POTF 36 - Nominations

[Lord Thesaurian]

POTF is about recognising the very best posts, the best arguments and discourse in the D&D, and appropriately rewarding it.

You shall progressively earn these medals once you achieve enough wins, but first you must be nominated in threads such as this one. And it works like this.

Post of the Fortnight - Rules

-Each user can nominate up to 2 posts per round, and the only valid form of nomination is by quoting with a link as shown below the chosen post in the PotF thread designated for it.

Looking forward to getting this kicked off for real!

-Each 15 days there will be a new Nomination thread put up, and all the posts written during this period are considered eligible, if properly nominated. Exception are posts who are somewhat breaking the ToS; upon being acted by Moderation, they are always considered uneligible.

- Remember: It is possible to nominate up to 2 posts each round of the competition; it is also possible to change a nomination anytime before the actual round of nominations ends.

- There will be two competitions held every month, with a period for nominations followed by a period of voting. The submitted posts can be discussed in a dedicated space.

- Only posts that have not participated in a previous poll and that have been published in the current period of given time in any section of the D&D area may be nominated.

- The authors of the nominated post will be informed so they can withdraw the candidacy if that is their wish.

- The maximum number of participating posts in the final vote will be ten. If more than ten nominations are submitted, seconded nominations will take priority. After seconded nominations are considered, earliest nominations will take priority. If the number of posts submitted to the contest is less than ten, the organizing committee may nominate posts if it considers it appropriate.

-The members of the committee will never nominate a post belonging to one of them, but the rest of the users can nominate their posts (organizers posts), and vice versa.

-In the event of a tie, both posts will be awarded and both posters will receive rep and 1 competition point.

- Public or private messages asking for a vote for a candidate post are forbidden. Violators (and their posts) may not participate in the running contest.

- People are expected to consider the quality and structure of the post itself, more than the content of the same. While it's certainly impossible to completely split the two aspects when making our own opinion on a post, it remains intended, as also explained in the Competition Commentary Thread, that commenting and discussing on the content rather than on the form/structure of the post is considered off-topic for the purpose of this competition. You are free to nominate and vote for whatever reason you want, but what happens in public has to strictly follow up with the competition rules.

A nominated post should:

1. Be focused and relevant to the topic(s) being discussed.
2. Demonstrate a well-developed, insightful and nuanced understanding of the topic(s) it is discussing.
3. Be logically coherent, well organized and communicate its points effectively.
4. Support its contentions with verifiable evidence, either in the form of links or references.
5. Not be deliberately vexatious to other users.

Good luck everyone!

[Lord Thesaurian]

I'm referring to the officers' criminal culpability (since the conclusion of the grand jury is what reignited interest in this case). Local authorities will typically be liable civilly if one of their officers wounds or kills an innocent bystander irrespective of whether any criminal negligence is involved.

On the point about the warrant, the officers cannot be held accountable for executing a legal writ (or a writ they reasonably believed to be legal) unless they had fabricated evidence in order to attain it. In that sense, whether they announced themselves or not is irrelevant. Nevertheless, why the jurisdiction allowed officers without specialist training, equipment and planning to carry out a no-knock warrant is beyond me.



Then we agree that most of the evidence points to Walker being unaware that the domicile was being raided by the police when he discharged his weapon.

[Flinn]

Some comments to previous bold claims made here...

Islam doesn't demand death for leaving Islam. ...

This is a lie... Sahih al-Bukhari 6922 states, and I quote ..."according to the statement of Allah's Messenger, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" As this is a part of the Islamic source material - its a part of Islam. For us dirty unbelievers that essentially translates into *Mohammed said - anyone who leaves Islam, kill them*. So that settles that, I think.

Misrepresenting facts is a common companion of Islamophobia.

Misrepresenting the facts appears to be common theme in pro-Islamic activism as well... It seems...

99% of FGM is not committed by Muslims. It's a region specific practice, not religion specific. Vast majority of Muslims don't practice it. Misrepresenting facts is a common companion of Islamophobia.

I am hardly an expert on FGM-matters but I am pretty sure that this "99%-claim" is a fabrication. I can not find anything that actually support or confirm that in the Prevalence of female genital mutilation wiki-page or in the Religious views on female genital mutilation wiki-page. Neither can confirm or provide basis for that impressive 99% claim. However, I certainly can find plenty that contradicts it and suggest otherwise. UNICEF lists the top 5 countries with the highest levels of support for FGM - Mali, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Egypt - and all 5 just happens to be Islam-majority countries. ...What a coincidence... And yet, supposedly 99% of all FGM is still somehow magically committed by non-Muslims almost exclusively - according to the claim. It does not add up very well, now does it? The "99%-claim" also provides us with a bunch of other unexplained paradoxes for us to consider as well. I will just forward a few here...


1. In Somalia (east Africa) apparently 98% of the females aged 15-49 years are mutilated somehow, and that in a country were supposedly 99.8% are Muslims. So that means that the non-defined 0.2 % of the population would then basically be responsible for mutilating 98% of the entire female population there - aged 15-49 years - which is nothing short of amazing as far as paradoxes go! BTW, we are talking about at least 5 million Muslim females here. Strange, really strange...

2. In Indonesia (south Asia) - who also has the largest Muslim population in the world - some 55 million Muslim girls/females are apparently mutilated a somehow. That is a remarkable since 99% of FGM is supposedly done by none-Muslims we are told - yet some 55 million Muslim females magically have the scars to prove that FGM is employed en-masse there. Those non-muslims must be really busy cutting and slicing those poor Muslim girls/females left and right it seems. And is it not strange that the Indonesian Muslim majority seems to be just fine with that? UNICEF estimates that at least 200 million females in the world suffers from FGM (various types). How is it then possible that Indonesia by itself - as an Islamic country - are already beyond 25% of that figure? It is quite a mystery how all that add up with the claim, not to mention a strange paradox indeed...

3. In Malaysia (south Asia) apparently some 93% of females from Muslim families (about 9 million females) have been mutilated. That's really odd since we are told that 99% of all FGM is done by non-Muslims, right? So how these 9 million mutilated Muslim females came to be is a complete mystery it seems? Really odd, isn't it... Those non-Muslims sure like to do FGM on them poor Muslim girls for some mysterious and strange reasons...

Another thing we find in Malaysia is that FGM is prevalent in the dominant Muslim community, but not observed in its minority Buddhist and Hindu communities. Strange, really strange... Yet 99% of FGM is still not committed by Muslims supposedly... The government sponsored Fatwa Committee National Council of Islamic Religious Affairs decided in April 2009 that female circumcision was a part of Islamic teachings and it should be observed by Muslims, with the majority of the jurists in the Committee concluding that female circumcision is obligatory (wajib). How strange is that?!? As 99% of FGM is still not commited by Muslims supposedly. Nah, the Malaysian Fatwa Committee National Council of Islamic Religious Affairs had no idea what they are doing apparently - and ruled in favor of FGM despite 99% of FGM is still not commited by Muslims... Isn't that a grand paradox folks?

4. In Switzerland (Europe), the Islamic Central Council classified removal of the clitoral foreskin, a less severe form of FGM, as sunna (recommended). They did that in 2018 despite it was outlawed in the Switzerland in 2012 to perform FGM, or arranging for it to be performed overseas. All this is very strange as as supposedly 99% of all FGM is still commited by others then Muslims, and yet the Islamic Central Council decided it was a great idea to recommend FGM in 2018 - some 6 years AFTER FGM was outlawed in Switzerland... What a paradox, what a paradox....

5. In Mauritania (west Africa) - an Islamic republic - over 70% of its female population aged 15-49 had been the victims of FGM according to multiple surveys (conducted 2001 and 2007). About 57% of Mauritania women believe FGM is a religious requirement and this despite some 99% are identified as Muslims in Mauritania. That's a remarkable paradox. Not to mention that the 1% of non-Muslims are somehow supposedly allowed to do FGM on 70% of the entire Muslim female population without any sort of reaction from the 99% Muslim majority there - what is a strange paradox indeed. And yet, supposedly 99% FGM is still not committed by Muslims we are told... That is an impressive paradox for sure... BTW, we are talking about at least 1 million Muslim females here....

In short, either we totally believe these 5 ridiculous outlined paradoxes are real or we believe that the 99%-claim is a fabrication...



..."It's a region specific practice, not religion specific."

Folks, I'm pretty sure this claim is a fabrication as well... After all, that quite some "region" we are talking about there - it is spanning from the coast of west Africa all the way to Egypt and horn of Africa, and then it continues from the Arabic peninsula to parts of the middle east then parts of Iran and Pakistan - and then again in Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei. Curiously, it also happens to match up rather well with many (if not most) Islamic territories along the way somehow - what strange coincidence, isn't it? Furthermore, multiple Islamic councils all over the world have de facto offered their theological opinions and conclusions on FGM - that would be utterly redundant if FGM was not somehow relevant or important to Islam somehow - as is claimed. Obviously that is not true and thus we have yet another fabrication, on that note...


..."Vast majority of Muslims don't practice it."

Its hard to tell for sure folks... It is clear is that at least half of all Islamic countries in the world do practice FGM to various extents - and that circumstance alone suggests that many, if not a majority of Muslims do practice it somehow. As many Muslims do live in such Islamic countries we can be rather certain that it is not a nominal minority we talking about here (Pakistan and Iran might be exceptions here). However without the hard data one can only speculate on this, but it is clear it is nowhere close to a small insignificant minority - as we are led to believe by the claim - and in that sense, the claim is obviously untrue and blatantly dishonest. As is so often the case with various pro-Islamic activism. If in doubt, Youtube have plenty of clips of such stuff...

Misrepresenting facts is a common companion of Islamophobia.

Considering what has just been explained above - does pro-Islamic activism and propaganda behave any better? It sure don't look like it...

- A

&

This is a lie... Sahih al-Bukhari 6922 states, and I quote ..."according to the statement of Allah's Messenger, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" As this is a part of the Islamic source material - its a part of Islam. For us dirty unbelievers that essentially translates into *Mohammed said - anyone who leaves Islam, kill them*. So that settles that, I think.

Quran doesn't prescribe any worldly punishment for apostasy. Hadith, the human creation, that differs in use from region to region, can not dictate what Islam is.

Female Circumcision (FGM/C) between the Incorrect Use of Science and the Misunderstood Doctrine

n 1998, scholars from over 35 Islamic Countries came together at Al-Azhar University, Cairo to discuss FGM/C alongside other issues related to reproductive health. They came to the conclusion that FGM/C is a habit that is non-obligatory in Islam, given that it has never been mentioned in the Holy Qur'an, and there are no citations in Prophet Muhammad's Hadith containing any evidence of authentic isnad (chain of narration) that could justify a Sharia provision on so important an issue for human life as FGM/C. Further, Muslim jurists have not reached unanimous consent on FGM/C.

Egypt mufti says female circumcision forbidden

CAIRO, June 24 (Reuters) - Egypt's state-appointed Grand Mufti said on Sunday that female genital cutting was forbidden by Islam after an 11-year-old girl died while undergoing the procedure at a private medical clinic in southern Egypt.

I am hardly an expert on FGM-matters but I am pretty sure that this "99%-claim" is a fabrication. I can not find anything that actually support or confirm that in the Prevalence of female genital mutilation wiki-page or in the Religious views on female genital mutilation wiki-page. Neither can confirm or provide basis for that impressive 99% claim. However, I certainly can find plenty that contradicts it and suggest otherwise. UNICEF lists the top 5 countries with the highest levels of support for FGM - Mali, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Egypt - and all 5 just happens to be Islam-majority countries. ...What a coincidence... And yet, supposedly 99% of all FGM is still somehow magically committed by non-Muslims almost exclusively - according to the claim. It does not add up very well, now does it? The "99%-claim" also provides us with a bunch of other unexplained paradoxes for us to consider as well. I will just forward a few here...

That's not what I was claiming. I was pointing out that Mithradates' claim "99% of FGM committed by Muslims" was false.

..."It's a region specific practice, not religion specific."

Folks, I'm pretty sure this claim is a fabrication as well... After all, that quite some "region" we are talking about there - it is spanning from the coast of west Africa all the way to Egypt and horn of Africa, and then it continues from the Arabic peninsula to parts of the middle east then parts of Iran and Pakistan - and then again in Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei. Curiously, it also happens to match up rather well with many (if not most) Islamic territories along the way somehow - what strange coincidence, isn't it? Furthermore, multiple Islamic councils all over the world have de facto offered their theological opinions and conclusions on FGM - that would be utterly redundant if FGM was not somehow relevant or important to Islam somehow - as is claimed. Obviously that is not true and thus we have yet another fabrication, on that note...

FGM is mainly an African problem. It predates both Islam and Christianity where neither have any basis for doing it.

Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A statistical overview and exploration of the dynamics of change

NIGER55% of Christian girls and women have undergone FGM/C, compared to 2% of Muslim girls and women

If its such a creation of Islam why do Christians practice it?

Meanwhile:
Study finds 'huge' fall in FGM rates among African girls

Using data from 29 countries and going back to 1990, the report's authors found that the biggest fall in cutting was in East Africa.
The prevalence rate there dropped from 71% of girls under 14 in 1995, to 8% in 2016, the study said.
Some countries with lower rates - including Kenya and Tanzania, where 3-10% of girls endure FGM - helped drive down the overall figure.
In North Africa, the rate fell from almost 60% in 1990 to 14% in 2015.
West Africa also saw a significant drop, from 74% of girls in 1996, to 25% in 2017.

..."Vast majority of Muslims don't practice it."

Its hard to tell for sure folks... It is clear is that at least half of all Islamic countries in the world do practice FGM to various extents - and that circumstance alone suggests that many, if not a majority of Muslims do practice it somehow. As many Muslims do live in such Islamic countries we can be rather certain that it is not a nominal minority we talking about here (Pakistan and Iran might be exceptions here). However without the hard data one can only speculate on this, but it is clear it is nowhere close to a small insignificant minority - as we are led to believe by the claim - and in that sense, the claim is obviously untrue and blatantly dishonest. As is so often the case with various pro-Islamic activism. If in doubt, Youtube have plenty of clips of such stuff...

This is where bigotry kicks in hard. You base your claims on data that you now claim to be misleading just so that you can expand your viligication. Likely less than 20% of the Muslim world practices FGM and the numbers are falling. There are even Muslim majority countries where it virtually doesn't exist. The fact is only a fraction of Muslims practice FGM and these are concentrated in a number of states mainly in Africa. So, yes, vast majority of Muslims do not practice it.

[Infidel144]

Alexander Hamilton, a bastard orphan whose intelligence was so widely recognized as a child that his local community took up a collection to fund his education in the coastal elite town of New York City, had this to say about the proposed process of electing the President and Vice President, later known as the Electoral College.

Originally Posted by Federalist 68
The mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded.1 I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for.

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.


This notion of sober deliberation checking what Madison called “the intemperance of a multitude” on one hand and “too easy a combination for improper purposes” on the other in Federalist 55, rather than being an anomaly or externality of a broken system, was a was a central theme to the Founders’ idea of checks and balances in the construction of a balanced constitutional Republic. Over time, this dynamic in the context of the Electoral College was proxied by political parties, which have amassed for themselves related aggregative roles, in a manner that has ironically made the electors de facto loyal to the popular vote in their respective states, rather than being the oligarchic caricature painted by detractors, like those who fashioned the 17th Amendment out of allegedly democratic concerns. Recall that it was anti-Trump fervor, cosigned by millions of people online, which suggested electors tell the voters in their respective states to go to hell in 2016 “for the good of the country.” The term “Hamilton Electors” was in direct reference to his concept of a deliberative check on populist demagoguery, an effort hamstrung in part by state laws requiring electors to concur with the popular vote therein.


While those seeking electoral advantage may wrap themselves in the mantle of democracy to attack constitutional procedures they don’t like, it’s worth noting the recent examples of this feature political elites upset with what the people and their constitutional proxies decided: Democrats in 2020 trying to pack SCOTUS and abolish the Electoral College because they wouldn’t have lost in 2016 based on a national popular vote rather than the current state by state popular vote, or 2016 Republicans delaying the Garland nomination because they lost in 2012. There’s also Republicans calling the House’s constitutional oversight power undemocratic 2016-2020 because the people chose Trump and that’s that. Democrats in their turn routinely lambasted House oversight when Dems were the minority there. Republicans spearheaded presidential term limits in the 40s because they couldn’t bear the thought of the people electing another FDR indefinitely. Etc.


Curious that so many forward thinking reforms billed as democratic “fixes,” or systemic criticisms ostensibly in the popular interest, are looking backward, while the procedural framework established by the Founders, derided as archaic, unfair and inflexible, was designed with an eye toward the future. As Hamilton said, “I.... hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for.” The stagnation inherent to the slaughter bench of history is a state of nature which pre-existed the Constitution, not a result of the latter’s failure, the event of which, if anything, would indict our Revolution’s egalitarian premise that all are created equal with guaranteed inalienable rights.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I don't necessarily see hyper partisan institutions or a non representative electoral college as being a problem in themselves. Nor donations from oligarchs. The thing that keeps the US democratic, is that these institutions and processes largely function independently of each other (with exceptions based on establishment and management).

The fact that there could be a Democratic president, senate and house while having a staunchly conservative SC is good for the separation of powers, which is good for democracy. In Poland and Hungary, parliamentary majorities have allowed for the dissolution or stacking of dissenting institutions and and thus an erosion of democracy. The requirement for supermajorities, the various convoluted approval processes through Senate, House and President and the messed up demographic representation actually make a slide into authoritarianism very difficult.

The irony I see in the US is not that democracy is failing, but rather that the primary institutions are doing their job too well. The senate is less representative than what it was 50 or 100 years ago, because of the movement of people away from rural states hasn't been accounted for by reallocating how seats are allotted - giving usually conservative rural populations as much as 40 times more say than those in big cities (Wyoming vs California). Of course the whole point of the Senate was to counteract popularism in the house, so this imbalance is purposeful and probably a good thing, but it's just gone too far. Similarly, in the house, gerrymandering has led to more polarised electorates making wild swings less likely.

Demographic changes have made it virtually impossible for a supermajority to be achieved in the Senate, or at least, much much less likely to be a supermajority that might favour urban voters. Which entrenches the status-quo. This makes the US less responsive to changing global situations and more dysfunctional. Business can still get done by government through negotiation, but it leaves key levers of the government unable to change, ever. So for example, where the Democrats threaten that if they take the senate, they'll make Puerto Rico a state... this is mere air - because there are structural and demographic pressures rendering their obtaining a supermajority impossible, and polarisation prevents cross party work on anything that has demographic consequences. Let's not even talk about amending the Constitution - a process that was designed to occur as required.

In this void of inactivity over the big picture items has (as others have noted) led to power grabs by the President over the years - to mixed and short term results, and leaves the US in a state of constant patchwork temporary budget extensions and a permanent threat of soldiers going without pay.

So what would I do to fix the US? I think something needs to be done to rebalance the Senate to give the government the ability to meaningfully respond to changing circumstances. Perhaps this might require the establishment of a new independent body responsible for managing electoral demographics - that could also work on gerrymandering. Otherwise the structure of government is fine by me - once it is able to address supermajority issues responsively again, most other things would iron themselves out.