Islam could get better

[1sickbastard]

No, those young males kicked out of their Mormon communities actually end up really fucked up. You can't dump a 13 year old boy on the side of the road an expect a positive outcome. Many go on to star in "twink" porn or become drug addicts. Suicide is common. Google "lost boys" if you want to read about it. There have been countless articles written about these young men, you can find a source you trust quite easily. Here are articles from varying sources.

Salon
Guardian
Washington Times

Your bringing u Honduras is an "exception to the rule" which really isn't of help to the conversation. The discussion is Islam, and I say that doing away with polygamy would lead to an extreme decrease in suicide bombings. Honduras isn't relevant. That said I don't understand why you brought it up since you say they are one of the most violent countries and that they practice polygamy as well. Or maybe you are simply agreeing with me? Anyway...

Here is the best I can do in terms of giving you an easy link on the subject of suicide bombings and Islam which "backs up" my opinion. (Once again, like my knowledge of Lost Boys, it comes from a variety of sources.)

It's an article about many things, scroll down to section #4 "Most suicide bombers are Muslim"

\

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/ten-politically-incorrect-truths-about-human-nature

Hey, I'm not disagreeing that being suddenly tossed out of one's home and shunned by the community where one was raised, not to mention being excommunicated by one's religion isn't going to fuck a kid up. But As it relates to violence I didn't see much in those news articles which stated that the majority, or even a sizable minority then responded by turning to violent crime because they weren't allowed to have sex.
I might even go so far as to equate the experience of those poor unfortunates to that of same-sex teens being physically/emotionally abused and then being thrown out of their homes by socially conservative families. Said teens also, with alarming frequency, end up emotionally traumatized, clinically depressed, often suicidal, addicted to drugs, living on the streets and engaging in criminal activity (like prostitution and drug dealing) to survive. At least according to the anecdotal "evidence" I've seen. And yes, I do realize anecdotal evidence has little validity, so at best I've made an unsubstantiated claim which I don't expect you to hold as valid.
However, none of that conflates to purposeful engagement in violence as a coping mechanism for sexual frustration, which was your assertion.

As to the article in Psychology Today, you do know that's a popular science magazine, not a peer reviewed academic journal, right?
A quick search of Satoshi Kanazawa (the co-author of the book, "Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, upon which the article you linked is based on) finds him the subject of much criticism by his peers for poor methodology and erroneous conclusions. As a side note, he also wrote a blog for Psychology Today but was fired after he posted the article "Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?". He was also disciplined by the London School of Economics for not submitting his work to peer review and, as a consequence, was barred by that employer from publishing anything without first submitting the work to peer review for a full year.

In short, the assertion that suicide bombers are acting from sexual frustration is backed by suspect evidence of highly questionable methodology and the person making the assertion has been roundly criticized for poor science and faulty conclusions.

Do you have anything else which may support your assertion?

 

[1sickbastard]

I believe so. What is your point?

Kamikazi's acted from adherence to an interpretation of bushido, in that it was indoctrinated from a very early age that it was their duty to die for the Divine Emperor. Moreover, it was considered not only a personal disgrace, but a great dishonor to their families to surrender rather than die in combat. This applied not only to kamikazis, but to all soldiers in the Imperial Japanese military forces. This gave rise to near fanatical defenses, suicidal banzi charges, and officers committing seppuku. In it's most grisly expression, it led to about one thousand Japanese civilians on the island of Saipan hurling themselves over cliffs rather than submitting to American Forces.

Sexual frustration can hardly be claimed in any of those cases.

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

But As it relates to violence I didn't see much in those news articles which stated that the majority, or even a sizable minority then responded by turning to violent crime because they weren't allowed to have sex.

As to the article in Psychology Today, you do know that's a popular science magazine, not a peer reviewed academic journal, right?

This is why I told you from the start that I don't have a handy link that will back up my assertions, though I have read quite a few peer reviewed articles on various subject including those which helped formed my opinion. There is no handy link to back me up, even though you demand it.

Perhaps I should write it myself.

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

Kamikazi's acted from adherence to an interpretation of bushido, in that it was indoctrinated from a very early age that it was their duty to die for the Divine Emperor. Moreover, it was considered not only a personal disgrace, but a great dishonor to their families to surrender rather than die in combat. This applied not only to kamikazis, but to all soldiers in the Imperial Japanese military forces. This gave rise to near fanatical defenses, suicidal banzi charges, and officers committing seppuku. In it's most grisly expression, it led to about one thousand Japanese civilians on the island of Saipan hurling themselves over cliffs rather than submitting to American Forces.

Sexual frustration can hardly be claimed in any of those cases.

What is your point? I agree with the idea (that I posted) that religion doesn't always play a hand in suicide bombings, but when it does, that relgion is always Islam. You aren't discussing a religion, so I don't understand what your point is.

 

[PoppingTom]

I agree with the idea ... that religion doesn't always play a hand in suicide bombings, but when it does, that relgion is always Islam.

Let's say: it's mainly Islam today.

You aren't discussing a religion, so I don't understand what your point is.

There are more religions than just Christianity and Islam. How many Japanese religions do you know?

 

[1sickbastard]

What is your point? I agree with the idea (that I posted) that religion doesn't always play a hand in suicide bombings, but when it does, that relgion is always Islam. You aren't discussing a religion, so I don't understand what your point is.

In the case of the devotion of the Japanese Imperial Armed Forces to the "Divine Emperor", yes it was essentially a religion. The Emperor was considered divine, nearly god like, but certainly an avatar of heaven on Earth.

However the point is that your assertion that polygamy=violence is, at best, unsupported by any credible research.

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

In the case of the devotion of the Japanese Imperial Armed Forces to the "Divine Emperor", yes it was essentially a religion. The Emperor was considered divine, nearly god like, but certainly an avatar of heaven on Earth.

However the point is that your assertion that polygamy=violence is, at best, unsupported by any credible research.

I never wrote "polygamy=violence". My noting that polygamy leads to negative outcomes for low status males who must endure involuntary celibacy (which includes violence, suicide, addiction etc) it most certainly is supported by credible research. Said research just isn't available in a handy link. You haven't read any books on the topic so that means they don't exist?

Link me to it or it isn't true is simply a lazy way for you to stay close minded because you want to be right. If you truly want to learn more, hit the bookstore or library. Or even read article on Google Scholar. If you don't want to bother that is fair enough, but don't make the claim that nothing exists simply because you can't be bothered to check for yourself.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I never wrote "polygamy=violence". My noting that polygamy leads to negative outcomes for low status males who must endure involuntary celibacy (which includes violence, suicide, addiction etc) it most certainly is supported by credible research. Said research just isn't available in a handy link. You haven't read any books on the topic so that means they don't exist?

Link me to it or it isn't true is simply a lazy way for you to stay close minded because you want to be right. If you truly want to learn more, hit the bookstore or library. Or even read article on Google Scholar. If you don't want to bother that is fair enough, but don't make the claim that nothing exists simply because you can't be bothered to check for yourself.

Bravo.

Whats more those who demand citations always discount the sources.

 

[1sickbastard]

My noting that polygamy leads to negative outcomes for males who must endure involuntary celibacy (which includes violence, suicide, addiction etc) it most certainly is supported by credible research. Said research just isn't available in a handy link. You haven't read any books on the topic so that means they don't exist?

Link me to it or it isn't true is simply a lazy way for you to stay close minded because you want to be right. If you want to learn more, hit the bookstore or library. If you don't want to bother that is fair enough, but don't make the claim that nothing exists simply because you can't be bothered to check for yourself.

No, making a claim without being able to support your position is the lazy was to be right. It essentially says that anyone can make any claim he or she wants, and that claim is automatically correct until proven otherwise.

The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one who makes the positive claim (in legal terms, it's the presumption of innocence until proven guilty).

I'm a skeptic. If you want to believe in whatever, fine, no skin off my nose.
On the other hand, if you want me to agree that your claim/belief is right, YOU must provide the evidence to convince me to overcome my skepticism of your claim.

And if you are unwilling or unable to back up whatever you claim with evidence, you should expect skeptics to call bullshit until you can prove otherwise.