Jump to content
- - - - - - - - - -

163 Players are online

supreme cc

Members
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by supreme cc

  1. Strongly respect these responses, makes for a good discussion and your argument comes across strongly Anyway, I don’t believe waiting for a few years and being ‘commanded by God’ is good justicication for his murdering. What the prophet saw as a commandment from God is because of his faith in him. Faith is belief without the need for any form of evidence. This can be used in the most evil of ways to justify absolutely any action and it truely is dangerous. Muhammed believed God commanded him to fight back. There is no empirical evidence, there is no scientific discovery behind it as there isn’t any to prove such things are the present day. This is a perfect example of how ‘faith’ could have been exploited to justify Muhammad’s actions of which could have otherwise been seen as purely evil. If God hadn’t have ‘commanded’ him to kill, would these actions have been justified? I can relate this to other present day examples, such as suicide bombers having the faith and belief that Allah would send them to a martyr’s heaven after they take their lives. They justify their actions by their faith in this. Their beleif. They have no evidence for it and we often see these people in an evil way. What differentiates the prophet’s actions because of his unproven beliefs and the suicide bombers of the present day? Well I guess you are also for a Global Communist Dictatorship, ruled by a single state, where everybody in the public lives by complete equality of outcome? Furtherely, you must be against cultural diversity which strongly contradicts the wants of a large proportion of the muslim population, who can commonly be seen migrating into developed Western countries instead of living in their homelands. Finally, how do you expect everybody to convert to Islam in such a peaceful scenario? Surely if you want this equality of belief we disregard all religion from the belief of these historic holy books.
  2. Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." ‘Been called to fight all men until they testify that there is no god but Allah and Muhammed in His messenger’ Prophet Muhammad was known for spreading his message through the sword, with his involvement in the attacks such as the caravan attacks, making his methods of global spread similar to the conquest of the likes of Caesar It is said that Muhammad spent the last 10 years of his life as the leader of the ummah, the head state at Medina. This was written in th me Quran to justify Muhammad’s spreading of the belief by the sword. ‘Permission to fight is given to those who are fought against because they have been wronged - truely Allah has the power to come to their support... merely for saying ‘Our lord is Allah’ Also, I have not fully read the Quran as of yet but I advise you read up on the offensive Caravan raids. “When you meet your enemies.... If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them’. Sahih Muslim 1731 a, b Spreading of the faith by the sword in a warlord like manner: https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/forced-conversion.aspx
  3. Most Muslims are peaceful gieds family just gives them a bad name in the media I don’t believe all muslims are bad and evil people. I believe the roots and faith of Islam are threatening ideas. For example, the prophet Mohammed was a conquering warlord. The Quran talks about how the prophet would spread his ideology throughout the world via conquest and force. This is where it was withdrawn from the Quran by certain Muslims, that the penalty for not converting to Islam is death. I am not stating that all Muslims believe the penalty for not converting to Islam should be death, but the messages and morals that derive from the Quran itself are threatening. They worship a conquering and murdering warlord. Therefore I belief that the faith of Islam is unpeaceful.
  4. For argument’s sake, I am willing to debate against anybody who said Islam is a peaceful religion.
  5. Title speaks for itself. Feel free to discuss/debate the topic below.
  6. A feminist motion isn’t necessarily at all on a major scale in Western countries such as the US and UK. You could say the movement would be more necessary in strongly Islamic countries, such as those within the Middle East, but that is an argument against the medeival culture of the religion. To those who say the Gender Pay Gap is a myth, you are jumping onto a train of which you don’t know the destination of. If exists, its been proven. Do I believe its threatening in Western societies? No. Why? Because it is the Gender WAGE (not pay) Gap that is non existent. Females’ pay per hour is not lower than males’. If this was the case, surely it would be the women benefitting from this, as employers would just hire females over males as they would be able to pay them less for the same work? Its because females are paid the same as males for the same work. So, you may wonder how a pay gap formed between genders if there is no wage gap. Well, there are many reasons and I personally believe studies have been misleading when reported in mainstream media and that they haven’t gone into depth of what is the cause of this pay gap. Remember correlation is not causation. A few reasons behind the pay gap which aren’t considered in mainstream media reports: a) males are statistically more likely to work overtime and therefore more hours. You may say this is down to gender stereotypical roles of the women having to attend home to care for the children post school etc, but that would completely disregard the factor of BIOLOGICAL gender characteristics (eg: Professor of Psychology, Jordan Peterson, has studied this topic and has claimed a gender difference is that females are biologically more submissive). b) males are more likely to work riskier jobs which can be rewarded in higher pay. This is shown as in 2015, 93% of workplace fatalities were male. c) other reasons - mainly caused by gender characteristics, such as career choice. P.S for anybody arguing that gender characteristics don’t exist and that it is society’s stereotypes that push men into certain jobs and females into others, then explain this: Norway is one of the most ‘gender neutral’ countries, with one of its most important political stances being to enforce this. Yet Norway has a ratio of 1:20 male to female nurses and a 20:1 male to female engineers ratio. This is in a country that promotes gender equality and the riddance of gender stereotypes, yet it has a higher ratio of gender bias in specific jobs.
  7. Yes but where do you expect this funding to come from, if the tax rates are already at an extreme? We have said this from the start that funding is obviously an issue for the health service to function, but increasing tax rates is not the answer. We allow foreign students to attend our medical schools, and they come due to the schools being some of the best in the world. This increases the competitiveness of the medical schools, and therefore there are less places for the UK's own students. These foreign students then leave with their degree and work in their home nation, where they would be better off working as a doctor, due to a better real wage. This is a major reason why we don't have enough doctors working in the NHS. Its not that people don't want to become doctors, there is a massive number of students who apply for medical school. You are claiming £4,000 is still not of great expense? The £4,000 that come from the tax payers. The £4,000 that the overweight would then have to fund for themselves, discouraging this unhealthy lifestyle. This would then decrease the demand for gastric bands and we wouldn't need to supply as many specialised doctors for this type of healthcare. Then we could specialise doctors in another sector of the health service where are they are required (as you said before there is a shortage of doctors in our health service).
  8. They aren't looking for a marginal increase. It is quite drastic if you think that current taxing on the rich is already too high. They are also trying to increase tax on the 125k+ earners as well as the 80k+ earners. These are our skilled workers in our economy, that is prominently based on the service sector. You need these skilled workers in order for a service sector based economy to thrive and with these increased tax rates, it will only discourage workers with a high human capital to work in the UK, and it will also discourage workers to work the longer hours in order to stay under these ridiculously high tax thresholds. I know as a friend of mine has just graduated from the University of Imperial and is now doing investment banking, and after speaking to him, he has told me how his whole team would be moving out of the UK if the labour party was to get in and introduce their new tax rates. Secondly, labour want to triple corporation tax? Surely this madness with already businesses moving out of the country due to Brexit. Why would any business operate in the UK if we tripled the corporation tax, and when there are options to base themselves in other lower tax rate countries? Yes I do have two relatives working in the NHS and one relative in medical school. If you want proof I can disclose it privately but I am not posting related personal information on a public forum. One of my parents work in the NHS and other works in the NHS as well as doing private work. They would find it disastrous if the labour party got into to power. So would a lot of their colleagues who they have spoken to, with many of them being above 80k and the 125k income tax thresholds. Why would the doctors work in the UK with such high tax thresholds, overtime hours and under appreciation in the healthcare system, when they would be much better off working in a country such as Canada/Australia/America, where their skills as a doctor would be much more appreciated. This appreciation would be shown with a much higher real income and therefore doctors would be much better off working in a different country if labour were to get in. Its not about labours manifesto for funding the healthcare system, because as I said before, the tax rates are already too high on the rich. Its the fact that a lot of these doctors are included as the rich who earn above these tax thresholds. This is pretty irrelevant. I have spoken to my parents and their colleagues about this matter and multiple have said they would find work elsewhere. It is not hard at all for workers with their human capital to find jobs in these countries, so that isn't an issue. It is also very easy for people of their age and with their qualifications to get acceptance to move there, so that isn't an issue. Oh, and about the sarcastic point of NHS workers being struggling for money, why don't you check how NHS workers (doctors/surgeons) real incomes' have drastically decreased over the last decade, due to literally no increase in wage but a rise in inflation. It has been calculated that some NHS workers real incomes have decreased by 30% over 1 decade. How can you not say that their jobs have been completely devalued in the UK, and why wouldn't they go through the effort of just selling a house to have a real income that is nearly twice of their current in a different country? Workers are willing to undergo a short-term pain for long-term gain so your argument is pretty invalid. They can be used the same way in this context so I don't know why you are trying to correct me. Ok. If you didn't know, since Margaret Thatcher, the UK's economy has been prominently based in the service sector. London is one of the top 2 financial centres of the world, and if you did your research, there has already been mass movement of financial firms leaving the UK post Brexit. With an increase in corporation tax, I think big businesses and TNC's would be willing to move any of their business they have in the UK to other countries (that are in trading blocs like the EU and have lower corporation tax). It really isn't that difficult for transnational corporations to move nation with the current influence and power they have in the common world, and with them already operating in the poorest regions of the world for cheap labour? You really think a TNC with a wealth greater than the whole of Finland or Norway would find difficulty in moving out of the UK? All car manufacturing that is currently done in the UK by Japanese manufacturers such as Honda and Toyota could easily move their manufacturing to lower taxed companies, to increase their profits. So I don't know how you can argue that a triple in corporation tax wouldn't lead to businesses leaving the UK A career isn't based off 2-5 years? People want a potential high paid career. Doctors may start on a low salary, but they can work their way up to become a consultant, and have the possibility of a high paid income. This is why have a huge shortage of nurses in our health service. Its due to the low prosperity of their wage and there is no arguing of the matter. I already did my research and have debated on the Autumn Budget. The "Pay Award" is not significant enough to promote the route taking of the younger generation to become nurses. We need nurses in the future and we need to offer the younger generations prosperity in the nursing line of work, so when they choose to do a degree, they choose to become a nurse. Because I would be disclosing personal information. If you research though, you can see this from the perspective of professionals across the world. It is well-known that a public healthcare is fundamentally reliant on a supply of nurses.
  9. The labour party coming to power would cause an economic catastrophe for Britain. The tax is already high enough and labour want to increase this on the high skilled and paid workers. The increased tax on the rich would discourage all skilled workers to work in the UK, including the doctors. This would cause a brain drain in the UK and also we wouldn't have enough people to fill the jobs that the taxing is funding (eg: the doctors in the health service). I can say this with 2 relatives working in the NHS, a brother in medical school and what their colleagues have said they would do if the labour party got in. Many have said they would look to work in the USA/Canada/Australia. Not only this but all firms would leave the UK due to the tripled corporation tax, and the UK would have very little FDI, as companies would operate in lower taxed countries or trading blocs like the EU. This is a major issue since nurses have to attend a nursing school, nearly the equivalent of attending a university for a wage such "Fully qualified nurses start on salaries of £22,128 --- progress to a maximum of £35,577. Why would people go through all the effort of training to be a nurse when there is such wage-reward for the work, when there are options to get a degree and earn more? With the current lack of nursing, the healthcare will always fail and I know this from expert advice. A woman who has put on a bit of weight due to child birth won't need a gastric band the next week. Something like a gastric band can be easily privatised without grey areas, saving tax payers as they cost up to £8,000 per surgery. I would privatise healthcare required due to type 2 diabetes as long as it wasn't inherited and was solely due to weight gain (without the person being diagnosed with a disease that promoted weight gain). If the disease isn't inherited and their are severe signs of repetitive patterns of smoking that could have contributed to your disease, you should have to pay. It was your lifestyle choice to REPEATEDLY smoke, knowing before each cigarette that there could be negative impacts on your health. Why should the taxpayers fund your treatment? I agree people can become addicted to alcohol, but people also become addicted to gambling. Do we pay the gamblers when they become addicted (often due to depression) and have lost all their money? No. Do we relieve people who have broken the law and driven under the influence of alcohol because of their addiction? No. They are imprisoned. I agree mental health is under-appreciated in the UK. But here's a scenario. A man is divorced, loses the right to see his kids, undergoes depression, gambles his money away and is in poverty. The government don't pay out this man as it was his addiction that caused this. Its the same with alcohol consumption. You may say that alcohol consumption is a physical health issue but so is gambling in a sense. Without money they could end up the streets, leading to all sorts of physical health issues. I believe that instead of focusing on giving the addicted alcohol consumers free healthcare, we should focus on preventing and solving the issue of mental health, otherwise there will constantly be high rates of depression and alcoholism. Privatising the related healthcare would only dis-encourage excessive alcohol consumption/smoking/unhealthy habits and therefore this would become less of an issue anyhow. There is something called a limit that we use for drink-driving. Using a breathalyser a limit would be introduced. Not a difficult concept. Everyone makes mistakes and you must pay for your mistakes to learn from them. It is almost a necessity in present life and work. Smoking, drinking and unhealthy eating isn't and don't help you provide an income. No, I didn't mention that once. You went off-topic. Where do you expect the 350m a week to come from, if not tax payers? The figure that was presumed we would save weekly from the EU turned out to be false, if you didn't know already.
  10. Hence I said this discussion isn’t between a fully public and fully private health system. These people aren’t visiting hospital after just ‘getting injured’. Its due to the lifestyle they live.
  11. Before I begin, this is not a discussion between a completely public healthcare system and a fully privatised one. I will be using the UK’s NHS as an example throughout this discussion and it will be the base behind a lot of my points. Anyway, in the UK there is a National Health Service that is prodominently funded by the taxing of the population. It is free healthcare for all citizens and is currently undergoing a lot of stress, with issues such as there not being enough nurses or funding. Many people in the UK beleive that to solve the issues in the NHS and to increase its funding CANNOT be done by raising the tax rates on the population. Many people already beleive that tax on the rich is too high on Britain and by increasing this to fund the NHS would just cause high skilled and high paid workers to leave the country and find work elsewhere. UK tax rates: https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates People beleive my privatising sectors of the NHS would reduce stress on the service and therefore it would function better. It would also allow taxing rates to be eased on the rich in the UK. Sectors of the NHS that I beleive should be privatised: a) Weight related healthcare, such as Gastric bands. People who are diagnosed with a disease that can promote weight gain wouldn’t have to pay. People can control their weight and your metabolism isn’t an excuse. I beleive that you can choose to live a fat life, but you should be willing to fund it yourself. Currently people are being taxed to pay for this healthcare, and by privatising it, this unhealthy lifestyle would be less attractive. b) Smoking related illnesses that require treatment. Once again, this is a life choice and smoking is a luxury. Be willing to pay the price for your luxurious life decisions, not others taxes. c) Treatment due to alcohol consumption, such as Accident and Emergency visits when somebody chokes on their own vomit, when a child with a broken spine is waiting for an abulance. This would discourage antisociable behaviour and would cause less stress on the NHS due to it. I do not beleive that people shouldn’t be able to live the ways I stated above, such as an unhealthy lifestyle and smoking. I just beleive they should individually pay for it. This would mean that less doctors would be required to provide health serviced related to the above, and therefore more could be trained to help other sectors of the health service, such as children born with a highly dangerous disease. This could also help discourage unhealthy lifestyles, furtherly putting less stress on the NHS, and also could help decrease tax rates. Do you beleive people should have to pay for healthcare due to the cost of their own life choices? (Baring in mind, most illnesses caused by the above behaviour don’t happen after 1 drink or 1 unhealthy burger. These are caused from consistent life choices, so people would be aware of what they are doing)
  12. Its confusing where people want this game to go with recent updates. On one hand we make OSRS switching the only possible way to switch at Edgepvp, but then something like ::riskdefence is introduced. I would remove the teleport to mage bank.
  13. Not listening to your superiors probably didn’t help the case of your IQ level
  14. I know that you are still a young one and I respect that you’re still learning. You won’t wanna be wishing death on somebody you don’t really know over a rsps, when its hitting the people you know next time. People talk way too much talk on this server for what they really are and do as a person in life. Just needa not take what people say seriously, because we all know its just an act
  15. I would only take your word on a sesitive topic like this, as it would be EXTREMELY weird to frame something like this on a runescape private server forums for attention, and I do not beleive somebody would do such a thing. If so, sorry for your loss. I didnt’t know your brother or either you in person, so I can’t comment on how he was as a person and that in comparison to his online persona. P.s, you are just really weird.
  16. This has been done before, such as the split capital city of Cyprus, Nicosia. Half Turkish, half Greek. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicosia
  17. Before I start, I am not stating that I agree or disagree with what Trump did. Anyhow, why do you claim that Trump is a terrorist? If he did not declare the city to be the capital of Israel or Palestine eventually, surely there would be constant conflict and war between these countries themselves over Jerusalem, as there has been every since 1948 (btw that’s for 69 years, nearly 70). This constact conflict isn’t getting solved and more and more death, destruction and poverty is being caused by it, as there has been for nearly 70 years. Wouldn’t we have to eventually declare it as a country’s capital to eventually stop this, and work towards peace and the end of conflict? Secondly, would you call Trump a terrorist if he declared the city to belong to Palestine, and there was an uprising my the Israelis? Or are you purely declaring this statement because of your faith and its beleifs, and what you have seen in the media? You call trump a terrorist, yet have you read that Islamic Jihads have been causing terror for years in the city, as they support Palestine?
  18. https://www.reddit.com/r/madlads/?st=JAWV3CKK&sh=1626fc05
  19. From a purely economical perspective: Capitalism brings freer trade and markets. Free markets are controlled by market forces (supply and demand) and therefore firms will aim to meet the demands in the market, in order to maximise their profits. This leads to firms competing against each other, leading to increased levels of innovation, quality/quantity of goods/services produced, variety and a fast response to market changes. In a more planned economy, markets are restricted by government intervention. Therefore businesses cannot thrive and we lack innovation, leading to poorer quality of goods produced. On the other hand, socialist economies include higher corporate taxation rates and high income taxes, in order to pay for their proposed public services and welfare systems. This discourages high skilled workers and businesses to base themselves in that country, as they would be better off individually in a capitalist economy, where they would be taxed less and would have a higher real income. Therefore the economy can undergo a brain drain and it also can lose foreign investment as businesses leave. Socialist economies all encourage people to work less due to the taxation system. Say we have a high earning worker. They may earn £250,000 annually at their current wage. In a socialist economy, there be higher income tax rates past the £240,000 threshold. This worker would then be discouraged to work the same hours as they did, as they would be just as well off if they earned less but stayed under the high tax threshold. Therefore the productivity of the country falls and the country may stop economically growing. Take an unemployed person. They are encouraged to stay unemployed as they can claim benefits that provide a healthy lifestyle, of which the high skilled workers are funding. This leads to high unemployment rates, weak productivity and possible recessions. Socialist ideologies are based off an Eutopia that doesn’t account for human nature and the aspect of competition. They don’t account for the fact that individuals want to be ‘better’ than the population around them. Even in communist societies, the population aren’t truely equal, as they tend to result in mass poverty with a corrupt and elite few (due to the aspect of human nature and the elite few taking advantage of their position to become the best off they can). All corrections are appreciated addition: looking at the public services that are proposed by socialist societies such as public health care. Take the notorious British National Health Service. It is a public service and the doctors who work for it are high skilled workers. Therefore they have moderately high incomes. Socialist economies increase taxation on these high earners, discouraging doctors and nurses to work their long hours and instead they cut their working hours. This leads to a health service where there aren’t enough workers for it (doctors/nurses), as they are discouraged to work. If you think about it, the doctors have been taxed more for the work they do in the public health service, just to fund the public health service (and ofcourse other things) itself. Not logical and this system often fails, as the NHS in the UK is beginning to do.
×
×
  • Create New...