Political & Elections

hayden · Senior Member

RE: Just another example of religious perversion...

Abyss · Senior Member

nbachris2788 wrote:

Abyss wrote:

Billy wrote:

The life expectancy in India in 1910 was 20 years old. Do I really need to explain how life in the US was *way* better than that?
That's the fault of the British.

Are you really that much of an idiot? What effect do you think the Brits actually had on the day to day running of India? Most indians didn't even know the British were there!

Does the power to incite and exacerbate famines count as having an effect on day to day life?

Still trying to figure out how the British government had this famine "button" they could press. Much of the Indian government was run and administered solely by Indians (and they simply sent tax revenues to the British). In fact many of the worst famines happened in those areas!

-- Edited by Abyss on Sunday 28th of November 2010 11:54:09 PM

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

Abyss wrote:

Billy wrote:

The life expectancy in India in 1910 was 20 years old. Do I really need to explain how life in the US was *way* better than that?
That's the fault of the British.

Are you really that much of an idiot? What effect do you think the Brits actually had on the day to day running of India? Most indians didn't even know the British were there!

Does the power to incite and exacerbate famines count as having an effect on day to day life?

Abyss · Senior Member

Billy wrote:

The problem was in full swing by then.Huh? The point was that India not being prepared for self governance had nothing to do with the quality of life in 1910.

To replace the goods that had been made by skilled Indian workers with those cheaply made in British factories.One would merely need to put low priced English goods in the market. The industries would break themselves up because they couldn't compete. That's not something malicious by the government, it's just competition. Regardless, you haven't said what industries these are or anything.

They bought cheap because the Indians didn't have a choice. No one said exploitation was a good thing.How exactly does one "buy cheap"? There is the market price. How do you buy below that? If you buy below that long enough people will simply go out of business!

Not may colonized societies stripped of their skilled labor and forced to buy English goods for long periods of time due to lack of an alternative.What skilled labor are we talking about again?

Famines struck India at this time directly BECAUSE OF Britain's actions (replacing food with cash crops like tobacco and opium). Entire famines would have been averted without these British actions.Interesting. I thought the cash crops were more like tea & cotton. How wrong I was. Interesting how India was a net exporter of grain all through the 1900s though.

You don't think the oppressive British rule greatly contributed?What was a oppressive again? Out competing them with cheaper, higher quality products? Pretty oppressive.

Those societies were more than "nothing". They were not as technologically advanced as the Europeans, but they did produce knowledge, literature, culture, architecture (Taj Mahal), et cetera. Just because a country cannot defeat an invasion does not mean it is right.Yeah, knowledge production on a per capita level that was much lower than Western Europe. That's the point.

It will likely be better than it is now. However, I even said, some time ago, that my hope that things would get much better was merely a hope, not greatly founded. I thought we were debating whether British imperialism helped or hurt India.No, we weren't.

People who disagree with you less? Or were friendly with you in other matters? Or are not fierce socialists? Doesn't really matter, you have shown that you need to hide behind petty personal attacks, so I don't much care about what you think of me.None of the above. They simply make better arguments than you.

Billy · Senior Member

Not a factor in 1910, of course.
The problem was in full swing by then.

Why would they even do this? That makes no sense.
To replace the goods that had been made by skilled Indian workers with those cheaply made in British factories.

Umm, this doesn't even make sense. How exactly can someone buy below market price for a couple hundred years? Is this even possible?
They bought cheap because the Indians didn't have a choice. No one said exploitation was a good thing.

Huh? Plenty of societies survived without English goods.
Not may colonized societies stripped of their skilled labor and forced to buy English goods for long periods of time due to lack of an alternative.

Famine struck every economy, all the time.
Famines struck India at this time directly BECAUSE OF Britain's actions (replacing food with cash crops like tobacco and opium). Entire famines would have been averted without these British actions.

Something we can agree on. The causes are certainly harder to ascertain though. Many third world economies experienced no growth over that timespan (Korea, etc).
You don't think the oppressive British rule greatly contributed?

You seem to misunderstand what my point is. My points is that it's a non-factor. Some countries did well, some did medium, and some did poorly. It's not like these countries were knowledge generating, technologically advanced countries before Europe invaded them. They were nothing. That's exactly why they could be invaded. They weren't advanced enough to prevent it.
Those societies were more than "nothing". They were not as technologically advanced as the Europeans, but they did produce knowledge, literature, culture, architecture (Taj Mahal), et cetera. Just because a country cannot defeat an invasion does not mean it is right.

The difference, of course, is that we are not talking about 1000 year time spans or 500 year time spans. We are talking about 100 year time spans. Over that time period I think we can make realistic projections on which countries will be powerful and which ones won't be. I think Pakistan will still continue to suck in 100 years.
It will likely be better than it is now. However, I even said, some time ago, that my hope that things would get much better was merely a hope, not greatly founded. I thought we were debating whether British imperialism helped or hurt India.

No, certain posters that disagree with me definitely get more respect than you.
People who disagree with you less? Or were friendly with you in other matters? Or are not fierce socialists? Doesn't really matter, you have shown that you need to hide behind petty personal attacks, so I don't much care about what you think of me.

Abyss · Senior Member

Billy wrote:

-By not allowing Indians in high levels of government, Britain poorly prepared the colony for self-governanceNot a factor in 1910, of course.
-Breaking up industries of skilled labor led to higher unemploymentWhy would they even do this? That makes no sense.
-The British paid little for Indian raw materials and charged steep rates for British goods (after all, trade didn't have to be fair, it was between master and slave).Umm, this doesn't even make sense. How exactly can someone buy below market price for a couple hundred years? Is this even possible?
-India was made unable to support itself without British goods, leading to economic drawbacks and neo-colonial dependencies, even after independenceHuh? Plenty of societies survived without English goods.
-Famine struck often and harshly, as the Brits could make more money off of cash crops than food crops for the IndiansFamine struck every economy, all the time.
-In the 50 years prior to independence, India's economy experienced zero growthSomething we can agree on. The causes are certainly harder to ascertain though. Many third world economies experienced no growth over that timespan (Korea, etc).

Okay, life expectancy. Indians had a life expectancy of 20 in 1910, as you provided back when you were trying to say it was terrible at that time (as opposed to now, when you're saying it was good because of British imperialism). That's India under British imperialism.You seem to misunderstand what my point is. My points is that it's a non-factor. Some countries did well, some did medium, and some did poorly. It's not like these countries were knowledge generating, technologically advanced countries before Europe invaded them. They were nothing. That's exactly why they could be invaded. They weren't advanced enough to prevent it.

Knowledge generation in medieval times was exploding in the Muslim world while it was stagnant in Christian Europe. The situation then reversed. Thus, the difference isn't religious, but cultural. And not all Muslims share the same culture, as not all Christians share the same culture. Thus, you might say that backwards extreme conservatism (religious usually) leads to stagnant countries.The difference, of course, is that we are not talking about 1000 year time spans or 500 year time spans. We are talking about 100 year time spans. Over that time period I think we can make realistic projections on which countries will be powerful and which ones won't be. I think Pakistan will still continue to suck in 100 years.

Yes, under the principle that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.No, certain posters that disagree with me definitely get more respect than you.

Billy · Senior Member

Life expectancy is a fairly good measure of an economy's development. I'm contending that imperialistic overlords really didn't do much to hurt the economy. I mean, I'm trying to figure out exactly what they did to retard growth in the economy - buy commodities that India produced? Perhaps introduce them to 250 years of European knowledge generation? Oh, you're right, those evil white devils. Just crushing that Indian economy.

You know, all this time, I would have thought that Britain would have wanted a stronger Indian economy - you know, so they might have more revenue to tax.
-By not allowing Indians in high levels of government, Britain poorly prepared the colony for self-governance
-Breaking up industries of skilled labor led to higher unemployment
-The British paid little for Indian raw materials and charged steep rates for British goods (after all, trade didn't have to be fair, it was between master and slave).
-India was made unable to support itself without British goods, leading to economic drawbacks and neo-colonial dependencies, even after independence
-Famine struck often and harshly, as the Brits could make more money off of cash crops than food crops for the Indians
-In the 50 years prior to independence, India's economy experienced zero growth

Like life expectancy?
Okay, life expectancy. Indians had a life expectancy of 20 in 1910, as you provided back when you were trying to say it was terrible at that time (as opposed to now, when you're saying it was good because of British imperialism). That's India under British imperialism.

You're right. I should really look to the knowledge generation centers of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indonesia, & Libya to really gauge the future of Islamic knowledge creation. You really are making this quite easy.
Knowledge generation in medieval times was exploding in the Muslim world while it was stagnant in Christian Europe. The situation then reversed. Thus, the difference isn't religious, but cultural. And not all Muslims share the same culture, as not all Christians share the same culture. Thus, you might say that backwards extreme conservatism (religious usually) leads to stagnant countries.

Your arguments are weak.
Yes, under the principle that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

Abyss · Senior Member

DonnaL wrote:

Abyss wrote:

We'll see about Turkey. I'm incredibly bearish on the oil producing economies in the Middle East. Once the oil is gone...they'll actually have to create wealth...

Well, I won't call you an idiot (do you get a prize for first personal insult on this forum?), but I will point out that this particular statement doesn't exactly demonstrate a lot of expertise. Turkey, the big oil producing economy? Right. Turkey isn't even in the top 60 countries in the world in oil production.

That's why I said "We'll see" about Turkey. I won't make a prediction on that one.

The oil producing sentence was in reference to his UAE comment.

DonnaL · Senior Member

Abyss wrote:

We'll see about Turkey. I'm incredibly bearish on the oil producing economies in the Middle East. Once the oil is gone...they'll actually have to create wealth...

Well, I won't call you an idiot (do you get a prize for first personal insult on this forum?), but I will point out that this particular statement doesn't seem to demonstrate a lot of expertise. Turkey, as an example of a major oil producing economy? Turkey isn't even in the top 60 countries in the world in oil production.

So, who exactly were you on CC? Mr. Payne, maybe? You sound kind of like him.

-- Edited by DonnaL on Sunday 28th of November 2010 08:18:06 PM

-- Edited by DonnaL on Sunday 28th of November 2010 08:19:59 PM

-- Edited by DonnaL on Sunday 28th of November 2010 08:21:13 PM

Abyss · Senior Member

It's idiotic to say that imperial oppression leads to a lower quality of life? I feel like if I said that, you'd call me an idiot for it.Life expectancy is a fairly good measure of an economy's development. I'm contending that imperialistic overlords really didn't do much to hurt the economy. I mean, I'm trying to figure out exactly what they did to retard growth in the economy - buy commodities that India produced? Perhaps introduce them to 250 years of European knowledge generation? Oh, you're right, those evil white devils. Just crushing that Indian economy.

You know, all this time, I would have thought that Britain would have wanted a stronger Indian economy - you know, so they might have more revenue to tax.

A pre-capitalistic society has different measures of wealth than a capitalistic one.Like life expectancy?

That one particular Hindu country and that one particular Muslim country, yes. But you can't generalize to a whole religion based on that.You're right. I should really look to the knowledge generation centers of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indonesia, & Libya to really gauge the future of Islamic knowledge creation. You really are making this quite easy.

Not solely, I was simply pointing out an idea, as you said they had a lack of such ideas. And he who controls the water has power in this world.No, whoever has the money, controls the power. Regardless, the desalination plants in SA are going to be used for domestic water consumption, not for export. The way to make money is to come up with a better desalination plant design. Good thing all the major design & build contractors (ie: the people who actually design this stuff) are either Western or Asian firms.

Of course, arguing with you is pointless, as you see someone with a differing opinion as an idiot or clueless, simply because they disagree with you. You will call me an idiot no matter what, unless I join your misguided positions. But I don't really mind what someone like you on the internet says. I had just thought that this forum seemed to have a lot of good will. Ah well.Your arguments are weak. Don't expect charity.

-- Edited by Abyss on Sunday 28th of November 2010 08:12:30 PM

-- Edited by Abyss on Sunday 28th of November 2010 08:12:48 PM

Billy · Senior Member

Stop saying idiotic things and I'll stop describing you as an idiot.
It's idiotic to say that imperial oppression leads to a lower quality of life? I feel like if I said that, you'd call me an idiot for it.

India never had a high per capita income. By definition, it was never wealthy.
A pre-capitalistic society has different measures of wealth than a capitalistic one.

In which case you agree that a majority non-Muslim country has a better chance at become wealthy than a Muslim one? This is going to be easier than I though.
That one particular Hindu country and that one particular Muslim country, yes. But you can't generalize to a whole religion based on that.

You think creating desalination plants is their key to continued wealth? Oh dear, you are more clueless than I originally thought.
Not solely, I was simply pointing out an idea, as you said they had a lack of such ideas. And he who controls the water has power in this world.

Of course, arguing with you is pointless, as you see someone with a differing opinion as an idiot or clueless, simply because they disagree with you. You will call me an idiot no matter what, unless I join your misguided positions. But I don't really mind what someone like you on the internet says. I had just thought that this forum seemed to have a lot of good will. Ah well.

Abyss · Senior Member

Woo, personal attacks, just what this forum was missing!Stop saying idiotic things and I'll stop describing you as an idiot.

The British controlled the rulers of India, and Britain profited from the previously wealthy India. The British exercised their divide and conquer strategy once again by playing the Hindus against the Muslims, fostering the division that led to the nuclear states you see today. Gandhi realized this, but couldn't fix things. Anyone who studies this area's history seriously realizes this.India never had a high per capita income. By definition, it was never wealthy.

No, because those countries had fundamentally different origins. India is the best comparison, obviously.In which case you agree that a majority non-Muslim country has a better chance at become wealthy than a Muslim one? This is going to be easier than I though.

The Saudis, and other neighboring countries, knowing that their oil will run out and seeing the developing global water crisis, have built massive desalination plants to manufacture fresh water. That could be their ticket to continued wealth.You think creating desalination plants is their key to continued wealth? Oh dear, you are clueless...

-- Edited by Abyss on Sunday 28th of November 2010 07:48:47 PM

Billy · Senior Member

Are you really that much of an idiot? What effect do you think the Brits actually had on the day to day running of India? Most indians didn't even know the British were there!
Woo, personal attacks, just what this forum was missing!

The British controlled the rulers of India, and Britain profited from the previously wealthy India. The British exercised their divide and conquer strategy once again by playing the Hindus against the Muslims, fostering the division that led to the nuclear states you see today. Gandhi realized this, but couldn't fix things. Anyone who studies this area's history seriously realizes this.

So you will accept a comparison between Australia/Canada against Pakistan?
No, because those countries had fundamentally different origins. India is the best comparison, obviously.

We'll see about Turkey. I'm incredibly bearish on the oil producing economies in the Middle East. Once the oil is gone...they'll actually have to create wealth...

Creating wealth/ideas is what separates the 1st world economies from everyone else. I don't see any Middle Eastern country doing it.
The Saudis, and other neighboring countries, knowing that their oil will run out and seeing the developing global water crisis, have built massive desalination plants to manufacture fresh water. That could be their ticket to continued wealth.

Abyss · Senior Member

Billy wrote:

You're right. The English colony of India was a bastion of high wealth, high life expectancy, and lots of women's rights.
I didn't say that. I just said that Pakistan, as a country, didn't exist, so a comparison with a country that had been established for nearly 150 years presents difficulties.

So you will accept a comparison between Australia/Canada against Pakistan?

Billy wrote:

Hey, not a liberal. Socialist, get it right.

I said Pakistan could, not that it would. However, discriminating against religion is a dangerous matter. As for other Muslim countries, I'd say Turkey will probably be pretty good in a hundred years. And if we're just talking economy, the UAE is doing pretty well.

We'll see about Turkey. I'm incredibly bearish on the oil producing economies in the Middle East. Once the oil is gone...they'll actually have to create wealth...

Creating wealth/ideas is what separates the 1st world economies from everyone else. I don't see any Middle Eastern country doing it.

Abyss · Senior Member

Billy wrote:

The life expectancy in India in 1910 was 20 years old. Do I really need to explain how life in the US was *way* better than that?
That's the fault of the British.

Are you really that much of an idiot? What effect do you think the Brits actually had on the day to day running of India? Most indians didn't even know the British were there!

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

"I don't get this. By no means should we generalize about Islam, but generalizing about everything Pakistani is OK? I'm sure that there are Pakistani people who are as outraged about this as you are, the female Pakistani pediatrician that my kids see when their Colombian one is out of town, for one."

Sorry, I meant against the Pakistani government. I should have worded that better. My apologies.

"Your attempt at being clever is laughable."

I wasn't attempting to be clever. I was curious as to where your information was coming from.

-- Edited by romanigypsyeyes on Sunday 28th of November 2010 06:57:29 PM

-- Edited by romanigypsyeyes on Sunday 28th of November 2010 06:58:10 PM

Billy · Senior Member

The life expectancy in India in 1910 was 20 years old. Do I really need to explain how life in the US was *way* better than that?
That's the fault of the British.

Billy · Senior Member

You're right. The English colony of India was a bastion of high wealth, high life expectancy, and lots of women's rights.
I didn't say that. I just said that Pakistan, as a country, didn't exist, so a comparison with a country that had been established for nearly 150 years presents difficulties.

Unlike you, a liberal, I like to make predictions based on data. Looking over the past 200-300 years of human development there is absolutely no reason to think that Pakistan (or any other Muslim nation, really) will turn into a 1st world economy (with the associated rights/freedoms that traditionally follow that progression).
Hey, not a liberal. Socialist, get it right.

I said Pakistan could, not that it would. However, discriminating against religion is a dangerous matter. As for other Muslim countries, I'd say Turkey will probably be pretty good in a hundred years. And if we're just talking economy, the UAE is doing pretty well.

Abyss · Senior Member

BigG wrote:

More 100 years ago in the US;

http://www.rense.com/general70/100yrs.htm

What is your point? The US was near the top of the world at that time.

Abyss · Senior Member

romanigypsyeyes wrote:

"The difference, of course, is that 100 years ago Pakistan was worse in every way when compared to the US. The US was quite a good place to live 100 years ago compared to other countries at the time."

Interesting. I'm not quite sure where you are pulling that from. Tell me, could you tell me what Pakistan was like in 1910? I am interested...

Your attempt at being clever is laughable.

The life expectancy in India in 1910 was 20 years old. Do I really need to explain how life in the US was *way* better than that?

BigG · Guru

More 100 years ago in the US;

http://www.rense.com/general70/100yrs.htm

The US was ahead of many countries at that time, but it did not exist in a state of bucolic splendor.

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 28th of November 2010 06:53:57 PM

berurah · Senior Member

romanigypsyeyes wrote:
Please, do not turn this into an anti-Islam thread. It is clearly not Islam that is at fault here, it is the culture that Islam happens to be centered in. Not all Islamic countries are like this and not all countries that are like this are Islamic... By all means though, turn this into an anti-Pakistani thread.
I don't get this. By no means should we generalize about Islam, but generalizing about everything Pakistani is OK? I'm sure that there are Pakistani people who are as outraged about this as you are, the female Pakistani pediatrician that my kids see when their Colombian one is out of town, for one.

-- Edited by berurah on Sunday 28th of November 2010 06:52:27 PM

Abyss · Senior Member

Billy wrote:

The difference, of course, is that 100 years ago Pakistan was worse in every way when compared to the US. The US was quite a good place to live 100 years ago compared to other countries at the time.
Pakistan wasn't even a place 100 years ago, and many of the people there now were living in India (rather, their ancestors). I think 100 years is enough time to make Pakistan a good place to live. It can happen, but it's iffy as to whether it will. Hopefully it will, but that hope isn't extremely well-grounded.

Golly gee, I didn't know that.

You're right. The English colony of India was a bastion of high wealth, high life expectancy, and lots of women's rights.

Unlike you, a liberal, I like to make predictions based on data. Looking over the past 200-300 years of human development there is absolutely no reason to think that Pakistan (or any other Muslim nation, really) will turn into a 1st world economy (with the associated rights/freedoms that traditionally follow that progression).

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

"The difference, of course, is that 100 years ago Pakistan was worse in every way when compared to the US. The US was quite a good place to live 100 years ago compared to other countries at the time."

Interesting. I'm not quite sure where you are pulling that from. Tell me, could you tell me what Pakistan was like in 1910? I am interested...

Billy · Senior Member

The difference, of course, is that 100 years ago Pakistan was worse in every way when compared to the US. The US was quite a good place to live 100 years ago compared to other countries at the time.
Pakistan wasn't even a place 100 years ago, and many of the people there now were living in India (rather, their ancestors). I think 100 years is enough time to make Pakistan a good place to live. It can happen, but it's iffy as to whether it will. Hopefully it will, but that hope isn't extremely well-grounded.

Abyss · Senior Member

BigG wrote:

100 years ago in the U.S.;

1.Women could not vote

2.African-Americans were routinely lynched

3. Miscegenation was a crime in many states (oops, make that 50 years ago!)

Point? 100 years is a long time.

We are less than 300 years from fire being the only source of heat and light.

Modern antibiotics are newer than a century.

Polio devastated many of the generation just prior to mine.

The difference, of course, is that 100 years ago Pakistan was worse in every way when compared to the US. The US was quite a good place to live 100 years ago compared to other countries at the time.

-- Edited by Abyss on Sunday 28th of November 2010 06:36:17 PM

BigG · Guru

100 years ago in the U.S.;

1.Women could not vote

2.African-Americans were routinely lynched

3. Miscegenation was a crime in many states (oops, make that 50 years ago!)

Point? 100 years is a long time.

We are less than 300 years from fire being the only source of heat and light.

Modern antibiotics are newer than a century.

Polio devastated many of the generation just prior to mine.

Abyss · Senior Member

Pakistan - a place that will still suck in 100 years.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

How long will it take Pakistan to reach that point? It won't happen in my lifetime, I'm sure.

At least officially- I think it will happen in my life time. However, in rural villages and other areas, I don't think that violence (or even death) against these people will happen even in MY lifetime.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Mohandas Gandhi... I wonder if he would say the same about Muslims and Muhammad.

Also, Donna- I didn't know about that 1971 case. I am going to look it up now.

DonnaL · Senior Member

Well, the article did say that Pakistan has never executed someone convicted of blasphemy -- I assume that the sentences have always been commuted -- so I certainly hope the result is the same here.

The UK only eliminated its laws against blasphemy in 2008, although it's been almost 90 years since someone was imprisoned for it.

The last persons executed for blasphemy in the American colonies were four Quakers hanged by the wonderful Puritan government of Massachusetts in 1660.

The last blasphemy prosecution in the U.S. was in 1971.

How long will it take Pakistan to reach that point? It won't happen in my lifetime, I'm sure.

Billy · Senior Member

I suspect that intense international outrage will lead to her release. Hopefully she will be offered asylum in a more accepting country.

I am surprised by the prevalence of execution in Christian and Muslim societies. Jesus vehemently condemned execution. Christians call him the Son of God and Muslims call him the Prophet of Mercy, yet both have executions.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

This story breaks my heart:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/18/pakistan.blasphemy/index.html

A Christian woman in Pakistan is sentenced to hang for insulting Muhammad. Even though people are using Islam to justify it, this quote is interesting: Neither the Koran nor the prophet Muhammad's teachings in the Hadith call for the execution of blasphemers

I will never understand how people continually use "religion" as a justification when there is absolutely no justification in religious texts. Christianity and Islam are both extremely guilty of this, more than any other major religion that I know of.

Ugh, I literally just have no words to describe how upset this makes me. Please, do not turn this into an anti-Islam thread. It is clearly not Islam that is at fault here, it is the culture that Islam happens to be centered in. Not all Islamic countries are like this and not all countries that are like this are Islamic. By all means though, turn this into an anti-Pakistani thread.