, judging by your posts...
    A tolerant ideology allows people to do what they like without enforcing laws to coerce others to adhere to a way of thinking. This is the ideology of small government libertarian conservatism. An intolerant ideology is modern liberalism/progressivism where equality is mandated by laws and hate speech laws are arbitrarily written up to banish wrong think. This is what Islam does and it's not to our nation's benefit.

    Regarding Britain First: I don't know; I don't use Facebook. I am quite tolerant however. I abhor single motherhood, but I am friends with one, for example. I also disapprove of homosexuals' life style but I have homosexual friends. This is tolerance because I actually abhor an aspect of them. A liberal who sees things in terms of cultural relativism can't be tolerant of anything because everything is good to them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ghaniza)
    The angels gave the prophet the word of Allah and then the prophet spread the word of Allah to the people,
    Allah didn't go whisper the message in the worlds ears..
    AH so just poor English.

    Be careful it makes it sound like old mo brought Islam to people and as you then made a claim about his inability to ban slavery because he wasn't all powerful your statement is rather confusing (as an all powerful god should be able to do by the way)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mister Morality)
    A tolerant ideology allows people to do what they like without enforcing laws to coerce others to adhere to a way of thinking. This is the ideology of small government libertarian conservatism. An intolerant ideology is modern liberalism/progressivism where equality is mandated by laws and hate speech laws are arbitrarily written up to banish wrong think. This is what Islam does and it's not to our nation's benefit.
    How many Muslims have enforced "laws" How many have actually been done by non Muslims in their ivory towers? And you could equally say that about Christianity or Judaism... The country no longer really uses religion to make laws. Do you want to get rid of Muslims? Or have the rights of Muslims restricted?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    bullying and racism are natural behaviours, that promote conformity, and carried out when your world view is threatened by a differing one

    http://brainblogger.com/2013/02/01/b...tional-choice/
    Again, nowt reputable.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    The country no longer really uses religion to make laws. Do you want to get rid of Muslims? Or have the rights of Muslims restricted?
    How do you square the muslim argument that by not allowing them to have laws based on their faith you are restricting their rights?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    How do you square the muslim argument that by not allowing them to have laws based on their faith you are restricting their rights?
    What? When did I even mention that? You're drawing conclusions out of nothing.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Islam revolves around the stifling of free speech. Seeing more 'attacks' on Muslims is, of course, undesirable but something tells me that most of these 'attacks' are just words and words should be protected by law.

    Also

    Yes that is a picture of Mohammed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    What? When did I even mention that? You're drawing conclusions out of nothing.
    I'm just trying to spin your argument

    you said to Mister Morality 'The country no longer really uses religion to make laws. Do you want to get rid of Muslims? Or have the rights of Muslims restricted?'
    So I wonder how you would respond to a muslim who made the argument that by NOT allowing laws to be based on his faith you are restricting the rights of Muslims'

    I was wondering if in your reply we could also accuse you of not wanting Muslims in this country given you would argue (I would assume) that we should restrict the rights of Muslims in this case.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    How many Muslims have enforced "laws" How many have actually been done by non Muslims in their ivory towers? And you could equally say that about Christianity or Judaism... The country no longer really uses religion to make laws. Do you want to get rid of Muslims? Or have the rights of Muslims restricted?
    But Christianity has been here for Hundreds of years. It is the establushed religion and part of our culture. Islam and Christianity are not equal at all. Our culture is based on a mixture of Pagan ceremony and Christian doctrine.

    Someone already said this: tththe 'how many' is irrelevant when the laws and regulations are being passed and Muslim community treated with kid gloves if they commit a crime, even as bad as child abuse. Do not forget to whom this country belongs.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...acist-now.html



    30 years of child abuse and Ghaniza didn't hear anything, she doesn't know it, living in Britain, British Muslim?


    Who believes that?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Dictator)
    There is no such thing as Islamophobia...
    Agreed. "Islamophobe" is a nonsene, made up word that implies that there is something wrong with me should I dare criticise Islam (i.e. I have an irrational fear of Islam.)

    With regards to the topic in question, it's yet another reason to ban the Burkha, Hijab or any Muslim heas covering. Hate crimes would go down if no one wore them.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    I'm just trying to spin your argument

    you said to Mister Morality 'The country no longer really uses religion to make laws. Do you want to get rid of Muslims? Or have the rights of Muslims restricted?'
    So I wonder how you would respond to a muslim who made the argument that by NOT allowing laws to be based on his faith you are restricting the rights of Muslims'

    I was wondering if in your reply we could also accuse you of not wanting Muslims in this country given you would argue (I would assume) that we should restrict the rights of Muslims in this case.
    Im talking about rights like "freedom of religion" that sorta stuff. You guys seem to be OK with that...

    (Original post by Mister Morality)
    But Christianity has been here for Hundreds of years. It is the establushed religion and part of our culture. Islam and Christianity are not equal at all. Our culture is based on a mixture of Pagan ceremony and Christian doctrine.

    Someone already said this: tththe 'how many' is irrelevant when the laws and regulations are being passed and Muslim community treated with kid gloves if they commit a crime, even as bad as child abuse. Do not forget to whom this country belongs.
    The Pagans? Also, Christianity is on the decline in this country. And "radical Christianity" has actually been worse, except at the time, it didn't even click as being "radical" It was just "normal" Christianity.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BoomCha!)
    Agreed. "Islamophobe" is a nonsene, made up word that implies that there is something wrong with me should I dare criticise Islam (i.e. I have an irrational fear of Islam.)

    With regards to the topic in question, it's yet another reason to ban the Burkha, Hijab or any Muslim heas covering. Hate crimes would go down if no one wore them.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Every word is a "made up word" and it's not Islamophobic to criticise Islam. It is however Islamophobic to hate Muslims. And even if you decide it's a "made up word" why then is it OK to be prejudiced against Muslims, and to hate Muslims exactly?

    So..what you're saying is Muslims should have to restrict the wearing of religious garb because OTHER PEOPLE may decide to commit hate crimes?

    So you're blaming the victim of hate crimes? I guess you're also one of those "Oh well. She was asking for it" people?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ghaniza)
    Do you spend days researching and investigating your own religion?
    How do i even know you are muslim?
    Islam was brought to the world by a prophet who alone had to begin this revelation, he couldn't read or write let alone be in the power to forbid slavery all together. He was a man alone, in no position of power.
    When he was in a position of power 'rise of islam', he was only in the position of power among the muslims, where the slaves became muslim too and freed.
    MAJORITY of ARABS were not MUSLIM.


    The system was impossible to get rid of since there were kings and rulers, the prophet said that if you have a slave then you must give him the same clothes that you wear, same living conditions, same food, in fact the standards were so high that it was like keeping a brother not a slave, those rules were put there so that people are put off taking in slaves at ALL. A slave had to be treated like a family member which people couldn't afford. So they stopped keeping slaves but not all muslims were abiding by the laws or non muslims

    Imagine a man alone trying to change capitalism in today's age, literally impossible, he could make a few changes to the system gradually but he can never bring it down completely because he is in no power.

    Our prophet was not born into power
    mohammed was powerful enough to invade and conquer the most lucrative city in arabia- Mecca, and drive out the ruling non-mulims arabs and their shrines, and places of worship etc. he then imposed his own islamic rule on the city. so it was perfectly in his pwer to abolish slavery. instead islamic traditon states he continued to alow slavery and indeed bought and sold slaves himself. he offered certain female non-muslim slaves to be freed if they agreed to become muslim and marry him - noteably the most famous case of Rayhana bint Zayd, refused.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Come on guys Listen to this if I say that I am a christian and bomb a mosque will all Christians be bad?????
    Same I am a muslim and I believe that anyone do anything out of what the quran sais is not a muslim even if he call himself a muslim
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.