Rape, Victim-Blaming, and... random stuff about religion

Post Reply New Topic

Israel is on par with several European countries in terms of living conditions. In fact, as we speak, they're the only Middle-Eastern country in the world who allow homosexuals to adopt and have the 4. highest life-expectancy in the world.



North-Korea--which is led by a dynasty of atheists--is far worse than any muslim country in terms of human rights.



The death penalty doesn't work. This is why Texas doesn't have the lowest murder rate in the US.

Yep, looks like that's been laid to rest (for now) so I'm out too. This is now just an incoherent frenzy of general issues some people have with every group that's different from them, but looks like it will drown in its own confusion and frustration fairly soon. Time to let it die.

Correct. Human rights-wise, though, and from a political perspective - and that's what I meant - it's a hole compared to European countries, and a mountain compared to the surrounding area. Actually, that's a great idea - a depth/height map of human rights.



North Korea has approximately 25 million inhabitants. It's very little compared to the one-fifth of the world apparently following Islam, very little compared to Iran's almost 80 million inhabitants, or Iraq's 30 million, or Afghanistan's 30 million, or Pakistan's 177 million. North Korea is a messed-up place, but certainly not at a magnitude similar to the islamic world.



How is it supposed to work? If it gets rid of people who commit murders, and potentially child abuse, I'm all for it.

In all fairness, North Korea is not atheist per say, its some weird form of personality cult, just like most communist states have been. Stalin went to seminary school and used the Orthodox church quite substantially after he'd purged those who were against him. It can even be argued that most countries went through a "de-clericzation" of sorts, prior to moving on to being a more secular society.

There are some religious elements that exist in the country, but officially North Korea is recognized as an atheist state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_North_Korea

hash it out here. enjoy your new thread.

Officially they are also self-declared as democratic and the best country in the world. Doesn't really mean much. The Soviet Union was also reportedly atheist, yet the Orthodox church still has images of Stalin with a halo hanging on the walls.

Just a semantic clarification per how the country is officially classified and viewed in the rest of world of the world, as an atheist state per third party evidence. It is evidenced that it is hard to take beliefs away from humans, no matter what governments institute as policy.

The United States is evidenced as a Christian country, with over 80% of the country reported as a member of that religious group, but about half the country is mad most of the time because someone less advantaged might get a perceived handout. Particularly among those that term themselves as the most zealous of Christians. Completely contrary to what the guy on the cross taught, in what remains and is reported as such, per actual written translations.

So yes, an official label of religious orientation of a country can be deceiving, per the beliefs of those that actually are evidenced in those countries. I have no idea, there me be more people in North Korea that care about each other as a culture, per the larger population of the masses, than in the larger masses that say they adhere to the teachings of the man on the cross here in the US. But I do know it's a pretty tough place to live for most.

I was just pointing out that official classifications regardless of source can be inaccurate. The US for instance has a separation of Church and State, yet shocking amounts of religiously motivated policies are pushed time and time again. The fact that the country supposedly has this devision, when we see that there hasn't been a single openly non-Christian president for instance, is misleading.

North Korea is arguably the most religious country in the world, if we see some of the Kim personality cult.

Maybe it's just me, but I see no point in adding to a discussion where the opening poster wants to talk about topics they know nothing about.

I agree. But, there certainly are some professing a Christian faith, that attempt to lead us to believe that Obama is a practicing "Muslum". Part of the widespread phenomenon you allude to.

Who are we talking about? If it's me, I know more than you think. I lack experience, but that's not because of me being unaware of anything. As for estimating people's intentions, I'm about as close to omniscience as it gets. Say, do you remember HipsterChick? I had no idea who it was, but I had a very-developed sense saying what it was. If you ever come across a similar situation, remember this: if it looks too good to be true, it probably is. Also, don't be a white knight acting on good intentions alone, but I suppose that's something most people have yet to learn.



Before you advise others to start 'screen testing', I suggest you start learning how to perform screen tests yourself.

It's funny - who was right in their judgment of that situation? I was - it was a troll, and a transparent one. I received a lot of flak for having a little fun and using his one-dimensional fiction to bring up a known and oft-observed pattern in human behaviour. It's a bit disappointing, though, that not a single person who opposed me and called me a sore loser acknowledged I was right after the thread was locked and the user was banned for being a sockpuppeting troll.

My lack of experience in the dating field is not because I lack understanding of any situation. I know full well what people do, what their intentions are, what their biologically- and culturally-ingrained tendencies are, and what their individual motives are. I'm simply not adept at responding to them. The detector is present, but the actuator is not. That's why I called that troll out right after reading his first post, while you fell for it.

Now, this entire post might read like a personal insult, but that's not my intention. It's simply me responding to your personal insult by reminding you how I, throughout that discussion, had a better track record for being proven right in my suspicions of motives, and better senses in detecting them.

Yeah, HipsterChick was a bit too much of a flake, and I honestly found it too rude to be real that she didn't reply to any well-intentioned posts.

But what can you do. Us aspies tend to be trusting.

I'll admit, I had my doubts on HipsterChick but when I give out help here I give it out regardless if the person is a fraud, a troll or genuinely needing it.
I think there's a lot more to be said about a person wanting to help than a person wanting to tear another person down from every wall.

I congratulate you for noticing they were a troll (or hoping they were) earlier than me but it didn't actually accomplish anything.

So, how's my judgment? Can you explain, then, why I don't know what I'm talking about?

There are two types of people with Asperger's syndrome that I've met. One type that's trusting, and somewhat naive, and occasionally bound to get in trouble, but liked and respected for that. The other type looks for signs or indicators of something going wrong very actively, could be described as mildly paranoid, and is disliked for those traits even when they're useful.



Wasn't hoping. This was not wishful thinking. I'm also active in another community for a hobby of mine, and it used to be dominated by sockpuppets. I succesfully picked every one of them out, because they had glaringly-obvious common characteristics, I argued them out of the way, and they all admitted defeat or were banned within a short amount of time. I've seen more dodgy accounts on this forum recently, but I'll give them the benefit of doubt for at least having somewhat-credible back stories.

If you had definitive answers on blaming and rape this topic would have reached 2-3 pages of agreement and possibly a few side comments from the more autistic of us that are rather bitter. But as it stands I see a lot of counter arguing for 8-9 pages. I'd like to think my comment is justified. Your comment on screen testing is fairly justified. But bear in mind, while I am of the trusting brood I am trying to welcome new posters here regardless if they are sock puppets or not. That is something you do as a community orientated person, and it is not a bad trait. I shouldn't be hounded for wanting to include everybody. I give a fair few people a chance here and even throw bones to people I don't like.